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
Godwin!
How do I get my $699 back?
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
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.
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); }
You must distinguish (1) why they started the war, from (2) why they are still fighting in spite of the fact that they are clearly losing.
They started the war, with their business otherwise failing, as a gamble. They hoped for a quick settlement or a buyout from IBM to avoid the expense of litigation and potential damage to the Linux business. In that, they miscalculated, but may have felt they had little to lose anyway. The major miscalculation will be if individuals end up going to jail for perpetrating this clear scam. We shall need to wait about 10 years to know the answer to that question.
Why do they continue to fight now, when it is clear they are going to lose? Quite simply, to delay the total dismemberment of their business. The counterclaims in the IBM case, the claims for damages in the Red Hat case, and handing over the bulk of the revenues from the SCO Source scam to Novell are going to bankrupt SCO many times over. Meanwhile, management continues to make money from their salaries and probably other opportunities.
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.
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!
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)
"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