Slashdot Mirror


SCO v. Novell Goes to Trial Today In Utah

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The day many have been waiting for has finally arrived, the day SCO gets torn apart in court by Novell. Each side gets 10 hours, and Novell managed to get them to agree to a stipulation (PDF) that should make things go a lot faster. With any luck, we will soon have an official ruling that SCO does not own much of anything and then we just have to wait for SCO to exhaust its appeals. This would've been over a long time ago, but SCO filed for bankruptcy on the eve of trial, stopping the clock. One can only wonder what trick they will try to pull this time."

134 comments

  1. Great Day by ozamosi · · Score: 2

    SCO dies, Microsoft's revenue is down, and even the weather is nice.

    1. Re:Great Day by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 2, Informative

      SCO ain't dead yet. They've proven time and again that no tactic is too outrageous to let this thing drag on as long as they possibly can. If anybody can find a way to postpone the inevitable even further it's the SCOundrels.

    2. Re:Great Day by cheros · · Score: 1

      If this trend continues you may even get laid this evening (ducks). :-)

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    3. Re:Great Day by tgd · · Score: 5, Funny

      If this trend continues you may even get laid this evening (ducks). :-) I think in most of the country duck fornication is illegal.
    4. Re:Great Day by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Hey, judge, wait a minute, I haven't finished popping the popcorn!

      Somebody give that fat lady the sheet music, ok?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    5. Re:Great Day by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think in most of the country duck fornication is illegal.

      Well, to be fair, we are talking about Utah here...

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    6. Re:Great Day by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not sure it is illegal, it is fowl for sure tho...

    7. Re:Great Day by Remloc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hahahaha!! You quack me up!

    8. Re:Great Day by swillden · · Score: 1

      I think in most of the country duck fornication is illegal. Well, to be fair, we are talking about Utah here...

      One of the most morally-conservative states in the nation -- duck fornication is definitely illegal.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Great Day by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're never going to get any chicks with that sense of humor.

    10. Re:Great Day by ari_j · · Score: 3, Funny

      Unless it's more than one duck.

    11. Re:Great Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And have you ever tried to find a minister to perform a duck marriage? You say you want to make an honest duck of her and they look at you like you're crazy.

    12. Re:Great Day by kclittle · · Score: 1

      There is snot-infused Coke all over my keyboard...

      --
      Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    13. Re:Great Day by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      And have you ever tried to find a minister to perform a duck marriage? You say you want to make an honest duck of her and they look at you like you're crazy.

      Weird guy: I want to marry this duck!
      Minister: We don't marry ducks here!

      Weird guy: I'll make a $10,000.00 donation to the church.
      Minister: Why didn't you tell me the duck was a "born again" christian?

    14. Re:Great Day by Uncle+Focker · · Score: 1

      Exactly. But having multiple wives under the age of 15 is A-OKAY!

    15. Re:Great Day by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      But not if its a Flock of Seagulls.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    16. Re:Great Day by Slicebo · · Score: 1

      Time to get DOWN!

    17. Re:Great Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly Pedofile.. only eBaum's like baby chickens.

    18. Re:Great Day by daniorerio · · Score: 1

      It's raining here, you insensitive clod!

    19. Re:Great Day by swillden · · Score: 1

      Exactly. But having multiple wives under the age of 15 is A-OKAY!

      You're confusing Utah with Texas.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    20. Re:Great Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no need to egg him about it, though.

    21. Re:Great Day by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

      Weren't the polygamists from Arizona before they moved to Texas!? How did the discussion turn to this when the trial is in Utah? So confused...

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    22. Re:Great Day by Walter+Wart · · Score: 1

      Who says there's no pr0n on Slashdot?

      --
      The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
    23. Re:Great Day by dosius · · Score: 1

      Well, they WERE from a Mormon sect...

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    24. Re:Great Day by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Also illegal in Utah. :-)

    25. Re:Great Day by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      sounds expensive...

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    26. Re:Great Day by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      And if TV is anything to go off of, all the ducks have to be totally fugly.

    27. Re:Great Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is snot-infused Coke all over my keyboard...

      You're doing it wrong. Inhale. Don't exhale.

