Appeals Court Overturns 2007 Unix Copyright Decision

snydeq writes "A federal appeals court has overturned a 2007 decision that Novell owns the Unix code, clearing the way for SCO to pursue a $1 billion copyright infringement case against IBM. In a 54-page decision (PDF), the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said it was reversing the 2007 summary judgment decision by Judge Dale Kimball of the US District Court for the District of Utah, which found that Novell was the owner of Unix and UnixWare copyrights. SCO CEO Darl McBride called the decision a 'huge validation for SCO.'" The case over who owns Unix will now go to trial in Utah.

Comments

Years of appeals

[assemblerex]

We'll be using quantum computers before the appeals run out.

Re:Years of appeals

[Thanshin]

We'll be using quantum computers before the appeals run out.

Actually, quantum computers will be using us.

Which brings curious questions about the future and soviet russia.

Re:Years of appeals

[iCEBaLM]

In, or out, of Soviet Russia, quantum computers use you, or you use them. It's impossible to know until it is observed.

Re:Years of appeals

[Nethemas the Great]

Why won't you DIE?!?!

Re:Years of appeals

[TemporalBeing]

Jokes aside, what does this mean for Linux? Is it protected from SCO coming after anybody who makes a *nix based OS?

Doesn't mean anything new.

All it is saying is that (i) SCO owes Novell more than before, and (ii) summary judgements were not the right means of decision - that a jury needed to hear some of it.

There is nothing saying that Linux infringes anything, that IBM did anything improper (as this is SCO v. Novell, not SCO v. IBM), or anything else. Just that it needs to be tried by a jury instead of a judge.

Oh, and don't forget - Darl & Co are no longer in charge of SCO; the bankruptcy court is in the process of replacing them with a Trustee. So this does not mean anything with regards to what SCO will or even can do after this point. The Trustee may decide it will be a losing battle and to drop every litigation it can; though that would likely mean paying out to Novell, IBM, and others for being harassed by SCO. But it is now the Trustee that decides what to do next - appeals, litigation, etc.

Re:Years of appeals

[spun]

Right, like we're all still pimply faced youths stuck in our parents basement with no romantic prospects. Some of us have wives now, you know, so... um... never mind.

Re:Years of appeals

[spun]

Yes, well, this is what we in the comedy business like to call a 'joke.' These are short anecdotes designed to elicit a laugh. Oftentimes, they are not literally true, but instead play on common stereotypes. For instance, while I did have pimples as a youth, I did not live in my parent's basement and after the age of 17, I did not lack for romantic prospects. But the 'geek' stereotype insists we all must have been awkward social losers, and the 'married' stereotype says that we married folk do not have sex, when in fact, even after nine years I am getting more regular and better sex than I did when I was single (and I was no slouch in that department, either.)

This educational message brought to you by the Committee for Amplifying the Sense of Humor, a non-profit dedicated to explaining humor to the humor impaired. Donations may be made out to C.A.S.H.

wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

Did it become april fools day when I wasn't watching?

Re:wtf

[ThePhilips]

It's a clear case of the "badsummary". Just check Groklaw.

As I have understood it, it was only summary judgment which was overturned. IOW, there would be a trial.

Will they never die?

[mcvos]

It's like a zombie infestation. Didn't scientific research recently prove that violence was the only solution to that?

Re:Will they never die?

[mcgrew]

Didn't scientific research recently prove that violence was the only solution to that?

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -- Salvor Hardin, Foundation (Isaac Asimov)

Re:Will they never die?

[Insanity Defense]

Did he say that before or after meeting a zombie?

After meeting politicians so pretty much the same.

Re:Will they never die?

[Rogerborg]

Didn't scientific research recently prove that violence was the only solution to that?

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -- Salvor Hardin, Foundation (Isaac Asimov)

Yes, I'm sure that fictional quote will be a great comfort to you during the coming zombie apocalypse. You hippies need to live in the real world occasionally.

Re:Will they never die?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If violence isn't your last resort, then you didn't use enough violence." -- The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates

Re:Will they never die?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -- Salvor Hardin, Foundation (Isaac Asimov)

"The competent would have long since resorted to it."

