Slashdot Mirror


SCO Owes Novell $2.5 Million

CrkHead writes "Groklaw has posted Judge Kimball's ruling on SCO v Novell. For those that have been following this saga, we finally get to watch the house of cards start to fall. For those new to this story, it started with SCO suing Novell and having all its motions decided in summary judgement and went to trial only on Novell's counter claims. Cheers to PJ for keeping us informed!"

174 comments

  1. Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    The judge said something like "Pay the 2.5 million dollar fee you c*** ....."

  2. Not important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The question is: Will Novell be able to collect?

    1. Re:Not important by Tesen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So what happens to those in SCO that initiated this case in the first place? If they are not able to appeal nor pay up on what has been ordered, what happens to Darl and co? Claims were made to be found baseless, do they get off free of charge or are there proceedings that can be brought against the architect's of this situation?

      Tes

    2. Re:Not important by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      No stock to cash in.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    3. Re:Not important by cc_pirate · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, let's hope that no one is ever stupid enough to hire anyone from SCO's management team again. They should instead be employed where their talents clearly lie, in human waste management (no offense to those in that profession now intended).

      Deciding that you should change your company's primary product from something that is useful (software) to something that is a leech on others (lawsuits) is moronic. Then suing not only your competitors, but your customers is even MORE moronic. Doing all of this while having no case is even more so. Realizing your stupidity halfway through but then continuing to fight in every way possible just throws stubbornness after stupidity. I only wish there was a way to put the SCO team into prison for their actions, because the malice they showed clearly deserves it...

      Let's hope this cautionary tale prevents any other company from being so imbecilic in the future.

      --

      "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur

    4. Re:Not important by garwain · · Score: 1

      I would think they are more suited for the handling of male bovine excrament...

    5. Re:Not important by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      human waste management

      This is redundant. By definition, they already manage SCO.

  3. Money comes from where? by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Aren't they already bankrupt? So this money will come from where? Damn limited liability.Is there any way they can they go after the shareholders in any meaningful way once the company folds?

    1. Re:Money comes from where? by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Funny

      technically, yes. All they need though is enough money to appeal, the payment will probably be stayed during the appeal. So, it isn't over yet by the looks of it. Rumours of SCO's demise have been greatly exaggerated to date, they won't be dead until they're staked through the corporate heart with a wooden stick or shot with some silver bullet. See your nearest vampire/zombie movie theater for more information about this procedure...

    2. Re:Money comes from where? by kazade84 · · Score: 3, Funny

      See your nearest vampire/zombie movie theater for more information about this procedure...

      Is that a movie theater run by vampires and zombies, or a theater run for vampire and zombie patrons? ;)

    3. Re:Money comes from where? by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      Hpoefully they'll auction off freeze-dried and cased in resin pieces of Darl McBride to pay the debt...

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    4. Re:Money comes from where? by jacquesm · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good call, I'll leave the ambiguity unresolved, since it is of no significance whatsoever and therefore can safely be made an issue of suspense.

      apologies to Douglas Adams :)

    5. Re:Money comes from where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Theoretically, SCO does have a couple of million left, and SCO should have to pay Novell. Since this is not a judgement of debt owed, but of conversion of Novell's money, Novell should be in front of the line and get their money before the others split up the remaining. Delaware jurisdiction makes this less likely, though.
      It may be possible to go after the company executives, but not the stockholders, who have lost their entire investment already, anyway.

    6. Re:Money comes from where? by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Oh, they've encased him in carbonite!"

      Actually, a carbonite encased Darl might not look too bad hanging on a wall in Novell's throne room . . .

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    7. Re:Money comes from where? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      I'd pay five strips of gold-pressed latinum for one of those!

    8. Re:Money comes from where? by SimonGhent · · Score: 3, Funny

      apologies to Douglas Adams :)

      Unless he's a vampire/zombie I doubt he'll be complaining.

      --
      simon
    9. Re:Money comes from where? by oldspewey · · Score: 3, Funny

      So this money will come from where? Damn limited liability.

      Actually various inside sources seem to indicate that Darl McBride will end up being sentenced to serve as Jerry Seinfeld's butler.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    10. Re:Money comes from where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "they won't be dead until they're staked through the corporate heart with a wooden stick [and] shot with some silver bullet."

      There, fixed it for ya.

    11. Re:Money comes from where? by Ziest · · Score: 1

      A stake of white oak through the heart, cut off the head, sliver cross on the chest, sprinkle with holy water and expose to direct sunlight. THAT should do the trick.

      --
      Another day closer to redwood heaven
    12. Re:Money comes from where? by u38cg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Erm, no. That's the whole point of being a public limited liability company: in exchange for capping your liability to what you invested, you have to open your company up to a certain level of scrutiny.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    13. Re:Money comes from where? by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      hehe, that'd be even odds (pun definitely not intended ;) )...

    14. Re:Money comes from where? by rkhalloran · · Score: 1

      and *THAT'S* why you scatter the ashes into running water; jeez, the sloppy training these modern vampire hunters get...

    15. Re:Money comes from where? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Hard to know if that may be a blessing or a curse.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    16. Re:Money comes from where? by nettdata · · Score: 1

      I'd buy one of those... that'd actually be a pretty funny thing to hang up in the office.

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
    17. Re:Money comes from where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darl McBride will end up being sentenced to serve as Jerry Seinfeld's butler.

      I was hoping for some other kind of 'Butt' something or other.

    18. Re:Money comes from where? by mapleneckblues · · Score: 1

      Actually Frank Costanza's Butler

    19. Re:Money comes from where? by ohmpossum · · Score: 1

      YES!

      --
      Just set me up a basic sig... 10 PRINT "Gordon Aplin" : GOTO 10
    20. Re:Money comes from where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The judgement came after the Ch. 11 filing, so it very well may not be part of that. I'd sure like to see all that come out the CEO, CFO and law firm's (that represented SCOX) pockets.
      The shareholders are screwed anyway, as you pointed out.

  4. let's hope by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Funny

    that they can't pay in SCO stock :) (or whatever moniker they go by now, pink slips or something to that effect).

  5. hmmm, by apodyopsis · · Score: 4, Informative

    So Novell get $2.5m instead of $20m, does this mean SCO may survive this?

    "Importantly, the court ruled that Novell has no right to any royalties from UnixWare or OpenServer sales by SCO, which is where the bulk of SCO's revenue is earned," SCO said in the statement. "This is also an important step forward in the capitalization and reorganization plan for SCO that will allow us to emerge from Chapter 11. We continue to disagree with the premise of this trial and believe that Novell is not owed anything, but that they have interfered with SCO's UNIX rights."

    From their statement they seem relatively upbeat on what must of been a bad day for them.

    It hints that Novell owns the SVRX code that SCO sold to MS - does this mean that MS will now sue?

    Interesting times...

    1. Re:hmmm, by jacquesm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      oh, they'll appeal for sure. FUD forever. The really nasty thing is that this ruling sends entirely the wrong message to other SCO-like scum out there. They should have been hung and quartered, instead they only got slapped around a couple of times. The players all made money (except for the parties sued of course).

    2. Re:hmmm, by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      It hints that Novell owns the SVRX code that SCO sold to MS - does this mean that MS will now sue?

      Who? Microsoft? Sue SCO? Microsoft helped to orchestrate this whole fiaSCO. Not likely, no.

    3. Re:hmmm, by Sique · · Score: 1

      But Judge Kimball just said that the burden of proof that the UnixWare or OpenServer sales are also in fact SVR4 lies with Novell, and until now Novell didn't prove so. This US$ 2.5 mio are just those royalties on sales that are undisputedly SVR4 sales. It still leaves Novell with the possibility to appeal where they actually prove that those sales aren't what SCOG claims them to be.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    4. Re:hmmm, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "It hints that Novell owns the SVRX code that SCO sold to MS - does this mean that MS will now sue?"

      It means that MS will now say they own the rights to use the SVRX code, as they made a deal with Novell.

    5. Re:hmmm, by Andy_R · · Score: 1

      I can think of 2 good reasons for Microsoft to sue, if they are convinced that SCO's usefulness as an anti-Linux FUD machine is over.

      Firstly if SCO has any asset value left, and Microsoft can secure a percentage of the pickings from the corpse then it's not just cash for them, it's also cash that won't be going to Novell & IBM.

      Secondly 'Darl tricked us into orchestrating this whole fiaSCO, and we have a judge's verdict proving it' is much better PR than 'hey shareholders, we just wasted $oodles on a doomed court case'

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    6. Re:hmmm, by Sique · · Score: 1

      It still leaves Novell with the possibility to appeal where they actually prove that those sales aren't what SCOG claims them to be.

      Those other sales, that is.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:hmmm, by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Wait there's more. The 2.5 million did not include attorney's fees or interest. I would expect Novell to ask for attorney's fees for this colossal waste of their time. Also it doesn't hint that Novell owns Unix rights; Judge Kimball already ruled that they own the rights otherwise he would not have opportunity to award money.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:hmmm, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You can't introduce new facts in an appeal. An appeal challenges incorrect procedure and re-evaluates the already-established facts of the case.

    9. Re:hmmm, by HitoGuy · · Score: 1

      An interesting assertion, although incorrect.

      Since Microsoft doesn't have any actual control of Novell, despite alarmists on this site blubbering contrariwise, they have no control over SVRX. None. Zilch. Zip. People need to quit acting like Novell is suddenly a Microsoft lackey company, when all this agreement is is essentially not to sue the tar out of each other.

      Oh wait... this is /.

      Anybody who enters in an agreement with Microsoft MUST be working for them!

      --
      I am beginning to think that maybe Darl McBride was attacked viciously by a penguin as a child.
    10. Re:hmmm, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Importantly, the court ruled that Novell has no right to any royalties from UnixWare or OpenServer sales by SCO, which is where the bulk of SCO's revenue is earned," SCO said in the statement. "This is also an important step forward in the capitalization and reorganization plan for SCO that will allow us to emerge from Chapter 11. We continue to disagree with the premise of this trial and believe that Novell is not owed anything, but that they have interfered with SCO's UNIX rights."

      I thought we were being kept up to date on this stuff on Slashdot. Why was it never reported here that the Monty Python writers were absorbed wholesale into the SCO legal team?

  6. SCO reminds me of by nawcom · · Score: 5, Funny

    that 17 year old girl on Maury Povich's horrible show that goes through 20 different men trying to find the father of her kid. Give it up already!

    1. Re:SCO reminds me of by Tragedy4u · · Score: 1

      And all 20 guys test negative "You are NOT the father!" the whole audience is fighting to not shout "SLUT!" and the mom is a ball of tears after each negative announcement realizing, "Yes indeed, I am a slut." and the children suffer. THATS comedy, THATS SCO!

    2. Re:SCO reminds me of by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Bill Gates as Darth Vader: SCO! *I* am your father!

    3. Re:SCO reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmmmmisquote!
      http://www.flixster.com/articles/luke-i-am-your-father-movie-misquotes

    4. Re:SCO reminds me of by somersault · · Score: 1

      SCO rhymes with 'no'. And the fact that it's Bill Gates as Darth Vader and not actually Darth Vader should give you an idea that this might not be a direct quote. Unless perhaps in your own language, SCO is pronounced 'Luke!'

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:SCO reminds me of by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1
      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:SCO reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      17 year old girl on Maury Povich's horrible show that goes through 20 different men trying to find the father of her kid

      And the twist is that the kid is actually a figment of her imagination - she never got pregnant.

    7. Re:SCO reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that 17 year old girl on Maury Povich's horrible show that goes through 20 different men trying to find the father of her kid. Give it up already!

      Your analogy, though penetratingly insightful, must be ignored, as it violates the below-cited section of the Slashdot Articles of Incorporation:

      "Section 1.1.1(a)-1 -- Any analogy made by a poster is deemed, prima facie, to be invalid if it does not include an automotive component."

      On this basis, we regret to inform you that your non-conforming analogy is found to be baseless and therefore of no value in the present discussion.

  7. Obligatory by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

    <Nelson>Ha-Ha!</Nelson>

  8. The end? I doubt it. by AmIAnAi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we finally get to watch the house of cards start to fall

    Sadly, I think not. More likely, SCO will just find another deck of cards and carry on playing for some time.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
    1. Re:The end? I doubt it. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sadly, I think not. More likely, SCO will just find another deck of cards and carry on playing for some time.

      Nah. They still have to face the music with IBM. Same judge, too.

    2. Re:The end? I doubt it. by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, now they're playing cards and next they're playing Guitar Hero. Selling Unix licenses sure sounds fun!

    3. Re:The end? I doubt it. by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 1

      Judge Kimball noted in this ruling that all of the evidence SCO submitted against IBM corresponds to code that SCO doesn't own. When/if the IBM case starts up again (not sure how this works with the bankruptcy) it is probably all over except for determining how much money SCO owes IBM.

    4. Re:The end? I doubt it. by simple+english+major · · Score: 1

      Hey, maybe this time they'll find a full deck to play with.

  9. This isnt any victory. by miffo.swe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole thing has been a farse from start to end. That SCO has been allowed to continue this long without any evidence to back their claims up are insane. At the very least they should have been compelled to show some tangible evidence before the whole fishing expedition begun. The real stink begun when they could go on even after the extremely deep discoveries couldnt show any evidence at all that any code whatsoever came from SCO, not even "their own" code.

    Something is just fishy about how the court system has handled all this.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
    1. Re:This isnt any victory. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not at all. IANAL, but from personal experience with involvement in such a legal dispute, I wouldn't say that discovery was anymore deep than normal. The only difference is, SCO dragged their feet and dragged their feet as much as possible. But in so much as what was asked for? Not really unusual at all. The way Judge Kimball and his magistrate handled it? Nothing unusual there, either. If anything, Kimball has been one of the most fair judges I've ever seen.

      You can't just stop a court trial for no reason. The judge can't just throw the whole thing out. There are rules that have to be followed and Kimball did, in essence, throw out the vast majority of SCO's claims.

      In fact, most of what's left is IBM's counterclaims. That's when the hammer will really fall.

    2. Re:This isnt any victory. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      SCO has used every trick it could to delay both the trial and discovery. Unfortunately they have been well within their rights. I would suspect that the judges in this case know this but are just being cautious. They don't want to give SCO any valid excuse to overturn them on appeal.

      After this lengthy ordeal, Kimball ruled that Novell owned the rights and Wells threw out most of SCO's claims against IBM for lack of evidence. There has been progress made but it's been slow. The of course, SCO further delayed proceedings by pulling the bankruptcy tactic.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  10. For the legally knowledgable among us... by starseeker · · Score: 1

    does this judgment break through the bankruptcy protections?

    --
    "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
  11. Eureka! by PakProtector · · Score: 1

    Greater proof of God's existence hath no man ever before presented!

    --

    Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
    man: no entry for woman in the manual.
    "Qua!?"

    1. Re:Eureka! by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Funny

      But if God is all good and all powerful, why would he allow Jar Jar Binks to happen?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Eureka! by PakProtector · · Score: 2, Funny

      A thing cannot exist in a vacuum. Without the darkness, how would we know the light? Without evil, there could be no good. Define a thing not by what it is, but by what it is not.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    3. Re:Eureka! by God'sDuck · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      But if God is all good and all powerful, why would he allow Jar Jar Binks to happen?

      Because it distracted Lucas from his original, far more heinous idea?

    4. Re:Eureka! by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Such as replacing all the blasters with walkie-talkies?

    5. Re:Eureka! by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      That's a great idea. So I should define Jar Jar Binks as not being a ham and cheese sandwich on rye, an AK-47, my grandfather's toupe, the sun, Richard Nixon, the Beastie Boys, freedom, invisible left-handed monsters from the 5th dimension, my childhood, a 1955 double-die error Lincoln-head one-cent piece, Rigel 7, last night's left-over pizza, ants, Theodore Roosevelt, and your psychiatrist. Brilliant.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    6. Re:Eureka! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Actually a Jar-Jar Binks 'Ham' sandwich would be very tasty right now...I couldn't think of a better fate for him than to be 'deep basted' with up to a 10% salt solution, chipped, pressed into vaguely ham-like shapes, and cooked in greasy water.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    7. Re:Eureka! by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Hey. You want platitudes at 08:38, you better be prepared for some "I'm about to go to sleep"-fogged platitudes.

      Seek ye the eye of the Hurricane.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    8. Re:Eureka! by laejoh · · Score: 0

      Been reading GÃdel, Escher, Bach again, have you?

    9. Re:Eureka! by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      No, just felt like tossing some bullshit around. Bullshit makes the flowers grow, and that's beautiful.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

  12. SCO=Crazy cat lady by damburger · · Score: 1

    Had they any sense, they would've stopped their compulsive litigation when it became apparent they were no good at it. Obviously they are just incapable of seeing how stupid they appear.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:SCO=Crazy cat lady by harry666t · · Score: 1

      If you can't see a reason for something, the reason is most probably the money. Someone else must be making more $ for every some $ from SCO. IANAL and I don't care who or how much, but it sounds like the only reasonable explanation.

  13. First SCO..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now, let's cross our fingers against the RIAA.

  14. licenses by edalytical · · Score: 5, Funny

    They will obviously pay in Linux CPU licenses. I hear they're worth $699.

    --
    Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    1. Re:licenses by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wasn't it $666?

    2. Re:licenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's roughly 42 EUR right now, right?

    3. Re:licenses by edalytical · · Score: 1

      You sir are probably correct. But the real question is who gave Darl McBride mod points? Both the GP poster and I were modded "Overrated". WTF?

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    4. Re:licenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sure, that is, if you use metric conversion and not imperial conversion. Imperial conversion is pretty easy, you take the dollar amount you have and then invade the country you want to convert your money to, subtract the head of state, add a puppet government and then multiply by the compound interest they owe for the weapon system you financed them +/- any collateral damage and/or hush money.

    5. Re:licenses by SimonGhent · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it $666?

      An Apple I.

      just my 66 cents worth.

      --
      simon
    6. Re:licenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Both the GP poster and I were modded "Overrated". WTF?

      And what sucks even more is that the down-moderation COUNTS but the up-moderation as funny doesn't, so you can be thoroughly butt-fucked over by the moderators all on one posting.

    7. Re:licenses by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Yes I knew that.

      But shouldn't that be your 66.6 cents worth?

    8. Re:licenses by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      +1 Fricking Hilarious

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    9. Re:licenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will obviously pay in Linux CPU licenses. I hear they're worth $699.

      Yeah, but that's just a right-to-use license, y'know- a "covenant not to sue" - so to speak.

    10. Re:licenses by aderuwe · · Score: 1

      Oh man. :)

  15. By Bunnies by superid · · Score: 1

    In a perfect world, someone, oh lets call them Angry Alien Productions would produce "SCO vs Everyone, in 30 seconds By Bunnies"

  16. For those new to this story?! by niceone · · Score: 5, Funny

    For those new to this story

    Welcome to slashdot! I advise you to leave now while you still can.

    1. Re: For those new to this story?! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Now you tell me.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re: For those new to this story?! by ciaran.mchale · · Score: 2, Funny

      For those new to this story

      Welcome to slashdot! I advise you to leave now while you still can.

      That's stupid advice: it didn't even have a car analogy.

    3. Re: For those new to this story?! by Captain+Spam · · Score: 1

      For those new to this story

      Welcome to slashdot! I advise you to leave now while you still can.

      That's stupid advice: it didn't even have a car analogy.

      Let's say you had a car and were just welcomed to Slashdot. You'd want to start the engine and leave now while you still can. :-)

      --
      Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    4. Re: For those new to this story?! by Spatial · · Score: 1

      If you can't find a parking spot, turn on the AC stealth camouflage and starting crashing into everyone else...

  17. lifetimes by lawpoop · · Score: 1

    I remember reading the latest SCO headlines when I was in the college computer labs back in 2003. I thought, "It's amazing that this has gone on so long... surely it will end soon." Five years later, it seems like lifetimes ago. Now, I doubt that this will ever end.

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:lifetimes by mikael · · Score: 1
      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:lifetimes by u38cg · · Score: 1
      Agree. I distinctly remember that SCO blew up about the same time I landed on /.

      I well remember those halcyon days when people seriously suggested there could be a real risk to Linux from these clowns

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    3. Re:lifetimes by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      When you get older it will feel like it was 'just yesterday...'

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  18. Remember though, there are multiple lawsuits by jonwil · · Score: 4, Informative

    The first series of lawsuits by SCO are the ones that are to answer the question of whether linux, BSD or contain code from the real UNIX code (i.e. code originally created by AT&T)
    The second set of lawsuits (mostly being fought between SCO and Novell) is to answer the question of who owns the UNIX copyrights, who has what rights to them and which of the deals done over the code are valid and which aren't as well as who owes who how much money

    1. Re:Remember though, there are multiple lawsuits by Exanon · · Score: 1

      I liked your input, but I did create a shorter, simpler version:

      The first series of lawsuits is to determine who owes who how much money.
      The second series of lawsuits is to answer who owns who how much money.

      Since companies suing companies is only about money, one can simplify the reasons like above.

  19. Darl McBride gets a new job... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... and Ron Hovsepian gets his lawn mowed twice a week.

  20. Nothing says says cheers to PJ like...... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nothing says says cheers to PJ like donating to help her keep the site running! Left side, your choice, Paypal or Amazon. Just sayin.....

    1. Re:Nothing says says cheers to PJ like...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing says says cheers to PJ like donating to help her keep the site running! Left side, your choice, Paypal or Amazon. Just sayin.....

      That's all fine and well. However, personally I prefer to donate to sites or projects that provide an accounting for my funds. For example, if a very popular project or site has already pulled in far more money than it needs, my money would be better spent on a less popular but worthy project rather than just further enriching the owner of the popular one. But without an accounting I have no way of telling, and the donation pages of PJ's site show none. Just sayin...

    2. Re:Nothing says says cheers to PJ like...... by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Since SCO and Novell both had real lawyers who thought they were on the winning side of these arguments, I don't think it's fair to judge PJ too harshly for only being partly right with limited information.

    3. Re:Nothing says says cheers to PJ like...... by Khaed · · Score: 1

      Wait, just what did SCO win? If I remember right, they lost the case determining copyright, which was pretty much the linchpin of the entire slew of lawsuits.

    4. Re:Nothing says says cheers to PJ like...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They lost SCO vs Novell, but won most of Novell vs SCO. They keep $17.5m and SCO Source was ruled legal, albeit shadey.

      In Novell vs SCO, SCO only lost on the part about extending SUN's SVRX licence to remove the confidentiality agreement.

  21. Not per se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    What the judgment does is to set the amount of money SCO owes to Novell. That information goes into the bankruptcy.

    An important detail is that the money SCO owes Novell was never SCO's. SCO was handling the money as an agent. It was always Novell's money. Judge Kimball ruled that SCO had breached its fiduciary duty and had unjustly enriched itself. If I understand correctly, that means Novell gets its money and then the other creditors get to fight over what's left.

    The other thing that many have pointed out is that Novell will probably be awarded their lawyer fees. That amount will far eclipse the money Kimball has ruled on so far.

    1. Re:Not per se by TropicalCoder · · Score: 1

      More specifically, the judge found SCO guilty of Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion, and Unjust Enrichment.

      Section 8.1 of the 2003 Sun Agreement lifts the confidentiality provisions with respect to 30 versions of SVRX technology granted to Sun under its 1994 Buy-out Agreement with Novell, specifically stating that it "amends and restates" Sun's 1994 SVRX buy-out agreement with Novell. SCO had no authority to enter such an agreement.

      Section B of Amendment No. 2 to the APA provides that before entering into any potential transaction with an SVRX licensee which "concerns" a buy-out of any such licensee's royalty obligations, SCO must obtain Novell's consent. This provision requires either party who even "become[s] aware of any such potential transaction" to immediately notify the other in writing. The provision further requires that any negotiations with the licensee be attended by both parties, and that both parties consent to any such transaction. There are no exceptions to this provision. SCO had an obligation to keep Novell apprised of the facts concerning SVRX Licenses and failed to do so. Novell repeatedly demanded audits and accounting of the 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements.

      The Court declared that SCO was without authority to enter into the 2003 Sun Agreement under Amendment 2, Section B, of the APA. The Court concluded that SCO breached its fiduciary duties to Novell by failing to notify Novell and account for and remit the revenue it received from Sun as a result of modifying the confidentiality provisions of Sun's SVRX buy-out agreement with Novell. The Court concluded that SCO was unjustly enriched by retaining the revenues Sun agreed to pay to relax and amend the confidentiality provisions of the 1994 Agreement and Novell is entitled to restitution. The Court concluded that SCO wrongfully exercised dominion Novell's personal property, and that SCO's failure to pass through to Novell the SVRX Royalties due under the Sun Agreement was a wrongful act inconsistent with Novell's rights. The Court concludes that Novell has established SCO's conversion of the revenues due under the 2003 Sun Agreement.

      This looks pretty serious to me. Could criminal charges be brought to bare on the the officers responsible for this?

    2. Re:Not per se by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What it amounts to is a fancy way to describe theft. SCO stole money from Novell by not reporting it and turning it over. I would *love* to see SCO's management face civil and/or legal penalties directly for this but IANAL.

    3. Re:Not per se by pegdhcp · · Score: 1

      It has been some time, since I sit in an English classroom, however I still remember some parts of the language. Doesn't "unjustly enriched itself" mean that they steal money from Novell???

    4. Re:Not per se by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Yup, and so does "conversion". From the law.com legal dictionary:

      n. a civil wrong (tort) in which one converts another's property to his/her own use, which is a fancy way of saying "steals."

  22. Prepping for Fat Lady.... by Chas · · Score: 1

    Tell her to start warming up. We're almost ready, but it's going to take a bit longer.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  23. Somewhat Pythonesque, I Feel... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

    I like to think of the SCO/Novell debacle like this classic Monty Python sketch - with Michael Palin being SCO & John Cleese being Novell...

    Fish Slapping Dance

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    1. Re:Somewhat Pythonesque, I Feel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Python all right.

      Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

      Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

      SCO == parrot
      IP rights == plumage

  24. Novell *does* own the code... by rkhalloran · · Score: 4, Informative

    The ruling that sent the SCOundrels into bankruptcy court last year confirmed that the deal Caldera inherited from Santa Cruz Operation did *NOT* transfer copyrights from Novell, just gave rights to develop new code from it (i.e. Unixware) and act as Novell's collection agent on existing licenses. The current management (using the term *VERY* loosely), seeing their x86-UNIX business sinking, sued their former development partner, IBM, assuming they'd get a quick payoff to shut up and go away. Big surprise when IBM unleashed their lawyers right back at them. The present fiaSCO has ensued, only getting better when they tried to sue Novell for actually claiming the copyrights SCO was trying to use, which led to today's ruling.

    SCOX DELENDA EST!!

    1. Re:Novell *does* own the code... by Spatial · · Score: 1

      I feel I should SCOld you for making those terrible puns...

  25. Priorities on disbursment.... by tinkerghost · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There are a bunch of things that happen now:
    1. SCO has to restate earnings for the Quarter they claimed the SUN contract.
    2. Executives have to give back bonuses adjusted for the restated earnings.
    3. SCO has to fork over the 2.5M + Interest from it's reserves - outside the protection of the bankruptcy court.
    4. If Novell wins 'Legal Fees', then Novell petitions the court to add themselves as a creditor for that amount - estimates have ranged in the 20M+ range for the cost of this litigation.

    This is independent of any legal action that the SEC or the local AG may decide to take.

    1. Re:Priorities on disbursment.... by AlecC · · Score: 1

      Under UK law (and I realise that this is a US case), the claim for legal fees could be pursued back to SCO's backers. There is a concept of "constructive support". If A gives B a pile of money to legally harass C, and the court finds that B's claim is substantially without value (which seems to be the case here) and awards costs against B to C, then C can chase A for those costs if B cannot pay. There is an obvious reason for this: you should not be able use the law as weapon against others with a fall-guy in the middle to protect you from the consequences. It seems to me that US law should have some equivalent provision, which would allow Novell to go against SCO's financiers for those legal costs.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    2. Re:Priorities on disbursment.... by DDX_2002 · · Score: 1

      But under english law, are financiers of the company itself really involved in champerty or maintenance? Isn't there a big difference between funding a third party's lawsuit and actually buying an interest in the third party in question even if the effect is to give the third party the funds to pursue thte lawsuit?

      --
      MHO. YMMV. Any resemblance between this post and real persons, or reality in general, was accidental.
    3. Re:Priorities on disbursment.... by AlecC · · Score: 1

      As I (and IANAL) understand it, no. Either someone who loans/gives money to the litigant, or someone who obtains a significant (but not necessarily controlling) interest in the litigant, if the effect is as described, can be regarded as a party to the case and thus civilly liable for the legal costs. Of course, there is a burden of proof: the backers could claim that they were buying into SCO's normal operations and not, intentionally, into the lawsuit. The burden of proof of this would be on the complainant wanting to reclaim costs. But I think that in this case, it would be reasonable to state that the lawsuit was SCO's principal asset, and anybody funding SCO either by debt or equity was making themselves a party to the lawsuit. (Of course, someone such as Microsoft, who funded them by making unusual purchases, would not be liable: you can hardly be expected to be liable for your supplier's lawsuits).

      Of course, it would take the lawyers to decide, and I certainly claim no knowledge at all of US law. The situation came up when the company I worked for won a case against the another, whose owners had tried to isolate themselves from loss by sucking that company dry. The costs were ruled to be due from the owners: despite being a separate company, they had supported the subsidiary through the suit and were therefore liable for the costs. But this is anecdotal, from talking to the managers who talked to the lawyers.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  26. only 2.5 Meeeeeeellion dollars??????? by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is like out of Austin Power. Was the judge cryogentically frozen for the last 30 years?

    2.5 million dollars sounds awfully low.

    I think the judge may have been saysing well the rights belong to Novell and to make this contractually clear I'm going to charge you a deminimus fine.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  27. licensing fees by Mr.Ned · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe SCO can just give them 3,576 licenses for the Linux kernel.

  28. So SCO stays alive and OpenSolaris dies? by HighOrbit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    SCO got off easy... this time. But the next shoe to drop will be if Novell sues Sun over OpenSolaris and Sun invokes the indemnity clause in its agreement with SCO. Then SCO will be on the hook.

    The current judgment of $2.5M is practically nominal in the big picture. A large investor could cover that and SCO would escape a death sentence. SCO, or some version of it, is likely to survive for another day.

    This is likely bad news for OpenSolaris and Sun. Novell now has Sun over a barrel. Sun was able to open source Solaris because it thought it bought a license from SCO to have free-and-clear rights to the SysV parts in Solaris. According to the decision, in 1994 Novell & Sun agreed for a 20-year non-disclosure on release of UNIX source code. That runs out in 2014. SUN then amended this with SCO to remove the non-disclosure. The last sentence on page 20 of the decisions says, "Absent the removal of the 1994 Sun Agreement's Confidentiality restrictions, Sun would not have been licensed to publically release the OpenSolaris source code". And on page 36k "In the 2003 Sun Agreement, SCO renegotiated a contract and expanded Sun's rights to technology still owned by Novell". Later on the same page "The court thus concludes and declares that SCO was without authority to enter into the 2003 Sun Agreement....".

    Novell now has a HUGE stick to beat over Sun's head. OpenSolaris has basically been declared illegal.

    If I remember correctly, Novell has declared that they are done suing over UNIX. So Sun might be off the hook. However, if Novell is not so gracious and sues Sun over OpenSolaris. Sun will loose and will seek for SCO to indemnify it. SCO won't have the money. Then SCO will finally die.

    1. Re:So SCO stays alive and OpenSolaris dies? by tonytraductor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess I'd better go DL opensolaris before it comes down, then...

    2. Re:So SCO stays alive and OpenSolaris dies? by greg1104 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The PR damage to Novell's open-source customers from "Novell sues Sun for releasing OpenSolaris" would be substantial--more harmful to their reputation than the potential money they might collect here. Having gone through the PR wringer after their deal with Microsoft, I would doubt Novell wants to look like the bad guy here again. SCO will fall apart quite nicely without needing to do that.

    3. Re:So SCO stays alive and OpenSolaris dies? by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      "OpenSolaris has basically been declared illegal. "

      I suspect SUN and Novell will reach an amicable agreement. I think SUN may turn around and sue SCO to recoup the money SUN spent on licenses SCO wasn't entitled to sell. Fraud, barratry, and other charges may be possible.

    4. Re:So SCO stays alive and OpenSolaris dies? by ThatsLoseNotLoose · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Sun will loose and will seek for SCO to indemnify it."

      That's LOSE not LOOSE!

  29. The house of cards fell by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

    For those that have been following this saga, we finally get to watch the house of cards start to fall.

    Start? I thought the house of cards fell in early 2003. That's when the lawsuit dropped, and at that same moment most of the employees of SCO and about 75% of the world's clueless tech pundits mistook conjecture and cognitive dissonance for business wisdom and impending legal victory. The rest of us started laughing at this charade almost immediately. But then, we read the facts.

  30. So what does Laura DiDio say? by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 2, Informative

    What I really want to know at this point is what the oh-so-knowledgeable and unbiased expert analyst Laura DiDio has to say about this. After all, she had seen code snippets that made her come away thinking SCO really had a strong case. Later she said that "you'd have to be really crazy to try and sue IBM if you didn't have something."
    Since she has also claimed "these people" (people involved with Linux) are "living in an alternative reality," I'm curious about Ms. DiDio's views on reality today.

    Of course, I have to admit that Ms. DiDio, renowned IT expert with no IT or computer science training, does know something about "living in an alternative reality" (Ms. DiDio's part comes at the top of the 2nd page).

    --
    "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
    1. Re:So what does Laura DiDio say? by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

      Yeah, at least Fake Steve himself, Dan Lyons, admitted that he was conned. I don't recall reading a similar mea culpa from DiDo.

      I really appreciated Lyons' article. I still think it was stupid to buy into SCO's claims in the first place: there was a little matter of an absence of evidence, and the company's excuses for not releasing clear proof of code pilfering were sadly flawed (The Linux people will just destroy the evidence by removing it!). But Lyons' admission of error made it possible for me to read Fake Steve again after he was outed, and enjoy it. Namaste, Forbes Man.

  31. I get my information via Al Petrofsky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Cheers to PJ for keeping us informed!"

    IMHO he is less biased. I can form my own opinion, I do not need one provided for me.

  32. Appeal Bond by OmniGeek · · Score: 2, Informative

    I believe they are required to deposit an appeal bond in the amount of the judgment before they are allowed to appeal. They may still be able to manage that, but it's most likely going to be a matter for the bankruptcy judge...

    --

    "My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
  33. The damage calculation is atrocios by l2718 · · Score: 1
    Judge Kimball probably gets the law right (IANAL) but his idea for calculating damages is strange. He says Sun paid SCO for 4 things: a "release", as well as a license to UnixWare, some drivers, and Unix (SVRX). He values the release at $1.5M since MS paid that amount for a similar release. He then values each of the three licenses at one third of the remaining payment each. At no point does he justify this methods of calculation, which are a major win for SCO:
    1. When contracts are negotiated separately, contract clauses are not commodity items: identically phrased legal releases can have different values to different entities. It is completely unclear to me why the "releases" should be worth the same to Sun and Microsoft. After all, the two companies are in different lines of business; their products have very different Unix component to them; and in any case they negotiated their "releases" separately. How much of the total $9M Sun paid SCO was for this "release" specifically depends on the details of the negotiations between Sun and SCO, not Microsoft and SCO.
    2. It is preposterous to argue that Sun would pay equally for the rights to UnixWare, to the drivers, and to Unix. After all, their main goal was to open-source Solaris — a Unix derivative. Sun have no products based on UnixWare, and probably already had their own drivers written for Solaris x86. Clearly what they really wanted was the ability to open-source their derivative of Unix, and that's what they paid for; SCO throwing in a few add-ons (probably to make this appear to be a UnixWare license so they wouldn't have to give the money to Novell) shouldn't change the allocation of funds. This is a common fallacy: "we know that this sum was divided among three bins; we don't know exactly how it was divided, so it must have been divided equally". If we had no information whatsoever, then this would be the case, but here there is clear information that this wasn't the case. And when the judge himself says that doubts must be resolved against SCO, to me this means that he should have presumed that all the money that Sun paid was for the Unix license.

    As an aside, I'm surprised that Novell didn't ask Sun to testify in court about what they thought they paid for. I guess this may be due to potential conflict-of-interest (since Sun open-sourced Solaris based on a license SCO didn't have the authority to give them, they are now in trouble with Novell over this).

  34. In the immortal words of Nelson by atlep · · Score: 1

    HA-HA!

  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. SCO owes a lot of folks an apology . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    ... a lot of minion, dweeb kernel programmers who worked on AIX and Linux were forced to give depositions on the matter.

    Even if you knew the whole thing was bullshit ... given the 'mericun legal system track record for microwaved microwaved cats and hot McDonald's coffee ... who the hell knows what could have happened ...

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  37. "C*********s" would be more like it... by mkcmkc · · Score: 2, Funny

    (nod to George Carlin)

    --
    "Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
  38. What happened to the Bad News? by aunt+edna · · Score: 1

    Earlier this year, there was news that someone was putting $100m into SCO: see http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2209808/sco-back-business Quote: "(SNCP) and unnamed Middle Eastern investors. The money will take the company out of bankruptcy protection and turn it into a private concern. "We saw a tremendous investment opportunity in SCO and its vast range of products and services, including many innovations ready, or soon to be ready, to be released into the marketplace," said Stephen Norris, managing partner at SNCP." Here's a pretty good summary if you haven't followed the story (but it doesn't mention the Bad News): http://www.heise-online.co.uk/features/SCO-vs-Linux-mixed-reactions-to-Novell-Unix-copyright-verdict--/110819

    1. Re:What happened to the Bad News? by rkhalloran · · Score: 1

      The bankruptcy trustee, along with Novell and some of the creditors, objected, and SCOX folded, especially when the terms of the deal showed that $95MM of that amount was in fact a loan (which they'd pay back how?). SCOX said they were going back to renegotiate the deal, and nothing more has been heard about it. Groklaw link with questions about SNCP, and the report of the hearing.

      SCOX DELENDA EST!!

    2. Re:What happened to the Bad News? by aunt+edna · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info. Even SCO themselves could be looking forward to their end now!

  39. Microsoft's role by mollog · · Score: 1

    Does anybody remember Microsoft's role in this? Perhaps they should pony up the $2.5M

    --
    Best regards.
    1. Re:Microsoft's role by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft did not HAVE a role in this outside of the imagination of the average 13 year old slashdotter.

  40. In a way that's a good thing by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Novell should be in front of the line and get their money before the others split up the remaining. Delaware jurisdiction makes this less likely, though.

    With any luck that should mean the books will stay in the red. With a debt hanging over the company that should chase off any future "investors". The money should simply bounce right out of SCO's account and go straight to Novell.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. There's a difference? by rkhalloran · · Score: 1

    There's your skulking, bloodsucking animated carcass, and then there's vampires.

    These bottom-feeders should have been sent to their corporate grave years ago, but keep coming back for One More Try. Hopefully this latest ruling really is the stake-in-the-heart they've had coming.

    SCOX DELENDA EST!!

    1. Re:There's a difference? by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      Personally I'm all for deep sixing one or two of their management just to set an example. And post it to youtube of course, that'll serve as an object lesson to anybody that thought they 'got away with it'.

      Poor sharks though...

  43. I wonder what were they thinking by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, it still makes me wonder what were they thinking.

    "seeing their x86-UNIX business sinking, sued their former development partner, IBM, assuming they'd get a quick payoff to shut up and go away. Big surprise when IBM unleashed their lawyers right back at them." is _weird_ plan, considering that IBM actually prided itself on not giving in to such claims. IBM's lawyers have been at various times compared to the Nazgul, or it was claimed that IBM could darken the skies with them. And it's shown before that it's not affraid to use it. In fact, that it makes a point to use them to maximum devastation effect, to discourage other parasites from trying to extort them. It's not even a matter of conjecture or correlation, it's IBM's policy.

    So hoping that IBM would just fold down is... surrealistic. It's a bit like me taking my scrawny nerd ass to the heavyweight boxing champion and going, "hey, pretty boy, hand over the wallet or I'm punching you in the nose." And hanging around to insist on it, instead of scramming while he's laughing his ass off.

    And if it were just Darl, I'd probably reach for good ol' Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice, that which is adequately explained by stupidity." But his legal council also seemed to have no problem with it, and at least two different investor groups paid good money to fund this farce. Even if it were just PHBs who got wooed by being shown "#include " lines as infringing code in Linux, they have legal departs they can go and ask first. It just doesn't add up.

    Were those contracts _that_ ambiguously written, that _nobody_ knew who really owns Unix until a judge scratched his/her head and decided it? I doubt it.

    So I'm wondering what was the _real_ game there. The whole legal farce was probably just means to the real end, or maybe just a diversion. So what was it? Who made a buck out of it, and/or who paid for this expensive distraction?

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  44. New Image Link by ufpdom · · Score: 1

    Does /. have a Icon for beating a dead horse because right now the SCO horse has been beaten to death to the point even the flies that are around the carcus are also beating the dead horse too.

    --
    There's no Freedom like UFP-dom
    1. Re:New Image Link by peektwice · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of poking the dead horse with a sharp stick. Beating it is so 1990's.

      --
      Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
  45. You can still buy Linux licenses from SCO by ameboy · · Score: 0

    The rulings did not discourage them from offering Linux licenses at $699 a pop. Go to their website, click Legal, click Software Licensing Information on the right, click SCO IP Protection Program on the right, and you will end up here: http://sco.com/scosource/license_program.html

  46. The bankruptcy court wanted to know what they owe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Aren't they already bankrupt? So this money will come from where? Damn limited liability.Is there any way they can they go after the shareholders in any meaningful way once the company folds?

    The bankruptcy court ordered the case to continue to decide how much SCO owes. This debt will then get sorted out with all the others in bankruptcy court.

    But you're right--they're doing everything they can to squander their remaining cash before they pay anyone. They probably won't have a dime left by the end of this, though that hasn't stopped them from trying to split the company in two: one with all the assets, the other with all the debts, so that they can continue their crazy lawsuits against IBM.

  47. appealing? by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 3, Informative

    It seemed that the judge made it quite clear that he was tilting the ruling in SCO's favor. He explained precisely why he was legally compelled to determine the dollar amount in a way that was favorable to Novell (agency, burden of proof, blah blah blah). But then he turned around and pulled out a dollar value that was generous to SCO. It was practically a roadmap to Novell showing how they could get millions more if they appealed (not that they are likely to receive a penny anyway). I read it that he was sending a message to SCO that if they appealed they would be most likely to lose significantly more money.

  48. Re:Money comes from where? Statutes? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    If there is no statute of limitations on murder, and possibly none on attempted murder, then SCO and microsoft should be found guilty of attempted corporate and non-corporate business murder. They colluded and attempted to not only run out of business but attempted to destroy/murder off Open Source.

    So, microsoft and its board and its then-sitting execs should pony up.

    Hopefully, Open Source will live long and continue to be disruptive, drag down hegemonic corporations, and free up a lot of people, institutions, companies, and educational facilities needing to save money. But, it'll ONLY get better for Open Source if Open Source gets professional image cleaning on user interfaces and purges lame-ass apps/product names.

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  49. Free Will ;) by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Well, as the usual excuse goes: free will. Humans are allowed to decide for themselves what they want to do, even something evil or bloody stupid, so Lucas too can decide to unflict Jar Jar upon millions of innocents ;)

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  50. opensolaris illegal? by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 1
    There is one big thing that you are missing.

    Novell unambiguously owns the copyright to SVRX Unix as a whole. They just as clearly do not own copyright to each line of code individually. Some undetermined amount of it is covered under copyrights that expired or were not registered properly or whatever. If Novell wanted to beat Sun up over opening solaris, they would have to start doing intense historical investigations of every single line of code to determine whether is covered under a valid copyright or whether it had entered the public domain or was not copyrightable expression in the first place.

