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.
...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 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.
This is your last chance to take advantage of SCO's special licensing offer of only $699 per computer. Better get those orders in before it's too late!
This guy's the limit!
Seriously, this is great news and Groklaw, as usual, does a nice job of presenting it in human-readable form. One hopes that the impending THUD of SCO will act as a deterrent to shell corporations who might want to try the same tactics. And real corporations would have something to lose in countersuits, so... Hmm, I'm feeling awfully optimistic today. I'd better have that checked.
"Also included in this ruling is the news that the Novell vs. SCO trial will go first"
I wonder how the Novell-Microsoft deal will effect this case?
or do you think that MS has come to turms with Linux as long as they can control it with FUD and money.
I'd Tell you all my secrets but I lie about my past
Wow, the beginning of the end already??
-- thinkyhead software and media
If you have followed this case on Groklaw since the early days, as I have, you'll remember that PJ has been the target of considerable mud-slinging from SCO: she was just a paid shill for IBM, that sort of thing. You may also remember that, early on, there were quite a few self-styled "analysts" (the apparently tireless, and certainly tiresome, Ms. Laura Didio comes to mind) who expressed their confidence in the validity of SCO's case. I'll give PJ a pass on the self-congratualation.
Am I the only one who sees this as reminiscent the scene in Star Wars III where Anakin kills Dooku? Cast M$ 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.
I wonder if this foreshadows the time where SCO stock portfolios are worth more on eBay than on NYSE?
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'
The problem with a charge of manipulation is that you have to prove that SCO management knew that its lawsuit was baseless and that it filed it anyway to try to make a fraudulent profit off the increased share price. The mere fact that the lawsuit increased the stock price is not nearly sufficient. A lawsuit with plausible grounding would produce the same effect, and it would have been not merely legal but arguably the fiduciary duty of SCO's management to its shareholders to sue to recover lost revenue if they believed they had a reasonable chance of making a recovery. And as long as the case is still before the courts, that is probably sufficient evidence that they had a reasonable chance of recovery. Unless and until the judge in the SCO-IBM case says the case was not merely insufficient, but utterly without merit, it's unlikely SCO can be hit for manipulation.
(I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet!)