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."
they could have easily settled long ago - thats not the point. they do not want to settle the case and leave doubts over linux, they want to crush it completely.
...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.
IANAL, but AIUI the consensus of opinion is that the judge is playing everything by the book, dotting every last "i" and crossing every last "t", in order to ensure that neither party can come back and say "Not fair!" when judgement day comes.
Lose the case in back-door deal whereby I would end up paying SCO almost nothing, but provide them with a precedent that would allow them to round up all of my competitors and remove them from my competitive landscape.
Why, what would you do?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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!
Given that I'm IBM and have a team of lawyers who I would be paying regardless, and that SCO's next targets would most likely be the very companies that so thoughtfully provide me (for free!) with most of the software that I'm basing my hardware, support and professional services sales around, I'd crush them before they got any funny ideas about taking out the aforementioned companies and cutting my current strategy off at the knees.
It's called "enlightened self interest"; the right thing is also the best thing for yourself, no matter how many others it may also help. Any advantage gained in paying off SCO now would likely be lost in the future, especially as it's extremely unlikely that SCO would be paid off so cheaply.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
"Yeah? Well, take that! And you smell!". It's like chimps throwing poo...
Never spent any time around lawyers, have you?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
They could have easliy bought SCO before going to court. That's what they would have done before settling.
IBM's confident that this case will help them in the long run, or they wouldn't be involved in the litigation at all.
There was a bunch of speculation before the pretrial hearings even started that IBM might buy SCO, liquidate the corporation, and open-source all the software assets, and be done with the whole mess. Winning in court proves things about the GPL, the open development of software, the honesty of IBM as a corporation, and a few other things that a buyout or a settlement never could.
Chicken isn't really a good analogy unless maybe between a Geo Metro full of clowns painted in bumblebee stripes with an air horn, a fart-can muffler, and a bicycle bell on the steering wheel, against a Freightliner truck.
12:50 - press return.
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.