Slashdot Mirror


SCO Zombie Creaks Into Motion Again

phands writes "SCO has moved to partially reopen their 10 year old lawsuit against IBM. Unbelievable! Details at Groklaw." From the article, quoting SCO's filing: "SCO respectfully requests that the Court rule on IBM’s Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO’s Unfair Competition Claim (SCO’s Sixth Cause of Action), dated September 25, 2006 (Docket No. 782), which motion is directed at the Project Monterey Claim, and IBM’s Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO’s Interference Claims (SCO’s Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action), dated September 25, 2006 (Docket No. 783), which motion is directed at the Tortious Interference Claims."

208 comments

  1. License fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fees you cock-smoking teabaggers!

    1. Re:License fee by hedwards · · Score: 1, Troll

      I'm pretty sure that cock-smoking teabaggers only run Windows. Them other OSes be soshulist inventshuns.

    2. Re:License fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, most of the cock-smokers I know use mac. Perhaps that's because not too many cock-smokers are actually members of the tea party.

      On behalf of the cock-smokers, I insist you stop associating them with the tea party - it does more harm to the image of cock-smokers than it does to the tea partiers.

    3. Re:License fee by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      I'd have sworn that Abbott and Costello are dead. Then SCO surprises me.

    4. Re:License fee by Taty'sEyes · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure you are slamming the tea party, a philosophy I fully support, in your troll. Just to let you know, I use OpenSuSE 11.4 (been using SuSE since '97) and try my best not to use any Microsoft product. Just so you know. Have a great liberal day!

      --
      We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
    5. Re:License fee by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Just to let you know, I use OpenSuSE 11.4 (been using SuSE since '97) and try my best not to use any Microsoft product

      So you don't use the msfonts download? Opensuse fonts are ugly even with it (try zooming the screen while running YaST2) ... considering how bad it looks even with msfonts, I'd hate to see how your system renders/mangles text.

    6. Re:License fee by Taty'sEyes · · Score: 1

      I said "I try" to avoid MS. There are a bunch of things I do use from MS, like the fonts and Visual Studio. I hate to admit it, but I really like VS. I also use the libs to run games in wine.

      Also, I always hear, "look how bad the fonts render" in reviews and such. Honestly, I don't know what they are talking about. I don't understand. Everything on my screen is perfectly legible. I have no complaints. But someone knowledgeable of font rendering may look at my screen and say, "why don't you just shoot yourself now?"

      --
      We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
    7. Re:License fee by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      So remove the msfonts package, change the dpi on your screen to 120dpi or 150dpi, and be ready to cry after a few hours.

    8. Re:License fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, you support the philosophy of taking from the needy to give to the greedy? Are you retarded or are you rich.

    9. Re:License fee by tmosley · · Score: 0

      I like how you totally misrepresent their platform, which is to STOP taking from EVERYONE and to stop giving to everyone with a powerful LOBBYIST.

    10. Re:License fee by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      So you are for the Koch Bros and giving the 1% even more tax breaks? Because I hate to break the news to ya friend but the tea party hasn't been grass roots since the "tea party express" aka the Koch bros money train, rolled into the station more than a year and a half ago. You look at the platform of Cain or any other pro tea party politician and you'll find they are pretty much reading a Koch bros press release. It was a nice idea, to take back the government, but sadly it got bought out and co-opted by the money men before the second minuteman had even gone by.

      As for TFA, is there gonna be an article when someone at SCO tries to do a slip and fall at the Safeway as well? While i appreciate what Groklaw did back in the day with the SCO case that was then, this is now. SCO isn't even qualified to be called a zombie, more like a little pile of shit that still wafts up the occasional bad odor.

      Lets be honest folks, they have about as much of a chance of winning jack shit in court as that crazy guy that wanted millions because his pants got messed up at the cleaners. hell that guy had a better chance than SCO does, the rulings the court handed down making it really REALLY clear that they don't own shit when it comes to Unix.

      But as long as sites like /. keep writing about them they'll get some gambling VC to throw them a couple of bucks, so quit helping them okay? Just ignore the shit and the sun will dry up their little stinky ass and blow them away.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    11. Re:License fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But someone knowledgeable of font rendering may look at my screen and say, "why don't you just shoot yourself now?"

      Trust us, it has nothing to do with font rendering.

    12. Re:License fee by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fees you cock-smoking teabaggers!

      And they say Slashdot trolling has gone downhill in recent years.

      Now if I only encountered a GNAA troll, my day would be complete.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. SCO = Herpes by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

    SCO keeps coming back just like herpes. How is it that they can continue to pay lawyers (or find fools greedy enough) to fund their 'Hail Marry' legal crap?

