Slashdot Mirror
SCO Denied Motion To Change IBM Case Again
Rob writes "SCO Group Inc's attempt to change its legal case against IBM Corp for the third time
has been denied by the judge, who has also set the two companies a deadline to present
their respective evidence with specificity. Despite repeated public declarations
that it has evidence Linux contains Unix code that infringes its copyright, SCO
has yet to present any evidence to the court." Bad news for them all around, lately.
The sarcastic implication being that it's bad news for SCO. Kind of like when an obnoxious player on the opposite team sprains an ankle: "aww, tough luck, buddy."
I am a
give up while you can.. americans can not detect sarcasm at all for some reason ;)
In the case of IBM this means a declaration that Linux is totally unemcumbered by anyone's Unix IP.
You mean unencumbered by IP that can be licensed by SCO.
Judge Kimball is on to them.
We non-lawyers think of judges as impartial watchers of the courtroom. Sometimes they are. Most of the time, though, they pick a winner and spend the rest of the case guiding the decision the way they think it should go and covering themselves for appeal.
That's how it's been with SCO v IBM. After months and months without any credible evidence, after seeing the SCO group twist his words and the words of Magistrate Judge Wells (who's handling much of the pre-trial bickering), he began to take on a more aggressive tone. He hasn't been on IBM's side, but it looks like he has seen the inevitable result and is trying to make sure his decision doesn't get turned over on appeal.
So when The SCO Group tried to amend their complaint based on an out-of-context reading of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim (a request for a ruling that IBM didn't infringe SCO's copyrights), he said no, that the counterclaim must be read in context. He said they were just delaying. if he thought they had a snowball's chance in July, he might have allowed the change.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Because you'll still see longshot speculators who have cash to burn buying up stock in the tiny miniscule chance that a miracle will occur. To that kind of investor, it's like playing the lotto, if they lose... oh well, pick different numbers next week.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Problem is, if you are caught holding the stock today, you are going to be hard pressed to find anyone who will buy it. Also, much of the stock is held by people like Ransom Love, who have other reasons for hanging on to it. Being principle shareholder in a dead company can be handy if you have plans on re-forming.
And that friends, is where the nuts hit the grinder.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I'd say it's bad news all around because the case won't go to trial until 2007. 2007! How SCO has been able to stretch this case out until 2007 is beyond me.
That sadly is true. There's an American on my MSc course in the UK who doesn't seem to understand sarcasm at all, we have to keep telling him we're not being serious, and then he usually says "oh you were being ironic". I gave up explaining the difference between the two after a few attempts.
There are two views on SCOX's value being at $4.00 or so.
The first says look at the treasury - divide cash on hand by number of shares and that is what its worth. This strikes me as foolish.
The second says look at the value of the Unix revenue streams. Laugh at OpenServer all you want, but there are lots and lots of IVR apps out there that work just fine. This also apparently produces a value of about $4/share.
I hear there are M&A brokerages taking positions in the company - these are the vultures that will pick the bones.
Go to Yahoo, search for symbol SCOX, and read the board - stats_for_all probably has the best handle on what is happening, but you have to be a soopergenius to digest it all
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
I still say IBM wait for SCOs stock to totally crash, buy up all the assets and then open source (id prefer bsd license) the whole of Unix. its the only proper way to add insult to injury.
I still say IBM wait for SCOs stock to totally crash, buy up all the assets and then open source (id prefer bsd license) the whole of Unix. its the only proper way to add insult to injury.
That assumes that SCO owns the copyrights to UNIX. It may not, as there is a court case going on with Novell over that very issue.
I read this as:
Bad news for SCO group all around. Which I feel it is.
All depends on context.
The coverage that SCO got in the media when they claimed that Linux had stolen code in it was enormous. Not only did they get tons of coverage with a resulting boost to their stock price, but dozens of professional opinion expressers signed their NDA and gave statements to the effect that SCO's case was a slam dunk and that Linux was full of stolen code. Years later after yet another clear sign that SCO in fact has NO evidence, the press is almost entirely silent on the issue.
So either noone cares that SCO basically used the press to execute a brilliant pump and dump scheme against the entire industry (which would be a notable story by itself), or the press has a definite anti-Linux bias. Either way, the press has a lot to answer for in this case.
Ransom Love sold all his stock when the lawsuit started. link
Actually, The Santa Cruz Organization (ie. "Old" SCO) was considered quite "cool" around 1992. This was when they were still a company actively involved in the development and engineering of high-performance PC-based UNIX operating systems, of course. OpenServer and OpenDesktop were quite revolutionary in the early 1990s. Remember, Linux was in its infancy at this point, as was 386BSD.
Unless you went with Coherent or XENIX (also co-developed by SCO, by the way), your choice for a rock-solid UNIX on Intel PCs was OpenServer. And it did perform and served many companies very well. That is why today's The SCO Group is still able to obtain some revenue from their OpenServer products. While horribly outdated today, they were excellent and innovative products in the early 1990s.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Spot on - at the moment we begin arguing about the political background of a judge being relevant we have lost.
Being a facist, communist, or a feudalist shouldn't make you guilty or not guilty - or change what was meant by the constitution. Sure, there may be borderline cases where that reflects your leanings but, while they may be interesting cases, they shouldn't be *that* far reaching.
I think the issue that causes is that in some circles, and some judges, this becomes less true. Some low, some high. Some judges allow "creative thinking" to get out of things, others rule based on thier feelings (for the latter - see Judge Judy on TV). Many see people who rule with thier political feelings as an expressway into getting thier agenda's enforced, but that is purely short term thinking - works great as long as the judges always agree with your political bent, terrible when they do not.
The 8'th circuit court is one of the saner as far as I can tell (but then I'm neither a lawyer ot a judge - just a political junkie). I would rather have 9 of them one level up than the group we have now, regardless of thier political ideas.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it