Re:Will they never die?

[EvilNTUser]

Violence is the last refuge against the incompetent.

Re:Will they never die?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"

Of course violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. For the rest of us, it's waaaay before last. It's like third.

Re:Will they never die?

[thisissilly]

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent

Competent people turn to violence much sooner.

Re:Will they never die?

[Verdatum]

"HOLY SHIT, A ZOMBIE!! KILL IT, KILL IT!!!" -- Salvor Hardin, Foundation (Isaac Asimov) (Upon encountering a zombie)

Re:Will they never die?

[shutdown -p now]

One girl told him bluntly: "My mother says violence never solves anything."

"So?" Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn't your mother tell them so? Or why don't you?"

They had tangled before - since you couldn't flunk the course, it wasn't necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, "You're making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!"

"You seem to be unaware of it," he said grimly. "Since you do know it, wouldn't you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow. Anybody who clings to the historically untrue - and thoroughly immoral - doctrine that 'violence never solves anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedom."

- Robert A. Heinlein, "Starship Troopers"

Groklaw coverage

[RedK]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090824142203182

It's important to note that the Appeals court hasn't said that the copyrights do belong to SCO. They've only found that a decision regarding copyright ownership based on the APA wasn't something that should have been decided in a summary judgment and that the decision should've been made during the jury trial.

Re:Groklaw coverage

[growse]

Novell Response
Novell points out that the Judge affirmed the payment ($3million) SCO was ordered to make to Novell, so there's hope yet.

Re:Groklaw coverage

[san]

Hardly. Considering SCO still owes Novell, and that this ruling only overturns a summary judgement, doesn't make Novell's copyright claim much weaker.

This case is not about end-users, but about whether SCO even has standing to begin to sue Linux end-users. Which it doesn't (the nature of their copyright deal with Novell was pretty clear, but apparently not enough for a summary judgement).

In the very unlikely event that SCO wins this case, big end-users like IBM may again have to begin to worry about defending against SCO's bizarre claims.

Until then, this case has about as much impact on Linux users as one of the many claims against Apple, Microsoft or Sun have on their respective products' end users.

Re:Groklaw coverage

[Nursie]

Regardless of where this one goes, I'm not sure that opening up the path to renewed litigation against IBM could ever be seen as a good thing.

They'll be ripped to pieces the moment that starts. They're called the Nazgul for a reason.

Re:Groklaw coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

In complex matters like this a jury trial is a meaningless formality and everyone knows it. Despite countless mind numbing hours of explanations to the jury about the intricacies of copyright law, the jurors won't have a clue on what the case is really about. So the real decisions will be made at the appellate level and perhaps even by the Supreme court.

Re:Groklaw coverage

[Jason Levine]

Not to mention the fact that SCO might not survive long enough to persue the case against Novell. They're in Chapter 11 already and McBride & co have been kicked out in favor of a bankruptcy trustee who is likely to move SCO into Chapter 7. There it will be taken apart and the pieces sold off. Even if SCO avoided Chapter 7, the $3 million SCO payment to Novell was upheld. So SCO would have huge debts to pay off while fighting a legal battle against Novell. Even if they somehow survived that, IBM's Nazgul... I mean lawyers are waiting on the other side. The average Linux shop won't have anything to worry about from SCO for *years* even under SCO's best case scenario.

Re:Groklaw coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't there some line about SCO having entered an ass kicking contest against a monster with eight legs and no ass (IBM) ?

Re:Groklaw coverage

[Rogerborg]

Oh, please, now that they've been tossed another lifeline, Uncle Fester Investments will drop $3 million pocket change on them to keep this rattling on.

Re:Groklaw coverage

[gtall]

This has nothing to do with Linux, it is merely an argument over Unix copyrights. SCO has never been able to show any Unix code in Linux. Their beef with Novell centered on the Unix copyrights.Their beef with IBM wandered around witlessly for awhile and finally centered on Unix in AIX or contract disputes involving the Monterrey project. SCO hasn't been making noises about Linux for awhile...for good reason, other then putting Linux on their own servers for download, they have nothing to do with it.