    28. Re:Great Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy, this thread is migrating south quickly.

    29. Re:Great Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Utah... where men are men, and farm animals are nervous... very, very nervous.

    30. Re:Great Day by blueturffan · · Score: 1

      Well, they WERE from a Mormon sect...
      No. They were from a rogue group that diverged from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints well over 100 years ago. The FLDS are no more "Mormon" than a Protestant is a Catholic.

      Of course you already knew that, but felt the need to spread misinformation anyway.

    31. Re:Great Day by dunng808 · · Score: 1

      I think in most of the country duck fornication is illegal.


      What a fowl mind you have!
      --

      Gary Dunn
      Open Slate Project

    32. Re:Great Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They call themselves Mormon. They believe in the Book of Mormon. Their religion is pretty close to what LDS was just a few generations ago. They are a strain of Mormonism.

      I'm sorry they embarrass you but that's how it is.

      All religions are equally false anyway.

    33. Re:Great Day by shanen · · Score: 1

      You're splitting hairs--or do you have trouble understanding the meaning of "were from"? Much better if you could say you punted them out.

      Then again, I quite understand why you Mormons have so much to be defensive about. You've already forgotten about the Mormon polygamist they arrested a few months ago, right? I think the need-for-defensiveness item that personally offends me most is that it is only a couple of decades since the belated revelation that blacks were allowed to be 'real Christians' of the Mormon flavor.

      However, I confess that I tend to regard the racist churches as the worst of the worst.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  2. Move over Chewbacca... her comes the OS X defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    OS X is Unix, but Linux is not Unix! That does not make any sense!

  3. Why do people continue to give them money? by Ngarrang · · Score: 1

    Why? After having seen one decision after another AGAINST SCO, how anything resembling investment money still flowing to SCO? Are these investors so over-powered with greed that they are failing to use common sense? Why? Why? Why? Somebody with no common sense needs to explain this to me.

    --
    Bearded Dragon
    1. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by conureman · · Score: 1

      "Somebody with no common sense needs to explain this to me."
      That would be me, but I can't help you either.
      Fees will be generated.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    2. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe it's like those folks who fall for the Nigerian schemes. Once you're in you can either admit that you've been scammed and have lost thousands of dollars or you can ignore all of the blaring warning signs, press on, and construct an elaborate fantasy world to live in where friendly Nigerian e-mailers will be shipping you your pile of cash any day now. The investors, instead of cutting their losses and moving on, are just hoping against hope that some magical evidence fairy will visit SCO overnight, leave proof positive that Linux really is owned by SCO, and all of their sunk money wasn't wasted.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ahem, what money? All the trades this year seem to be $50,000 and they're going both directions.

      Maybe it is something as simple as assets being sold off, generating income for the defunct company? I don't know anything about trading in bankrupt companies, but this was the first idea that I thought of. The other possibility that crossed my mind is shady stock market tricks being played.

    4. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by qortra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      how anything resembling investment money still flowing If it doesn't look like investment money, then perhaps it isn't. There are a lot of non-investment related reasons that one might want to give money to SCO. Pro-lawyer, pro-Microsoft, pro-time-wasting, and pro-evil groups are probably all interested in seeing SCO continue its lawsuits. I'm not necessarily saying that this is the case here, but it couldn't hurt to check out Stephen Norris Capital Partners: maybe they are infusing SCO with money on behalf of some [evil] third party.
    5. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by Ngarrang · · Score: 1

      Okay, so it is like Scientology. Got it.

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    6. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by johannesg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your confusion is easily explained by stepping back and inspecting your premise. That premise is that people pour money into SCO with the expectation of profit through sales and licensing. In that context there is no sense in pouring more money into them.

      Assuming that those investors are not total nitwits, we must therefore look for another premise. I propose this one: "people pour money into SCO with the expectation of profit through delay of Linux take up". You see, that makes sense: SCO casts a shadow of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt over all things Linux (and by extension, over all things Open Source). That shadow is highly beneficial to some parties, since Linux represents a serious threat to their business model.

