Slashdot Mirror
IBM Asks Court to Toss SCO's Entire Case
Lost+Found writes "After three and a half years of case proceedings, summary judgement motions have been submitted in the highly controversial SCO v. IBM case. SCOX shares took a loss of 18.75%, or $0.39, to close at $1.69. IBM shares rose 0.97%, a gain of $0.79, to close at $82.00. From the article: 'Both sides in SCO v. IBM have filed motions for summary judgment. To be precise, SCO has filed one for partial summary judgment and IBM has filed several motions for summary judgment, one for each of SCO's claims and two more for good measure on two of IBM's counterclaims. In other words, it is asking the court to throw out SCO's entire case, and to grant it judgment on two counterclaims without even going to trial on those two.' More motions for summary judgement from SCO against IBM counterclaims are currently being uncovered at Groklaw."
It would be very interesting to find out what the end bill is for both IBM and SCO for this monumental waste of time (unless you're a lawyer of course, then this has been one of the best account padders of all time). How much is SCO worth these days anyway, even if IBM were awarded the entire company, I assume it wouldn't come close to negating the cost?
I think it's important not to get too worked up over this one. As much as I'd love to see the judge give SCO the legal equivalent of that old Mortal Kombat finishing move where the guy shoves his fist in through his enemy's sternum and rips out his spine, given the way this case has gone in the past I don't see it happening.
Motions for summary judgement are just part of the process; both sides file 'em, even when it's ridiculous (as SCO's are), usually the judge ignores them both, and life moves on.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
What IBM should really do is formally offer SCO a settlement of One US Dollar. It would be One US Dollar more than SCO could ever hope to win with their baseless and time consuming lawsuit.
They could do it by scheduling a news conference, and taking that One US Dollar and placing it into a pretty frame, and the SCO attorneys would drool all over it and believe that they actually won something.
Jeeze.. just stick a fork in them - they are done.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
SCOX shares took a loss of 18.75%, or $0.39, to close at $1.69.
Morons....
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Wouldn't that be the perfect iceing on SCO's cake!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
This has been going on for far too long now and it's been clear to everyone for years now that even the broken patent/copyright system won't side with SCO.
They've got nothing and SCO are a joke. Noone even takes this case seriously anymore.
the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
...if you want to make the $'s, go to law school. It doesn't matter if anything is produced, you still make money.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
One can only hope that this case will prevent "Legal Extorion" from occuring in the future; but alas, that is just wishful thinking... IBM is a big rich company. If SCO were to come after a small fish like you or I, would we have the money to defend ourselves the way IBM did? I seriously doubt it. More than likely, had SCO sued me directly, I would have run out of financial resources trying to defend myself, and would have capitulated. SCO probably would have gotten summary judgement against me and precedents in case law would have been set. The sad thing is, had SCO has smarter lawyers, they wouldn't have tried to take on a big fish like IBM, but would have sued a very small company with few finanical resources to defend themselves. Once a precedent has been set, they could have laughed all the way to the bank. Believe it or not, the legal system is full of cases which many would consider "Legal Extortion" (ie. Pay up now, or face an expensive and lenghty lawsuit). One industry I can think of where many hungry lawyers prey upon is the California Real Estate market. Which brings me back to a headline I once saw on a magazine for lawyers in California. The headline read: "Mold is GOLD!", meaning that the common practice of bringing in an environmentalist to find 'mold' in a home and then turning around and suing the former homeowner for not disclosing the potentially hazardous condition that is causing the new occupants all sorts of numerous ailments, is worth big bucks to many california lawyers.
Here's hoping that this case will help the little guy... but I'm not gonna hold by breath!
YahmaBLASTProxy - Bypass firewalls at school and work, anonymously.
Mortgage Tricks - Insider tips and tricks to get a low rate mortgage
And the people said, "About time!!"
Or can it pull an SCO trick itself? I mean just claim that the original investors were just legal extortionists and file a case against them and bleed them and give them a taste of their own medecine?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
How refreshing. I have been waiting for this long enough. I am only sad that SCO did not fall more.
Do you want to know what SCO is worth or what the paper costs? The first question is easy to answer, the second requires looking up some stock info.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Loser pays the court price tag.
