Slashdot Mirror
Novell Wins Against SCO Again
duh P3rf3ss3r writes "The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has just affirmed the District Court ruling in SCO v Novell (PDF) in its entirety. The decision is quite a good read and lays out the reasons why the court has rejected, in toto, SCO's attempt to re-argue the case before the Court of Appeals. Is this the last gasp for SCO or will they try to appeal this to the Supreme Court? The betting lines open at 11..."
Realistically this is the end of the line for the case.
Seriously, how does SCO _still_ have any money left to pursue legal costs??
I've been giving them $5 a week.
Look, I'm sorry, but it's the best entertainment available. :(
From the PDF, Page 11
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
How many times have we heard that?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
"Realistically this is the end of the line for the case."
SCO has not been realistic at any time during this case.
Back in the day, they (and their predecessor companies) made good products. Caldera OpenLinux was one of the most user-friendly Linux distributions of the day, and the two flavors of SCO UNIX had a large customer base. There are still a fair number SCO UNIX customers left, but I would assume they're seriously evaluating their migration options.
That side of the business is now owned by an entity called Unxis, and I would guess the remainder of SCO itself is mainly to continue this lawsuit.
The SCOTUS doesn't have to hear your case, they only take on cases with merit. Even if they do request this case to be heard, it has zero chance of actually happening. So they're done now. At least in the courtroom.
If anyone has them, I'd love to see some actual statistics of how many cases are presented and how many are heard, giving a percentage. (on the average, over the last few years, or even to see how the numbers change over the years) I bet they have a fairly low percentage of cases heard. (10%?)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
This is the lawsuit that doesn't end
Yes, it goes on and on my friend
Some people started litigating it not knowing what it was
And they`ll continue litigating it forever just because...
According to supremecourt.gov: "The Court receives approximately 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year. The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 75-80 cases." So, roughly, just shy of 1%
The lawyers were paid upfront - so they may be forced to beat single bones of this skeleton to an en-banc-hearing or the Supreme Court. Both are dead ends.
I guess this charade will have taught Boies Schiller & Flexner that such arrangements are a bad deal. Larry Ellison will have to cough up money for every step he wants to go in Oracle vs. Google (maybe the best coming out of this case).
And, of course, the counterclaims of SCO vs. IBM may have to be dealt with.
This is just one case. There's still several other cases to be resolved: SCO v IBM, Red Hat v SCO, SCO v Autozone (or Daimler/Chrysler), and, of course, the upcoming SCO v Boies, et al, where SCO sues their own lawyers for not winning these unwinnable cases. :)
I'm also hoping to see SCO v Microsoft, where SCO sues Microsoft for not providing sufficient funds to slow the growth of Linux as agreed, and Microsoft countersues because SCO didn't achieve the success they promised with the initial round of funding.
Realistically this is the end of the line for the case.
You must be new here.
SCO is the owner of the UNIX Operating System Intellectual Property that dates back to 1969, when the UNIX System was created at AT&T's Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX System.
I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
This is pretty close, but not quite accurate. SCOTUS takes cases principally according to:
The first category is really astonishingly rare. The second is almost as much so. The third accounts for the overwhelming majority of SCOTUS's workload.
Note that SCOTUS really doesn't care if your case "has merit." No judge really does. A judge's job isn't to decide if your case has merit: that's the jury's job. A judge's job is to make sure the laws are applied fairly and without bias to both parties.
At the SCOTUS level, SCOTUS cares whether their precedents are creating confusion among the appellate courts. If two appellate courts come to two different readings of SCOTUS's precedents, then SCOTUS will generally hear a case so that their opinion can help bring clarity to the courts.
With respect to the number of cases heard per year, approximately 1 in 200 cases appealed to SCOTUS will be heard by the Court. The buck stops at the appellate level 99.5% of the time.
(Source: David R. Hansen, former Chief Judge of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. IANAL: I'm just reporting what he's said.)
Just in case somebody thinks this anonymous coward is a member of the slashdot tinfoil hat brigade, blaming Microsoft for everything...
Halloween Document 10 lays out in intimate detail how Michael Anderer, a consultant to SCO, used Microsoft to gain up to in his on words "$82-86 million." Baystar's manager of their $50 million SCO investment complained: "Mr. Emerson and I discussed a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would backstop, or guarantee in some way, Baystar's investment ... Microsoft assured me that it would in some way guarantee BayStar's investment in SCO."
The documents are in the public record, confirmed by all parties and well reported in the press. This is almost all of the money SCO used to fund their meritless 8-year legal campaign against Linux.
/And I'm not that AC either.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The most outrageous thing about this whole fiassco is the bankruptcy's trustee's complicity in SCO's theft. This is not money that SCO owes Novell. This is money that never was SCO's in the first place. Courts have ruled it was "converted" which means stolen. Yet the backruptcy trustee corruptly continues to hold and spend Novell's money. This makes him complicit in that theft.