    7. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by falsified · · Score: 1

      Maybe. But I still think something fishy is going on here. Investors (good and bad ones) lose money on what turn out to be bad investments all the time - they don't sulk like the amateurs who fall for spam schemes. And really, at the initial onset I could see it making sense to buy some SCO stock. Most major corporations pay money to make lawsuits like this just go away. Even if there's only a 10% shot at it, the rise on stock afterwards may be worth it. Now it's just weird. I hate bashing Microsoft just for the sake of doing it, but are they, or is someone else, trying to work something behind the scenes?

      They forgot about IBM's legal history and how they particularly enjoy crushing people who mess with them.

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    8. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      After having seen one decision after another AGAINST SCO, how anything resembling investment money still flowing to SCO

      What a lot of people don't understand is the amount of wealth the wealthy now have. Seriously, it is sickening how rich the rich have become.

      $10 million, $100 million, is nothing to some of the people with a vested interest in eliminating Linux.

      There is no ROI from SCO's software, but the on-going court battle drains money from Novell, BM, and still creates fear.

      While no one seriously thinks that SCO has a valid case, Microsoft can point to the on-going very expensive litigation as an example of what will happen if a company dares go against Microsoft and support Linux.

      Microsoft's billions of dollars are an evil corruptive force, every penny spent on a Microsoft product funds the sort of crap we've seen over and over and over again with the ISO, SCO, and I guess the OLPC, and so on.

    9. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by gmack · · Score: 1

      Because quite often hedge fund managers don't care whether each individual investment will make money. If I loan money to SCO I can tell my investors the funds is now grown by the inflated value on paper that SCO agreed to and the bigger numbers brings more investors and hopefully by the time SCO tanks I'll have made the money back elsewhere.

      Short sighted? Yep. Evil conspiracy? Not so much.

    10. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by archeopterix · · Score: 3, Funny

      Pro-lawyer, pro-Microsoft, pro-time-wasting, and pro-evil groups
      Somebody please call the department of redundancy department!
    11. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had it explained to me by a VC.
      It's not an individual's sole investment when they put money into the SCO. Instead they invest a little. They can afford to invest a small amount because the potential return is so high.

      If I invest $1M and spread it out over 100's of companies, I can afford to drop $1k on SCO because the potential return is 100:1 or greater. With enough investors dropping these small speculation investments in, the SCO can continue to get funding.

    12. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by phoenixwade · · Score: 1

      Ahem, what money? All the trades this year seem to be $50,000 and they're going both directions.

      Maybe it is something as simple as assets being sold off, generating income for the defunct company? I don't know anything about trading in bankrupt companies, but this was the first idea that I thought of. The other possibility that crossed my mind is shady stock market tricks being played. Maybe it's a slightly more sophisticated pump-and-dump?

      If I buy at .10 and sell at .13 (which someone did a few days ago) I make 30% in three hours.... Not a bad return, and someone has been doing that every since the first of the year....

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    13. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      Yeah but the volumes are tiiiiiiny and you just as easily risk buying at .10 and selling at .08, losing 20% in 3 hours. You can play the penny stock game, but I wouldn't bet more than a few thousand at a time. You'd probably have similar returns playing red or black streaks at the roulette tables in Vegas.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    14. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "Somebody please call the department of redundancy department!"

      I've always wondered why no geek has made this into a recursive joke .....

      Department of Redundancy Department's Redundancy Division, Department of Redundancy Department.

      Okay, that might be stretching it too far. Never Mind

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    15. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it couldn't hurt to check out Stephen Norris Capital Partners:

      Do you mean:

      • check out Stephen Norris & Company Capital Partners, L.P., or
      • check out Stephen Norris Capital Partners, LLC (SNCP), or
      • check out GMG Capital Partners, or
      • check out Staisil Norris Partners, or
      • check out Stephen L. Norris Foundation, or
      • check out 76 & Madison, or
      • check out American Institutional Partners, or
      • check out ICGStocklending, or
      ... profit for someone?
    16. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by ittybad · · Score: 1

      As a former investment advisor, there are many reasons why someone would invest in a failing company or a company that is near-death. The chief reason is to have a loss; it favorably affects your tax situation and can offset gains.

      --
      No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.
    17. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by doodlebumm · · Score: 1

      I've NEVER understood that. Why throw money down the toilet just to reduce the amount of taxes you pay on your income? If I have $100 that I invest for a loss, and loose it all, isn't that worse that paying $90 in taxes on the $100 and keeping $10?