    1. Re:SCO = Herpes by sgt+scrub · · Score: 5, Informative

      How is it that they can continue to pay lawyers

      The company is nothing but lawyers. They stopped being a tech company a long time ago. As long as a lawyer has not been beheaded/disbarred it will keep finding ways to troll. "It" being the only non-vulgar way I can think of to describe a lawyer.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    2. Re:SCO = Herpes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      How is it that they can continue to pay lawyers (or find fools greedy enough) to fund their 'Hail Marry' legal crap?

      The general belief is a certain company whose popular acronym starts with an "M" and ends with an "S"...

    3. Re:SCO = Herpes by Troy+Baer · · Score: 1

      As long as a lawyer has not been beheaded/disbarred it will keep finding ways to troll.

      My vote is for "beheaded" in this case.

      --
      "My life's work has been to prompt others... and be forgotten." --Cyrano de Bergerac
    4. Re:SCO = Herpes by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't what happening in the US right now similar to situations where some animals kills their own offspring in order to survive themselves?

      But when that happens it can also be damaging to the future survival since what's culled may actually have a better opportunity and be better adapted to survival in the long run.

      Being a patent troll is not that different from being a cannibal.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:SCO = Herpes by hedwards · · Score: 2

      I think you're being hasty. I say we bury him alive and see if he rises from the dead. Worst case scenario you then have to behead him.

    6. Re:SCO = Herpes by femtoguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a person living in Utah, I can attest that there is an inordinate number of out of work lawyers here. Not only that, we have a lot of lawyers here that are very entrepreneurial. That is a very bad combination, and there are lots of silly legal things happening here. So, if your choices are to take on a potentially hopeless law suit or collect up shopping carts at Walmart, stupid law suits don't look to bad.

    7. Re:SCO = Herpes by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Hasty? I'm one who dislikes doing a job two or three times. Let's get it done right the first time. Shoot it through the heart with a silver bullet, drive a wooden stake through it's heart - following the path of the bullet, if you like, behead it, then leave it lying in the sun for most of a day, then bury it with a bouquet of garlic and other fragrant herbs. The head we removed earlier should be burned - I'm not sure if there's a prescribed formula for the fire, or if we can just kick the head into any old furnace.

      Or, we could just nuke from orbit.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:SCO = Herpes by mikael · · Score: 1

      I hope they turn this saga into a horror movie. This is like the corpse still banging on the cofffin cask door, even when sprinkled with holy water, surrounded by crucifixes, shot with silver bullets, packed in with garlic and exorcised by an entire busload of priests working shifts 24/7.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    9. Re:SCO = Herpes by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

      >> 4,143,077 Texans live in poverty. 1,655,085 of them are children. http://www.census.gov/

      The other some odd 2,487,922 are paying Texas traffic ticket SURCHARGES.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    10. Re:SCO = Herpes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's the only way to be sure.

    11. Re:SCO = Herpes by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 4, Funny

      drive a wooden stake through it's heart

      That part would be a problem... we're talking about a lawyer here...

    12. Re:SCO = Herpes by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Because when this whole fiaSCO started, they paid a lump sump to their attorneys to cover the ENTIRE suit through all appeals.

      They're NOT paying their attorneys, they've already been paid.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    13. Re:SCO = Herpes by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      A stake through the heart works for non zombies also.

    14. Re:SCO = Herpes by richlv · · Score: 3, Funny

      a "woosh" sound is made by a stake as it tries to find a heart in a lawyer...

      --
      Rich
    15. Re:SCO = Herpes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just need to be disbarred for wasting judges time and public money. That will fix them.

    16. Re:SCO = Herpes by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      You know, every other profession adds value to society.

      Your posts proves that they only harm and when they are out of work they figure out ways to harm people entrepreneurial and all of course. Other people start businesses that serve society.

      Seriously it would serve society better if they got paid for life not to work

    17. Re:SCO = Herpes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Texas has been an ugly disgrace ever since bush first became gubbernor. It should be flushed down the toilet like any stinking pile of shit.

    18. Re:SCO = Herpes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but these are corporate lawyers.
      You need an electron microscope and lot's of patience to FIND a heart, and then you have to verify it's their heart, and not some portion of a heart awarded as 'damages' in a class action lawsuit.

    19. Re:SCO = Herpes by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Just wait until Walmart realizes that they can get the customers to do the shopping cart work too - like we have here. Deposit coin, get cart, return cart get coin back.

