Slashdot Mirror
IBM Drops Patent Counterclaims
Mr. Slant writes "According to this article on Groklaw, IBM is dropping their patent counter-claims. Why? It's not because they think they'd lose, but rather because SCO wants to waste more time litigating. There's still some question over whether SCO will be able to pay the rest of their legal bills, given how much cash they're losing each quarter." From the article: "Here's a simple rule of litigation. You never, ever offer to drop anything you think you'll need for victory or to make yourself whole. Litigation is always a cost-benefit analysis. You have to have the prospect of a sizable enough win to pay your lawyer, or you will find it hard to get one, or, like Boies Schiller, the lawyer will want its money up front. IBM did the math, and SCO isn't looking like deep pockets any more, is it, now that Boies Schiller has drained them of pretty much all they had? So, IBM's practical analysis apparently was that it's worth more to get the thing over with on time than to go after counterclaims against a defendant with no money in its pocket to pay damages or royalties, even when IBM won. Plus, there is some strategy here too. Sometimes in chess, you'll let a pawn be sacrificed to set up a checkmate."
Enough fanboying already. We know SCO sucks. That sort of sentiment just makes you look desperate in a very SCO-ish way.
This thing is still going on? What the hell? Can't they just get it over with and die?
"the lawyer will want its money up front."
Dear Darl & Chris,
I'll have a Big Mac, large fries and a Coke.
Thanks!
Trolling is a art,
The state of litigation in the United States is so bad. I've been very closely involved with another lawsuit where the plaintiff was very SCO-like. In the end, he suffered no real harm in his litigious behaviour. The defendents lost tens of thousands of dollars... to the lawyers.
The judge, even when presented with overwhelming evidence that the case was frivolous, let it go ahead.
From this vantage-point, it looks like the lawyers and judges have set up a system where such litigation is encouraged, and the only winners are... you guessed it, the lawyers and judges.
fifth sigma, inc.
I really wanted to see two large companies locked in an epic duel to the death in the arena of US Federal Courts, only to have the SCO beheaded due to lack of funds! Well, anyway, I'm off to english class...
I'm glad they decided to pull back. It shows how savvy they really are.
But who can remember when IBM was the monstrosity of the market? When they were the litigious ones? The stiff-suited giant wasn't always this open to reason. I think what sets them apart is they wised up, where others believe they will always be the status-quo.
IBM used to think that... Now they know you have to constantly raise the bar. This action shows they know how to.
My ZooLoo
SCO? Can't recall any company by that name...
The much more interesting story from groklaw is that SCO's motion for further delay was denied
The Raven
the lawyer will want its money up front
The lawyer will want it's money up front!
It would be intersting to know if this was IBM's strategy all along. Often time lawyers (especially prosecutors) will add extraneous items to a complaint or motion just so they can then kick it out later and look like the good guy.
SO they are either smart or really smart.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Will SCO be around to collect if it wins?
If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
.
.
.
You have to have the prospect of a sizable enough win to pay your lawyer, or you will find it hard to get one, or, like Boies Schiller, the lawyer will want its money up front.
Either way, you will have to feed the lawyer, who hungers for souls and human flesh. It will take you if you are not careful, and in a flight of fancy it may enthrall the wicked with its bite, eventually turning innocent humans into lawyers. The only thing that keeps lawyers on your side are math, and money, and when you run out of either, the lawyers will want life-force.
IBM did the math, and SCO isn't looking like deep pockets any more, is it, now that Boies Schiller has drained them of pretty much all they had?
.
.
.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
"Well, we would sue you, but even though we win, your sorry company wouldn't be able to pay, anyway..."
I like it. Not only is SCO looking pretty pitiful these days, but to be basically deemed to not be worth the six cents for the bullet to put it out of its misery is, I think, a fitting punishment.
And IBM as the good guys. Wow. Maybe if they keep this up, I'll forgive them for MicroChannel...
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
I think IBM has the right idea here. SCO is obviously attempting to delay the inevitable at this point, so anything that will shed complexity from this worthless case is A Good Thing(tm).
That being said, I think IBM has little worry about SCO's position at this point, as SCO is poised to burn through its remaining cash reserves RSN. I think the Nazgûl are just eager to at least recoup some legal expenses out of this row before Novell cleans the rest out.
Ahhh, see how the vultures circle the wounded animal...
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
IBM knows they have what it takes to crush SCO, so they don't have to use the nuclear option (i.e. their patent portfolio).