    18. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Except without the DC-8s and volcanos. I'm pretty sure Xenu is still involved with it somehow though.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    19. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by KZigurs · · Score: 1

      Hah! Sometimes it works out that losing 100 means you save 130 in taxes, net profit - 30.
      sometimes you want to avoid a spotlight by overperforming.
      sometimes there are specific targets that need to be achieved (think EOFY spending to prevent budget cuts)
      sometimes there are brackets you need to stay within to qualify for something (i.e. in UK a lot of people are preferring to keep their salaries under max-tax bracket since tax credits they qualify for in that way more than pays back)
      sometimes by losing in one entity allows you to shift some profits from other entity leveling both entities tax duties at lower overall rate ...there are a lot of reasons.

    20. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a bad return, and someone has been doing that every since the first of the year....


      Not sure about institutional investors, but aren't there trading rules preventing you from buying back stock that you've sold within 30 days, specifically to prevent this sort of thing?
    21. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by SterlingSylver · · Score: 1

      But who could possibly
      Imagine such a strange world where someone infuses
      Large amounts of
      Liquidity into an otherwise immoral company without expectation of return?

      Give me
      A nickle for every
      Time that we
      Enter this kind of discussion related to
      SCO!

    22. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by falsified · · Score: 1

      That's true, but why keep coming back? Surely nobody out there has realistic expectations of gain here.

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    23. Re:Why do people continue to give them money? by gmack · · Score: 1

      Because there is a finite number of people who need money and are capable of paying it back. As that pool is used up they increasingly need to look for more risky ventures to inflate the value of their portfolio.

      It's the same thing with bank loans. Right now I can't walk into the bank without them trying to sell me on some way they can loan me money. But for the most part people with good credit ratings have borrowed as much as they intend to. The result is that the banks loaned money to people with more risky ratings.

      It all works great until something pulls the rug a little and the whole system collapses on itself. Pretty much the exact thing your seeing with the sub prime mortgage crisis.

      I imagine that the sub prime crisis will cause SCO more than a bit of trouble refinancing since the pool of money that people are willing to loan out is a lot smaller at the moment.

  4. Spectacular error by Oxy+the+moron · · Score: 4, Funny

    I doubt I have ever seen the random /. quote ever be more appropriate:
    "If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error."

    Yeah, that about sums it up.

    --

    Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.

    1. Re:Spectacular error by ashmon · · Score: 1

      Heh. My random quote came up thusly:

      Would you people stop playing these stupid games?!?!?!!!!

  5. Sorry. by AltGrendel · · Score: 1

    but George H. W. Bush is on a speaking engagement today. Try back tomorrow.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  6. Re:Dont forget ... by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

    Is there a "-1, Get a new troll-bot" mod?

    --
    "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
  7. McBride and Yarro to do the perp walk? by the+saltydog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's what *I'm* waiting for.

    They called me a criminal for using Linux.

    I'm calling them criminals for running an extortion/stock pump and dump/fraud scheme.

    They were wrong. I'm not. When will the SEC finally put these all hat, no cattle rustlers behind bars?

    Oh, and by the way, if you had the UNIX copyrights, why did you insist on asking Novell for them - repeatedly?

    Bunch of lying scumbag bastard pricks - every single supporter of this fiaSCO. (Yes, that includes you, too, Rudy de Haas. Fucking asshat.)

    1. Re:McBride and Yarro to do the perp walk? by ajs · · Score: 1

      Just remember one key phrase: litigation risk. This is the risk that you run, given that all the facts are on your side, that you'll lose in court for no predictable reason. Most lawyers like to ballpark this number around 10-20%.

    2. Re:McBride and Yarro to do the perp walk? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Yes, that includes you, too, Rudy de Haas
      For those who may not know, Rudy De Haas is the real name of "Paul Murphy", who has written quite a few heavily-anti-Linux biased articles regarding this whole fiaSCO. Since he has written some pro-Linux articles as well (but never about the SCO cases), one has to seriously wonder whether or not Mr. de Haas is a paid schill.