Re:Groklaw coverage

[CrimsonAvenger]

In the meantime everyone who uses or sells Linux stuff that isn't a giant like Novell is stuck in the crosshairs.

Not hardly. SCO hasn't proved it owns the Copyright.

It also has failed to prove that ANY Unix code is in Linux - remember, discovery is over in SCO vs IBM, where they alleged that very thing. And they didn't manage to come up with any infringing code.

Re:Groklaw coverage

[MightyMartian]

Some of us still ascribe to the theory that SCO was hoping to either be paid off or outright bought out by IBM. Their market share was crashing and the Caldera distro was going nowhere. IBM, who has substantial amounts of money and resources invested in Linux, wasn't about to tacitly admit, even to make the SCO problem go away, that it had breached any licensing agreements, and called the bluff.

But there are all sorts of shady aspects, like Microsoft's clever tricks at getting money into SCO's hands and a few rather noteworthy SCO-friendly journalists and "experts" who made all sorts of bizarre claims, the most amusing of which was that Linus had ripped off Minix (that elicited a fun response from Tanenbaum). That's where the other theory comes into play, that McBride and Co. were involved in a pump and dump scheme.

Re:Groklaw coverage

[sabt-pestnu]

And given that
* SCOG is currently in chapter 11 bankruptcy
* ... WITH a trustee managing it (not the board)
* AND has to pay $3m - that it doesn't have - affirmed from the original summary judgment order
it is unlikely they will initiate any NEW lawsuits in the near future.

Re:Is it

[CozmicCharlie]

It's no big deal. Really. The appeals court did say that New SCO owes Novell a bunch of $$. ($ they already spent.) The rest goes to trial. And this ruling has nothing to do with the IBM case. IBM has maintained all along that there was NO infringing code. SCO will likely be gone long before this ever gets settled.

Do we need to rehash this?

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO released a Linux distro, thereby waving any rights to pursue Linux vendors for copyright violations [at the time]. If people inserted UNIX code *after* SCO was involved then maybe there is a case...

But you can't try and release a distro, profit from it, then sue later saying the distro which you licensed under GPL included your copyrighted [non-gpl] code...

Re:Do we need to rehash this?

[pyrr]

Car/tangible goods analogies utterly fail in this type of circumstance.

That said, "I didn't know," is not grounds for nullifying a contract.

This is more how it went down: Caldera distributes Linux under the GPL. Caldera buys what's left of SCO. Caldera renames itself to "SCO Group". SCO Group claims Linux stole from SCO's intellectual property.

So the questions are more whether (a) Caldera/SCO Group's acceptance of the GPL wiped out all future claims they might have against Linux, and (b) whether they could possibly inherit any and all potential past and present infringement claims simply upon purchasing some rights to a given piece of intellectual property. It doesn't matter if they put the code there or not. Caldera agreed to the GPL in regards to the entire package that their Linux distribution was at the time. Not solely the code they contributed, but the whole thing.

A more accurate analogy would be that Caldera sold a car with a stolen radio installed, they either didn't know or simply didn't care. Then they bought the entire estate of someone who had just died, who it found out happened to be the radio's rightful owner. Then Caldera sued the person they sold the car to for damages relating to the possession of the stolen radio and all the listening enjoyment they experienced. I would say this scenario wouldn't fly in any court of law. It is usually assumed that unless specifically stated otherwise, when someone transfers ownership of something to someone else, they are necessarily making a binding quitclaim as far as their interests in the property are concerned.

Licenses to use/distribute/modify software are not transferring ownership to any tangible goods, but they are essentially a conditional quitclaim. Once someone licenses their code under the GPL, there are no take-backs and suing people who use it in the future, all their claims against that package are gone forever. You can't un-license your contribution under the GPL any more than you can un-see that extreme porn your friend emailed you last week.

My question is whether Caldera ceased to exist before SCO Group was incorporated. This would be the only way I can see that SCO could arguably have any standing here, if it was just a company that bought a cool addition to its portfolio and then changed its name from one thing to the other, I doubt that'd float.

