SCO Asks Judge To Give Them the Unix Copyright

Raul654 writes "In March, the jury in the Novell/SCO case found that Novell owns the copyright to Unix. Now, SCO's lawyers have asked judge Ted Stewart to order Novell to turn over the Unix copyright to them. 'SCO contends the jury did not answer the specific issue before Stewart that involves a legal principle called "specific performance," under which a party can ask a court to order another party to fulfill an aspect of an agreement.'" Over at Groklaw, PJ is deep into a community project to annotate SCO's filing. It's for the benefit of future historians, but it makes amusing reading now.

Comments

sco still alive?

[nonewmsgs]

isn't sco dead yet?

Re:sco still alive?

[oracle_of_power]

isn't sco dead yet?

The same thought crossed my mind.

Re:sco still alive?

[zero.kalvin]

I think this is the second coming of SCO.

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't sco dead yet?

Of course SCO isn't dead yet. The undead require special tools to kill like sunlight and a stake throw the heart. Any idea how hard it is to hunt down all sco people and stake them? Especially since they all hide in deep dark damp caves were even the brave are afraid to venture.

Re:sco still alive?

[Joce640k]

Ummm ... don't forget who's funding them.

Re:sco still alive?

[Captain Splendid]

They're just resting.

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Still alive just like like GLaDOS. They've got copyrights to claim, Linux companies to maim.

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not dead yet.

No, but he will be by Thursday.

Re:sco still alive?

[Mindcontrolled]

That is not dead which can eternal lie.
And with strange aeons even death may die.

Just more evidence that SCO is an unholy abomination, an eldritch spawn from the depths, dreaming yet always on the verge of descending upon the Earth in a storm of chaos, madness and despair. Note the double meaning of "lie" in above excerpt from the necronomicon. Note also, that they used to be called Caldera - making their connection to sinister chthonic powers a wee bit too obvious for my taste...

IA! IA! SCO FHTAGN! CALDERA FHTAGN!

Re:sco still alive?

[krelian]

Don't you mean, who funded them?

Re:sco still alive?

[Richard_at_work]

I love how that Wikipedia article doesn't even mention the money Sun paid SCO...

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm not dead yet. It's just a flesh wound, really!"

Re:sco still alive?

[gstoddart]

I think this is the second coming of SCO.

Actually, I think this is at least number 3.

Number two was the previous litigious incarnation, and number one was the original Santa Cruz Organization who actually made software.

This thing just won't die.

Cheers

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

The original SCO is now Tarantella, who is now owned by Oracle.

This current litigious incarnation is what is left of Caldera.

Re:sco still alive?

[Joce640k]

Have they spent it all yet? $106 million is quite a lot of money. Maybe it's in a special lawyer's trust fund to set them up for the long term.

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's undead.

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting in touch with your inner Miigoh? LOL

Re:sco still alive?

[dkleinsc]

It's not dead - it's a zombie process. Which means, unfortunately, that "kill" doesn't work.

Re:sco still alive?

[commodore64_love]

Illyria is that you?
The speechifying sure sounds like you.

Re:sco still alive?

[Brian Edwards]

Of course SCO isn't dead yet. The undead require special tools to kill like sunlight and a stake throw the heart.

The problem is that SCO doesn't have a heart. But the sunlight that Groklaw has been shining on them has proven very painful.

Re:sco still alive?

[Pharmboy]

isn't sco dead yet?

You aren't dead unless Netcraft says you're dead.

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine! /me reboots the universe

that ought to fix it

Re:sco still alive?

[Drekkahn]

So SCO is having to resort to using the Jedi mind trick? "Why dont you just give me the Unix copyright...." Whoo hoot. Ima Jedee !

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not dead which can eternal lie.
And with strange aeons even death may die.

Well, the death of the very last life in Universe will be the death of Death as well ... there'll be none to rejoice it, though.

Sorry about grim OT.

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you kill that which has no life?

Re:sco still alive?

[pushf popf]

The original SCO is now Tarantella, who is now owned by Oracle.
This current litigious incarnation is what is left of Caldera.

It's actually really funny they chose that name, since a Caldera is actually the remains of a formerly-functional volcano. They occasionally emit smoke, but that's about it.

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is the Second Coming Of SCO.

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember folks, if you don't shoot a zombie in the head, they're not really dead.

Re:sco still alive?

[gstoddart]

"This thing just won't die."

How can you kill that which has no life?

I'm sure Novell is wondering the same fscking thing. :-P

Re:sco still alive?

[krelian]

Your wording implies (deliberately, I suppose) that MS is still giving SCO money. This is not correct.

I just want an honest presentation of the facts.

Re:sco still alive?

[StuartHankins]

It doesn't really matter how much Sun paid them. Microsoft, a convicted monopolist, paid them.

Re:sco still alive?

[ashridah]

Well, if anything i learned from Quake is true, i can blast it into chunky kibbles...

Re:sco still alive?

[paiute]

Punctuation, spelling both above average. No use of the Caps Lock key. 1/10

Re:sco still alive?

[akboss]

No you must drive a wooden stake through its heart. When was the last time you saw a corporation with a heart?

Re:sco still alive?

[ffreeloader]

Here we go again.

This guy is modded flamebait for being far less offensive than the idiots above him, and actually giving reasons for his positions. Just another example of moderator bias and hypocrisy on /. As if you mods that modded him down wouldn't respond with anger to being being slandered yourselves.

Re:sco still alive?

[uberjack]

Lovely plumage...

Re:sco still alive?

[Mindcontrolled]

Sorry, just been channeling Abdul Al'hazred here for a bit. The Mad Arab can't seem to be staying out of my mind. Or was it Friedrich Wilhelm von Junzt this time? I am so confused of late. The voices! All the voices!

Re:sco still alive?

[NeutronCowboy]

This thing just won't die.

To some extent, it's impressive. McBride has figured out that as a CEO, he doesn't need a product, and he doesn't even need a legal theory to stay employed. All he needs is to stay in court for as long as possible, and he has access to whatever money is in SCO's name. If Thompson is any indication it'll be about 5-6 years before he even the most insulting filings won't give him a judge's ear anymore. It's really quite impressive, and a nice gig if you have the stomach for it. I'm pretty sure his days consist of telling his lawyers "I don't care how stupid it is, file another complaint, objection or legal brief." and going golfing.

Re:sco still alive?

[Richard_at_work]

The fact that MS was found guilty under anti-trust law has nothing to do with this - there is no such thing as a 'convicted monopolist' as the lawsuit was a civil one, not a criminal one - the term is a marketing one created by the anti-MS crowd, nothing more.

Your post is a perfect example of this FUD, as it doesn't address the fact that the article completely fails to mention that Sun was involved as well.

Re:sco still alive?

[b4upoo]

They should be. SCO has to have the dumbest management of all times. They are just clueless and wasting more and more money in a law suit that never had any hope of success.

Re:sco still alive?

[Joce640k]

I'm saying that $106 million could fund a bunch of lawyers for several years.

Do you know the details of the contract? It might have said "in return for 10 years of litigation we agree to pay $106 million"

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy is modded flamebait for being far less offensive than the idiots above him

I don't know, referring to one political movement as "cock smokers" doesn't seem any more or less offensive than referring to another political movement as "cock smokers." He was modded down for posting flamebait, just like the guys above him. It's not some grand conspiracy to push Obama's Socialist/Maoist/Nazi agenda through the moderation of comments on a technology news site. You expected a generic, off-topic political rant to be modded up on an article about Novell/SCO?

Re:sco still alive?

[icannotthinkofaname]

Actually the tea partiers are pushing government to involve itself in social causes too, just different ones like regulating marriage. That's the Palin wing of the movement, the one that loves big government when it pushes religion and tries to turn arbitrary morals into arbitrary laws.

FTFY, unless you'd like to explain how laws aren't, at their cores, equally arbitrary as morals, or unless you'd like to explain that neither morals nor laws are arbitrary.

Laws are as arbitrary as the morals and agendas that are common to the subset of politicians required to pass legislation.

Re:sco still alive?

[StuartHankins]

I suggest further reading, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft . Sun's payments are irrelevant.

If you truly don't understand the issues with a convicted monopolist (such as Microsoft) paying a 3rd party to attack their competition, then no amount of rational discourse will help you understand why that's wrong.

Re:sco still alive?

[krelian]

It might have said "in return for 10 years of litigation we agree to pay $106 million

Like I said: I just want an honest presentation of the facts.

Re:sco still alive?

[Kelson]

How can you kill that which has no life?

Remove the head or destroy the brain?

Re:sco still alive?

[Gusfm]

Maybe they should try "kill" their parent process first.

Re:sco still alive?

[grep_rocks]

This is standard operating procedure in corporate america - set up a proxy or shell corporation to cause confusion in the marketplace, and bankrupt your competetors through fivolous law suits or IP issues - esp. if you can't buy them out. What is suprising is that anyone thinks microsoft's behavior is unusual or over the top... every big company does this crap - its the american way.

Re:sco still alive?

[dbhost]

Don't forget to pay your $699 SCO licensing fee, you cock-smoking teabaggers.

Now wait just a second here... What on earth does SCO, the Tea Party, and sausage suckers have to do with each other? Last time I checked the party of sausage suckers and tool polishers was the Democrats, the party of business was the republicans. The Tea Party folks, as far as I can tell are more aligned with the libertarians, maybe a little bit more socially conservative, but still pretty libertarian in their viewpoints... Smaller government, lower taxes, etc... No matter how you slice it, when it comes to American politics and government, it's all bologna anyway...

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nahhhh, it's more like a bad remake of Prince of Darkness .

(Which was not really that great a film to begin with.)

Re:sco still alive?

[Runaway1956]

I'll miss Rush just a little more than I miss Ted Kennedy. I miss Ted about as much as I would miss a malignant brain tumor. Rush? Hmmm. Maybe as much as an impacted wisdom tooth. I mean, really, how in hell do you actually "miss" a douche bag? But, a quick google says Rush is not dead. Heart attack, maybe, and he's hospitalized. Dammit - we'll suffer with that toothache a while longer.

Re:sco still alive?

[u38cg]

McBride was sacked in October last year.

Re:sco still alive?

