Slashdot Mirror
Judge To SCO — Quit Whining
chiark writes, "Back in June, the magistrate judge presiding over SCO vs IBM gutted SCO's claims, as discussed on Slashdot. SCO cried 'foul,' appealed to the District Judge, and today that judge has ruled against SCO, succinctly and concisely affirming every point of the original damning judgement. Also included in this ruling is the news that the Novell vs. SCO trial will go first: 'After deciding the pending dispositive motions in this case, and after deciding the dispositive motions in Novell, which should be fully briefed in May 2007, the court will set a trial date for any remaining claims in this action.' It's notable that the judge conducted the review using a more exhaustive standard than required out of an 'abundance of caution,' and still found against SCO." As Groklaw asks and answers: "What does it mean? It means SCO is toast."
IBM stole our whine in 1992, we have documents to prove it too, right over here, near the othe IBM documents ..... BWHAAAAAAA
I better act fast! This is the time to sell my remaining SCO stock before the tsunami strikes.
I read the article and I didn't see "quit whining" anywhere.
I realize that was a crude paraphrasing, but a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.
The chief qestion here as the litigation begins to play ut is when do the investors in SCO begin ulling out of what appears ever more strongly to be a losing battle? Or do they continue to just throw good money after bad and accept the loss on what maybe no better then a lottery's chance of winning anything?
I like this line from the Groklaw article:
What's worse for SCO is, Kimball did a de novo review, out of an "abundance of caution," so they can't even appeal that issue.
Yep, SCO is toast. Please move on, nothing to see here.
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
What is this, 2003? I'm looking forward to the latest press release from the the Iraqi information minister.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Sco v Novell - I bet Steve Ballmers getting a phone call from Ron - 'what do i do Stevie ???'.
And the Downward Spiral begins; SCO stock down 10%; rated 'HOLD - Dangerous Risk/Reward Rating.'
Your goose is downright cooked, SCO.
My favorite part of the judgement is: "After deciding the pending dispositive motions in this case, and after deciding the dispositive motions in Novell, which should be fully briefed in May 2007, the court will set a trial date for any remaining claims in this action."
... I have a feeling that Judge K. thinks there may be no remaining claims after the dispositive motions. What are the dispositive motions you ask? Those are things that can be decided as a matter of law because the facts of the case are not in dispute. The judge can rule on those without going to a jury. There is a possibility that the judge's decisions will completely gut all of SCO's case. It is also possible that the judge will decide that all of SCO's money has to go into a constructive trust because SCO has basically stolen tens of millions of dollars from Novell. That would bankrupt SCO. All the remaining issues would then be settled by SCO's bankruptcy trustee. The bankruptcy trustee (completely independent from SCO's current management) will see no point in continuing the litigation and will settle on whatever terms the creditors (IBM and Novell mostly) dictate.
A trial date for any remaining claims
There is also the distinct possibility that SCO and BSF (their lawyers) will be punished for bringing a case before the court that has zero merit. It is a frivolous case and lawyers can be debarred for that kind of conduct.
SCO isn't toast yet, quite. There are still ninety-some-odd items of evidence that IBM are trying to get dismissed as they don't implicate IBM in any wrongdoing, and seven-or-so expert testimonies IBM are trying to get trimmed as they include new evidence past the closing of discovery.
-Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
...was basically that SCO has had 3+ years to show any evidence that they could come up with that IBM violated SCO's copyrights or patents by contributing code the Linux kernel. In that time, they haven't shown one single of code. They've whined and complained that IBM was being unfair and not giving them what they asked for, when in fact IBM did put up everything that was asked for. As Wells put it: "In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put 'all evidence . . . on the table'"
So Magistrate Wells threw out half the case. Then SCO whined to Kimball, the judge of record in the case saying "Magistrate Wells is being unfair and thew out most of our case! Wha!" This is Kimball coming back saying, "Sorry, Wells was right. You don't have a leg to stand on."
After the Novell case, which seeks to prove, among other things, the disposition of the UNIX System V copyrights (which Novell claims to still own), there isn't likely to be hardly anything left of SCO v. IBM. Kimball was right to put Novell first the case might throw out SCO's intellectual property claims in regard to Unix altogether.
In the end, I fully expect IBM to eat SCO for lunch on the counterclaims, even after they dropped most of them except for the Lanham Act violations.
My blog
The District Judge has now affirmed the order originally given by the Magistrate Judge, which tossed out most of SCO's claims, basically for a more or less complete lack of evidence. However, IBM's counter-claims, including tortious interference, violation of NY business law, and violation of the Lanham Act are still alive and well. As PJ at Groklaw points out, IBM seems determined to present these claims in front of a jury. If they do, the likely outcome is a large, smoking crater in Lindon, Utah. As PJ puts it: "In short, IBM intends to skin SCO alive at trial."
From the judge's order:
The judge reviewed the material under appeal de novo, to be extra careful, even though he was not required to do so. This is consistent with a feeling I've had for some time: he's decided SCO's case is a complete crock, and is working on creating a trial record that will be bullet-proof on appeal.the court finds that, even under a de novo standard of review, the Magistrate Judge's June 28, 2006 Order is correct.
