Slashdot Mirror
IP Attorney - Why SCO Has No Case
OSS_ilation writes "In an interview over at SearchOpenSource.com, IP attorney Thomas Carey shoots down SCO's cases against IBM and Novell, but predicts that SCO will fight a losing battle to its last. IT directors shouldn't worry about SCO Group's latest sallies in its legal war on Linux vendors IBM Corp. and Novell Inc., Clarey says, and explains why SCO has no case, predicts the open source legal fields of battle for 2006 and discusses SCO's claims against Novell. Carey chairs the Business Practice Group of Bromberg & Sunstein LLP, an intellectual property law practice in Boston, Mass." Groklaw, as always, has additional details and commentary on this.
The question is: Why is taking so long to the court to dismiss the case?
Â_Â
"Nothing to see here people, please move along" While the lawyer in the article states the same point made over and over by so many experts in the field outside of SCO, to the point where it would get a redundant mod on Slashdot, the article does good job of bringing many key points home for non-lawyer types to understand. If you understand the full breadth of the SCO case you probably won't find much entertainment here however.
But all the same, SCO quit it, you're embarassing yourselves. Soon it will be beyond the hope of recovery...
...in bed
Godwin!
How do I get my $699 back?
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
They have to be able to convince the lawyers that they will be paid. As it is, there is a strong possibility that a bankruptcy trustee will make the lawyers give back some money. I really don't expect further suits from SCO.
Bankrupcy could happen when Judge Kimball grants Novell's request to place all SCO's funds in a trust pending the outcome of their case. This whole thing could end quite abruptly.
IT directors shouldn't worry about SCO Group's latest sallies in its legal war on Linux vendors IBM Corp. and Novell Inc., Clarey says...
SCO is fighting this losing battle for what? Press coverage?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
The judge has already commented on SCOX's astonishing lack of evidence; he's giving them lots of rope to hang themselves on, so when he hands them their collective ass, they don't have any grounds to come back and claim they didn't get a fair chance to make their [non-existant] case. And the positive PR accruing to Big Blue for defending Linux far outweighs the cost of the legal team, especially when sites like Groklaw are doing half the analysis work for them gratis.
What's their excuse this time?
As slashdot make sure there is really no life left in this once-sick horse.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
Time to start finding out the real reasons for this happening. The investors that have been pumping money into SCO knowing full well there is no merit to the case. This deserves an investigation. I can't think of any investors, even the most dim-witted that would put money into propping up this boondoggle unless there is another motive involved. The old adage of follow the money comes to mind.
Stay tuned for new sig...
Darl could call up HandelontheLaw.com - if you've ever heard his radio show the main point is for Bill Handel to tell you you have no case. He Loves That. Anyway, here's a joke from Bill Handel's web site:
In a recent FDA study, the United States government research physicians who were conducting studies on test drugs, administered weekly doses of Viagra to an equal number of doctors and lawyers.
While the majority of the doctors achieved enhanced sexual prowess, the lawyers simply grew taller.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
It has nothing to do with merit, but it has to do with what kind of outstanding questions are involved with the case.
The American civil law system divides the questions that come up during a litigation into two categories: fact and law. Judges are responsible for deciding questions of law. Juries are responsible for deciding questions of fact.
If the facts of the case are not in dispute, and the case solely hinges on the interpretation of law, the judge will rule on the case directly. On the other hand, if the facts of the case are in dispute, the judge will instruct the jury to decide the facts and the judge will apply the law to the jury's finding of facts.
The fact that the case hasn't been dismissed is because the judge is not satisfied that there are no relevent facts in dispute.
And in other news, fire is hot!
When reading about SCO, CEO that just doesnt give up... I remeber this quotes from Gladiator:
Quintus: People should know when they're conquered.
Maximus: Would you, Quintus? Would I?
Â_Â
Thomas Carey shoots down SCO's cases against IBM and Novell, but predicts that SCO will fight a losing battle to its last.