[mcvos]

Actually we prefere to be called average American patriots who are sick and tired of being ripped off by the politicians elected to represent us. You want to support all these social causes? Good, empty your own pockets and donate to the cause.

It would have been very nice, wouldn't it, if you'd been able to opt out of paying for the expenses of the Iraq war.

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a source to back your statement then instead of wasting your time posting baseless messages on slashdot then do something useful for a change and contribute to the article. It's a wiki, don't you know? Stop whining and do your job.

Re:sco still alive?

[Chris Mattern]

To get rid of a zombie, you have to terminate the parent. So, how do we kill Microsoft?

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Silver Bullets
Stake thru the Heart
Garlic
Burn the Body
Buried Face Down at a Crossroads ...

What is it going to take to kill this thing???

Re:sco still alive?

[ffreeloader]

The point is that these guys are so afraid of losing karma, or having someone put them on their "foes" list, that they won't post with their username. That's cowardly by any definition I've ever seen. Do you think they're called AC's for no reason. I'm just re-stating what the AC moniker says in the first place.

Sure, I could post with "a" real name, as many do here, but that doesn't always mean that it is "their" real name. And, yeah, some well-known guys like Bruce Perens post here as themselves, but that's because their name lends weight to their side of the issues they weigh in on. Nobody would know me from Adam, even if I posted with my real name, so posting using an alias deducts nothing from whatever impact I have I have to say might have.

Re:sco still alive?

[CarpetShark]

Yes. Little did the public know that the earlier SCO was forked just before the court cases. When SCO died, SCO@r23 simple took its place. SCO@r23 was in fact identical to SCO though, and few** were any the wiser, since SCO's development had stalled at the age of 4.

** I had to sleep with Darl's wife to get this information. I am not proud of it. Also, note that his wife was NOT currently, and in fact had never been forked. At least, not until I slept with her. I don't know why I'm telling you all this. I'm sure it'll come out in future SCO divorce ligitation anyway.

Re:sco still alive?

[CarpetShark]

McBride was sacked in October last year.

Besides the kick in the nuts, he was also fired.

Re:sco still alive?

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Yes, but now he runs the mobile division that was recently sold. God only know what "IP" he took with him.

Re:sco still alive?

[frank_adrian314159]

It's like they're the zombie of jurisprudence (or would that be juris-impudence?).

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't tease us!

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't sco dead yet?

I think undead is the term you are looking for.

Re:sco still alive?

[Knuckles]

Laws usually have to follow the general principles of the constitution which in most cases guarantees freedom of religion, morals, etc., among other things. Fundamentalist religious morals do not follow these principles.

Re:sco still alive?

[ffreeloader]

LOL. Another anonymous coward calling me coward. Oooohhhhh. I'm intimidated. What's the matter? Can't risk your karma?

Re:sco still alive?

[blivit42]

... probably pining for the fjords.

Re:sco still alive?

[Richard_at_work]

Why is further reading needed? Nothing in your article changes the fact that it was a civil action, there was no 'conviction' as it was not a criminal suit and the 'convicted monopolist' term remains a marketing one pushed by people like yourself.

Also the fact that Microsoft had any involvement in the SCO case is completely beside the point, as my original point was that Suns payment to SCO, and thus willing involvement, has been totally swept under the carpet.

You can repeat the 'Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft' mantra all you want, you are dancing around the original point without addressing it at all, and while you do it you make my point for me - Suns history in the case has been scrubbed clean, and the truth has been hidden because people like yourself have an agenda to push.

Re:sco still alive?

[Coren22]

Oh, it was that kind of cock, I was trying to figure out how you can suck a male chicken :)

Re:sco still alive?

[digitalunity]

There are moral absolutes. One of them should be that each of us is free to choose our own destiny so long as our actions do not cause harm to those around us.

Gay people getting married doesn't harm you. You conservatives just don't like it. It doesn't fit into your view of how people should be. So don't come down here telling us the conservatives are here to protect "values" and "morals". They're pushing bibles, that's it. And even then, only when it's convenient.

You can't legislate goodness, let alone your own personal perception of goodness. If it doesn't harm you, you have no business telling others how they can live their life.

Re:sco still alive?

[Blakey Rat]

It wasn't scary enough on its own. It wasn't even scary enough when you added the magical Slashdot buzzphrase "convicted monopolist." (Which means precisely nothing, but sounds scary to Slashdotters, I guess.)

You better boldface that thang, buddy!

Re:sco still alive?

[Knuckles]

You must have misread my comment in some way or misclicked the post you wanted to reply to. I'm very much in agreement with you.

Re:sco still alive?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Alright, I've got karma to burn...

You are stupid.

We elect people who raise taxes for social programs. You elect people who also raise taxes on us so they can lower them on the wealthy and powerful.

Maybe we're not electing people who serve our best interest... maybe we are. You're electing people who work exactly the fucking opposite of your best interests.

The fact that gay marriage is even in the debate is also moronic. If the sanctity of your marriage is threatened by Adam and Steve's marriage down the street, guess what? Your marriage was on the rocks anyway. If you really want to protect marriage, outlaw divorce.

If you actually want to be a libertarian, you're going to have to say so explicitly. Most conservatives think they're libertarians, but they clearly aren't. How many times over could we have funded a mission to mars, paid for our own healthcare, and dealt with some of our failing infrastructure, poverty, and other issues, with a fraction of the money we've spent on Iraq so far?

Oh, and finally: The TEA parties themselves? Completely promoted by Fox News, for their own blatantly biased political purposes. "Fair and balanced" my ass. If you participated in one of those, know that for the time you participated, you were a corporate tool, marching not for yourself, but for the benefit of a wealthy elite who will not hesitate to toss you aside when it suits them.

Re:sco still alive?

[Foobar of Borg]

How can you kill that which has no life?

That is the main question of those worried about the zombie apocalypse. The ultimate answer lies in the distinction between "destroy" and "kill". You cannot kill a zombie, but you can destroy a zombie.

Re:sco still alive?

[Foobar of Borg]

isn't sco dead yet?

Unfortunately, the case is being held up in a Norwegian court. In other words, it's pining for the fjords!

Re:sco still alive?

[digitalunity]

Indeed a misclick. I thought I was replying to the post above.

Re:sco still alive?

[CarpetShark]

MS was found guilty under anti-trust law...there is no such thing as a 'convicted monopolist'

Beg to differ.

Re:sco still alive?

[CrimsonAvenger]

They should be. SCO has to have the dumbest management of all times. They are just clueless and wasting more and more money in a law suit that never had any hope of success.

It should be pointed out that the management is still getting paid, unlike the creditors. With OPM (Other People's Money), at that.

So it doesn't look like the management is dumb, so much as utterly amoral.

Re:sco still alive?

[Tubal-Cain]

Suck? He was very clear that the chicken was smoked. I prefer fried, but whatever works for him...

Re:sco still alive?

[Zencyde]

I once talked to Darl's wife on the phone. In high school one of us grabbed their number off Freenet (this was 2005 I think) and we ended up calling. I was the guy that ended up with the phone and I started going on about an investment opportunity as I was one of "Darl's colleagues". As soon as I brought up Linux she said, word for word, "You're full of shit."

Re:sco still alive?

[Culture20]

Ummm ... don't forget who's funding them.

Apple? They're evil and Unixy.

Re:sco still alive?

[Culture20]

'convicted monopolist' term remains a marketing one pushed by people like yourself.

Microsoft surely has strong convictions about remaining a monopoly.

Re:sco still alive?

[iCodemonkey]

You want

an honest presentation of the facts.

on Slashdot?!? You don't come here very often do you?

Re:sco still alive?

[ignavus]

isn't sco dead yet?

SCO is the zombie process you cannot kill.

SCO is the eternal train wreck in motion.

SCO is the severed hand that keeps crawling along the floor.

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides the kick in the nuts, he was also fired.

Unfortunately not in the head

Re:sco still alive?

[u38cg]

And as well as being burned alive, he was also let go.

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, you're just as anonymous as I am. Post your real name and home address, or you lose.

Re:sco still alive?

[akunkel]

They're Only Mostly Dead

Re:sco still alive?

[ffreeloader]

LOL. Who's so afraid of losing karma that they won't post using their handles here? Not me.

You lose, AC.

So, come on mods, mod me down. I'm taking an unpopular position so do the usual /. moderation tango and vote the unpopular position down. That's what's done here the vast majority of time. Curse, swear, and insult conservatives in a post here and you're normally modded as insightful on /.

Stand up for a conservative who got mad and fought back using the same language used against his position on an everyday basis before the jackasses were, in an unusual /. action, modded down and I'm a troll.

Then the AC's, who wouldn't publicly defend abusive behavior, because it is abusive behavior, but who privately endorse the abusive behavior attack me and mods of the same stripe pile on. Yeah, I'm quite the troll, if you endorse abusive behavior that is.

So, come on. Mod me down and show your real stripes. Prove who you are and what your side stands for. You do know the Nazis were Socialists don't you? So when you accuse conservatives as acting like Nazis you're only accusing them of acting like people of your own political persuasion. Like yourselves. You act like baby Nazis here on /. on a regular basis.

Compare WTO protestors in Seattle with Tea Party rallies. Who destroys property? Who fights with the cops? Who creates interruptions for everyone? Not the Tea Party people. It's the Socialists that do that. It's the Socialists who use violence. It's the Socialists who have used bigotry, violence, class warfare, and mass murder to gain power. Those are facts of history. We've fought world wars against Socialism because its so evil, and that's the agenda you guys choose to support.

I'm not trolling. I'm just no longer going to be quiet while I and my fellow citizens have our freedoms stolen by those practicing a deceptive agenda. It's my duty as an American with a sense of history, and a sense of justice, to speak up and I'll continue to do it. You can mod me to oblivion, but you can't shut me up. It's my right as an American to speak my mind, just like it is your right to speak yours. The difference between us is that I'll support your right to free speech, but you want to try to deny me mine.

Re:sco still alive?

[Meski]

"arbitrary *religious* morals" - which follow no process of logic or rational thought.

Re:sco still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

and lots of hot air and fumes.

LOL

[Xaemyl]

WUT

PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing.

[Dystopian Rebel]

"Mommy! Make Timmy give me the toy!"