I wouldn't settle for one dollar (plus expenses) when I could get away for free. And the chances are awefully good! It's not like it cuts into IBMs daytime biz to be present in court, if SCO wants to keep the cost running, more power to them. Hand 'em enough rope!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Judge K. grants most of IBM's wishes.
Judge K. grants Novell a writ of replevin. That means that the funds that SCO should have turned over to Novell when it sold licenses to Microsoft and Sun go into a trust account. SCO only has ten million in the bank so it is instantly bankrupt.
All the issues in all the trials are then amicably settled by the bankruptcy trustee.
Holy smoking crater Batman, this puppy is never going anywhere near a jury.
Well maybe some stuff will go before a jury. Darl may pay dearly for flapping his gums so loudly. There are the Lanham act issues. The SEC may also step in. Many people have said that the whole scheme involved a pump and dump on the stock market. There is certainly the odor of some kind of manipulation. In fact it has become a standing joke on the Yahoo SCOX message board (and now on InvestorsVillage as well). They call it the PaintBlaster with reference to the fact that the shares seem to get predictably 'painted up'.
All well and good, but the whole business certainly produced an impressive bulge in plenty of time for SCOX shareholders to line their pockets by selling stock that had been practically worthless the year before.
The legal soap opera is interesting, but the real question is whether anyone profited from that stock bulge... and if so who and how much... and whether anyone intends to go after them for securities fraud. If not, then the whole charade may have been immensely worthwhile for SCO's insiders. IBM wins a pyrrhic victory, SCO goes bankrupt, thanks to the concept of a corporation the officers have no personal liability, and if they owned SCO stock and managed to sell it in 2004 they could well be laughing all the way to the bank.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
This is turning into a bit of a "Summary Judgment throwing contest". I understand why IBM would request them (because SCO doesn't have anything), but then SCO threw some back at the counterclaims, as if to say "Yeah? Well, take that! And you smell!". It's like chimps throwing poo...
Meta will eat itself
Controversial? I thought everyone agreed that SCO didn't have a case.
http://outcampaign.org/
en tee
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Until there are general limitations on IP and patent litigation, this type of lawsuit will continue. It's the legal equivalent to chicken, which company runs out of money or guts first. The case will remain in some fashion until there are no more avenues to attack. With out some changes in the system, or best case a "loser pays" system, we will see this case and many others like it in the system for years. My prediction is that this case will drag on long into 2008, wasting million of shareholders dollars on both sides for very little gain.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=67838&cid=6216 434
Couldn't explain it any better.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Someone can set up a company. Let us call it "SCO_damaged_me.com" This company will contact IBM shareholders who believe the actions of SCO have hurt their stock. They will buy the right to sue SCO to recover damages from the shareholders. May be at 1 cent a share or something. Then it can turn around and sue SCO, its officers, board of directors and the sugar-daddy investors and the venture capitalists. It might eventually come out that IBM actually provided the seed money for this company and funded it even after it became clear that there is really no case.
If it wins, it laughs all the way to the bank on the recovered money. If it loses, it has still damaged the original investors and the board and the officeres enough. And they cant come after IBM because they will lose the same way IBM "lost". Either way IBM comes out ahead.!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060913/scox10-q.html
IANAE - I am not an economist, could someone translate that ^ for me? have they lost more than they've made?
gotta love this quote:
"During the year ended October 31, 2003, we became aware that our UNIX code and derivative works had been inappropriately included by others in the Linux operating system. We believe the inclusion of our UNIX code and derivative works in Linux has been a contributor to the decline in our UNIX business because users of Linux generally do not pay for the operating system itself, but pay for services and maintenance. The Linux operating system competes directly with our OpenServer and UnixWare products and has taken significant market share from these products."
bah! cry me a river.
You're the reason IBM is at times apprehensive about adopting/promoting open source. Hope you're happy.
Right now, it is doubtful if SCO has the rights to Unix. IIRC they are in a lawsuit with Novell over that, where Novell says the rights have never been properly tranferred to now-SCO. So I guess that would be settled quickly between IBM and Novell, in a way that lets both of them save face.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Disovery is closed and time for IBM's SJ Smackdown. I'm betting they granted most, if not all their PSJ's. Time to stick a fork in this pathetic case.