Unsurprising, but....

[idiotnot]

....all this means is it'll have to go back to trial to decide the issues. I kind of figured this would happen; Kimball's summary judgment was premature.

(yes, I skimmed through the long-ass PDF)

The same verdict as Kimball granted could potentially be reached again, this time with a full court proceeding. What it does do is delay the other cases even longer, as the Novell case decision is really required before any of them can proceed.

See you in 2012.

Re:Unsurprising, but....

[Jason Levine]

Wait, isn't the world supposed to end in 2012? I can see it now: SCO will win the trial and the resulting warping of reality will cause pigs to fly, hell to freeze over, Linus to switch to Windows, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

still money pumped down from Redmond?

[kubitus]

I would like to see the guarantees SCO's lawyers have for getting paid!

Re:still money pumped down from Redmond?

[RotateLeftByte]

SCO (somehow) had the foresight to negociate a fixed price deal with BSF.
Besides with the Court Appointed Trustee running the business, they could very well pull the plug on the whole thing IF they felt that the millstone of these proceedings could jeopardise their 'escape' from Chapter 7.

I just wish they would roll over & die but I would expect Darl and his cronies to try to keep this going for as long as possible. (Sigh)

NOT !

[frith01]

Appeals court only determined that the contract is a mess, and cannot be interpreted on its own. The court agreed that SCO owes Novell a large portion of the
money it received from SUN , and that a full trial is required to figure out the rest. Again this is just more delay for SCO, but SCO will soon be in Trustee-ship under chapter 11 bankruptcy, which means that it is HIGHLY likely that these cases will be closed by SCO itself, and settled in favorable terms to Novell & IBM.

Darl will not be in control of SCO once the trustee is assigned, and then we'll really get to find out who's been behind this mess.

Re:NOT !

[ImprovOmega]

Well, more to the point, the appeals court basically said that there's enough ambiguity to survive summary judgment (a pretty freaking low bar). The ruling makes a point of saying that they're not saying anything one way or the other about the issue of who actually owns the copyrights, just that summary judgment was premature because, in the best possible light you could possibly cast the facts in the case, there's a minute possibility that they might maybe not be talking out of their ass when they call the APA + amendment 2 an instrument of conveyance.

Heck, half of it hinged on whether to consider the original APA separately from amendment 2. Kimball said to keep them separate, the appeals court decided they should be read together and that amendment 2 clarified the parties' original intent. It seems to get into some real fine hair splitting when you get to the appellate courts.

Code ownership...

[Targon]

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that there is the ownership of some code, but how much code can really be said to belong to one entity. BSD was spawned from the idea of creating a UNIX-like operating system, but was not using code from UNIX. So, when you say "UNIX", it is important to look at the code base and where each piece came from. All things considered, there are standard methods of doing things that are taught in school that may have originated from the old UNIX code, but are now considered a standard way of doing things. Can you say that everyone who uses code they have learned in school now runs the risk of copyright violation because the code may look identical to pieces of the "copyrighted" UNIX code?

This is where a lot of the problems will come from in these lawsuits from SCO. Also, if AT&T put a lot of code out into the public domain back when they owned System V, then it can't be taken back at this point. Does anyone know how much of the so-called UNIX code is actually held under the copyright at this point?

Re:Groklaw coverage - no change of copyright ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that:

1- Novell board voted not to approve sale of any UNIX copyrights before this APA deal ever was signed.

2 - Santa Cruz Operation (original SCO) never took Novell to court at all (maybe they knew that the APA and Amendment were both clear to them and that they didn't get copyrights)?

3- The original SCO (Santa Cruz Operations) never did not do a final transfer of copyright paper work from NOVELL. That paperwork never happened, and Santa Cruz Operations never changed the UNIX code to show they had registration rights to the code). So they KNEW something.

4- Santa Cruz Operations SEC filings never said they owned UNIX ever. DARL when Caldera/newSCO/The SCO group did say this in their SEC filings (why the change of tune, when the one who did the deal never declared this in SEC filings at all)?