Re:PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mommy! Make Timmy give me the toy!"

More like, "Mommy, go down to Toys R Us, throw all their toys in a giant truck, and GIVE THEM TO ME!"

"BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!"

"WAAAAH WAAAAH WAAAAH!!!!!"

Re:PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing.

[dk90406]

Better yet: "Mommy! Make Timmy give me the toy, so I can bully others!!"

Re:PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing.

[Qzukk]

It's pretty much "Mommy! Make Timmy give me the toy, so I can hit Susie with it!"

Re:PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps with one small correction: "Mommy! Make Timmy give me his toy!"

Re:PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing.

[HTH NE1]

SCO: [as Kramer imitating Movie Phone Guy] Why don't you just give me the Unix copyright!

Re:PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing.

[CarpetShark]

I think it's more like "Joey, play the big grown up corporation-boy yet slightly threatening-son card and make mummy give you toy so you can give it to charity, but then beat my enemy, Susie, with it, and I'll bring you a lifetime supply of cigarettes. You like cigarettes, don't you Joey? Think carefully before you say anything other than Yes, Uncle Softie"

Re:PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing.

[JasterBobaMereel]

SCO : We own Unix and therefore Linux
Judge : No actually they are different
SCO: Well we still own Unix
Judge: No actually Novell does
SCO: They said they would sell it to us, make them

They didn't, and you haven't paid them .....

Re:PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing.

[TangoMargarine]

TL;DR You killed the analogy.

Re:PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing.

[CarpetShark]

That was kind of the point :)

nah, SCO is dead..

[miataninja]

but the lawyers are still alive (and feeding on the corpse)

Re:nah, SCO is dead..

[drewhk]

Nom nom nom...

Mind your own business! ...nom nom nom

(I am a very visual type)

Re:nah, SCO is dead..

[jd]

Can you link to the appropriate Netcraft page for the victims of Lawyer-feeding?

Re:nah, SCO is dead..

[jd]

I expect this to be on one of the lolcat family of sites. Please provide a link when you've created a suitable image.

Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Zombies, Ghouls and Spectres are their distant cousins SCO will never die they just get the Michael Jackson head twitch...

Damn!

[Third Position]

I beginning to think SCO is trying for the Guinness Book of World Records under "Worlds Longest Running Soap Opera". How much longer do they have to go to get the title?

Re:Damn!

[jd]

Given how dirty the fight has been, I refuse to believe that "Soap" should be in the title. This is Sumo Mudwrestling.

hmm

[nomadic]

It's for the benefit of future historians

Good grief, let's not overstate the importance of this case.

Re:hmm

[jedidiah]

They are arguing about the ownership of Unix.

That is no trivial matter by itself.

Re:hmm

[s-whs]

It's for the benefit of future historians

Good grief, let's not overstate the importance of this case.

Are you kidding? This is monumental in showing clearly how stupid courts/court cases can be. This case went on for years without any shred of evidence ever!

There is generally very little respect for lawyers, and at uni (math/physics) we all think/thought such studies were basically worthless. These cases confirm we were/are right ;-)

And what about that comment I read in another story here on slashdot (about the Apple phone prototype):

Furthermore, while cops can use anything you say AGAINST you in a court of law, if you ask them to repeat something you said that would help your case, that would be heresay, and therefore can not help you.

That's just fooking unbelievable. If that sort of nonsense persists in law and/or the way it's practiced, I have no respect for it nor the people involved in it.

Oh yeah, and I recently heard of a bunch of Lawyers in Alphen aan den Rijn near where I live (Netherlands) who double charge hours, charge hours as if they did the work themselves when some interns did it etc. This is not in the news but I know it via someone who worked there and left because of it. I would have gone to the police and get these basterds convicted! (but that's the choice the person who worked there).

Re:hmm

[nomadic]

That is no trivial matter by itself.

To future HISTORIANS? Yes it is.

Re:hmm

[Rogerborg]

at uni (math/physics) we all think/thought [legal] studies were basically worthless

It depends how you count "worth". If it's the improvement of mankind, then sure, scientists For The Win. If it's the way that 99.9% of people count it though - yachts, hookers and champaign - then I'm afraid I'm going to have to call it for the lawyers.

Re:hmm

[nomadic]

Are you kidding? This is monumental in showing clearly how stupid courts/court cases can be. This case went on for years without any shred of evidence ever!

There was evidence; you might not have found it convincing, but it existed.

Yes, traditional math/physics major narcissism, etc., but if you are extrapolating the value everyone knows about the narcissism of many math/physics majors, but if you're extrapolating legal systems Furthermore, while cops can use anything you say AGAINST you in a court of law, if you ask them to repeat something you said that would help your case, that would be heresay, and therefore can not help you.

That's just fooking unbelievable. If that sort of nonsense persists in law and/or the way it's practiced, I have no respect for it nor the people involved in it.

Unbelievable? I find it suprising that you don't see the incredible untrustworthiness of such testimony. It's self-serving. If you've been arrested, why the hell should the court give ANY weight to something you said to save yourself at the time? Without any opportunity for the judge and/or jury to analyze how credible you are when you're saying it? If you want to rely on your own statements then you can get up on the witness stand and say it yourself, and be subject to cross-examination.

I mean, I have certain issues with how the rules against hearsay are implemented in our legal system, but you are completely and utterly wrong on this point.

Re:hmm

[nomadic]

Accidentally hit post; should have read: Yes, traditional math/physics major narcissism, etc., but if you are extrapolating the legal systems' value or integrity from one case, then that is poor science. Plus, with all due respect, I don't think you understand all of the issues involved, it wasn't just about ownership of copyrights.

Re:hmm

[Jaysyn]

And what about that comment I read in another story here on slashdot (about the Apple phone prototype):

Furthermore, while cops can use anything you say AGAINST you in a court of law, if you ask them to repeat something you said that would help your case, that would be heresay, and therefore can not help you.

That's just fooking unbelievable. If that sort of nonsense persists in law and/or the way it's practiced, I have no respect for it nor the people involved in it.

This is 100% true. Cops in the US are not your friends & are not looking out for you in any fashion.

More info here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

Re:hmm

[h00manist]

Stick to a strict definition, and important parts of democracy and freedom are largely an illusion, too, because of the implementation. A few fundamental key parts are missing, or don't work. But that doesn't mean people don't strongly believe in it. In fact, they often get mighty angry if you talk about it or try to make these freedoms actually work. Just try to actually do something about unfair situations, instead of complaining about it, and you'll start finding limitations.

Re:hmm

[camperdave]

If it's the way that 99.9% of people count it though - yachts, hookers and champaign - then I'm afraid I'm going to have to call it for the lawyers.

Oh, come now! You mean you haven't heard of Mme Curie's private pleasure island, or Hawking's luxury catamaran? Rumour has it that, before the Hindenburg disaster prompted him to change his mind, Einstein had placed an order with Luftschiffbau Zeppelin for what was to be the world's largest private dirigible, the Graf Zeppelin III. Oh, and that was no public bath that Archimedes jumped out of, yelling eureka! That was his own solid gold tub. He just liked running around naked every once in a while, especially when the local vintage had taken effect.

Lawyers are just more public about it.

Re:hmm

[Rennt]

That will be up to future historians won't it? UNIX isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Much of the history of UNIX has already been lost, or only recorded after being passed on via oral tradition.

This case is and will remain a pivotal moment in the future history of UNIX. Imagine what the software/systems landscape would like if SCO had won? It is reasonable to want to preserve this history, as other documentation projects have done with other parts of the hacker tradition.

Re:hmm

[Jesus_666]

Depends. While you may not find the court proceedings particularly fascinating, someone in the future may well write a book about them. There are billions of dollars worth of claims at stake here and some very big corporations are very interested in the case.

While it's not the event of the century, even smaller events like this can be found interesting enough to be researched thoroughly, especially if they have interesting repercussions. For instance, if unixoid operating systems continue to be as important as they are today - of if they don't.

Re:hmm

[Mindcontrolled]

Emphasis in historical science has been shifting from political history to social and economic history a lot lately. In that context, the SCO case might very well be of interest to future historians - if only as a well documented example of the litigious shitstorms of the early Digital Dark Age..

Re:hmm

[Sir_Lewk]

http://www.tuhs.org/wiki/The_Unix_Heritage_Society

Historians can be interested in any number of things, they are not all like Indiana Jones...

Re:hmm

[mister_playboy]

Unbelievable? I find it suprising that you don't see the incredible untrustworthiness of such testimony. It's self-serving. If you've been arrested, why the hell should the court give ANY weight to something you said to save yourself at the time?

What's self serving about it? Either everything you said at the time of the incident (as stated by a third party who was there in a less than objective capacity) should be usable in court, or none of it. The only thing I see about this being "self-serving" is that it takes away the advantage the state enjoys in prosecution, where the testimony of their agents is considered to be truthful only when it paints the defendant negatively.

The fact you were arrested as absolutely nothing to do with whether you are guilty or not! Americans seem to constantly overlook that.

Re:hmm

[nomadic]

What's self serving about it?

Give me a single example of a statement you could say at the time of arrest that you think you should then be able to later use to exonerate you.


The only thing I see about this being "self-serving" is that it takes away the advantage the state enjoys in prosecution, where the testimony of their agents is considered to be truthful only when it paints the defendant negatively.

The hearsay rule applies to everyone, defense and prosecution.

CLANG!

[zepo1a]

[clang]
CORPSE COLLECTOR: Bring out your dead!
NOVELL: Here's one.
CORPSE COLLECTOR: Nine pence.
SCO: I'm not dead!
CORPSE COLLECTOR: What?
NOVELL: Nothing. Here's your nine pence.
SCO: I'm not dead!

And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[h00manist]

I wonder just what would change if SCO did get it. Does Linux run UNIX? I guess the answer to that is "sort of"... And outside the US?

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[JiffyPop]

There has been no examples exposed by SCO or anyone else that would indicated that Linux has anything to fear from the holder of UNIX copyrights, whoever that may be. If there were any code that infringes on a copyright then that functionality can be re-coded from the specifications, eliminating any infringement.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

it'd mean that SCO's case against IBM would have _some_ (and i say _some_) merit.

now, if the court decision sticks, means their case against IBM have no basis. and since novell own the copyright, novel can simply put everything in public domain, something that AT&T already did with some ancient versions, reducing even more their chances against the blue suits from armonk.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[Xtifr]

it'd mean that SCO's case against IBM would have _some_ (and i say _some_) merit.

