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."

34 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. SCO? where have i heard this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This thing is still going on? What the hell? Can't they just get it over with and die?

    1. Re:SCO? where have i heard this before... by Jay+Carlson · · Score: 3, Funny

      This thing is still going on? What the hell? Can't they just get it over with and die?

      FINISH HIM!

      "IBM Wins."
      "Flawless Victory."
      "...fatality."

  2. So I guess lawyers have no soul? by charon_1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "the lawyer will want its money up front."

    1. Re:So I guess lawyers have no soul? by ettlz · · Score: 2, Funny
      So I guess lawyers have no soul?

      No, just no genitals.

    2. Re:So I guess lawyers have no soul? by The+Hobo · · Score: 3, Funny

      No no, this is Slashdot, he meant "it's"


      ;-)

      --
      There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
    3. Re:So I guess lawyers have no soul? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 2, Informative

      "So I guess lawyers have no soul?"

      Dare I suggest this link to answer your question with?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_and_Hart

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    4. Re:So I guess lawyers have no soul? by SoSueMe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would think they are a self-replicating, virul, life-form. All they seem to need is a suitable host.

    5. Re:So I guess lawyers have no soul? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      1) The bad grammar was the whole point of the comment.
      2) Nazis don't get the apostrophe to show plurality.

      Moron.

  3. Dear Darl & Chris, by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    Dear Darl & Chris,
    I'll have a Big Mac, large fries and a Coke.
    Thanks!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Dear Darl & Chris, by varmittang · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ooooo...and an Apple Pie.

      --
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      12345
      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  4. So SCO gets no punishment whatsoever. by philovivero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:So SCO gets no punishment whatsoever. by Xylaan · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as I know, they're only dropping the patent counter claims, not any of the other counter-claims (Lanham Act, Unfair practicies, Copyright Violation, Breach of Contract).

      SCO is trying to assert that the patent counter-claims will require even more discovery, and IBM has decided that they can put the screws to SCO without using them, and is dropping them in an attempt to get this over with.

    2. Re:So SCO gets no punishment whatsoever. by Klivian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      SCO gonna get the punished all right, IBM only dropped one of their counterclaims. As they have several more, and since SCO tried to use this one to delay even more, IBM simply dropped it counting on the others to be more than eunuch to do SCO in.

    3. Re:So SCO gets no punishment whatsoever. by James_Aguilar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You cannot pay if you have no money. What do you to do to SCO? Send the head honchos to jail?

      if (no)
          OK, then, it's settled.
      else
          Answer this question: What good does it do for IBM to send all of SCO's people to jail? None. OK, so IBM will not chase this dream of punishment and justice. So I guess the People have to (If anyone will, that is.). Well, what good does that do the People? We waste MORE money sending people to jail, then even MORE money to keep them in jail, and for what profit? Will they ever have a chance to do this again? I wouldn't say so . . . they're not still dangerous like a serial killer -- they are hobbled by the fact that their failure was public and no one wants them around any more. I wouldn't say that frivilous lawsuits are even deserving of jailtime.

      So, let's summarize: To whom would be the benefit if justice were carried through to its extreme?

    4. Re:So SCO gets no punishment whatsoever. by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Welcome to America. Please note, we don't have debtors prisons, so if you owe lots and lots of money, bill collectors may call, but no one is going to put in you "federal pound me in the ass prison".

      This is one of the things we swore we would no longer tolorate when we broke off from England. That and blood pudding.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  5. Awww... by ElGameR · · Score: 4, Funny

    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...

  6. Go Go Big Blue by fragmentate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Stuff that ...mattered... by vlad_petric · · Score: 5, Informative

    The much more interesting story from groklaw is that SCO's motion for further delay was denied

    --

    The Raven

    1. Re:Stuff that ...mattered... by JPriest · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh my god, I just read on the same page they are _still_ in discovery! What gives? If SCO _still_ does not have the evidence they need how could any sane judge let the discovery period continue for this long?

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
  8. IBM's Cunning by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Insightful
    IBM has some very smart legal folks working on their behalf and this is a pretty clever move on their side. They're not going to get money on the counterclaims to balance the cost of pursuing them and SCOX's delaying tactics have been based off of having to defend themselves against the counterclaims.

    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?
  9. To support the article ... by linumax · · Score: 5, Informative
  10. Right indeed. They actually left out part of it. by fireboy1919 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .
    .
    .
    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!
  11. The ultimate corporate insult? by FlyByPC · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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.
  12. The Nazgûl move in for the kill... by NetRanger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  13. We don't need no stinking nukes by lildogie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  14. Sometimes in chess? by ShadyG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  15. I thought... by gurutechanimal · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.
  16. Re:Goose Gander Applied to Chess by Samari711 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    true, but completely irrelevant. IBM said they would drop the patent charges to keep things on schedule, that doesn't mean IBM can't file the charges again later. Dropping the charges saves IBM money and SCO is going to be bankrupt by the end of this anyway. IBM saves time and money while not giving up anything; SCO will probably try to spin it as IBM knows it couldn't win the patent claims but the patents are not relevant to the Linux part of the case.

    --

    I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you

  17. Be the bigger man. by xmorg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  18. I can't believe SCO's stock price... by wintermute42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  19. 10Q results due in three weeks by symbolset · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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:

    We expect that our UNIX business will generate sufficient cash in the year ending October 31, 2005 to cover its own costs as well as the internal costs for our SCOsource initiatives and we believe we will have sufficient cash resources to fund our operations through October 31, 2005.

    In the event that cash required to fund operations and strategic initiatives exceeds our current cash resources and cash generated from operating activities, we will be required to reduce costs and raise additional capital. We may not be able to reduce costs in a manner that does not impair our ability to maintain our UNIX business and pursue our SCOsource initiatives. We also may not be able to raise capital for any number of reasons including those listed under the section "Risk Factors" below. If additional equity financing is available, it may not be available to us on attractive terms and may be dilutive to our existing stockholders. In addition, if our stock price declines, we may not be able to access the public equity markets on acceptable terms, if at all. Our ability to effect acquisitions for stock would also be impaired.

    [...]

    Our ability to cut costs to offset revenue declines in our UNIX business is limited because of contractual commitments to maintain and support our existing UNIX customers. This decline in our UNIX business may be accelerated if industry partners withdraw their support as a result of our SCOsource initiatives. Our SCOsource initiatives may cause industry partners, developers and hardware and software vendors to choose not to support or certify to our UNIX operating system products. This would lead to an accelerated decline in our UNIX products and services revenue. If our UNIX products and services revenue is less than expected, our liquidity will be adversely impacted.

    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.
  20. OLD NEWS by Original+Cynic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  21. Re:Right indeed. They actually left out part of it by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  22. Well... by fabioaquotte · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess this goes to show the strength of SCO's case, the big blue is already starting to shake.

    --
    Fabio Aquotte