2 5&tid=109&tid=166
Everyone knows their case is groundless. It was a poorly disguised attempt by Microsoft to discredit Linux. And as long as Microsoft is willing to funnel money into their coffers SCO will continue in this groundless legal action. This is not about law or legal proceedings, this is about one large corporation's attempts to use the legal system to kill a competitor.
Kinda puts the lie to this recent slashdot article:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/08/17272
Why haven't the courts thrown this out yet? All it does is lessen credibility of the US legal system and encourage lawlessness in the American corporate sector (who, God knows, needs absolutely no more encouragement in that area).
Now I've invested in stocks for two decades, and I say no vaguely rational investor would touch this stock. It is speculative beyond belief.
So what keeps this stock up? And why has the stock price been so steady over the last few months? Such a wild speculation should fluctuate madly.
Queue the conspiracy theories.
What about the people who were tricked into or were forced by an employer into buying a license? Has SCO said whether they will refund the money?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Bones said it best: "It's dead, Jim"
...for successfully using "boondoggle" in a tech based forum. You scallawag! ;^)
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I think it's about time for me to get a degree in patent law. These lawyers must just be giggling all the way to the bank with these idiotic cases. Lawyer: "You want to sue IBM? Why?" Idiot: "I invented computers, they stole my idea!" Lawyer: . o O ( $$$ BIG MONEY $$$ ) "Sure I'll take the case; however, you still have to pay if you don't win." Idiot: "I don't care, I'm gonna win!" Lawyer: . o O ( $$$ NEW HOUSE! $$$) "Alright, let's get the paperwork done!"
I Lost My Virginity While Waiting for BSD to Compile.
Quit flogging this dead horse, software patents are much more important.
Has anybody else noticed when you type in "slshdot.org" vise "slashdot.org" the first link is to scosupport.com?
if you're willing to take the risk, of course.
Finding God in a Dog
While SCO likes the vague term "intellectual property" the law only recognizes three items in that class: copyrights, patents and trade secrets. SCO has never claimed patents or trade secrets, so that leaves copyright. If SCO can't establish copyright, they have no hold over anyone except those with whom they have a contract.
While the court cases with Novell and IBM may drag on for years, this -- as far as Linux is concerned -- is another step into irrelevancy for SCO.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
The legal system is primarily designed to make money for the legal profession. Once litigation is concluded, the lawyers stop receiving money. Read Bleak House by Charles Dickens and realise that, while certain details have changed, the general situation remains the same.<br><br>
Unfortunately, I am serious. Many members of Congress are lawyers and they ensure laws are framed to maximise the profession's profits. Logical reforms never see the light of day.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.asp
Seriously, I know that it's probably *always* been this way, but government and everything else is just so corrupt...sigh. Why do we ever think that we could begin to fix this mess? And please, Rush Limbaugh or Air America sycophants, don't tell me that it's primarily the Republicans or primarily the Democrats because they're apparently all on the take. Whether it's just straight $ or merely as voting for a lousy bill solely because it benefits them or increases their political capital, most of them are crooked and self-serving. The fact is that the political (read money-driven) system makes it so that only the corrupt can be elected.
Sorry, probably a down day on my part.
As Keynes said, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay liquid. Trying to predict the actions of lunatics is not my type of game.
While this likely destroys SCO's trade secret case, I have to disagree that it necessarily destroys SCO's copyright infringement case. Copying may have occurred here. Remember, under copyright law it does not need to be a direct, word-for-word copying, but if the "infringing" work utilizes a derivative of the copyrighted material then there is likely infringement. I'd assume this is the issue where the judge is not yet convinced that a reasonable jury could not find that copying did not occur. At least not yet.
Stop undressing me with your eyes. I'm ugly naked.
What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL
by NZheretic on Mon 09 June 2003.