Getting the copyrights now shouldn't help them. All the code in Linux has been already distributed by the current Unix copyright holders under the terms of the GPL. Even if SCO gets the copyrights, they can't revoke the perfectly valid license that has already been granted to any Unix code that might happen to be in Linux.

Oh, and it was SCO (Caldera) that put Ancient Unix in the public domain. Ironically, they probably did so illegally, since Novell owned the copyrights, not that Novell is likely to complain at this late date.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[betterunixthanunix]

Ultimately, that would mean nothing. Even if SCO somehow prevailed here and received the copyrights, its case against IBM is still baseless, and whatever few customers they might still have are probably in the process of migrating to a system supported by a more stable company.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[burnin1965]

SCO's case against IBM would have _some_ (and i say _some_) merit.

Actually, no, the Caldera / The SCO Group lawsuit never had any merit and it was learned through discovery that it was known by all the Caldera / The SCO Group insiders that there was absolutely no merit to their case from the onset.

After intensive and expensive internal attempts to find something that could be used to sue linux user's for a SCO Tax the Caldera / The SCO Group investigation found absolutely *nothing*. ie no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever.

Before this entire fiasco started it was known all the way to the top of their organization that there was no basis for their plans, yet they went forward with the scam anyway. Many people have lost their jobs, some have lost money and a few have actually lost their lives from this scam. If there were any justice this single fact uncovered in discovery would have resulted in fraud charges against the perpetrators of this scam long ago.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[SharpFang]

SCO: Linux violates our copyrights on UNIX!
IBM: No, it does not. Not a single line infringes on UNIX
Novell: Wait, what? We own copyright on UNIX.
SCO: Your honor, we are unable to pursue the lawsuit against Linux infringing upon our rights to UNIX because we don't have them, Novell does. Could you force them to hand these rights over to us so that we could continue suing Linux?

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[BuddaLicious]

Indeed, what state are they based in, and which District attorney should we call for to be fired for not following up on this.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[Danathar]

Oh yes they CAN!!!

What? Don't agree? Well I'm sure we can settle this with a LAWSUIT!!! Muhaaawwaaaa!

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[ashridah]

Wait, who lost their lives, exactly? and by which means?
I mean, i could understand if someone lost their livelihood, and thus, couldn't pay health insurance and died, but are we talking murder here?

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[Just Some Guy]

Getting the copyrights now shouldn't help them. All the code in Linux has been already distributed by the current Unix copyright holders under the terms of the GPL.

Purely devil's advocate: if the copyrights rightfully belong to SCO, then Novell didn't have the right to distribute that code under the GPL in the first place and SCO could un-license it. By analogy, if I ended up with a copy of that source code Microsoft lost a while back, I couldn't legally put it under the GPL and give a copy to you under the terms of that license. If I did, and Microsoft came knocking on your door, you wouldn't be able to tell them that you were entitled to keep and use your copy.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[burnin1965]

http://www.digitaliq.com/parser.php?nav=article&article_id=431

The Noordas, along with their daughter, Val Kreidel, and James Stewart, another attorney from Ballard Spahr, were at a different location.

Via speakerphone, apparently reading from a script, Mrs. Noorda terminated President/CEO Yarro, CFO Darcy Mott and legal counsel Brent Christensen as officers of Canopy...

The Yarro et al lawsuit painted a picture of Val Kreidel, the daughter of Ray and Tye, as one of the driving forces behind the ousting of the executives...

Under the agreement, Yarro, Mott and Christensen received undisclosed sums, and Yarro was given all of Canopy's shares -- nearly five-and-a-half million -- of SCO stock, making him that company's largest shareholder....

Less than a week after attorneys formally announced a settlement, Val Kreidel, the Noorda's only daughter and a mother of four, died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound at her home in Huntington Beach, Calif....

In affidavits, employees stated that they attended a December 22 meeting in which they were "bullied" into signing a backdated document in the presence of attorneys. A day later, IT director Rob Penrose died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in his home, and soon thereafter five of Canopy's original employees voluntarily resigned.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[AVryhof]

Caldera Linux??? Caldera renamed themselves to SCO.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[schon]

No, actually read:

SCO: Linux violates our copyrights on UNIX!
IBM: No, it does not. Not a single line infringes on UNIX
Novell: Wait, what? We own copyright on UNIX.

SCO: Your honor, Novell is *LYING*, which is causing people to not believe that we own the copyright - make them stop lying.
Judge: Show me a document that says you own the copyrights.
SCO: Umm, we can't.
Judge: Why do you think you own the copyrights?
SCO: Well, Darl's best friend's brother's second-cousin heard that we own them!
Judge: Not good enough. You don't own them.
SCO: Well, we *should* own them - make them give them to us!

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[schon]

First off, the copyrights are irrelevant, because SCO has proven that there is no Unix code in Linux (yes, *SCO*).

Second, both SCO and Novell have both distributed Linux under the terms of the GPL.

So, to correct your analogy, it would be like you distributing MS's source code under the GPL, after MS had already released it under the GPL.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[shentino]

Did Novell make any GPLed contributions?

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[Just Some Guy]

The point I was trying to make was that if someone distributes code under the GPL who didn't have the right to, then you can't expect to get to keep using that code just because it had been GPLed. We all know that SCO doesn't really own the Unix code - a jury just confirmed it! - but if they did, and Novell had been wrongly distributing it without having the legal right to, then SCO could declare that the GPL on that code (and that code only) is invalid and that all users would be required to stop using or distributing it.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[Xtifr]

Purely devil's advocate: if the copyrights rightfully belong to SCO

But they don't. SCO is asking for them to be turned over now, but they still rightfully belong to Novell at the moment. QED.

Your analogy fails because you don't currently own the copyrights to that hypothetical MS code. If it was your code--your copyright--and you had some agreement to turn it over to MS if they needed it, but in the meantime, you had GPL'd it, that would be a better analogy, and I don't see any reason why MS could argue that you shouldn't have GPL'd it while it was still yours. They can still use it, and if they get the copyrights, they won't need to comply with the GPL themselves, although everyone else still can. It's a win-win in any sane scenario (which of course, excludes any scenarios that SCO is involved with).

What SCO really wants to do (force people to distribute "their" code, and pay for the privilege, whether they want to or not) is simply not supported by current copyright laws. But that's another matter. Google for "duty to mitigate" if you're not clear on the concept. You can't try to make the damage worse in order to try to collect more money, which is exactly what SCO has been trying to do.

Also, the real kicker is that SCO themselves continued to distribute Linux long after they made public claims that it was infringing on Unix code (Novell's code), which means that even if they got the copyrights retroactively, it would still be GPL'd. By SCO.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[adiposity]

Why is this funny? It's basically an accurate summary. It doesn't even make any conclusion as to wheth

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[Just Some Guy]

Well, SCO would almost certainly argue (without merit) that Novell should turn over the copyrights now because they were supposed to have done so 10 years ago, so Novell has been improperly using SCO's code. Oh, and they're suing for 87 gigadollars for past violations.

If you read into my original post that I'm supporting SCO in any way, you misread it. My dislike of them doesn't make me underestimate their legal insanity and creative interpretations, though.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[Xtifr]

They might be able to sue Novell for 87 gigadollars, but their case against IBM is still dead. IBM acted in good faith, following the license they were given by the valid copyright holder at the time, and it's not IBMs fault if Novell should have turned over the copyrights some time ago. They're blameless. As is everyone else threatened by the SCOsource program.

If you were to say that it's possible SCO's not dead (ignoring, for the sake of a hypothetical, all their other problems), I could probably agree with you. But you started by saying that their case against IBM might now have merit, and I don't believe that's true.

(And yeah, I understand that you're playing devils advocate, and don't have a problem with that. I enjoy the intellectual exercise.)

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Novell owns SUSE so I'm sure they have.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[schon]

Your "point" fails on so many levels it's not funny.

Even if SCO owned the copyright, and EVEN IF that code was in Linux, they're fscked because THEY THEMSELVES distributed the code under the GPL, which was Xtifr's point.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[Decameron81]

If Sco wins the copyright holder wouldn't have been right at the time anymore. The means they had no right to license it under the GPL. If IBM was affected by this they would have to sue Novell. But Sco doesn't stand a chance.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what?

[arkane1234]

UNIX is a copyright, and Linux just follows the guidelines that UNIX originally had. Well, for the most part ;)
It could be ambiguously argued in court, and the actual "meaning" of the UNIX copyright being described so nebulous in court that even Windows could be seen as a violator of UNIX copyrights... (that's a far stretch but hey... it's POSIX compliant somewhere in there haha)

Pretty much by black-and-white standards, if it contains UNIX anywhere in it's name or has the code of UNIX or UNIX-named OS's within it, then it would be in violation.
That would require an intense scan by court-appointed (or "experts") people to see if that is true.
Since most of the code has gone through the wringer quite a few times since the current SCO even thought about the word UNIX, I seriously doubt any SunOS/Solaris, BSD, SCO, AIX, etc, code was left unsterilized.

Wikipedia to the rescue

[dingen]

The longest running soap opera is The Guiding Light, which started in 1937 on the radio and moved to television (while keeping the same cast and storyline) in 1952. The show was cancelled in 2009 due to low ratings, which makes the total running time about 72 years.

The SCO lawsuits against Linux and other Unices started in 2002 when Darl McBride become CEO of the company. If they can keep it up for another 65 years, they can claim the title of longest running soap opera rightfully theirs.

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue

[inamorty]

Does that mean that 2075 will be the year of the Linux Desktop?

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue

[DarkKnightRadick]

I thought The Guiding Light was picked up by a cable network for new episodes (much like CBS picked up Medium).

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue

[dingen]

According to Wikipedia, TGL was already on CBS when they started to make TV episodes in 1952, while at the same time still continuing the radio shows as well.

In 1956 the radio shows were discontinued, which concluded the shows' transfer from radio to television.