Plus they want to get their revenge before SCO starves to death. No use kicking a dead horse, eh?
...or it gets the hose again.
Is it really that simple, just wise plotting on the part of IBM? Something tells me that this isn't really over yet... If winning the lawsuit isn't the point, perhaps tenderizing SCO to the point of being ready to sell out is?
I think if IBM owned any remaining IP from SCO it would make an interesting situation.
Given IBM's recent 'play nice with Linux' attitude, that would be very interesting indeed. I don't think that the wounds that IBM got from fighting with Microsoft have ever really healed. With the world of computing changing so much so fast, how would it look if Google/Sun and IBM/Linux were to end up dominating the next 15 years?
Just a thought, or three
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Sometimes in chess, you'll let a pawn be sacrificed to set up a checkmate.
Ah yes, but sometimes in chess, you'll find your sacrifice has actually let your opponent set up a checkmate.
Copyright law will side with SCO, since IBM hasn't been particularly careful in keeping UNIX internals developers away from open source code. And a lot of prior IBM litigation has demanded that point from it's rivals hiring it's ex-employees.
McBride, his limbs chopped off, his head befret of his torso, continues to taunt and threaten, wanting to duel on.
Apparently, for SCO, dying is easy and comedy more so.
Sometimes in chess, you'll let a pawn be sacrificed to set up a checkmate.
Sometimes? If all it takes is a pawn sacrifice, I would say *always*.
But then again, I haven't been following this game move by move.. I'm just waiting for the Deep Blue victory.One of the main reasons that IBM dropped the claims is that there will be no SCOX left once the rest of the case finishes.
You have two options:
1. Hit them with 70% of your arsenal. This will take two years to complete, and you are guaranteed to win everything they have.
2. Hit them with everything, which will take five years to complete, and you are guaranteed to win everything they have.
Same reward, one just happens a *LOT* sooner. Pretty simple choice.
Kinda like in Sin City, only not as appetizing, thankfully the buzzards have already picked the corpse clean.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
In chess, you'll sacrifice your queen, both rooks, and every other damn piece available if it gets you a checkmate. There's no pyrrhic victory here, only win, lose, or draw. Bad analogy.
Nerd Rock In Progress
After reading this quote
Litigation is always a cost-benefit analysis.
Funny, I always thought that the point of lititation was to uncover the truth and gain justice. (sigh) I guess it's back to La-La Land for me, where Law isn't just another business weapon.
Governments are not necessary.
If a lawyer doesn't think the person being sued is able to pay out, or if the lawyer thinks the person being sued has better "team" of lawyers than you do, you're pretty much out of luck unless you can front them the money. After all, it is in the best interest of the lawyer to somehow get the money, and there's no point to sueing the poor or corporate giants.
Let me try...
Our news crew watched first hand a real world David vs. Goliath battle today. In a spectacular display of heroism a lone little firefighter took on a might Oak in order to rescue a helpless kitten from its treacherous branches.
partially by the poem in TFA, and partially by the story itself, I've updated my sig...
FLR
IBM is showing a little character here. We as the Linux community, dont want to stoop to their level. Just let them stew in their own bills, and die quietly.
The more you sue the more press they get. We want SCO to die like scrooge... alone, and unloved.
I was very surprised to see SCO shares selling for slightly more than $4 US. As others have noted, SCO is doomed. The Linux community hates them, it is difficult to imagine that they will gain any new customers and they have no intellectual property that is worth much.
What is odd is that SCO stock is very thinly traded. Under 2K shares changed hands today. With such thin trading, it is tempting to speculate that most of the stock is help by lawyers and SCO executives. They should trade a few shares among themselves to keep the stock price up, keeping what is, in effect, a shell company, looking like it was real.
Otherwise we must assume that that the Efficient Market Hypothesis has ever more holes in it that previously believed. How, after all, could "the market" value SCO at much more than zero.
Last quarter SCO had just about one quarter's worth of cash and equivalents left. It will be interesting to see if and how they scavenged enough money to keep going.
It's time for Darl the Optimist to tell us about the plans for SCOForum again I guess.
Their http://money.cnn.com/quote/sec/sec.html?symb=SCOX previous 10Q makes for amusing reading:
It reads like Halloween is going to be a critical day for SCOX. Everybody's migrating off of their products that can = no sales revenue. Nobody's sending in their $699 for Linux = no SCOsource revenue. Baystar debacle = no equity financing (Hey, Baystar, why are you still holding so many shares?). On the cost side you've still got "fulfillment of contractual obligations" and overhead even if your Sophists are working for a cut of your pie in the sky.