5- DARL and newSCO (TheSCO Group who became TheSCO Group by changing their name from Caldera), asked Novell for the copyrights BEFORE trying to sue LINUX users and IBM, etc.

6 - Santa Cruz Operations after the deal only collected 5% income from sales so why did they need the deal when Santa Cruz Operations already had RIGHTS to develop a "branch of Unix", why pay more money to do the same thing? Hmm, maybe to use the LIST of licensees that they go to market something else to the list (like Tarantella)?

7 - So ask yourself why the US court system has to go thru an expensive trial on this at all?

Therefore the FIRST refuge of the competent

[Anonymous Coward]

And yes, they did do a but of modelling on the slow zombie infestation and you HAD to act hard and quick or else the zombies would win.

The BBC had something on it recently on their website.

ObPython: "He's not quite dead yet!"

[Mjlner]

Prince SCO: "Oh, I feel much better!"
King Novell: "Your case was butchered in the courts, you creep!"
Prince SCO: "I was saved at the last minute."
King Novell: "How?"
Prince SCO: "Well, I'll tell you."
[music begins playing, the townspeople begin dancing and singing, "He's going to tell, he's going to tell!"]

Re:ObPython: "He's not quite dead yet!"

[dkleinsc]

I was thinking more that we should send the Crimson Permanent Assurance after SCO's offices.

Re:Is it

[lexluther]

Thats exactly what I thought .... seriously though, I don't know if I can deal with any more of these SCO stories. Can we have a new icon to represent these? Maybe like a festering wound, or feces?

Re:Blah, blah, blah.

[oldspewey]

I made a call to Microsoft's customer support to let them know that I will continue to use Linux on every PC I own regardless of how many judges they buy off.

I hope you realize that you took Vikram in Bangalore way off script with that support call.

Payment Liability Affirmed, Ownership Remanded

[edgarmoon]

So SCO is fully liable for payment to Novell, meaning they cannot get out of bankrupcy that easily. Ownership has not been reversed, SCO still does not own anything, that has to go to court and in the meantime SCO has to pay more money out. The question is will they continue to get investors to fund this campaign? Even if by some miracle SCO was to get the copyrights to unix, there is little if any chance they can succeed in proving any code was misappropriated by IBM. Basically all this proves is that our court system does everything in its power to make sure lawyers get all the money.

ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the moron who wrote this bunch of lies actually bother reading what happened?

Even though SCO lie in just about every press release for years why do people spout the lies they tell :(

Re:Is it

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO will likely be gone long before this ever gets settled.

While I dont want SCO to win, I hope the end result is nothing to do with SCO running out of money.
I like that the little guy can sue the big company, they just happen to be wrong in this case.

IBM has maintained all along that there was NO infringing code.

I hope that is how IBM wins, it might help stop some of the FUD that has been spread.

Re:first

[Curunir_wolf]

Oops - that should have been $4,066,000.

Damn those floating decimals!

Re:Novell should...

[Sique]

Because that would mean more confusion in the end, and it would encourage the nextSCO to pull the same stunt: Sue a company with big pockets on claims without merit und wait for the company to reward you with buyout money.

That is litterature

[aepervius]

It is quite clear that all along in history, violence solved a lot of problem. Solved them very definitively. It might have created other, or ultimately led to the end of the offender, but the original problem was mostly solved, even if it involved putting to the sword the whole populace, including children, and then salting their fields.

Re:That is litterature

[AJWM]

Ghandi showed Asimov's Hardin epigram to be true

Ghandi's tactics worked against a Britain weakened by WW I and on the brink of defeat in WW II. It might have been a bit different against Nazis, or Stalin, or Imperial Rome, or ... but you get the idea.

Re:That is litterature

[Tweenk]

It is quite clear that all along in history, violence solved a lot of problem.

It did, but it was never the most expedient way to solve the problem, because it resulted in the destruction of people and property. Asimov's maxim is not about pacifism; it is about using more effective tools of war (like espionage, political influence, psychological manipulation, propaganda or even assassination) that do not destroy valuable resources.

I wonder...

[jburroug]

I wonder if this SCO business will resolve itself before Duke Nukem Forever is released...