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue

[DarkKnightRadick]

Obviously you read only half of what I said.

I said,

Didn't The Guiding Light get picked up by a cable network (much like CBS picked up Medium)?

Perhaps that clarifies it for you?

But that's ok, I'll just go look for myself.

And the answer to my question is a resounding: No. not that I care.

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue

[dingen]

I'm sorry, I didn't understand you meant after the cancellation in 2009.

Why did you emphesize "cable network" though. Isn't CBS a cable network?

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue

[value_added]

If they can keep it up for another 65 years, they can claim the title of longest running soap opera rightfully theirs.

Regrettably, the nature of the ongoing case is both funny and sad.

I'd encourage anyone who insists on weighing in on complex[1] legal issues by offering up naively simplistic interpretations, or worse, blathering on about "We used to have the Rule of Law. Now we have the Rule of Men.", to read through the annotated filing, while making note of the title[2].

As a side note, I think PJ deserves an award of some sort. And a raise. And if she just got a raise, she deserves another.

______________
1. Hint: Corporate, Bankruptcy, Criminal, Constitutional, Intellectual Property, etc., etc., etc., they're all fucking complicated.

2. If an argument with your boss, spouse or significant other hasn't led you to the conclusion that All Things Said or Written are subject to interpretation, then you'll have no problem accepting SCO's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It says so, right there, right?

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue

[machine321]

Isn't CBS a cable network?

No. CBS is a television network. Ethernet, Arcnet, Token Ring and Localtalk are cable networks.

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue

[chill]

Uhhh...with a show called "The Guiding Light", wouldn't you figure maybe SONET/SDH instead?

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue

[pavon]

No. CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and UPN/CW are all broadcast stations. The cable companies simply retransmit them from the broadcast (required by law, and does not require the cable company paying the broadcasters).

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue

[Anonymous Coward]

No, CBS is a broadcast network.

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue

[hitmark]

i think she runs gorklaw out of her own pocket...

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue

[mls]

Actually, the cable companies do pay to rebroadcast the content of "broadcast" networks.

This has led to cable companies temporarily losing service while a new agreement is worked out.

For example Mediacom vs. Sinclair

Shades of Charlie Brown

[jimicus]

Don't know if anyone else remembers "It's Flashbeagle, Charlie Brown"....

Judge: What are you doing, SCO?
SCO: I'm waiting for my sweet baboo.^W^W^W^W^W suing Novell because they assigned us the copyright to Unix.
Novell: We did not assign you the copyrights!
SCO: Novell sold us the copyright in 1995.
Novell: WE DID NOT!
SCO: Well, you should have!
Judge: Oh, brother.

Re:Shades of Charlie Brown

[macxcool]

Judge: Good Grief.

There, fixed that for ya.

Re:Shades of Charlie Brown

[jimicus]

Not according to IMDB you haven't. But I haven't been able to find a clip from the film.

Hey Judge, while you're listening

[Hognoxious]

Hey your Judgeousness, while you're listening, I'd like a pony.

Re:Hey Judge, while you're listening

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make certain that it's a pretty pink pony!!!!

Re:Hey Judge, while you're listening

[Hognoxious]

With one spirally horn, not two like an ordinary horse.

slasher movie

[AceJohnny]

picture it: In the living room, the Killer (SCO) is lying on the ground, dead. The Hero (Novell) can finally relax and embrace his Girl (the OSS community). But no, shocking twist! The Killer rises behind them, brandishes a knife, and...

Re:slasher movie

[WillDraven]

The judge busts in the door just in time to deliver a definitive shotgun blast to the face?

One can hope.

Re:slasher movie

[AshtangiMan]

Groovy

Re:slasher movie

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the mod hasn't seen that movie.

what's worse

[dtzitz]

That this SCO is doing this or that there is a legal avenue for them to do it?

Re:what's worse

[VGPowerlord]

That this SCO is doing this or that there is a legal avenue for them to do it?

Note: This response is going to ignore that both a federal judge and, after an appeal sent it back to the courts, a federal jury found that Novell kept control of the UNIX copyrights, since in theory SCO could appeal the second decision.

What, you didn't think there would be laws to force a company to abide by a contract they agreed to?

Having said that, as I recall said contract's second amendment* said something about selling the copyrights to SCO if they could show a reason that they would need them during the course of administering the UNIX license program. Which SCO never did.

Heck SCO, if you can't even adhere to the terms of your possibly fraudulent contract amendment, how can you possibly expect to win this?

* a potentially fraudulent document which SCO "found in a drawer" and Novell strangely didn't have a copy of, presumably signed by Ray Noorda, CEO of Novell when said contract was executed in the 90s and owner of The SCO Group at the time this lawsuit started...

Re:what's worse

[srleffler]

Amendment 2 is legit. Novell did eventually find a signed copy in their own files.

Re:what's worse

[TropicalCoder]

I recall said contract's second amendment* said something about selling the copyrights to SCO if they could show a reason that they would need them during the course of administering the UNIX license program.

It said nothing of the sort. What it did say was...

All copyrights and trademarks ... required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies.

with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies... These technologies were acquired a long time ago, and this amendment is dead.

Re:what's worse

[VGPowerlord]

I recall said contract's second amendment* said something about selling the copyrights to SCO if they could show a reason that they would need them during the course of administering the UNIX license program.

It said nothing of the sort. What it did say was...

All copyrights and trademarks ... required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies.

with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies... These technologies were acquired a long time ago, and this amendment is dead.

And the point still stands anyway. (Old) SCO clearly didn't need the copyrights in its dealings with UNIX/UnixWare and thus didn't acquire them.

Make. It. Stop.

[whisper_jeff]

Seriously, at what point does the legal system decide it's fed up with their bullshit and put a stop to it. Everyone deserves their day in court but I think SCO has gotten more than their due...

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

Joey: Dad, Why is america the greatest country in the world?

Nick: Because of our endless appeal system...

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[RichMan]

When SCO decides to stop spending money on lawyers. The problem is SCO managed to sucker the lawyers in at the beginning into an up front fee and the lawyers are committed to see it through "all appeals". So while SCO is now bankrupt and running on a loan in bankruptcy over its non-existant IP the lawyers are still "happily paid" and running this thing.

So the lawyers are committed. I sort of hope this is the lawyers doing an exit strategy of over committing on a stupid claim that will get denied so they can then make a short appeal which will also get denied then exit. Then they can point at this filing and say "see we did our best".

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[jimicus]

IANAL, but AFAIK most legal systems do have a mechanism for stopping vexatious litigants. But it's usually intended to deal with people who waste court time with stupid cases. The sort of person who'd sue McDonalds because there was chicken in their chicken sandwich meal.

Perhaps some lawyer will enlighten me (NYCL?), but my understanding is it's much harder to do that against someone who keeps on coming up with claims which may actually have a sound legal footing at first glance.

In any event, I'd dearly love to know how these lawyers are getting paid now. Unless the law firm has taken it on as some sort of "no-win, no-fee, and if that means appealing until such time as we wind up in front of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court then so be it" basis.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[wandazulu]

It's even better for the lawyers: They can point to this case for any prospective clients and show how totally committed they are to any case they take on.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[Stumbles]

...coming up with claims which may actually have a sound legal footing at first glance.

They have been in front of a judge and lost, then they were in front of a jury and lost. At this point SCO has nothing (legal footing) of that left except to be vexatious.

IANAL

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was clear a few months into this farce that SCO had little chance to prevail before a judge or a jury.

The force that keeps it still alive is that SCO got the money from Microsoft to spend on lawyers in this anti-Linux nuisance lawsuit. Microsoft gave them $30m directly and $50m indirectly - that kind of money is enough for a decade of litigation.

It's a win-win situation for Microsoft, it's a win-win situation for the SCO board (who walked away with millions) and it's a win-win situation for the lawyers.

It's a loss for everyone else on the planet.

Welcome to the concept of monopoly-financed nuisance lawsuits. Every time you buy a Windows equipped computer you are forced to finance such lawsuits.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the lawyers is also the brother of the SCO ex-director, so the family wins either way :-)

captcha: funnily

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[hrieke]

But... They wouldn't have done their best.
You'd never want your lawyer to short your appeals- that would be grounds for another appeal (they didn't do everything possible) and be a career suicide for your lawyer (who'd want to hire someone who didn't do everything possible for you; bar sanctions; plus a law suite when you sue for failing to do everything possible all come to my mind).

You want this case battle tested to the very, very, very bitter end. Each of these scars give armor and defense to Linux and GNU.
Anything less would not do.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC (from reading Groklaw over the years) the SCO lawsuits were special because SCO initiated the litigation, and then tried their best to drag their feet for the next 7 years with delays, changing the actual scope of the lawsuit (see SCO-IBM lawsuit is currently called "second amended complaint"), going bankrupt 1 day before an important decision in the case, etc. etc.

This is apparently abnormal behaviour and the USA law system wasn't prepared for it. Normally, the litigant/persecutor(sp?) feels wronged and therefore wants to have the lawsuit finished (to their benefit of course) as soon as possible, as in "justice delayed is justice denied". Normally the defendant may drag their feet but in this case the persecutor.

The benefit to SCO's puppetmasters was of course that large companies didn't dare to migrate to Linux for the past 7 years. The FUD value was enormous. "Why don't we switch to Linux?" "What! And get sued by SCO for $699/computer?"

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[jimicus]

I wonder how many large companies are still buying into that FUD.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[jimicus]

AFAICT, their argument is now "Novell didn't sell us the copyrights, but that's not what the intention was when the agreement was signed. So we'd like you to overlook the letter of that agreement and instead consider its original purpose."

Just once, I'd like a judge to say "You know what? At the rate you lot are going, I'm going to be dead before this case is finished. In fact, everyone in this room is going to be dead before the case is finished. So instead I'm ordering that we forget the case altogether and go for a nice picnic and play Frisbee in the park."

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[GooberToo]

Seriously, at what point does the legal system decide it's fed up with their bullshit

Never. The US legal system is completely fucked up - by design. Nothing new has been brought to the table in years and yet this bullshit continues. IF the legal system actually worked, this crap would have been kicked out of the courts years ago, SCO would be completely bankrupt, and the possibility of and harassment and fraud charges would have been posed against the SCO executives. If anything, cases like this bold, underscore, and highlight just how completely fucked up the US legal system is; proving it needs to be completely reworked.

