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."
I better act fast! This is the time to sell my remaining SCO stock before the tsunami strikes.
This is slashdot. Neutral does not exist with respect to linux, microsoft, and sco. Other topics may vary.
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.
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
a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.
I once tried to explain the SCO case to someone. They thought I was BSing them. The case is simply so screwed up from pretty much any rational (and non-scamming) perspective that even if Slashdot were neutral, it should stand up and say, "HEY! This is messed up". Sometimes I worry we get so caught up in NPOV and neutrality that we forget that there is objective truth, and the objective truth is that SCO is making dozens of claims it can't back up, to the judge's annoyance.
News is NOT supposed to be neutral. It is supposed to be objective. Most news outlets today strive to be neutral, which leads to shallow, insipid reporting, in which no outlet has the balls to report anything as fact. Instead they simply report whatever each side of an issue says.
"The admistration said today that flatulence is caused by an evil faerie named Mortimer, however some critics disagree!"
Objective means fact-checking, and reporting what is true. Neutral means echoing every opinion and statement that is fed to you, regardless of the source, in order to treat all standpoints and arguments as equally valid. Neutral is a horrible thing for news to be.
That being said, slashdot can't be called an prime example of neutrality or objectivity.
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.