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.
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?
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.
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
At the moment SCO is paying. However, soon, SCO will not have to pay their lawyers any more, although the lawyers will be committed to finishing the cases (and appeals, if any). The question is: when the lawyers are no longer receiving additional cash for their services, how good will their services be?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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)
...for successfully using "boondoggle" in a tech based forum. You scallawag! ;^)
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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. =====
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
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.