Let's not forget Microsoft's involvement in this swarmy tale. They got caught in bed with SCO, sort of like being caught with a hooker when the media shows up. I'm guessing no one at SCO is going to volunteer for federal ass-pounding prison if there's a way to drag some MSFT execs into the case with them. It'll be interesting to see if that's what IBM's had in mind all along when the SCO case unwinds. Whether they just drop and move on, or if they start following the breadcrumbs back to Redmond.
The SCO case is a loser, but get some dirt on MSFT in the process...that might pay off a bit better.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
That you've just stepped off a space ship and are visiting and know nothing of our ways and culture. Read this thread. You'd be thinking you'd landed on some pretty crazy planet!
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Although SCO wants people to believe that it owns UNIX, the actual UNIX name trademark is owned by The Open Group and it is not contested.
Good point. Does anyone here own SCO stock and want to file a derivative suit against the board for this ridiculous mess?
"Judge flushes SCO's case down the iLoo"
AC
Back in the day, 1910ish, Ford fought a claim by Selden around the steel body frame for automobiles. They indemnified all of their customers against the patent, and fought it to the end allowing for the success of the Model T, and freedom of other entering in the industry. Of course, I fear driving Ford's now, but like the Ford case, IBM needs to demonstrate that they will fight to the end to allow long term confidence in the technology.
in the antitrust case. Even the feds hire outside counsel from time to time.
After three and a half years of case proceedings...
If Microsoft funded SCO for any or all of the SCO v. IBM case, they got their money's worth.
Intresting things to note about SCO Currently:
58 percent of the company is held by major owners and mutual funds.
Ownership:
DERBY, STEVEN About 10%
LAMAR, STEVEN M About 10%
BAYSTAR CAPITAL II LP about 8%
Glenhill Advisors LLC 10.19%
The firm is worth between 20 and 40 Million USD and has 14 million in cash
but they go through 9 Million a Year.
- mph
well, according to yahoo insider trading, ALL the insider transactions for SCOX in 2004-5 are SELL.
You haven't been able to short SCOX for years. There simply haven't been any shares available to borrow for the past three years or so, and the price is well bellow $5/share, so your explanation doesn't hold water. That, and the consistency of the pattern, is why people say it's being painted up. This does not mean that it is SCO doing it (though I wouldn't put it past them); trolls can be found under almost every rock, and there are stock trolls who do just this sort of thing (and send spam about it).
And in any case (and in answer to your question) a large number of short sellers would drive the price down--the market doesn't know or care who is trying to sell a stock, or why, just that they are. So even if your "lol theory" held water, it wouldn't float.
--MarkusQ
The majority of the shareholders are some institutional investors and Ralph Yarro. That's not to say that there aren't some people shorting it. We have seen what looks suspiciously like a short squeeze. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_squeeze
4 /06/21/2017216
The behaviour of this stock was best described by Melanie Hollands: closely held and thinly traded. That makes it extremely susceptible to manipulation. Thus the PaintBlaster. http://www.itmanagersjournal.com/article.pl?sid=0
Perhaps not enough to make IBM to actually want these difficulties, but they're smart enough to recognize and exploit the benefits.
I'm guessing no one at SCO is going to volunteer for federal ass-pounding prison if there's a way to drag some MSFT execs into the case with them.
I agree with your whole post 100%, but this is the tricky part.
Let's say all goes as IBM has planned and SCO gets their collective asses handed to them in court. And the SEC goes after them for insider trading once the whole case is settled and made public.
What next?
Exactly how do you draw a line between MS and the greybar hotel? Yeah, MS did finance the whole thing pretty much through Baystar. But investment isn't illegal.
I think you'd pretty much have to prove somehow that MS was giving them the money with the foreknowledge that they would use it to break the law. That would be seriously difficult to prove. And even then, it would be a corporation that was guilty - not individuals. The whole thing would work out to a fine at the worst, and MS is pretty famous for simply paying those off. The price of the ticket isn't a deterrant to these people.