Re:WOOT!! FINALLY

[Insanity Defense]

Now that SCO has been rightfully named the owner of the code behind unix

Actual facts:

1/ The ruling leaves SCO owing Novell $2.5 Million + Interest.

2/ The rest of the case (including copyright ownership) goes to a jury trial.

3/ If SCO somehow wins they get no money.

4/ SCO then gets to go ahead with the IBM lawsuit which they were losing badly.

5/ The SCO management has been ordered (by the bankruptcy judge) to be replaced by a trustee. A trustee who may or may not continue the lawsuits. He/she may choose to try and negotiate a way out to stop the bleeding.

6/ After the SCO vs Novell trial if the trustee pursues it there is still the IBM trial.

So the trustee has a problem. The company money is owed to Novell and they don't have the cash to continue until the case goes to trial (which will be delayed due to the new judge needing time to come up to speed).

Only then can they go on with the IBM trial. To make money off the IBM trial they need to have won on the key issues in the Novell trial (copyright and right to waive), they also need to beat the IBM lawyers (who are not nicknamed the Nazgul for nothing).

Even if somehow the trustee can be persuaded to fight these cases and manages to win what are the odds that neither Novell or IBM would appeal? What are the chances that SCO can survive long enough to fight through the appeals if it comes to that?

At most this is a lesser defeat for SCO. So long as they owe Novell the money and still have to fight the trial they are still doomed. The chances that the trustee would be willing to keep the company bleeding to fight dubious lawsuits is pretty low.

Re:Novell should...

[jimicus]

People asked the same question about why IBM didn't buy out SCO at the beginning.

The argument against, IIRC, pointed out that in so doing they'd be sending a strong message to the IT industry: "Fuck with us, and we'll buy your company for enormous gobs of cash and all your directors will be able to retire with massive golden parachutes!".

Re:Stronger than "Ordinary Nazgul"

[TaoPhoenix]

Nah, even the ordinary Naz aren't enough here. Companies as big as IBM always have a scary "Iridium Team" or such. You know, one guy is 6'11" with the eidetic memory who serves as the walking caselaw and the bombshell woman with the 228 IQ to run the speeches. They only serve one case per year and charge $666 per hour, but they end the nonsense.

Re:Not Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Asimov was not a scientist

His Ph.D in biochemistry would disagree with you.

Re:Not Science?

[zaaj]

You haven't read any of Asimov's non-fiction? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov:

Isaac Asimov ... was a Russian-born American author and professor of biochemistry, best known for his works of science fiction and for his popular science books.

I would have thought that most people would conside professors of biochemistry to be scientists...

Re:Blah, blah, blah.

[KeithJM]

I hope you realize that you took Vikram in Bangalore way off script with that support call.

No, although the guy did have a strong Indian accent, he said his name was Steve. He also referred me to his manager, (also named Steve, incidentally), and HIS manager (Steve, again). They had to be in the US. What are the odds of all three guys being named Steve in India?

I really don't understand

[RomulusNR]

where the hell SCO is getting the money from to pay for a decade of litigation. How has SCO managed to survive two recessions and continue to base a business model solely around endless litigation? Dear SCO: I have a great idea for a futile court case, who is your angel investor? PS: Your money would have been better spent hiring engineers and developing new products.

No, fourth

[gr8_phk]

Of course violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. For the rest of us, it's waaaay before last. It's like third.

No, it's 4th. Just ask the guy with the "4 boxes to defend liberty" thing in his sig.

Re:Stronger than "Ordinary Nazgul"

[The Breeze]

There's a story in a book - I think it's called "The Million Dollar Lawyers" - about a company that was fighting IBM in court. One lawyer looked out the window and saw a huge funeral procession - lots of limos, a continuous parade of black limousines - going down the street, and remarked to his fellow lawyer, "Wow, that's some funeral, I wonder who it was."

The other lawyer just snorted and said, "Funeral, hell, that's just the IBM legal department returning from lunch."

Re:first

[tuxgeek]

"And it's working! SCOXQ is up from .09 to .26 ! "
Damn! I should have bought SCO stock yesterday.