      But maybe that won't happen until there's a $1 coin.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    20. Re:SCO = Herpes by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      >> 4,143,077 Texans live in poverty. 1,655,085 of them are children. http://www.census.gov/

      The other some odd 2,487,922 are paying Texas traffic ticket SURCHARGES.

      I hadn't heard of this, so I googled "texas ticket surcharge."

      If you go to Texas, you'll pay for it the rest of your life.

      Unreal. I don't even have it in me to make a jab at Republicans over this. I mean... holy shit, Texas. Holy fucking shit. I'm not mad, or angry, or even disappointed. I'm stunned.

    21. Re:SCO = Herpes by tmosley · · Score: 1

      I live in Texas, and have never heard of that. But then, I haven't had a traffic ticket in ages.

    22. Re:SCO = Herpes by JustNilt · · Score: 1

      You know, every other profession adds value to society.

      Your posts proves that they only harm and when they are out of work they figure out ways to harm people entrepreneurial and all of course. Other people start businesses that serve society.

      Seriously it would serve society better if they got paid for life not to work

      I wouldn't go so far as to say that lawyers only harm. I would certainly agree that they need to be leashed NOW and not in a particularly polite way. Society must take control of itself again, not let itself be led around by the nose.

      Just my 2 cents worth.

      --
      You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
    23. Re:SCO = Herpes by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      I'm struggling to see the bad in that. It just looks like your run-of-the-mill speeding fine to me.

      What's the difference in this case?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    24. Re:SCO = Herpes by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Great idea. Too bad lawyers don't have hearts.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    25. Re:SCO = Herpes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The head we removed earlier should be burned - I'm not sure if there's a prescribed formula for the fire, or if we can just kick the head into any old furnace.

      Personally, I favor standard aluminum/iron oxide thermite, salted with silver and hawthorn wood.

    26. Re:SCO = Herpes by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Seriously it would serve society better if they got paid for life not to work

      No. Absolutely not.

      Use lawyers for animal testing instead of fluffy bunnies. This not only shuts PETA up, but also does something about the excess lawyer population.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    27. Re:SCO = Herpes by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      I'm struggling to see the bad in that. It just looks like your run-of-the-mill speeding fine to me.

      What's the difference in this case?

      In most states, (Ohio and Arizona are the two I'm most familiar with. Don't ask...), money collected from traffic tickets goes to the community. These surcharges go directly to the State of Texas. And it doesn't matter if you're an out of state resident who has points on his license, if convicted in Texas, you get to pay on all the points for 3 years. To Texas.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    28. Re:SCO = Herpes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hasty? I'm one who dislikes doing a job two or three times. Let's get it done right the first time. Shoot it through the heart with a silver bullet, drive a wooden stake through it's heart - following the path of the bullet, if you like, behead it, then leave it lying in the sun for most of a day, then bury it with a bouquet of garlic and other fragrant herbs...

      ...and then, after it's been allowed to marinade for several hours, dig it up and thoroughly cook it for approximately 15 minutes per pound, and you'll end up with a lovely delicacy.

    29. Re:SCO = Herpes by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's doom for sure. The only way to kill a zombie is to shoot it in its brain. But Zombie SCO has no brain!

    30. Re:SCO = Herpes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, herpes is a pretty nasty disease, but I don't think it deserves to be insulted the way you just did by mentioning in the same breath as SCO.

    31. Re:SCO = Herpes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you go to Texas, you'll pay for it the rest of your life [state.tx.us]."

      Only if you're only going to live 3 more years. Thank God you don't exaggerate! (/sarcasm)

      And according to the site you quoted, it's for DWI, or driving without a license, or with an invalid license. So, what's the problem? If it was up to me, on your second DWI conviction we'd just kill you, as you're worthless in society, and a clear danger to everyone.

    32. Re:SCO = Herpes by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Crotch, then.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    33. Re:SCO = Herpes by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Be kind and toss me a life preserver first.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    34. Re:SCO = Herpes by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      When the government is in on the indentured service market you know your in Texas.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    35. Re:SCO = Herpes by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      It is to take advantage of the insurance law. If you get a ticket for not having your insurance card they haul away your car and take away your license. Even if your not guilty, ie. show up in court with your insurance card, you have to pay to get your car out of impound and renew your license. It is fairly common for people to get their car out asap to avoid fees. When they are driving it away they get busted. Their car gets re-impounded, they go to jail, and they pay. Now that the bill is so high they will never be able to recoup the car, savings, and dignity, the state tosses on points -- the state auctions off the car and keeps the money. Dont forget the elderly. Forget to update your drivers license? Congrad's you receive a $250 fine on top of what you were stopped for ...and points!