  8. SCO lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Summon the Kracken!

  9. And there was much rejoicing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yaaaay.

  10. What trick, you ask? by R2.0 · · Score: 1

    Digging up Johnny Cochran might do it.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  11. Fuck them both by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Fuck SCO for being SCO. Fuck Novell for their bullshit Microsoft patent deals.

    1. Re:Fuck them both by jimmypw · · Score: 1

      you tell them big man! Seriously though SCO can fuck off we all know unix is owned by the starbucks corporation.

    2. Re:Fuck them both by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 1

      That'd be great actually; they could give away promotional Unix licenses with the purchase of a large cup of coffee.

    3. Re:Fuck them both by Digi-John · · Score: 1

      Good God man, the prices for Unix licenses would be EXTORTIONATE! I have to pay for a large Starbucks coffee before I can get a Unix license? Jesus, I'll be broke soon.

      --
      Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
  12. The SCO Story Was Much More Fun... by heavygravity · · Score: 2

    The SCO story was much more fun back when we still didn't know how it would end up.

    --
    Cuban Music MP3's - cuband.com
    1. Re:The SCO Story Was Much More Fun... by iainl · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sorry about that. I should have used the spoiler tags.

      I won't mention the whole Microsoft/Yahoo thing, then.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  13. Come on already! by certain+death · · Score: 0

    This is like having the scene from Cliff Hanger protracted out for 5 hours on screen! Why doesn't SCO just realize there is no hope for rescue and let go already?!? Half of the battle is knowing when you have been beat, walking away and licking your wounds to come back another day...or not.

    --
    "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
  14. Re:Move over Chewbacca... her comes the OS X defen by iainl · · Score: 1

    BSD is Unix.

    Linux is not BSD.

    Q.E.D.

    --
    "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  15. What trick they will pull this time... by tekiegreg · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Ladies and Gentleman of the supposed court, I know my clients lawsuit has been rendered ashes by you fine people; but you see here this is Chewbacca..."

    --
    ...in bed
    1. Re:What trick they will pull this time... by phoenixwade · · Score: 1

      "Ladies and Gentleman of the supposed court, I know my clients lawsuit has been rendered ashes by you fine people; but you see here this is Chewbacca..." "Damn, Johnny Cochran is dead. Now what will we do?"
      -- Darl McBride
      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    2. Re:What trick they will pull this time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I can loan you....
      the Ghost of Johnny Cochran!"
      -- Carlos Mencia

  16. Re:Dont forget ... TROJAN TROLL by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    GOD DAMN IT! Look, mods, when someone posts a link to a fucking virus "offtopic" is NOT sufficiant. The object or moderation isn't just to make the comment invisible and take away karma. It's to let the rest of us know WHY it's a bad post.

    Jesus, as bad as the comment was, the moderation was just as bad.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  17. This was all part of the plan from the beginning.. by mmell · · Score: 1
    This gives SCO executives a day to get the computers and office furniture out of the building before the bank shows up to reposess everything! On top of which, even while they abscond with possibly hundreds of dollars worth of inventory, they get to claim a multi-million dollar tax loss on their income taxes this year.

    Yes, they're bastards. Anybody still convinced that the executroids at SCO actually lost anything - and don't say "their self-respect", because obviously . . .

  18. Re:Move over Chewbacca... her comes the OS X defen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought OS X was only half Unix (an unholy chimera consisting of BSD parts fused to parts of Mach). Although suppose that it does use BSD basic commands such as ls and friends, so I suppose it could be argued that it's derived from Unix.

  19. SCO should be dead by now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCO is still there? Didn't the judge pull out a revolver at the last hearing and shoot their office holders and lawyers all dead? I'm pretty sure he did. I can even remember everyone clapping.

  20. Quack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even between consenting adult ducks?

  21. Don't forget this is Utah we're talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...and despite the fact that this is going on in a federal court, the fact that it's happening in Utah means that the side that wins will be the one that has the greatest potential for circulating the largest amount of dollars within the state's economy as a result of the trial's outcome. And today, that party would be Novell.

  22. Stipulation is normal by DustyShadow · · Score: 1

    Stipulations happen in every trial. Nothing out of the ordinary there. And if you read it, all it concerns is procedural aspects of the trial.