Re:That is literature

[J Story]

It's trivially easy to make up cases where violence cannot be avoided.

For example, Bob the bomber is about to press a button that will caused hundreds of deaths. Sam the sharpshooter is in position to kill Bob. Should Sam shoot? Either way, violence is committed.

Nobody understands that quote anymore

[Tweenk]

I don't know if it's the mostly American readership (a nation known for preferring violence over sex), but almost nobody here seems to understand that quote. It doesn't mean "only the incompetent use violence as the last resort", or "wars are wrong and everybody should love each other". It is not a pacifist maxim; It's more a reflection on the means of conflict. It means "if you use violence, it will be the last thing you do, and will prove your incompetence to handle the situation". The Foundation books made it clear that Asimov's definition of violence did not include things like armed deterrence, espionage, psychological manipulation, or even assassination if it meant avoiding a large scale conflict. It meant direct physical violence that results in death of people or destruction of property. In that light, violence is a proof of incompetence, because a competent leader would be able to take over the people and property to use them to his own ends, rather than destroying them.

Re:Spoken like a true linux zealot

[Insanity Defense]

The TRUE facts: 1/ The ruling reinforces SCO's case that THEY own Unix.

The ruling says that the ownership is REMANDED to a jury trial. In otherwords that the ownership is currently not decided by the courts. They both claim ownership but a jury must decide.

2/ The rest of the case is strengthened by this decision, and SCO still has lots of proof that Linux is an illegal derivative of Unix.

Nothing in the case was decided in SCOs favour. What was decided was that certain issues (such as copyright ownership) were to be decided by a jury trial not by summary judgment as had been done. At most this means that SCO might possibly in the future get a beneficial ruling from a jury.

3/ When SCO wins they will begin to collect a lot of money from investors and companies like Novell and Red Hat who continue to use and distribute Linux illegally.

To have a chance at collecting money they need to win two things in SCO vs Novell.

1/ Copyright ownership

2/ Demonstrate that the contractual right to waive does not apply to SCO vs IBM.

4/ SCO's case against IBM is solid (see above, re solid evidence that IBM took Unix code and put it into Linux illegally), they may not be able to win the patent counter-lawsuit that IBM launched against them, but what else would one expect from a company that supported the Nazis.

SCO avoided showing any solid evidence in SCO vs IBM and at this point all that really is left in that case is IBMs counter claims against SCO.

Please provide for us the "solid evidence" that you claim SCO has. They seem to have lost both Blepps briefcase and the "MIT Deep Divers". IBM on the other hand presented such things as the internal SCO memo stating they couldn't find ANY infringements.

5/ The SCO trustee will have access to all of SCO's evidence and will see that the case is solid and worth persuing. SCO has lots of investors waiting in the wings to support this effort for justice.

The trustee will have access to the evidence. Time will tell what he thinks of it. Where have SCOs investors been during the bankruptcy case? They could have picked up a large part of ownership of the company for a relative song if they KNEW that the evidence was "solid" as you claim.

6/ After the SCO vs Novell trial if the trustee pursues it there is still the IBM trial, which SCO is strongly positioned to win.

At present SCO is strongly positioned in SCO vs IBM to be ripped apart and fed to the carrion birds. They MUST win the 2 issues mentioned above even to have a chance of winning SOMETHING in SCO vs IBM.

Sure the trustee will be taking a huge risk when so much of the industry is biased against SCO. Luckily he will have access to all of SCO's knowledge and experience in dealing with the insane Linux community and the biased industry press (except for Rob Enderle and Daniel Lyons, two voices of reason in an otherwise corrupt and heavily biased press).

Time will tell. I am sure that if SCO had the "solid evidence" the trials would have ended years ago in SCOs favour. Yet they haven't.

SCO vs Daimler Chrylser lost

SCO vs Novell partly lost (and they owe Novell $millions$) and partly waiting for trial.

SCO in bankruptcy protection without the money to survive the time required for the legal figtht.

Re:That is literature

[agnosticnixie]

Bomb the Bomber is already resorting to violence, which means the system is already to the lowest possible denominator, nice try.