Report also says they still had 50 on R&D payroll as of 7/31/05. Are there no other jobs available guys?
I think "liquidity will be adversely impacted" is accountantese for "Padlock the doors. Don't bother turning out the lights--the electric company already did."
Help stamp out iliturcy.
"No, I don't want it Super-Sized!"
Yeah, that's what Darl is going to be saying on his "prison bride" honeymoon....
I wouldn't compare that to sacrificing a pawn...it's sacrificing a rook at least. IANAL, but the patent claim looked like a freight train that was going to bowl SCO over even if they had a chance of winning the original claim.
This was yesterday's news. Reality is that IBM was "considering" this move. At Friday's hearing the judge told the Attorneys for SCO to "get fucked" when it came to requesting more information and wanting to Disposition 25 additional people. SCO got 10 more people but so did IBM. Reality is that this doesn't do jack for SCO since they weren't given any more time to talk to these guys. It's a wash though since IBM gets to talk 10 more SCO folks. Given the attrition at SCO this means that IBM get to talk to the security guards, janitors and gardners. The judge did all of this then hinted to IBM that this was her decision regardless of IF they decided to drop their patent claims. I think we are about to see SCO go into porn mode where they get screwed by multiple parties at the same time. This should be good fun.
"And there is always the chance ... Copyright law will side with SCO, since IBM hasn't been particularly careful in keeping UNIX internals developers away from open source code."
Whatever you've been smoking, I want some of that stuff.
SCO has had almost 3 years to show some proof of wrong-doing by IBM. So far nothing. Judge is on the record for saying that he find the "lack of evidence, astonishing".
And SCO actually does not own the copyright on source code it is suing others for. Novell owns it.
I could go on and on listing SCO's problems, but I'll just stop here.
Of course this doesn't mean the end of it. IBM could still go after the indivduals at SCO, you know the ones that profited from the surge in the stock price. By putting sufficient pressure on those individuals and threatening their assetts and freedom (some of their representations to the investing public would be considered highly questionable in light of the actual evidence produced) they might be able to pursue the case to another company with very deep pockets indeed (all the would have to do is prove collusion with an intent to do harm to IBM revenues). A lot of other Linux companies could also join in and well, M$ could end up M$.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
We want SCO to die like scrooge... alone, and unloved.
Unlike E. Scrooge's business partner Jackob Marley, Mr. Scrooge changed his fate and became a reformed man.
Go re-read the book.
It's simple, really. "its" is like "his", except it applies to objects. "It's" = "It is". EOD!
You really can't write that.
For a proportion of readers writing the spoken word, as above, causes a traffic jam of words, and the sentence has to be re-read.
It all seemed innocent enough when checking out at buy.com. "Are you interested in getting $25 cash back on this purchase?" "Well yeah." But, by clicking "yes", you aren't answering that question. Then the welcome email shows up to tell you about wonderful discount programs your membership entitles you to. Surprise! You just signed up for a membership which has a monthly membership fee. "But they didn't even ask for a credit card?" Surprise again! buy.com supplies them with the one you just used to make a purchase. Screwed? Only if you don't realize something is fishy and go to the GreatFun (front name for Trilegiant) website and start reading the fine-print about how to cancel your membership. You wouldn't know a thing until the charges started showing up on the card. So, I canceled my Great Fun membership. Trilegiant, the big credit-card scam company, pays buy.com for access to their customer's credit card numbers. Put another way, Buy.com helps them run their scam on it's own customers and then they split the money. Trilegiant has been sued by several states already and is being investigated for class action law suits. Apparently, Trilegiant has its sticky fingers everywhere, including some large banks. And everywhere they go, they seem to be playing the same game with unwanted memberships. I'm very careful about who gets my card numbers and would have never given them the number without finding out why they wanted it. "Hey, are you offering a rebate or what?" The way buy.com is just handing over information to this third party under false pretense just has to be illegal. I'm sure there was a link to some fine-print somewhere before I clicked "yes" but damn, I trusted buy.com. When I give a website a credit-card number to make a purchase, I trust them to keep that number confidential and not to turn around and hand it to some banner ad scammers that happen to be also on their site. WTF? Am I naive? I say this should be stopped! I'm sure there are thousands that don't even notice for months if ever. Good luck getting your money back. Anyone have similar experiences or ideas on how to shut these scumbags down?
I guess this goes to show the strength of SCO's case, the big blue is already starting to shake.
Fabio Aquotte