Slashdot Mirror
Stay Lifted, Novell Vs. SCO Can Go Forward
A number of readers suggest we check out Groklaw, where PJ is reporting that a bankruptcy judge has granted Novell's request to lift the stay so that its trial against SCO can proceed in Utah. The judge concluded that Judge Kimball is the best one to decide how much SCO owes Novell, and that SCO cannot make any "reorganization" plans — including any "fire sale" of assets — until it knows this figure.
I remember a quote where one of SCO's own lawyers said they were under a "death sentence" in Utah, so that's very appropriate. In fact, I was about to submit this exact story under the title "SCO's Stay of Execution Lifted" but I was obviously too late.
Now it will get REALLY interesting when we see how Darl's comments about the Utah judge come back to haunt him when they all have to go back there...
SCO has been a dead man walking for a long time now. It's just that we're finally about to watch their cremation. Anyone remember to bring marshmallows?
And that's exactly where I think this has indeed been a fiasco. SCO never, not for one moment, in court or out of it, actually justified its claims. There's something desparately wrong with a legal system that takes four years to work its way through absolutely nothing at all. It's repugnant that discovery can take this long. The minimum threshhold for any litigation ought to be showing some evidence for your claims immediately after filing, not using discovery and countless motions and countermotions to keep it going for years and years.
People call all of this a victory. It's not, it's a goddamned shame that crooks like McBride can use the court system like this. I'm not saying you should have all the evidence for your claims, but SCO did claim to have all these lines of code, which they never actually produced, and so far as I'm concerned day one before the judge should have gone something like this:
SCO Lawyers: We have all these lines of code demonstrating that our intellectual property was stolen.
Judge: Please provide the code.
SCO Lawyers: Well, we don't actually have it, so to speak. You know, it's code, and it's a lot of pages, and we want IBM to release their code so we can compare it to our code to show what we claim.
IBM Lawyers: Your honor, here's the complete Linux source code, as well as a complete revision history. We downloaded it off the Net just like SCO can.
Judge: So, provide the infringing code.
SCO Lawyers: Well, we can't at this moment...
Judge: Case dismissed.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
About the huge amounts of money part... I honestly wonder what the *real* economic impact of SCO's saga of scare tactics has been to the open source community at large, specifically employees and customers of leading Linux vendors. How many purchases of Linux-based products were shelved or cancelled based on SCO's claims of infringement?
:(
How many businesses were on the verge of trying out a Linux distro at their office, but became became convinced that open source software was some kind of "poison?" How many might still think that way due to a lack of education or a residual feeling of unease? On the plus side, the old saying is "there's no such thing as bad advertising", right?
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
On the plus side, the old saying is "there's no such thing as bad advertising", right?
In this case, the connections to Redmond are there for anyone to see. The advertising comes from the desperation efforts of MS continuing from all angles, regardless of how it reflects on them. We have the SCO funding, the "Get the FUD" campaign, the efforts to subvert the standards organizations, the patent suits from Acacia, licensing "deals" with Linux vendors, and now the patent suit in Nigeria against OLPC.
Those are the things that scream loudly that MS believes in FOSS enough that everybody ought to take a look at it.
To the best of my knowledge, Telstra (the enormous half govt telco here in Australia) were about to start the process of choosing between Linux and Windows for umpteen-thousand desktops right when the SCO saga hit.
Needless to say, Telstra are still predominantly Windows based, and many Telstra employees blame the SCO scaremongering.
"And then I visited Wikipedia
Microsoft wouldn't touch SCO with a pole, regardless of length. First of all, it's SCO's creditor committee -- soon to be headed by Novell -- which gets to determine what happens with SCO's assets. Secondly, SCO doesn't have any assets worth buying. Kimball's decision made it perfectly clear that SCO's rights could not be used the way SCO was attempting to use them. Finally, Microsoft tries to leave the impression that any FUD is not coming from them, preferring to fund a cat's paw like SCO to do their dirty work. It would be far more likely for Microsoft to fund a patent troll to attempt to pull off an "emergency" purchase of assets from the bankruptcy.
Oh, wait . . .
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Oddly enough, they are looking for .NET programmers here. Also note that their development is in New Delhi. Perhaps the Indians don't realize the type of company they are working for?
Novell will end up taking the remains of SCO in payment, including getting Unix back (the rights to sell it, since they already own the IP). They may even end up open-sourcing Unix just to forever lay such claims to rest. After all, Unix now has no real value, as recent (lack of) sales indicate.
Since this is in Bankruptcy Court, the Bankruptcy Judge will determine if SCO has enough cause to justify spending someone else's (Novell's) money (which, when put in a Trust pending appeals, would kill SCO by itself) to spend on lawyers for an appeal. Since by this time SCO will have no operating capital, and no future, the Judge will say no, hand the remaining assets to Novell and tell everyone else, "Sorry, there's nothing left for you!"
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
WTF are you talking about? "Judge Judy" was very much a "real" judge up until her retirement in 1996, albeit a small claims judge. She got her television show thanks to a large amount of press about her outspoken nature in real courtrooms. While the "court" in her show is merely an agreed-upon arbitration session, she is demonstrating much of the same behavior that she became famous for when in public service.
More to the point, Judith is not the only judge known for rather outlandish behavior. Judge Samuel B. Kent is also well-known in the legal community for his humorous and razor-sharp wit, especially in his written orders. One of his more famous incidents was when he dismissed a case for being "asinine tripe".
Last but not least, you do not "disbar" a judge to remove him/her from office. Judges are either elected or appointed officials. Disbarring means they can't practice as a lawyer anymore. (Annoying, but not a huge problem for someone not appointed by the Bar.) Judges must be impeached or dismissed from office like most other government officials. Disbarment usually follows impeachment or dismissal to prevent the Judge from continuing to practicing law after being dismissed.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade