Slashdot Mirror
Final Judgment — SCO Loses, Owes $3,506,526
Xenographic writes "SCO has finally lost to Novell, now that Judge Kimball has entered final judgment against SCO. Of course, this is SCO we're talking about. There's still the litigation in bankruptcy court, which allowed this case to resume so that they could figure out just how much SCO owes, which is $3,506,526, if I calculated the interest properly, $625,486.90 of which will go into a constructive trust. And then there's the possibility that SCO could seek to have the judgment overturned in the appeals courts, or even the Supreme Court when that fails. Of course, they need money to do that and they don't really have much of that any more. Remember how Enderle, O'Gara and company told us that SCO was sure to win? I wonder how many people have emailed them to say, 'I told you so.'"
This ain't it.
Novell is done (modulo appeals and the arbitration -- see below).
Still pending
* Bankruptcy
* SuSE UnitedLinux arbitration (stayed pending resolution of BK)
* IBM's counterclaims (stayed pending resolution of BK)
* RedHat (stayed pending IBM)
* AutoZone (technically still alive, don't believe anyone's ever going to finish it. Stayed pending IBM, I believe).
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Been living under a rock for the last year?
Novell was found to own the copyrights to Unix, not SCO
Effectively, case dismissed.
Many times when companies die (for legal reasons) the Management just creates a new company.
You mean like when SCO setup a company in the far-east and tried to transfer their assets to it?
Or like when SCO proposed splitting its company in two, with one part taking all the assets, and the other part taking the legal claims?
So they now owe Novell $3.5 million or so. A look at their June '08 financials ( http://finance.google.com/finance?hl=en&fkt=917&fsdt=2133&q=SCOX&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=we ) makes it look like SCO is currently worth $8.96 million. Of course, then they have $5.85 million in current liabilities. Add in this $3.5 million and SCO's wallet runs dry (and then some). Of course, this doesn't take into account liabilities that they don't need to pay back immediately. Things like that will come up in any bankruptcy hearing.
The end result is that the amount of the award is basically meaningless. Novell may not see that entire figure (if anything) due to SCO going bankrupt. It's the ruling itself that is important. All of SCO's claims were knocked down. Novell's claims were either upheld, made moot by further developments, or voluntarily dismissed. SCO got beat down hard and I don't think they'll be getting back up anytime soon.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
No. Read the actual licenses. They don't specify what was licensed. All they sell is SCO IP, which is never defined in the license.
They took out many of the copyright claims and went with trade secrets in the last Amended Complaint. Of the 290 specific allegations in the Final Disclosure, the court dismissed all but 80 or so of them. Of these, the Novell decision may set this back completely for even if IBM were guilty of what SCO accused them of doing, only Novell has the right to pursue legal action. IBM's counterclaims, however, have yet to be addressed. With Court acknowledging Novell's copyright ownership this only helps IBM as IBM can show (if we didn't already know) that SCO doesn't play by the rules and sued IBM when they didn't have adequate legal standing.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
This is close to being it...they're guilty of conversion. That transforms them into a priority creditor with a 3.5 million dollar claim to things before anything else.
I doubt SCOX could mount an appeal effort. If they could, it's going to have to be something where they had some tidbit of the law overlooked where they didn't get a fair trial, because there's nothing else for them to actually appeal otherwise.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
A constructive trust is a trust (a legal duty to a beneficiary by the person in possession of something) that has been created by a court. There are many types of trust, but they all essentially mean the same: There is something (in trust) that you never had the authority over in the first place because it belonged to someone else (the beneficiary).
As an example, in many places a constructive trust in bankruptcy exists over employee wages such that employees have a superpriority over other creditors (i.e. employees get all their money before creditors get any), but further a the thing held in trust (wages) that was previously given away (to pay creditors) can actually be taken back from subsequent possessors ("restitution"). In other words, anyone given anything by an insolvent (that state of not being able to pay bills that typically precedes a declaration of bankruptcy) company may have to give it up so that employees can get their wages held in trust. Employment law varies wildly- many jurisdictions don't enact a trust- but it's a decent example, easy to relate to.
In the SCO case the trust is over funds, meaning the court has said (by declaring the construction of a trust) that the beneficiary (Novell) of the trust can "follow the money" from SCO to whomever may now hold it because SCO never had a right to the funds in the first place. That may include wages to directors, bank transfers, rent, etc. Further, if SCO is unable to pay the money, and it cannot be traced, anyone that encouraged SCO to spend money that SCO didn't have a right to may have committed a wrong (intentionally, having been complicit or willfully blind) related to the breach of trust.
These are just common law principles for the edification of anyone interested, and the law may very well be quite different in Utah (or most anywhere else). But it's also an oculus into why a constructive may be relevant- and it's not well explained in the article.
There remain a few dedicated and extraordinarily talented kernel engineers embedded within the parasitized husk that now goes by the name "SCO". Among them are people who started work at Bell Labs decades ago, and have thereafter worked continuously on the same evolving UNIX code base through numerous renamings and acquisitions. They have been ill-served by their management for years, and while some ignoramuses will consider them tainted by their association with SCO, they have my greatest respect.
I now return you to the usual hate-fest already in progress.
http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=sco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group
http://www.groklaw.net/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=JfK&q=SCO+lawsuit&btnG=Search
I'm pretty sure the contracts would have been vague enough that there are no refunds. Something along the lines of "we indemnify you against all IP issues that may or may not exist".
In 2002, SCO had a new CEO, Darl McBride. SCO wasn't doing so well; their primary product was a version of Unix that ran on Intel machines, but they were competing with Linux for that same market. And Linux is free, and the new hotness in Unix-style operating systems.
Somehow Darl learned that SCO owned Unix, i.e. the copyrights to the source. And he was led to believe that the code in Unix had leaked into Linux. So he came up with a new money making plan:
This wouldn't work very well for most customers, since SCO's market was mostly small businesses.
But there was a big fish he could go after: IBM. You see, IBM was a licensee of the AT&T Unix that SCO owned. IBM derived its own versions of Unix from it. And as part of that, IBM enhanced its own Unix with new technologies. And IBM also contributed those same new technologies, which IBM had developed on its own, to Linux.
So Darl's theory was that SCO not only owned the rights to its own Unix, and to the AT&T Unix that it had acquired, but also to every version of Unix that was derived from them by a licensee. So, he could sue IBM for leaking SCO's property to Linux, and he could sue any company that used Linux (unless they paid SCO an extortion fee not to).
The SCO Group sued IBM for $1 billion dollars!
(A common theory is that SCO expected IBM to just buy SCO to make the problem go away, thus enabling Darl and the other SCO executives to cash in their SCOX shares at a profit.)
We'll skip all the counter lawsuits, ridiculous claims by SCO, Microsoft's part in it, the suits by SCO against other customers, and get to the best part:
Remember that it all started because the SCO Group's predecessor (The Santa Cruz Operation) had purchased the AT&T Unix copyrights from Novell. Well it turns out that they didn't. What they purchased was the right to market and license it. And to collect licensing fees, for which they had to pay Novell a portion. They did not actually own the copyrights or any substantial amount of intellectual property.
So Novell sued SCO, claiming that a) SCO didn't own anything, and b) SCO owed Novell money, because the SCO Group hadn't been paying Novell their share of the licensing fees.
Novell won, and SCO went bankrupt.