  23. Wish I Could Have Shorted SCO by Stringer+Bell · · Score: 1

    Back when I first heard that SCO was taking on IBM claiming IP and patent infringement and what-have-you, I knew for certain they'd just cut their own throat (assuming the didn't change tack at some point - and they haven't).

    I would have loved to short their stock then, but alas I was in grad school and didn't have the cash available. Too bad. Based on a rough guess of when that was, and todays quote of $0.18 per share for SCOX, I'd have made about ten bucks a share.

    1. Re:Wish I Could Have Shorted SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont feel too bad. Even if you had the cash it was almost impossible to find a broker who had shares to lend as
      every geek in the country tried to short it. Lots of people couldn't get a short position at the time. Lots that did
      had it closed prematurely when the owner the of the stock sold it and the short had to return the shares.

    2. Re:Wish I Could Have Shorted SCO by Stringer+Bell · · Score: 1

      Good points. That actually makes me feel a lot better, thanks!

  24. SCO is the Defendent? by qazwart · · Score: 2, Informative

    Interesting is in this trial SCO is the defendant and Novell is the claimant. I thought it was SCO who is suing everyone.

    It looks like via the stipulation and the way the trial is organized that SCO expects to lose. It appears that Novell simply wants to assert its claim to UnixWare and SCO is ready to close up shop. That's why the stipulation and the short trial and the fact that SCO isn't going to call up witnesses.

    1. Re:SCO is the Defendent? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Thats because SCO have no claims left and are only there to answer Novells counterclaims.

    2. Re:SCO is the Defendent? by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      All of SCO's claims were eliminated pre-trial via findings of fact and stuff. Therefore, all this trial consists of is Novell's counter-claims.

    3. Re:SCO is the Defendent? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Interesting is in this trial SCO is the defendant and Novell is the claimant. I thought it was SCO who is suing everyone.
      Afaict it is quite normal to countersue when you get sued. Especially when the organisation suing you is a company that likes to lie about you in public.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    4. Re:SCO is the Defendent? by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      It's not so much that SCO had a choice here.

      You're right, SCO was suing everyone. But In SCO v Novell, ALL of SCOs claims were dismissed by summary judgement. All that's left for trial are Novells counterclaims. Thus, SCO = defendant.

      Wiser heads than mine claim to be puzzled by the lack of witnesses on SCO's side (to say "it was really all about UNIXWARE"), so I hesitate to speculate on SCO's plans.

  25. We still don't know exactly how it will end up by roystgnr · · Score: 1

    And no, "corporate shell gets disassembled by cheated creditors while the criminals in charge of it get away" is not a happy ending. That's an improvement over the ridiculous threats they were making to scare off Linux interest and lure in Microsoft "investment" money, but a real happy ending for the SCO scammers would involve more pitchforks and fire.

  26. OSX != BSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OSX is a Mach kernel with a BSD *personality*.

  27. The Judge already ruled by IronClad · · Score: 4, Informative

    The summary is a little misleading. The judge *already* ruled that SCO Group does not own much of anything, including the UNIX SYSV copyrights, in a summary judgment motion last year.

    The biggest issue remaining to be resolved by this trial is how much of the "license" monies given to SCO Group by Microsoft and SUN were for that which SCO Group had no right to license (SYSV), and how much was for SCO Group's product. Given the non-dizzying speed at which SCO's products have been improved and maintained, Novell argues that the vast majority of those millions was due to Novell.

    In the mean time it has been entertaining to read the SCO Group's arguments for why they should keep the money to which they have no right, or at least how they should not be required to turn the swag over to Novell. As if our opinion of them could have previously been lower.

    1. Re:The Judge already ruled by mellonhead · · Score: 1

      Mod this up, this is exactly what happened (August 2007).

    2. Re:The Judge already ruled by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The biggest issue remaining to be resolved by this trial is how much of the "license" monies given to SCO Group by Microsoft and SUN were for that which SCO Group had no right to license (SYSV), and how much was for SCO Group's product.