IANAL, but that's how it seems to me.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Ah... the short squeeze might make sense then; too many people upset that the stock isn't crashing hard enough, fast enough, so they get out and it looks like people are buying.... ?
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
IBM's attorneys are generally considered to be the best in the US. Yes, they have a wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cravath,_Swaine_&_Moo re. David Boies attorney used to work for them...hmmm.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Sorry, but I'm getting tired of this argument. Let's remember basic economics.
If you are IBM and you have, say, X lawyers as full-time staff and they cost you $Z a year, presumably they are not just sitting around playing checkers waiting for the next lawsuit; presumably you hired them full time because you have full time work for them to do -- work worth $Z to you. So you can't just divert these folks' energies to this SCO wankathon without giving up all the work they were going to do for you ordinarily. It's called 'opportunity cost' -- it essentially costs you $Z one way or another. So if you really do need that other work done, you'll have to hire other lawyers, probably for about $Z. Or you could leave your usual team on their usual tasks and hire other lawyers to sue SCO, and you'll probably spend about $Z on them if they are a lot like your first crew. One way or the other it is costing IBM. You know the saying, "There's no free lunch."
$META_SIG_JOKE
Only people who believe in God have a real reason to get up in the morning.
The rest of us are either in it for the money, or under the illusion that they are not.
The American legal system functions under what is unimaginatively called "The American Rule", under which each party pays its own legal fees and costs regardless of the outcome. Causing your opponant to incur legal costs is not grounds for legal action. There is no direct way for IBM or any defendant to recover legal expenses. They may indirectly do so by filing a counter-claim alleging violations of contract or law, but the term "legal extortion" that is being thrown around by many slashdotters is not, in fact, illegal.
The situation is different in Europe, where the losing party pays for all legal costs for both them and the other party. Lest everyone think that this is clearly superior, it does tend to discourage litigation, as if you bring a suit and lose, you really lose.
This case is about something else entirely, but enforcing contracts and bringing a peaceful end to arguments is worth money if it doesn't "produce" something you cna drop on your toe.
And you're better off negotiating an out of court settlement, which is another instance of "Do it yourself and save!".
You can sue SCO for damages, you can't sue individual investors. That's exactly why companies incorporate.
The process requires you to be able to 'borrow' someone else's stock. Roughly: you 'borrow' the stock and sell it. Later when it's time to return the stock you buy it at the current going rate. If the stock went down in value, you made money. The rub is that you have to find someone to 'lend' you their stock.
Here's a better explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_selling Sorry I missed the humor the first time.
To get an insider into trouble you have to show that they were trading on inside knowledge unavailable to the public.
This lawsuit's bogosity was hardly a secret, except maybe to Enderle and Didio.
"Now, maybe there's something in the law that would let you make a case against them if you could prove that they intentionally funded the company for the specific purpose of attacking IBM, since otherwise, you could have ridiculous things like bin Laden setting up companies with the specific purpose of killing Americans and getting away with it"
Criminal activity is not protected by corporate law and "attacking" IBM is not a crime.
SCO was hoping that the "Big Boys" (IBM, Microsoft, HP, SUN) would knuckle under in return for a sweetheart deal (the previously mentioned "One Dollar", or some similarly trivial figure for the "Big Boys" to pony up). Hellfire, I'm sure SCO would've settled for no remuneration from the "Big Boys", if they could only have gotten their hands on a legal judgement that they really do own all the *NIX code on Earth.
IBM doesn't want to crush SCO, they just don't want to be crushed by a mosquito with delusions of grandeur.
They should just liquidate SCO and give all the money to IBM. Companies like SCO shouldn't exist.
Some time ago, someone sent a letter to the Securities Exchange Commission and posted a copy on Slashdot. It pointed out irregularities in SCOX stock price, such as the artificially periodic transactions that maintained the price at $4 and didn't make sense in a free market environment.
Does anyone know where on Slashdot or on the Web we can find a copy of that letter? I don't remember enough specific keywords to narrow down my web search.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
IBM's lawyers are more like the dementors from the Harry Potter series, and I think most people are hoping that that cold feeling SCO is having is the kiss of death to be imminently administered...rendering SCO the soulless entity we already believe it to be.
