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."
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."
And the people said, "About time!!"
IBM hires outside counsel to do the litigating. The in house lawyers handle all the routine contracts, and things like that.
SCO got a fixed upper limit agreed on their costs with the legal firm representing them, they dont have an 'unknown' bill as such.
Their "fixed" bill has come unfixed several times so far.
Twice they've had to throw another $5 million into the kitty for "expenses, experts, etc."
Its in their regulatory filings, along with "the future of the company is uncertain should we not prevail".
Ditto for SCO, and really for most companies in general. Even Microsoft hires outside attorneys for litigation; in fact, David Boies, who argued for Microsoft in the DOJ antitrust case is the lawyer who's spearheading SCO's case.
My blog
This is called Piercing the corporate veil. It is not easy, but not impossible either. If IBM was able to show that the major shareholders were using SCO as a sacrificial pawn to go after IBM, but prevent IBM from being able to collect damages, then IBM might be able to go after those shareholders directly.
I don't think MSFT is a SCOX shareholder. I think MSFT "funded" SCOX by making some lame licensing deals. I wonder how creative IBM's lawyers are willing to be.
Controversial? I thought everyone agreed that SCO didn't have a case.
Exactly. I believe the only controversy has been whether this lawsuit should exist in the first place.
There is no such thing as good luck. There is only misfortune and its occasional absence.
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
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.
Yep. You're right. My bad. Boies argued for the DOJ.
My blog
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
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.
You can't short a stock if you can't borrow some shares.
Basically when you sell short, you are borrowing some shares from someone else, selling them right away, and promising to pay them back later on.
If your broker can't find someone with a long position to "borrow" the shares from, they can't let you sell short.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
If IBM chose to settle rather than litigate it through, it would likely encourage any other failing firms that had past dealings with IBM to try and salvage themselves by filing suit with the expectation of settlement money or acquisition. The legal expenses here to discourage others are no doubt much less than a series of 'payoffs' would be.
In this case also, as much effort as IBM has placed behind Linux, they need to have it seen as free of any legal issues to be able to market it effectively. I suppose SCOX was assuming IBM would rather give them a quick payoff to 'go away' then slug it out in court.
You can sue SCO for damages, you can't sue individual investors. That's exactly why companies incorporate.
Heh. Back when I was doing time & billing software for law firms, Morrison & Forester was one of our best clients. One of my cow-orkers actually jumped ship to work for them. Nice place to work, from what I hear. One of my former roommates was some kind of administrative assistant at a smaller (well, most law firms are smaller than MoFo) firm got a Rolex "in appreciation" when she left to go back to school. I can't imagine what their employee bonus plan looked like...
Just junk food for thought...