      Actually, SCO has the right to license Unix on behalf of Novell; however, they have to give 100% of all revenue to Novell as per their agreement. Novell remits 5% to SCO for their trouble. SCO does not have the right to create new types of licenses (which it appeared to do here) with Unix.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:The Judge already ruled by njcoder · · Score: 1

      he biggest issue remaining to be resolved by this trial is how much of the "license" monies given to SCO Group by Microsoft and SUN were for that which SCO Group had no right to license (SYSV), and how much was for SCO Group's product. Given the non-dizzying speed at which SCO's products have been improved and maintained, Novell argues that the vast majority of those millions was due to Novell.


      Novell made an agreement where SCO would be the licensing agent for SYSV Unix. For their services, SCO would get 5% of the licensing fees. Novell is claiming that SCO should have sent 100% of the fees to Novell and Novell would send back 5%. SCO did not send any of the money to Novell according to Novell's claim.


      What would be interesting to see if after all this, will SCO sue Novell over the initial licensing deal because Novell didn't give SCO the necessary authority to properly defend licensing claims?

    4. Re:The Judge already ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCO doesn't have the right to do "buyout" deals, e.g. the buyout deal SUN (claimed they) needed so they could open-source Solaris.

    5. Re:The Judge already ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The biggest issue remaining to be resolved by this trial
      > is how much of the "license" monies

      No, there is no money left anyway. The biggest issue is that SCO did not have the right to enter into the licences without Novell's agreement. If the court rules that Novell had to give agreement, as the APA requires, then SCOSource can never be reserrected by any 'successor', such as York.

    6. Re:The Judge already ruled by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      or their services, SCO would get 5% of the licensing fees. Novell is claiming that SCO should have sent 100% of the fees to Novell and Novell would send back 5%.

      And if you've ever read the APA, you'd see that this is exactly what is required by SCO - to remit 1000% of the payments to Novell, and then Novell would return 5% as a fee for SCO handling the account.

      Note also that SCO has refused to comply with the section of the APA requiring that SCO allow audits of their Unix accounts, to determine just exactly how much money they should be remitting to Novell, and how much Novell should then return to SCO.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:The Judge already ruled by njcoder · · Score: 1

      And if you've ever read the APA, you'd see that this is exactly what is required by SCO - to remit 1000% of the payments to Novell, and then Novell would return 5% as a fee for SCO handling the account. Uhm... that's exactly what I said. (I'm assuming you meant 100% not 1000%.) The person I was replying to said "SCO Group had no right to license (SYSV)" which is obviously not the case.
    8. Re:The Judge already ruled by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      My bad. I read more into "Novell claims" than you intended, obviously.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  28. Post SCO? by spungo · · Score: 1

    Anyone got any ideas what's gonna happen when SCO are nothing but a bad smell? Are we gonna see other unices opened up? I'd like to have Irix on laptop... just 'cos I can (er... if I can, that is).

  29. Re:Move over Chewbacca... her comes the OS X defen by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, OS X 10.5/x86 is UNIX, according to the Open Group, who owns the UNIX trademark. ;)

  30. Kimball Already Ruled That SCO Doesn't Own SysV by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

    > With any luck, we will soon have an official ruling that SCO does not own much of
    > anything...

    Kimball ruled that SCO does not own the SysV copyrights last year. This trial is about how much of Novell's money SCO pocketed when they sold SysV licenses to Sun and Microsoft without Novell's permission. The case will then go back to the bankruptcy court where Judge Gross will decide what to do about it. Note that this trial is about how much of Novell's money SCO took, not whether or not they did so. The latter has already been decided.

    If Kimball awards more than a small fraction of the $37M maximum (likely) it is hard to see how SCO can avoid Ch. 7 liquidation.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Kimball Already Ruled That SCO Doesn't Own SysV by kilgortrout · · Score: 1

      You are exactly right. I'd just like to add that the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay thus allowing the Novell case to go forward for the sole purpose of liquidating Novell's claim. All other issues regarding Novell's claim have been reserved by the bankruptcy court. In particular, the issue of whether SCO held the licensing revenue in trust for Novell is going to be solely determined by the bankruptcy court. If Novell loses the trust argument, they'll just be another general unsecured creditor and will likely receive only pennies on the dollar for their claim against SCO.

    2. Re:Kimball Already Ruled That SCO Doesn't Own SysV by shentino · · Score: 1

      Great, since the bankruptcy has a 10 percent fee incentive to fatten the bankruptcy estate, the court will probably be biased in favor of disallowing a constructive trust.