The more the legal system can drag out frivolous idiocy, the more money lawyers can make. Surprise, surprise! Lawyers either directly or indirectly make the laws and establish court room procedure. Why would it be the least bit surprising the entire legal system is rigged to fuck everyone involved - save of course, lawyers.

In a rigged system where by design everyone gets fucked except lawyers, you will never have justice or equity. Our forefathers are spinning their graves - despite the fact many of them were themselves lawyers.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[ari_j]

Ineffective assistance of counsel is basically never grounds for an appeal in a civil case, as this is. That one is pretty much reserved for criminal convictions, and even then if you choose your own lawyer it's a tough thing to get a court to agree with. But you would definitely have grounds for a legal malpractice claim if a lawyer intentionally lost your case.

Turning to the case actually going on here, what SCO filed is a proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. This is a document familiar to any civil litigator, as it's what you want the judge to sign off on either after a bench trial or after a jury returns its verdict in a complicated matter such as this one. It's not more litigation or anything, it's just SCO's post-verdict filing for the court to either approve or modify. Granted, their arguments in it may border on frivolous (I haven't read it other than the table of contents, but it looks mostly legit from that), but their lawyers are ethically required to make the best arguments they can for their client and that's what they're doing.

What it sounds like is going on here is that the jury concluded that Novell owns the Unix copyright, so the lawyers looked for a reason why SCO should get it and came up with only one answer: That Novell had contracted to give the copyright to SCO and the Unix copyright is a unique thing that justifies specific performance (normally reserved for things like real estate sales and other unique things where just paying the value of the item won't allow you to go out and buy it for yourself, which is a more standard contract remedy). This is perfectly reasonable and a lawyer who doesn't at least try it is not a lawyer you'd want to hire.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[Locke2005]

Just one problem with the upfront fee agreement: all the really competent lawyers at the firm long ago distanced themselves from this cluster-fuck and passed the responsibility for the case onto the most junior lawyers. So yes, SCO is still getting representation, but it is inexperienced, fresh-out-of-law-school representation... which explains a lot of what you see in their filings.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[ari_j]

No sane lawyer would take the SCO case on a contingency fee (where the lawyer takes a portion of any future recovery in the case and gets paid nothing for his time if he loses it), but that doesn't rule out the possibility here. I'd say, though, that there is less than a 0.1% chance that this is being handled on a contingency.

Most of what's going on here is just part of the same lawsuit that we've heard about for years. News snippets tend to portray legal cases as if they are handled as on TV shows, where the client walks in the door with a problem on Monday and closing arguments at the trial are Thursday, with a big check to cover the verdict being spent on scotch and cigars by noon on Friday. For instance, the McDonald's coffee case was in the news just to report the jury verdict. The appeals, settlement, and years of prelude were not given nearly the same coverage.

In this case, we get snippets of things that people submit and the editors see fit to post on the Slashdot front page. But it's all part of a process. You see the same thing with space shuttle missions. They report blast-off, a major Hubble repair, and landing. But during all of that time, there are a million switches to flip and buttons to push. The astronauts don't just sit there for two weeks twiddling their thumbs. It's the same way in a lawsuit of any complexity, but especially something this big.

What this article is about is SCO's proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. This is filed late in the litigation process, generally after trial, and in the space shuttle analogy is the request for landing clearance. Novell files one, too, and then the judge decides which facts and legal conclusions are warranted on the jury verdict (which is decisive as to factual issues unless there is basically no evidence at all to support it) and the governing law (statutes, case precedents, etc.) Even if the shuttle mission were completely pointless, once you blast off you have to see it through to the end. Any argument that a lawyer makes with a straight face in this post-verdict filing is entitled to be reviewed by the judge and ruled on.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[srleffler]

SCO's claims were just plausible enough to get past the mechanisms for weeding out nonsense. Also, they managed to drag out the cases in discovery and by filing for bankruptcy just before the Novell case came to trial. Bankruptcy puts an automatic "hold" on court cases.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[calmofthestorm]

I see your point but:

>> When Microsoft decides to stop spending money on lawyers.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[HermDog]

JSo yes, SCO is still getting representation, but it is inexperienced, fresh-out-of-law-school representation... which explains a lot of what you see in their filings.

Well, it explains a little of what you see in their filings. A lot of the explanation is that reality conflicts with their assertions.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[TropicalCoder]

A Space Shuttle analogy - I like that. Sure beats a car analogy. Slashdot has entered the Space Age with its analogies now.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[ari_j]

I always prefer car analogies, but on this story in particular I was afraid of infringing on CarAnalogyGuy's patent, trademark, copyright, and/or sister.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yes, except there are a few more details.

1) a judge already ruled as a finding of fact that SCO never did own the copyrights, but it was overturned on appeal and sent to a jury.
2) the original claim was for slander of title, i.e. that Novell was falsely claiming to own SCOs property and harmed SCO.
3) The jury determined that Novell did in fact own the copyrights, so there was no slander involved, only truth.
4) SCO claimed that they just wanted their day in court, except now that they've got it, they've filed a new motion to overrule the jury decision or give them a new trial because "The jury simply got it wrong" (First paragraph of the motion).

So now SCO wants to go back and say that even though a judge felt that as a matter of law they didn't own the copyrights, and the jury confirmed that on appeal, they want a different judge to say 'Oh, they were just dumbasses. The copyrights should have been yours. And that means Novell did maliciously slander you after all, even though there was enough doubt that a judge & jury both agreed they owned the copyrights."

So, um, not to say that it's not good lawyering but that sounds frivolous as hell, especially when they're in bankruptcy and the lawyers keep getting paid.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[ari_j]

I didn't see the motion that you refer to. I only saw a proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which I did admit to not having taken the time to read (nor do I intend to) other than the headings. I did allow for their arguments bordering on the frivolous if that's the case, but if all you say is completely accurate then it's possible that they border frivolity from the wrong side.

Re:Make. It. Stop.

[Mostly a lurker]

SCO had a really weak case from the beginning. However, in fairness, I must point out that their legal representation over the last couple of years has been mostly excellent. Stuart Singer is a highly skilled lawyer in the prime of his career. In the jury trial, Judge Stewart commented that the lawyering was some of the best he had ever seen. If you look back at the 10th circuit hearing of the appeal of Judge Kimball's original decisions, you will see that (against the odds) Singer outargued Novell's lawyers to win most of the critical points. I have no idea why BSF is fighting this so hard. (Perhaps, a major firm in Redmond is making it worth their while?) Whatever the reason, they are playing a weak hand for all it is worth.

Isn't it cold here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see dead people!

RIP SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, let them just lay down and die. And if they have any money left, they can send it to me.. mohaha

Rule number 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Double Tap

This demands a macro party

[idontgno]

Caturday-style. LolSCOs, if you will.

"Icanhazcopyrite?" springs to mind.

They're the Black Knight of the Holy Grail

[sizzzzlerz]

All their legs and arms have been chopped off and they're still taunting the legal system.

Running away, eh? Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!

Define "No"

[PineHall]

From the Article:

The jury was asked, "Did the amended Asset Purchase Agreement transfer the Unix and UnixWare copyrights from Novell to SCO?" It answered, "No," ... SCO contends the jury could have meant various things by its verdict that do not preclude Stewart from ordering the transfer.

What part of "No" do you not understand?

Re:Define "No"

[Captain Spam]

What really amuses me is this part (emphasis mine):

SCO contends the jury could have meant various things by its verdict that do not preclude Stewart from ordering the transfer.

So if I understand this correctly, SCO is asserting that the default state of this case should somehow be that SCO gets the rights to UNIX, and that it requires an explicit verdict from a jury to stop this transfer.

It's as if The Fonz found a way to jump the shark the other way around and it just kept getting better and better.

Re:Define "No"

[Just Some Guy]

The jury was asked, "Did the amended Asset Purchase Agreement transfer the Unix and UnixWare copyrights from Novell to SCO?" It answered, "No,"

Well, clearly they mean that a different APA (to be revealed at a later date, pending further funding from Microsoft) will prove their ownership. The first APA - the one we actually know about - doesn't, but SCO feels that the jury was dumb to find that way without consulting a magic 8 ball first.

Re:Define "No"

[UnknowingFool]

What SCO's legal argument now is quibbling over details. SCO says the jury ruled that they did not receive the copyrights in the APA in the past. The APA in the most favorable view to SCO is that the APA was a promise to transfer the copyrights at some indeterminate future date. IANAL, but for this future transfer to occur, a contract must be signed and money must be paid. A promise to pay is contingent on the details. These are details that neither Novell nor SCO worked out in the past. This the problem for SCO since Novell can now simply say: "We'll transfer the copyrights if you pay us $300 trillion dollars."

Re:Define "No"

[Tmack]

From the Article:

The jury was asked, "Did the amended Asset Purchase Agreement transfer the Unix and UnixWare copyrights from Novell to SCO?" It answered, "No," ... SCO contends the jury could have meant various things by its verdict that do not preclude Stewart from ordering the transfer.

What part of "No" do you not understand?

Obviously they took it in a "No means yes, and yes means anal" kinda way.
They were really hoping for a yes...

Tm

sco "open server" gnu utilities

[h00manist]

http://www.sco.com/products/openserver6/osr6-gnu-utils-PA-FINAL.pdf
GNU Utilities Supplement for SCO OpenServer 6
The GNU Utilities Supplement represents the initial supported release of a selection of key GNU utilities for OpenServer 6. With these key utilities customers will be able to more easily port and develop open source products and customer specific applications for OpenServer 6 using the native C and C++ Development System. It will also allow active participation in open source development projects and deployment of updated releases of those projects based on customer specific schedule requirements

Haven't we learned anything about killing zombies?

[Rastl]

Double tap. Ammo is cheap.

Then again it sounds like whoever is advising them needs a double tap too. Not a zombie? Works anyway.

I'm sorry but...

[SphericalCrusher]

Is this an April Fools joke? But it's not the first? Hm. I basically read this like... "okay, I lost in court, but Judge, can you give me the copyright so I can win?" So pathetic.