Now, what's the sound of a group of penguins cheering?
Here's his opinion on the whole sordid mess, but in brief, he says that SCO no longer matters, and that he probably won't report further on it until final resolution.
I'm happy to see things finally start to kill off SCO's FUD machine. This, friends, is the beginning of the end for IBM v SCO.
Novell v SCO - same as MSFT v MSFT ? Doesn't Microsoft essentially back both these lamos?
Now that Novell is all kissy-kissy with Microsoft, having Novell go first in the lawsuit vs. SCO might not be so good. As we all know, Microsoft basically funded SCO's Unix IP fishing expedition with a $50 million "licensing" deal. I'd much rather have IBM be the one to grind SCO to a pulp. Hopefully, Novell will not pull any punches, and IBM can continue the beating after Novell's had their fill.
Clouds above bench part...
"Stop groveling! I hate it when people grovel!"
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Perhaps they are trying to piss off the judge, like Microsoft did with Judge Jackson?
That eventually resulted in Jackson more or less publically stating that the MS team were a bunch of bozos. And so they got a higher court to rule him as being biased against them, and his judgement that MS should be split into an OS division and a software division got overturned.
It's either that, or they're hoping to draw out this trial so long that the judge dies of old age.
What is amazing is the time it took to get there. German court was much faster.
Somehow I'm reminded of this comic strip: http://www.dungeond.com/d/20061120.html
With the gnolls being SCO and the heavily armoured guards being IBM's lawyers.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
This is your last chance to take advantage of SCO's special licensing offer of only $699 per computer. Better get those orders in before it's too late!
This guy's the limit!
Check this long-term view of SCO's stock.
Wanna guess when they first started pursuing this litigation?
And why hasn't there been some kind of investigation as to whether SCO did this specifically to manipulate the price of it's shares? Sure seems interesting when you look at this chart. We all know and feel it. But I don't know if you could PROVE manipulation so nothing will probably come of it.
Seriously, this is great news and Groklaw, as usual, does a nice job of presenting it in human-readable form. One hopes that the impending THUD of SCO will act as a deterrent to shell corporations who might want to try the same tactics. And real corporations would have something to lose in countersuits, so... Hmm, I'm feeling awfully optimistic today. I'd better have that checked.
well, PJ and the Groklaw camp did take a lot of shit from SCO and crew while this was going on. some of it was down right insulting. i even saw some astroturfing here on /. to try to discredit Groklaw's knowledge and expertise on law and technology. what it all amounted to, essentially, was a bunch of ad hominem attacks and personal insults. i'd say, if anything, that Groklaw is being restrained in it's gloating.
no, i'm not going to post a link; you can do the searching yourself. in fact, i'll post this anonymously, just so people can't say i'm karma whoring.
"Also included in this ruling is the news that the Novell vs. SCO trial will go first"
I wonder how the Novell-Microsoft deal will effect this case?
or do you think that MS has come to turms with Linux as long as they can control it with FUD and money.
I'd Tell you all my secrets but I lie about my past
If you have followed this case on Groklaw since the early days, as I have, you'll remember that PJ has been the target of considerable mud-slinging from SCO: she was just a paid shill for IBM, that sort of thing. You may also remember that, early on, there were quite a few self-styled "analysts" (the apparently tireless, and certainly tiresome, Ms. Laura Didio comes to mind) who expressed their confidence in the validity of SCO's case. I'll give PJ a pass on the self-congratualation.
"Let him turn into toast."
The bankruptcy trustee will agree to settle all the counterclaims out of court. SCO will be crushed. IBM, Novell and Red Hat will get whatever declarations they need or want. The result will be the same as if they had gone to court.
What hasn't come up yet is the matter of personal liability for the idiots behind the SCO case. Darl made a bunch of extremely stupid (in the sense of breaking the law) statements and those will come back at him. I also see trouble for the lawyers. The lawyers could be punished directly by Judge K. They may also have to deal with the bar association. Darl, on the other hand, may need a trial.
I'm sure many will point out (as two already have) that Groklaw's justified in wallowing in it for the moment.
In truth, I agree. I'd have been less restrained, actually. I pointed it out because it amuses me to see the equivalent of "HAH! SO THERE!" on a site filled with legal jargon.
Am I the only one who sees this as reminiscent the scene in Star Wars III where Anakin kills Dooku? Cast M$ as Palpatine, SCO as Dooku and Novell as Anakin.
M$: "Good. Now . . . kill him"
Novell: "I shouldn't do it. It's not our way. They're a LINUX distributor too."
M$ "Do it!"
(SCO's head flies off in appelate court)
"Always two there are - a master and an apprentice." Too bad, I really like SuSE.
Let's all email SCO and inquire about a license. "We heard you're going out of business and were wondering if you could spare us some licenses."