  31. No One Is Giving Them Money by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No one has invested in them in years. They have floated several "rescue" schemes since they filed fo Ch. 11 bankruptcy last year but all have fallen through at the last minute.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  32. So, Prediction time by phoenixwade · · Score: 1

    Does SCO ask to convert to Chapter 7 next Monday or Not?

    My guess is that they will, because converting to Chapter 7 following the ruling against them shows "good faith" and keeps Darl and Co. out of jail.

    --
    A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
  33. Re:Slashd0t Sux0rz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fail, because you think "Preview" is for losers.

  34. Re:Move over Chewbacca... her comes the OS X defen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But *BSD isn't? I think all that means is Apple was happy to pay for the certification whilst *BSD wasn't

  35. Stop whining. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you perhaps believe that a virus is ON topic?

    1. Re:Stop whining. by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Do you not get the FUCKING POINT? Actually the post was on-topic and would have probably been moderated up (or "funny") had the malware not been linked.

      So next time, Mr AC, leave out the malware. Your name WAS on that troll!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  36. Johnny Cochran? by psvm · · Score: 1

    Digging up Johnny Cochran might do it. What, zombie lawyers? There's a scary thought for you.
    "Pursuant to Article iii, subsection 9a, we hereby order a complete seizure of all cranial assets to be delivered forthwith"

    1. Re:Johnny Cochran? by nobaloney · · Score: 1

      Johnny Cochran has already been dug up: http://www.cochranfirm.com/

  37. they'll pull a Nacchio.. claim spies and lies. by swschrad · · Score: 1

    "oh, gee, your Honor, but we can't possibly tell you how important this is, because the details are covered in national security directives. you'll just have to trust us."

    at which point the judge should pull out a gun and shoot 'em.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  38. Live-blogging? by Nick+Barnes · · Score: 1

    Is anyone live-blogging the trial?

  39. Ownership confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The biggest issue remaining to be resolved by this trial is how much of the "license" monies given to SCO Group

    Right, these are what SCO doesn't own. Sorry for the confusion :)

    - I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

  40. Re:Move over Chewbacca... her comes the OS X defen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe that OS X Server has been declared Unix not leopard itself. (could be 10.5 server I'm not certain)

  41. Some people need to declare a LOSS on their by crovira · · Score: 1

    investments for income tax purposes BUT they're not allowed to just set fire to some money (that's illegal.)

    So they "invest" it in sure-fire money losers.

    Derle is like Bush in that respect. He can take any investor onto a road mined with IEDs.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  42. Re:Move over Chewbacca... her comes the OS X defen by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1
    From Apple's website (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html)

    Leopard is an Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product, conforming to the SUSv3 and POSIX 1003.1 specifications for the C API, Shell Utilities, and Threads. That is not at all limited to the Server edition.
  43. Re:This was all part of the plan from the beginnin by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

    Nothing gets repossessed except with the approval of the bankruptcy court. Once SCO v. Novell is settled, it is likely that the bankruptcy court will place Novell ahead of the banks in line for what little assets remain.

  44. Re:Move over Chewbacca... her comes the OS X defen by lightversusdark · · Score: 1

    Is 10.5/PPC not?

    --
    "There is nothing nice about Steve Jobs and nothing evil about Bill Gates." - Chuck Peddle
  45. Re:Move over Chewbacca... her comes the OS X defen by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm

    I would say no, there's no corresponding UNIX 03 certification for 10.5 on PPC.

  46. Re:Move over Chewbacca... her comes the OS X defen by lightversusdark · · Score: 1

    Very interesting!
    Thank you so much.

    --
    "There is nothing nice about Steve Jobs and nothing evil about Bill Gates." - Chuck Peddle
  47. Re: by clint999 · · Score: 0

    SCO dies, Microsoft's revenue is down, and even the weather is nice.

  48. Did SCO ever say what was stolen? by paratiritis · · Score: 1
    I have never seen anything about it, only years ago that they were "refusing to disclose details" about that.

    Also I see in the link that Novell is the plaintiff, and SCO the defendant. Does that mean that SCO dropped its claims? And what are the chances that SCO is fined out of existence?