Just my humble opinion, but anyone who supports SCO behavior though financial backing is just as ethically liable as those bastards.
Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately attributed to ignorance. -Napoleon
How about anthropomorphising _humans_, "you moron"? Because IBM's decisions aren't taken by a computer or resulting from laws of physics, but are taken by human managers. Precisely _because_ it is a corporation, it's composed of humans and decisions at every level are taken by humans. Somewhere at IBM there were one or more humans who got the information of what SCO is doing, and took a decision.
And if all else fails there was a CEO and a board of directors who could have vetoed the whole thing, if they would have rather paid. What those want, is in a nutshell "what IBM wants".
Basically, I can understand riling against anthropomorphising a computer, a car or the weather. But you're arguing here against anthropomorphising human beings. Which is as fucking stupid as it can possibly get. What next would you recommend? To not treat a cat like a cat either? Not treat a house like it's a house? Or what?
No, just being hidden behind an impersonal abstract entity does _not_ absolve one of one's very humanity. Just being a boss in a corporation doesn't make one some kind of abstract machine that shouldn't be anthropomorphised. Good or bad, that's still a human. Good or bad, the decisions that run that abstract entity are nevertheless the decisions of humans. You don't just somehow cease being a human just because you're working at a corporation.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
SCO Group Likes Its Stock at These Levels
How about now?
I hear you, I just don't think that would happen. MS would rather blow that money on lawyers or burn it in huge steaming piles in the middle of Redmond rather than let anyone else get their hands on it.
In a way, you know what this whole SCO/IBM thing reminds me of? The Korean War. No, really - stick with me on this.
You have two huge superpowers who disliked each other immensely at the time, China and the US. But rather than fight each other directly, they decided to hash it out through puppet governments and a limited engagement in Korea. The north got backing and some support from China. The south got the same from the US. Nobody really committed anything earth-shaking to the conflict - too costly to go in full-tilt.
Reminds me of the whole SCO thing immensely. SCO doesn't have enough backing to do their bit, so MS funds them through Baystar. And they go after Linux. And Linux suddenly gets enough backing to defend itself through IBM. Notice how IBM and MS don't fight each other directly? It all takes place in their own private Korea, SCO.
The analogy isn't perfect, but it's close enough I think.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Actually, a corporation itself also can't be sued for murder or criminal negligence, and can't be fined based on their daily income (although in the U.S. sometime damages are that high anyway.)
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
This would be a pendantic comment, except stock values are central to the story:
The closing price of a share of SCOX or IBM does't mean anything unless you also quote the number of outstanding shares. The fact that a share of IBM is worth ~80x a share of SCOX is misleading. In reality, SCOX closed down today ~1% with a market cap (shares x price) of 35MM (a pittance); IBM closed up .5% with a market cap of 125.5Bn, or 4,185 times as much as SCO.
Cite closing market caps, not stock prices. Or just cite the percentage change.
SCO filed numerous motions for summary judgment on IBM's counterclaims and one for their claim of Breach of Contract, not just one.
You can choose between losing $Z, or losing $Y, the cost of paying someone else to do it. Now, say, if $Y $Y,
you're losing. This is the downside, and why you need to schedule carefully. You try to have some long-term projects with plenty of slop in the schedule to fill in the low spots.
This reminds me of one of my favorite SCO analogies:
Picture McBride behind the wheel of a minivan, flying down a drag strip as fast as 6 cylinders can take it on a collision course with a main battle tank. The SCO van has lights flashing, sirens blaring, mimes doing handstands on the roof, and maybe a little T&A out the sunroof. Oh, and it's full of lawyers.
The tank isn't doing much of anything, really.
Now, what we're all wondering... Is Darl McBride just some crazy lunatic powering his shitbox down the road and maybe planning on turning at the last minute, or does he really have something in that minivan that can take out a tank. And if he does, when is he gonna whip it out? Will the tank bring around the main gun and blast him, or will it just use the machine gun? How many lawyers are killed? Mimes? Will the minivan turn into a DeLorean at the very last second and blast a trail through time?!?
I don't know about you, but the suspense is killing me.