Well isn't this just News That Matters?!?! For the sake of all that is holy, please find something relevant and new to discuss. All the pre-pubescent morons here are really looking for a social forum, not a groklaw clone. "If I don't get it in email, it doesn't really exist," is the philosophy of most of these retards. Get out of the house, or find something to do at work, and leave this rotten shell of a once-slightly-relevant web property. While the "editors" are so busy not checking for dupes and looking for their next $4 million dollar boat, most of the readers are feverishly working toward a Ph.D. in Masturbation. No wonder IT jobs are getting outsourced! Keep up the good work taco...
The SCOundrels' case with Novell turns on whether SCOX (The SCO Group nee Caldera, vs. Santa Cruz Operation) ever even received copyrights. Novell's deal with Santa Cruz does not appear to have transferred the copyrights, so when Caldera bought the business from them, they certainly couldn't have got them.
Conveniently enough, the same judge is hearing both cases, so ruling on one (Novell has the copyrights, SCOX doesn't) will kill the other (SCOX can't claim copyright infringement, they don't own any).
IBM's claims, however, would still stand. The counter-suit damages will likely vaporize whatever's left of the SCOX scum. And it can't come too soon for me.
At one time McBride was proud of the fact of all the articles generated about SCO and linked that to SCO's relevancy. Here on slashdot at first every SCO story would generate greater than 1000 replies. Today SCO does not even generate a 100. Good to see. McBride must be suffering from a lack of attention so we can probably expect some bazaar antic.
That after a big setback, SCOX goes to $2.00 a share, and when it's been at $4.00 a share for a week or two, we heare more about the case again? This is the 2nd or 3rd cycle of this.
Someone's losing a LOT of money here. Usually investors ebb and flow in increments; this is more like a switch. Who in their right mind would keep funding this shell of a company?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
"I've been told we're going to sue NEC. Who are NEC?"
Me: "A large Japanese computer manufacturer. Why?"
"Apparently our new system doesn't work."
Me: "That sounds like software. NEC make hardware. Doesn't the hardware work?"
"Apparently the software supplier went bust, so we're suing NEC"
Me: "That doesn't make sense."
"The thing is, have they got a lot of money?"
Me: "I imagine they have huge amounts of money."
"Oh good, that'll keep us busy for a while then."
The reaction of lawyers everywhere.
Pining for the fjords
I was sad to see Carey's reply to this question, not because of Godwin's law, but because SCO's lawsuits were primarily targeting its own customers for contract violations that were only tangentially related to Linux (i.e. the claimed violations could have been related to any OS).
This all started with SCO telling the media that Linux violated their source copyrights, and that they were going to bring copyright lawsuits against companies running Linux Very Soon (unless the companies paid the appropriate extort^H^H^H^H^H^H license fees). Right after that, SCO filed suit against both Autozone and DaimlerChrysler, telling the media that the lawsuits against Linux customers had begun. However, reading the actual lawsuits revealed that SCO really sued their own customers over contract issues.
For instance, the only copyright-related part of the Autozone suit (that I'm aware of) was them claiming that Autozone must have used SCO libraries/binaries under another OS (which just happend to be Linux) during their transition from SCO's Unix to Linux (which would only be a possibility because of some SCO-binary-compatibility code that SCO themselves helped to put into Linux). This is a very different kettle of fish than them claiming to sue someone over alleged source-code copyright violations in Linux.
Unfortunately, it seems that most of the media didn't notice this discrepancy (I only read about it at Groklaw), so they keep regurgitating the SCO FUD that SCO sued Linux customers over the use of Linux.
..wayne..
What I said was that I didn't expect any more suits. Any new suits aren't covered by the fee cap.
SCO was my first Unix and will always hold a special place in my heart for that reason. It's just a little sad to me that they have been beaten down so low and mostly of their own doing.
In the early 90's they were fairly strong in the *nix world. Back then, SCO Unix and Informix were a team to be taken seriously until their management killed both.
Just sad, just sad.
If Novell is found to have the legitimate copyrights to UNIX in the SCO vs. Novell case, does this mean that Novell can sue SCO for breach of contract, and take back their UNIX business as well?