    Neither Novell or Sun would win anything in this sort of warfare. They might argue terms, like more money or even not allowing Sun to update opensolaris, but an extended lawsuit would not be in anyone's interests.

    1. Re:opensolaris illegal? by makomk · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I think this is a contractual issue, not a copyright one. As far as I can tell, Sun entered into some kind of contract requiring them to keep the SVRX code they got as part of the contract confidential.

    2. Re:opensolaris illegal? by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 1

      You are right that there are two issues: One is revealing the SVRX code in opensolaris (confidentiality) and the other is whether third parties can continue to distribute the code (copyright). Probably Sun's contract is like IBM's contract, which requires that things remain confidential as long as they aren't made public by someone else. The issue still arises of whether anything is still secret in any sense. The last Solaris - SVRX connection appears to be 30 years ago! If that is right, Novell would have a major task to prove that any particular piece of code came from the old SVR4.0 codebase and was still secret.

  51. Novell's purpose by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 1
    The main thing Novell wanted was a judgment saying that they owned the copyrights. They didn't want any cloud over their Linux offerings. That was decided long ago.

    Other than that, Novell didn't want this to drag on. Should they have spent months of time and millions of dollars on lawyers dragging Sun into this? At most they would have been awarded a few million more dollars, which they probably will never get anyway.

    Remember that Novell dropped a bunch of claims they could have won easily just to make the trial simpler and shorter. I am not a judge (duh), but I would say the ruling was engineered to make sure that SCO would be sure to lose more money if they appeal. Stopping SCO from appealing is worth more than a few million to Novell.

  52. To spread FUD on MS' behalf against Linux... by rkhalloran · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given the money funneled in from Baystar on the recommendations of someone at MS, given the barely-disguised FUD money paid by Sun, who at the time were in one of their Linux-is-TEH-3V1L! phases, the idea of claiming Linux was encumbered and Not Suitable for Business was pretty obvious. Recall this was also the time of the attempt to show Linux was a ripoff of Minix by the opinion-for-hire deTocqueville Institute, whose funding also came in large part from MS. The money they threw SCOX to make Linux look bad was chump change. This provided them material to point their potential defectors-to-Linux at with arms-length deniability.

    What they apparently didn't plan on was the strength of the grassroots response from the developer community to undo the PR spin. If anything, the result has been to strongly validate the Linux ecosystem as a safe bet.

    SCOX DELENDA EST!!

    1. Re:To spread FUD on MS' behalf against Linux... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Well, I've heard those points before, and they were very compelling and well made too. I've also heard the point that Darl and the gang were selling their shares like crazy, each time the stock spiked. And a couple of others.

      So I'm more like sorta curious, which of them was it, after all? Or what were the details of that mix? Did it really start as an abuse by Darl of the corporate shield, to siphon what was left of Caldera's worth, and MS and Sun just recognized an oportunity and jumped in? Or was it started by MS, and Darl then started siphoning those funds into his own pocket? Or what?

      But I guess we'll never know the sordid story in that kind of details.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  53. vi editor might also have a problem by HighOrbit · · Score: 1

    SCOsource also open sourced "Ancient Unix". This supposedly unencumbered the orginal classic vi, which is widely used (according to the oracle of true that is wikipedia). Now it might be encumbered again. Time to check the CVS repositories and see which version you are shipping.

    Fourtunately, there are lots of libre free alternates (like nvi and vim).

  54. Zombie maybe? by rkhalloran · · Score: 1

    This case should have been shutdown five years ago. SCOX has *NEVER* shown any infringing code, has been shown *NOT* to own the copyrights they're claiming were infringed, has dragged out all of the countersuits, and then ran to the BK court when the rulings all started falling against them. MS and Sun have kept the corpse propped up and twitching in an attempt to keep folks from jumping to Linux on commodity x86 hardware and detracting from their market.

    At this point the flies have joined in beating the dead horse for wasting their time along with everyone else's.

    SCOX(Q) DELENDA EST!!

  55. Laura DiDio? What about Rob Enderle? by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Noted flackalyst Rob Enderle needs to weigh in on this ruling too. He's often quoted and always wrong.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  56. Welcome to English by gumpish · · Score: 1

    they seem relatively upbeat on what must of been a bad day

    http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldof.html

  57. but SYSV is now public by Xtifr · · Score: 1

    Whether or not Sun was legally allowed to release the code they did in the format they did, the fact is that they did release it (and were acting in good faith, which will count for a lot even if this does go to court). Now that it's been released, no matter the circumstances, it means that other SYSV licensees are no longer required to keep SYSV code confidential.

    From the standard SYSV licensing agreement, section 7.06(a):

    "if information relating to a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement at any time becomes available without restriction to the general public by acts not attributable to LICENSEE or its employees, LICENSEE'S obligations [to keep the code confidential] shall not apply to such information after such time."

    So even if Sun ends up in legal hot water, the genie's out of the bottle at this point, and pretty much any SYSV licensee (e.g. IBM) should be able to make as much of the code public as they want at this point.

  58. Hey SCO... by renegadesx · · Score: 1

    Don't forget to pay your $2,547,817 licensing fee you cock smoking teabaggers!

    By the way has anyone seen SCO$699FeeTroll? It did become funny

    --
    Make SELinux enforcing again!
  59. Why did stock value double? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like good news, but what I don't get is why SCO's stock value doubled today. It closed at 0.29, up from 0.15 yesterday. WTF?

  60. Suck out the water and lard and suck in epoxy! by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    You're referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastination
    Of which a display can be viewed here http://www.marcsteinmetz.com/pages/plastination/eplastination01.html
    Warning the 2nd link is disturbing.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  61. Yeah, good luck collecting by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    I don't think SCO has $2.5 million. I don't even think SCO has $2.50.

  62. You are assuming all was done in good faith. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    As many people have pointed out, the main instigators of this nonsense seem to have done quite well by cashing shares at the right time...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  63. Uhm. No. We still remember the MS deal. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    If Novell wants to keep selling their wares, they better behave.

    We still remember the MS deal, it is not forgotten, but people are giving Novell the benefit of the doubt.

    But then there is Mono, MS's patent trojan horse into the heart of Linux.

    And prominent Novell employees (you know who) defending MS pushed pseudo "standards".

    If Novell even tries to touch Solaris they would have very few friends in places that matter.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.