Re:I'm sorry but...

[gtall]

Not quite as pathetic as the current judge, however. Given the lengths he went to in order to help SCO along during the trial, it is not beyond reason for SCO to hope that the judge simply hands them the copyrights. And it isn't beyond plausibility the current judge is enough of an idiot to actually hand them over. He's been in SCOs corner since day one, good thing the jury wasn't.

Re:I'm sorry but...

[SiaFhir]

... it is not beyond reason for SCO to hope that the judge simply hands them the copyrights. And it isn't beyond plausibility the current judge is enough of an idiot to actually hand them over. He's been in SCOs corner since day one, good thing the jury wasn't.

Novell will appeal that decision, get the case turned to a new judge who will be more reasonable and overturn the current judge's decision. If the current judge is smart, he'll predict that, do the right thing and tell SCO to work out an agreement with Novell (who will say "not a f***ing chance in H***.")

Re:I'm sorry but...

[SphericalCrusher]

Yeah. I mean, I think it's just time for SCO to quit... like six years ago. As I mentioned before, my "Anti-SCO" t-shirt I bought years ago is faded out. I don't understand how this case still has a single bit of grounds to it. It's over SCO. Die in a fire.

Worse than a rebel without a cause

[Errol backfiring]

... is an IP troll without IP.

Pathetic.

Best part: Copyrights and Copywrongs citation

[ari_j]

I don't have time to read the whole thing that SCO filed at the moment, and likely won't, but a quick scan of the table of authorities shows that SCO cited an article entitled Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity, 3 J. High Tech. L. 1 (2003) to support their campaign to threaten one of the greatest creative accomplishments in computer technology (an entirely free, open-source operating system available to all and competitive with thousand-dollar alternatives). Who wants to call Alanis this time?

This is a triumph

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm making a note here: "huge success".

Still alive...Still alive...still alive.

Caldera - yeah, great name

[Mathinker]

> is what is left of Caldera

Remind me not to buy stock in a company calling itself SuperEruptor Systems...

Re:Caldera - yeah, great name

[systemeng]

Perhaps Caldera was named after cauldron to symbolize the bunch of pot-stirrers they've become.

Re:Caldera - yeah, great name

[JWSmythe]

    How about a company named for a giant fireball. Oh wait, that's Sun. :)

Re:Caldera - yeah, great name

[arkane1234]

How about a company named for a giant fireball. Oh wait, that's Sun. :)

Yeah, they burnt out and were absorbed by Oracle ;)

Can I get my Unix license back?

[MobyDisk]

So, does that mean that everyone who paid for a Unix license from SCO can sue SCO to get a refund? Or are those people too embarrassed to admit what they have done?

Re:Can I get my Unix license back?

[zepo1a]

So, does that mean that everyone who paid for a Unix license from SCO can sue SCO to get a refund? Or is Microsoft too embarrassed to admit what they have done?

Fixed that for you... :)

Re:Can I get my Unix license back?

[gtall]

There'd be no point, SCO has only vapors of operating cash with which to pay anyone. By the time the current crop of lawyers munch through that (and SCO did a deal with Boies and the rest of his imps to carry on through to the bitter end), there's nothing short of jail from criminal offenses that could be wrought upon their heads. Currently, it is a civil case. I'd like to see criminal cases brought, but I'd also like to see the current judge investigated for malfeasance.

In general, the civil court system needs additional courts that only deal with technical cases with technically trained judges, then the courts could concentrate on the law rather than wondering what the hell is a .h file and how it is different than a .c file. That wouldn't have stopped SCO but it would have moved the cases along a lot faster. The court system also needs a good spring cleaning. The whole notion that one can shop for sympathetic judges is an abomination and leads to nutjobs like the region in Texas used for IP whores. It allows Delaware to become the state of choice to incorporate in because any time some company gets caught with their tail in a crack, they can always run to their "home" state for redress or escape. This would require federal legislation to be passed by a bunch of lawyers masquerading as politicians to streamline their gravy train. Everyone expecting this to happen please stand on your head.

Re:Can I get my Unix license back?

[ari_j]

I'd suggest that someone file a class action lawsuit against SCO to refund those license fees. However, one of the requirements in order to file a class action is that the class be so numerous that individual lawsuits would be impractical. The three of you who gave SCO your money aren't quite enough. ;)

Re:Can I get my Unix license back?

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough. Microsoft

Re:Can I get my Unix license back?

[GasparGMSwordsman]

So, does that mean that everyone who paid for a Unix license from SCO can sue SCO to get a refund? Or are those people too embarrassed to admit what they have done?

No, anyone who purchased a copy/license for Unix from SCO received a valid license and would be in violation of the law to use Unix without such a license (if you purchase one for Linux, well, then your dumb. *shakes head*). SCO has a license (from Novell) to sell and license copies of Unix provided they give Novell a portion of the fee. They just do not own the copyrights to any of Unix they did not write (aka, most of it).

Re:Can I get my Unix license back?

[Xtifr]

provided they give Novell a portion of the fee

Actually, they don't give Novell a portion of the fee. They turn over 100% of the fee, and then Novell pays them their agent's percentage.

This may seem like an unimportant legal distinction, but it turns out to be critical in rebutting one of SCO's claims: that they should get the copyrights now, because part of the payments they've made to Novell were (magically, secretly) earmarked to pay for the copyrights. But SCO doesn't pay Novell one penny! They're an agent, they get paid by Novell, not the other way around.

In order of undead toughness

[Anonymous Coward]

Skeleton

Zombie

Ghast

Ghoul

Mummy

Vampire

Demi-lich

Lich

Arthas

SCO

Re:WHAT TO FEAR?

[Anonymous Coward]

"that Linux has anything to fear from the holder of UNIX copyrights"? Ummmm, case in point, this very case. If tSCOg gets the copyrights, they will Litigate EVERYONE TO DEATH!! So far, Novel and IBM have stood their ground and and waited for this farce to play out but unfortunately, as has been observed, the Legal System has made going to court with not a shred of evidence and a poorly written contract a Federal Case.
  Novel does have a case review in front of The Supreme Court that may, if it will be heard, prevent a case such as this (Transfer of Copyrights without a clear and concise document of transfer becoming a contentious issue) from happening again. Well, until the next time a firm such as Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP are retained.

For god's sake. YOU'RE DEAD! Now Shut UP!

[crovira]

Derle McBride isn't even allowed in the building anymore.

Somebody disbar that lawyer out of common sense.

Re:For god's sake. YOU'RE DEAD! Now Shut UP!

[JWSmythe]

    That won't happen. Lawyers are paid by clients to argue either side of any case.

    At just about any hearing, there's two lawyers (or two legal teams) who are both arguing that they are right. They both know there is only one right side, yet they'll still fight for the side that is paying them.

    If you disbarred every lawyer for fighting for the wrong side, you'd end up disbarring every lawyer. Being a lawyer isn't about truth, it's about money.

"few customers"?

[crovira]

Man, I can't see myself sticking to a product put out by a (fiscally and morally) bankrupt outfit like SCO if I wasn't being threatened by guys with no necks in shiny suits.

I guess Derle is going to pursue this crap-fest until not even an insane disbarred legal-aid shyster would be willing to take it on because there are little old ladies with scalded laps taking on McDonald's who have better cases.

What a joke this is making of the entire legal profession. They ARE shysters.

Not so amusing for the US Legal System, IMO.

[Richard Steiner]

The case has shown how someone with money can play the US court system ... on several levels ... for multiple years with effectively NO case, draining the funds from corporations and taking up the time of large numbers of lawyers the entire time.

If the defendants go out of business or die of old age before due process is complete, is justice really served?

Re:Not so amusing for the US Legal System, IMO.

[517714]

... taking up the time of large numbers of lawyers ...

So there is a silver lining to this cloud!

Re:Not so amusing for the US Legal System, IMO.

[Richard Steiner]

I hate to admit it, but ... some lawyers are good people.

No, really. :-)

Re:Not so amusing for the US Legal System, IMO.

[magus_melchior]

Money is rarely the issue in cases like these, ironic as that may sound. The objective here is to force the maintainers and community of Linux (and by extension, all FOSS) to pay corporations a "protection fee". They'll call it "indemnification" or whatever bullshit term they come up with, but that is what it amounts to.

Sure, Novell, IBM, et al have (had) to spend the resources to defend themselves against a stupid, pointless, and entirely frivolous lawsuit. But money can easily be replaced. Freedom cannot.

Bleeding the husk dry...

[pyrr]

I know there's a process that has to be followed, but it's obvious at this point, that the SCO lawyers are just trying to appropriate what money they can before it comes time for Novell to collect the judgement against SCO that they are owed under the license agreement. The more of the company's money that they squander on themselves, the less creditors will be able to collect after the liquidation.

I wonder why the trustee is allowing this. It doesn't seem like this situation is much unlike a private citizen, being aware of an imminent, pending judgement against him (which will result in the loss of all his assets), wrecking the house that will be foreclosed upon, and going on a spending spree to empty his bank account, so the creditors are left with rather little.

There should be consequences for this sort of behavior, even if it's a corporation. Sure, the lawyers will argue that they have to keep trying, even if it's a foolish longshot. I'd maintain that they should face having the courts recover any of SCO's money they have collected in compensation for chasing their longshots, and they should also be held *personally* fiscally responsible for the repayment of the other parties' legal fees if they fail to prevail. They're wasting everyone's time, money, and resources, yet risk nothing in pursuit of their frivolous longshot. But the way things are, nobody will be on the hook over this bad behavior. Novell will just come out a loser even though they've prevailed. The only winners will be the lawyers.

Anyone else thinking of GLADoS?