Last week, in More IBM Filings and a Nice Memento for Us to Share, PJ was also proud to note that the Letter to SCO that Groklaw wrote back in 2003 was actually submitted as evidence by IBM now, to show that "SCO rebuffed requests by the open source community for evidence of the alleged infringement, which would have permitted a potential work-around."
And rightfully proud, of course. More power to PJ!
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Seems in retrospect this lawsuit was one of the best things that the execs there could have done (for themselves, considering their bonuses and stock over the past few years); as well as being the best $86 million Microsoft ever spent for keeping Linux away from many companies with this FUD until they got a chance to launch Longhorn.
Microsoft gave Novell money because, in the words of Darth Maul, "At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi."
Microsoft got tired of waiting for their puppet SCO to spread FUD, so they just went ahead and did it themselves, telling the Linux community recently that everyone had better pay protection money, because Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents.
I wonder if this foreshadows the time where SCO stock portfolios are worth more on eBay than on NYSE?
The good news is that SCO has been limited in its claims. The bad news is that the IBM-SCO trial was set for February and now will wait until after SCO-Novell which is Sept. 2007. The good news of that is that Novell most likely will win which makes most of SCO's claims useless if they don't even own the IP. The bad news is that the GPL may be fully tested in court if that happens. Of course, IBM would win their counterclaims which includes claims based on the GPL.
Confusing? Remember: Never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Is that Darl mysteriously 'get's it' and it be pinned on some well-known FOSS supporter.
The judges rulings on the dispositive motions are verdicts. Such verdicts are even better than if jury verdicts because they usually make better precidents. The issues have gone to trial and will be decided, it's just that there may be no issues left to take before a jury.
6 27245
One of the issues that the open source community cares most about is IBM's counterclaim 10. That's the one that asks for a declaration that there is no Unix code in Linux. IIRC IBM is asking for a summary judgement on that one. Bottom line: don't worry, you'll get your clear unambiguous verdicts.
Here's a link to a story about counterclaim 10. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/15/1
What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
Zapp Brannigan: Star date: April 13th... point two.
That is a pretty mild way to put it. I would say they attacked PJ and even went to the point of hiring investigators to look for dirt. While the paid analysts like dIDIOT lost all their credibility on this case, PJ has been an honest kindred soul who used her background and understanding of the legal system to explain what was really going on. At one point, they even questioned whether she existed. Having exchanged email with her, I can state that I found her to be a wonderful person who is living out her life and just trying to make a difference.
- lied publicly about IBM's behaviour
- violated the GPL, including for IBM's GPL-ed code
- violated the Lanham act
etc.- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
Somehow I hit "+1 Informative" when I was aiming at "+x Funny". meh.
Meanwhile, Red Hat's lawyers haven't renewed their objections to letting IBM go first. It looks like they're perfectly happy to let the Nazgul do all the heavy lifting. By the time the smoke clears on IBM and Novell, Red Hat's team will have a slam dunk.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
It's significantly more fun to look at when you view it as linear and not a log plot. It really makes it clear how far they've fallen.
I mean -- they once traded at over $100 a share.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Penguins.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
I know you probably aren't a SCO shareholder (sorry didn't mean to insult you by implying it), but if you were .. wouldn't you feel suckered that the CEO pumped up the stock price by filing a frivolous lawsuit?
Maybe my company can upgrade from the antiquated RH7 based Caldera OpenLinux. Funny thing is, we're using SCO software on IBM computers.
Quit your whi ^h^h^h, wait... yeh, cool by me.... SCO is SC(O)toast...
SCO, go get your butter knife and scrape off you over-tan and reinvent yourselves and ply, umm, play NICE next time. But, if you play nasty again, I imagine what you'll have learned is to pay your lawyers based on PERFORMANCE, not expectation...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
That thing is still around?
Slashdot is totally close-minded on global warming, especially the part about blaming it on the US.
Don't think so? Watch how fast this post gets modded down, even if perchance it gets modded up.
The case is simply so screwed up from pretty much any rational (and non-scamming) perspective
Isn't the CEO's brother the laywer litigating this case? This seems to be a perfectly rational way for one brother to enrich another with shareholders' money, all perfectly legally.
You said rational, not ethical.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
SCO goes after Linux claiming it contains unix code.
Novell still owns Unix.
SCO unix derives from Xenix which was Microsoft's own unix.
Considering their enthusiastic lifting of other's code, e.g. stacker, it seems obvious why Microsoft made a no sue agreement with Novell.
"And rightfully proud, of course." Amen to that, but we should not forget the bloke who started that Open Letter ball rolling. A big thank you should go to John Gabriel for conceiving the idea and drafting the first draft. Seems that some might like to have him forgotten if this exchange is anything to go by.i d=20061122194903923&title=Yes%20I%20do%20remember% 20our%20letter.&type=article&order=&hideanonymous= 0&pid=0#c508129
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&s
Just trying to keep the record straight.
My faith is expressed through Nihilism. Do you understand?
Who woulda thought the SCO claims would end like this?
Oh wait, I guess we all did