Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Asks Court To Reconsider IBM's Dismissal

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the not-so-fast dept.

VE3OGG writes "The SCO Group — the litigation firm currently in dispute with, among many, IBM, over supposed copyright infringing code in Unix — has quietly asked the courts to reconsider IBM's request to toss the case out. SCO argued that the court's November decision was procedurally and substantially flawed and they say 'the rules of procedure do not support such a result under the circumstances of this case.' If allowed to reopen the case, the SCO Group argues, that new evidence would present itself through the deposition of several IBM programmers who had previously been interviewed."

6 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. better late than never, by fotang · · Score: 5, Informative

    as news for nerds that is one week old is still news...

  2. Summary is somewhat misleading. by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to both the article and Groklaw, it's not so much that Judge Kimball threw out SCO's case as it is that he affirmed Magistrate Judge Wells' order that threw out the claims that SCO couldn't or wouldn't substantiate. That does indeed include most of SCO's claims, but it's not true that the whole case was dismissed. SCO does have a few claims remaining, and IBM has multiple counterclaims. Nevertheless, SCO's goose is completely cooked, and we're now just waiting for IBM to finish them off.

    1. Re:Summary is somewhat misleading. by fishbowl · · Score: 4, Informative


      >Why does the concept of contempt still exist in today's court system?
      >Can't judges rule on what is before them and put aside their emotions?

      A contempt of court citation is not based on emotions. Contempt of court
      has to do with a party's disobedience of a court order or certain well-defined types of misconduct that interfere with the legal process. Such rules carry the force of law, and a contempt of court citation is, depending on the specific case, a claim of civil damage or a criminal accusation made by the court against an individual.

      Courts have an inherent power to punish persons for contempt of their rules and orders, for disobedience of their process, and for disturbing them in their proceedings. The basis for this doctrine dates back as far as any of the founding principles of English Common Law.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  3. IBM's reply on Groklaw by richg74 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Groklaw now has up a redacted version of IBM's reply memo to SCO's motion, which lays out numerous reasons why SCO is yet again full of what my grandfather called "condensed canal water".

  4. Re:New evidence? by rsmith · · Score: 4, Informative

    Their plan (as admitted in interviews) was to withhold "evidence" to the last moment to prevent IBM from preparing a good defence. This is unfair and not allowed of course, which is part of the reason some of their "evidence" was thrown out.

    --
    Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
  5. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    > Incorrect. It's a contract case. The only copyright infringement claim
    > The SCO Group is making has to do with IBM continuing to distribute AIX
    > after TSG supposedly terminated IBM's irrevocable, perpetual, fully paid
    > up SysV license.

    Sorry, but it's you that's wrong Mr Hasler.
    Here's a breakdown of those Items that remain:

    1 (JFS in Linux): Contract claim
    2 (RCU in Linux): Contract claim
    23 (Dynix EES in Linux): Contract claim, negative know-how
    43 (Dynix TCP in Linux): Contract claim, negative know-how
    90 (Dynix EES in Linux): Contract claim, negative know-how
    94 (NUMA/SMP in Linux): Contract claim
    113-142 (SPIE test suite in Linux): Contract claim
    150-164 (STREAMS in Linux): Copyright claim
    183-184 (Single Unix Specification ABI header files in Linux): Copyright claim
    185 (atemalloc in Linux): Copyright claim
    186-192 (misc Dynix stuff in Linux): Contract claim
    194-203 (Monterey in AIX for Power): Copyright claim
    204 (SysV in Dynix): Copyright claim
    205-231 (Single Unix Specification material in Linux): Copyright claim
    272-278 (ELF in Linux): Copyright claim

    Total remaining items 106
    Contract items 43, copyright items 63
    Linux items 95, Dynix items 1, AIX items 10

    Source: http://www.zen77087.zen.co.uk/nug/alleg/viols.shtm l

    For informed discussion, forget Groklaw's red dress worshipping zombie horde.
    Go to the SCOX forum at Investor Village
    http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&p t=m&clear=1