[MagikSlinger]

(With apologies to Valve ;-))

This was a triumph.
I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.
S-C-O
We do what we must
because we can.
For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who are dead.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake.
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
And the Suing gets done.
And you make a neat OS.
For the people who are still alive.
I'm not even angry.
I'm being so sincere right now.
Even though you broke my heart.
And killed me.
And tore me to pieces.
And threw every piece into a fire.
As they burned it hurt because I was so happy for you!
Now these points of data make a beautiful line.
And we're out of beta.
We're releasing on time.
So I'm GLaD. I got burned.
Think of all the things we learned
for the people who are still alive.
Go ahead and leave me.
I think I prefer to stay inside.
Maybe you'll find someone else to help you.
Maybe Microsoft
THAT WAS A JOKE.
HAHA. FAT CHANCE.
Anyway, this cake is great.
It's so delicious and moist.
Look at me still talking
when there's Litigating to do.
When I look out there, it makes me GLaD I'm not you.
I've filings to file.
There is research to be done.
On the people who are still alive.
And believe me I am still alive.
I'm selling Licenses and I'm still alive.
I feel FANTASTIC and I'm still alive.
While you're dying I'll be still alive.
And when you're dead I will be still alive.
STILL ALIVE...

STILL ALIVE...

circular logic problem?

[hAckz0r]

SCO: Your honour, we need those Copyrights so we can protect the owners rights against all the evil-doers out there.
Judge: But Novell is the owner, the Jury just decided that.
SCO: But without the Copyrights we can't run our business! That's why you need to give the Copyrights to US, so we can protect all that valuable IP. If Novell isn't going to do it, somebody needs to!

Good luck with that.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're too late. The filings for debtors after they filed for Bankruptcy have loooong since passed, and the decision that they don't own the copyrights came down ages ago.

If you paid for the license then you're a) a tard and b) screwed because you haven't been paying attention to these cases.

Also, getting money from a corp AFTER they've declared bankruptcy is tougher than trying to squeeze blood from a stone.

Amicus summary judgement request

[ThatsNotPudding]

to have these miserable a-holes taken out and shot.

What SCO is claiming

[u19925]

There are two issues here:
-- SCO already owns copyright to Unix code ==> This has been rejected by jury
-- If SCO doesn't own then Novell is required to transfer based on contract. ==> No jury verdict here.

It is the second claim that it is filing.

McBride is no longer with SCO Group.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091019120137787

I so wanted to short these bozos in 2004 ...

[mr_death]

.. but sadly there were no shares available.

Liar Liar

[Jason Levine]

Why am I reminded of a scene from Liar Liar:

Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!
Judge: Overruled.
Fletcher: Good call!

Only with SCO it runs like so:

SCO: Your honor, I demand you transfer the UNIX copyrights to us!
Judge: Why?
SCO: Because not having them is devastating to our case!

Unfortunately, while an "Overruled" is likely, a "Good call" response isn't. They'll just find some other ridiculous thing to sue under or some other method to drag this case out for another year or three.

This was the plan all along

[Sarten-X]

See, SCO wants the Unix copyrights. They don't want to pay for them, so they planned to sue for them. The whole earlier mess was just to make sure they didn't already have the copyrights. Now they can't be accused of wasting the court's time.

Not only...

[jd]

...is it a formerly-functional volcano, it is usually one that has collapsed due to crumbling infrastructure.

Actually, it's predicted in Revelation.

[jd]

The Beast is sent to Hell, after the first battle, but only for a little while. It then returns until defeated in a second battle. Only then is it chained to Hell for all eternity. So this is clearly the rising of The Beast. The second battle sounds worse than the first, so expect it to take many years. However, IIRC, the tribulations (such as a plague of license fees) only apply to the first battle. The second is merely all-out anarchic war.

Re:Actually, it's predicted in Revelation.

[Mindcontrolled]

One might read Revelation on this, indeed. Whom to trust though? John, or Abdul Al'hazred, the Mad Arab, whom the voices of the desert demons brought a glimpse into the darkness? The final answer I'll leave to scholars of a greater mind than me. The chaotic, mindless nature of SCO's pursuit, however, leads at least this humble scholar of the Mysteries of the Arcane to believe that the Old Ones, whose minds are chaos, utterly incomprehensible to mortals, are the force responsible. Should not the Beast be more determined, more focused in its battling? I shall ponder over Junzt's "Unaussprechliche Kulte", that Black Book, over the Liber Ivonis and the Pnakotic Manuscripts, which just recently happened to find their way into my possession in an ancient Hyperborean translation. Surely the wisdom of the Great Race of Yith and Ancient Kadath will shed light on this Unspeakable Evil, which has risen in the West? Small is my hope, though, that they might lead us to safety, small my hope of throwing these Creatures of Chaos Darl McBride brought upon us back in the Abyss from whence they spawned.

Re:Actually, it's predicted in Revelation.

[jd]

It is clear, on examining Revelation, that it is a sanitized description of an attempt by a Great Old One to seize power and be foiled, ultimately to be banished into the Darkness. That they are denied of flight between the worlds shows a being of still greater power exists, for none else could deprive them of such powers.

The confinement of Cthulhu behind the Elder Sign is well-known to have happened on occasion, but which power on Earth could do such a thing? Not one of the beings of which we know has any desire to perform such a confinement. Indeed, did not Nyarlothotep urge the release of the Great Old Ones from a dream-prison?

SCO's lack of focus and energy, opting instead to drain both from its victims, is surely a hallmark of the evils that dwell beneath Wales, the Lloigor, for chaos creatures such as the Hounds of Tindalos or great Cthulhu himself are more energetic in their destruction.

From this, one must conclude that the Beast is a Great Old One who has allied himself with the Lloigor for the purpose of causing universal decay and entropy, whose crimes become so great that the larger forces of the Universe are not content with his imprisonment on Earth but confine him in all perpetuity.

It is no coincidence that Lloigor and Lawyer sound so much alike, for this is how they are operating, draining the lifeblood of the industry as they have drained the energy of so many.

Timeline of actual SCO events

Re:Actually, it's predicted in Revelation.

[Mindcontrolled]

Isn't it said that the Lloigor came first from Andromeda to the ancient continent of Mu, ruins of which have been discovered off the coast of Japan near Yonaguni? Note that Darl McBride, a Mormon, follower of an ancient cult thinly disguised behind a vaguely Christian veil, has spent two years in Japan as "missionary" for said cult. What his real purpose was in these travels is left to speculation. Did he travel to the peaks of Mount Yaddith-Go to meet the Many-Angled Ones there? What alliances might have been negotiated there? Might it not be that McBride's alleged brother, the "lawyer" still pursuing his mission of Chaos, is indeed a Lloigor, a Many-Angled One in human disguise, spawn of this unholy alliance?

I thank you for your insight, good Sir, for you are surely a scholar of great knowledge.

Now that's what I call a dead case!

[magus_melchior]

Going with your analogy, wouldn't the post-bankruptcy hearings be the equivalent of Novell banging the case on the counter, saying "HELLO, POLLY! WAKEY-WAKEY!!" *bonk bonk bonk* "RISE AND SHINE!" *bonk bonk bonk* "THIS IS YOUR NINE O'CLOCK ALARM CALL!!"

This motion is SCO saying "No, it's stunned."

Government benefits too

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't think for a second that government doesn't benefit from this. As a rule of thumb, the more lawsuits, and the longer they drag on, the more money shoveled through the legal system. The more complex and ambiguous the system, the more exploitable it is for those at the top of the power pyramid.

excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done.

Skype business for sale.

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely all assets of what is considered to be a "bussiness" is to be assumed to be sold.

I expect SCO to win this case with ease.

Otherwise next time a bussiness is sold... I will keep everything that wasn't specified in the contract.

Like the nails, wooden planks, and the cement of a building.

Yes I sold you the building, no I did not sell you the nails, the wooden planks and the cement.

Re:Skype business for sale.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all well and good, but they did not sell them the copyright, they licensed them.

for crying out loud!

[marafa]

oh! for crying out loud!
how many times do i have to say this:
now that (TWICE) novell owns the UNIX copyright what is it going to do?
in my opinion it should open source the damn thing!

that will end this farce and any future possibility of the grandson of sco or something other entity claiming ownership

disclaimer: IANAL

eh?

[revxul]

This sick animal has not yet been euthanised?!

Wow

[snkiz]

Those guys just don't give up. What are they going to do if they actually win? They are out of money. And I don't care if hired thugs show up at my door I'm not gonna pay for Linux unless I need that kind of support, definitely not to SCO. Maybe they are hoping for more allowance from Microsoft.

Not public domain....

[seeker_1us]

Legality of the release aside, Caldera released Ancient Unix under the OLD BSD license, which required attribution and was incompatible with the GPL.

it was SCO (Caldera) that put Ancient Unix in the public domain. Ironically, they probably did so illegally, since Novell owned the copyrights, not that Novell is likely to complain at this late date.

Re:Not public domain....

[Xtifr]

Fair enough. (I'm in no position to complain about quibbling when I started it.) :)

To further complicate matters, I'll point out that AT&T did sort of put some Unix code in the public domain by the simple expedient of A) writing it before code was copyrightable, and B) not keeping it secret enough to qualify for retroactive copyright protection when the rules changed.

Nevertheless, I'd lay good odds that the original poster had the Caldera Ancient Unix code release in mind when he wrote.

That's 11years beyond the Unix timstamp brickday.

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess that means Linux will be the day of the desktop when it is the only Unix left on the market, because obviously this is beyond World War 3 where the only computers that remain are the one's deep underground on FreeEnergy Testatica/Methernitha/Hummingbird-motor generators and all the scientists and administrators around have succumbed to the Reptilian neo-virus transmitted through 4chan. THE END.

buy them.

[Anonymous Coward]

can't ibm and/or novell just buy sco and put an end to this once and for all? they could probably tell them to claim they own copyrights on microsoft/apple products ;)

Re:Haven't we learned anything about killing zombi

[arkane1234]

Ammo used to be cheap...
Costs me about $0.40 a round, now...

Corporate Death Sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

There comes a time when the culture of a corporation has become so poisonous that it is incapable of operating ethically. At that point the courts should have the ability to impose a corporate death sentence whereby all employs are fired without recourse, pension, unemployment, golden parachutes or any further remuneration. Further all assets of the corporation are immediately seized and sold for the public good. All stocks, bonds, loans or any other obligations of the corporation are similarly rendered worthless. The lesson to be learned here is do not do business with or work for an ethically challenged business - you will loose.

Hard to choose between ....

[BlindBear]

scum or vermin to describe these "wanna be/never were"s.... There ya go, I tried to be nice to these parasites, but my personal integrity got in the way.