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Carey's ocean-liner/seagull analogy is nice, but what really caught my eye was this bit in the Groklaw article about the test for "copyright misuse":
I assume "the public policy embodied in the grant of a copyright" would be referring to the Progress Clause ("To Promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts") of the Constitution. We rant about this principle all the time here on Slashdot, but I think this is the first time I've seen it expressed in a judicial context, i.e., a sign that "The System" actually remembers that the entire purpose and justification of Copyright (and all "Intellectual Property") is to Promote Progress, and that any use of an IP right that can be shown instead to Hinder Progress is Unconstitutional. Is there any similar doctrine of "patent misuse", or could this argument be used to justify establishing it?
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
I consider myself fairly well read (as a layman) about IP law, and I was totally unaware that this ruling existed. It's fairly interesting stuff.
. html
Here's the full text if anyone is interested (normally I pull stuff from the Cornell Law site but it doesn't seem to have it):
http://www.bowie-jensen.com/computerlaw/lasercomb
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The judge's dismissal of IBM's motions for partial summary judgment were based on discovery not having completed yet. He made comments at the time that indicated he would be quite willing to revisit them once discovery had closed.
That was on Dec 22. Expect them to resurface.
When SCO lose, they will have no money left.
I can't think of any investors, even the most dim-witted that would put money into propping up this boondoggle unless there is another motive involved. The old adage of follow the money comes to mind.
IBM has issued numerous subpeaonas to entities who have no real relation to the dispute at hand, but who were involved in funding and supporting SCO's actions. The IBM attorneys are clearly, if quietly, following the money. It remains to be seen what they're going to do with the information they collect, but I suspect they're not collecting it just to kill time.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Take heart. The company you're thinking of with such nostalgia is the Santa Cruz Operation, and their only involvement in this whole mess is that they sold their UNIX division (and the trademark "SCO UNIX") to a Linux vendor named Caldera a few years back. The Santa Cruz Operation then renamed itself to "Tarantella", and ended up being bought by Sun. Caldera, on the other hand, decided to rename themselves as "The SCO Group" and started suing everyone in sight when they couldn't come up with any other way to make money. Note that there is no "Santa Cruz" in their name. "SCO" is no longer an abbreviation; it's simply a name.
The Santa Cruz Operation was a California company (based, unsuprisingly, in Santa Cruz, California, where I lived for several years). They had a twenty-five year run, which is pretty good in this volatile industry. The SCO Group, on the other hand, is, and always has been, a Utah-based company, has only been around for about a decade, and seems unlikely to see a second.
IBM and Novell should team up if they win, for the sheer hell of not letting $C0 repeat these actions, and sue them again, and again and again until there's nothing left even for the administrators to salavage from the account book's... Battle $C0 Without Honour or Humanity!
FTA: "The implications for Linux users are rather like the implications for passengers on an ocean liner of a seagull diving into the water nearby. A physicist might be able to measure the perturbation, but the passenger feels nothing."
R.I.P.
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
there's an interesting and illegal way for sports heroes to make money. In boxing it's called "taking a dive". In some team sports it's called "shaving points"
No idea what it is called in the law "profession", but if the shoe fits...
I *Like* rush. But you're right. and it's worse. It seems that the best way to get the democrat agenda passed is to elect republicans. wha hwa now?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Given the way the judge dismissed SCOX's original slander of title case v. Novell, saying the contract they inherited from Santa Cruz Operation didn't appear to be a conveyance of copyright, SCOX may have built their case on a very soft sandpile, which has been held up to date only by their frequent, loud "they do SO own them" PR.
Add to this the USL v. BSDI case, which USL settled very quickly when the judge appeared ready to declare that the UNIX codebase had not been properly protected, and could be considered public-domain material, which would have decimated the commercial UNIX business USL was trying to build. Revisiting that could moot all of this.
The same judge is hearing both the Novell and IBM cases; he could make his life so much simpler if he ruled again for Novell, which would scuttle SCOX's case v. IBM. The counter-suit from IBM would annihilate SCOX and we could all move on to something useful.
That question was asked and answered before. You might take a look at that thread, since it looks like all the answers still apply.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?