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    36. Re:SCO = Herpes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laser targeting systems help.

    37. Re:SCO = Herpes by mcavic · · Score: 1

      In Missouri you can have your license suspended if you get enough speeding tickets. So I suppose paying a surcharge is better if it prevents suspension.

    38. Re:SCO = Herpes by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      I'm struggling to see the bad in that. It just looks like your run-of-the-mill speeding fine to me.

      What's the difference in this case?

      You pay the fine. YOU ARE NOT DONE PAYING. You then must pay additional "surcharge" amounts as a function of how many points you have on your license and the manner of your driving offenses. You must continue paying for years until the points fall off your license. Collection of the surcharges is contracted out to unscrupulous "vendors" accountable to nobody.

      Again, it's tempting to stick the knife in Republicans for this, but I don't live in Texas and I never will. It's their state and their laws; fuck em.

    39. Re:SCO = Herpes by mjwx · · Score: 1

      SCO keeps coming back just like herpes.

      Just to be a pendant, Herpes never actually goes away. Once you have Herpes, you have it for life. Only the symptoms of Herpes come and go.

      SCO is more like a bad case of clap. You've gotten rid of it using medication, then someone comes along and gets you re-infected.

      (Unfortunately, I still have customers on SCO Unix, we're trying to these few onto Red Hat or Centos as quickly as possible as it's getting hard to find replacement HW that works with SCO Unix)

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  3. Because they were too busy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Filed November 4th? I guess they were too busy collecting candy on Halloween. I bet they had fun in their zombie costumes frightening small children and Linux users.

    1. Re:Because they were too busy? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      There was a period early on where the lawsuits certainly spooked people, but after it became quite clear that SCO actually had nothing, it became more a mix of incredulity and frustration, in large part that a legal system would actually allow a complainant who had no evidence or basis for their claims could actually keep a case going in the courts for years.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Reminds me of the old Russian bonds by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    They are still traded, believe it or not. The bonds issued by the old Czarist regime from almost a century ago. Every time it seems like Russia might ponder thinking about picking them up and honoring them, their value goes up. Mind you, from zero to near zero, but still.

    I guess SCO is aiming for the same gambit.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Reminds me of the old Russian bonds by Shadyman · · Score: 2

      But at least in Soviet Russia, Bonds redeem *you*.

    2. Re:Reminds me of the old Russian bonds by peragrin · · Score: 2

      But at least in Soviet Russia, Bond James Bond redeem *you*.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:Reminds me of the old Russian bonds by bkmoore · · Score: 1

      Somebody found some old paper bonds from the Weimar Republic a few years ago and found investors who were willing to invest in them in the hope that Germany might honor them. I think Germany had already paid them off and they were worthless or something like that, but I'm sure people will continue buying and selling them anyway.

    4. Re:Reminds me of the old Russian bonds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would buy any quantity of bonds at 0 if I had even the remotest chance of them picking up to near-zero (which you say actually happens) -- at which I would immediately sell. Please tell me more.

    5. Re:Reminds me of the old Russian bonds by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be "zero to near zero", because the last guy will have been thinking the same as you. What you'd be hoping for is "near zero" moving to "slightly less near zero".

    6. Re:Reminds me of the old Russian bonds by khallow · · Score: 1

      I would buy any quantity of bonds at 0 if I had even the remotest chance of them picking up to near-zero

      Don't forget transaction costs.

    7. Re:Reminds me of the old Russian bonds by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Ah yes - my grandmother's family invested heavily in the Trans Siberian Railrway - evidently most of their life savings. When the Bolsheviks repudiated those bonds, it changed my ancestor's lives, not for the better.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    8. Re:Reminds me of the old Russian bonds by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Just look at how many idiots continued to buy GM stock after it was officially bankrupt and they were told that the stock was worth zero, "just in case."

    9. Re:Reminds me of the old Russian bonds by theolein · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, James Bonds James.

      It's very kinky.

  5. Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by evanism · · Score: 2

    In 100 years when Linux rules all, the name SCO will be uttered in hushed tones like an unmentionably profane word, told to naughty children by mothers to warn them against Bad Things, and the generic name for products that burned into a black hole of public hatred... "did you see that BeegleSearch did a SCO?".

    Time for the cricket bat to put this zombie down for good.

    --
    Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    1. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

      In 100 years when Linux rules all,

      Dude I don't normally say this, but today I have a real bad back-ache and I'm in a lot of pain. So could you give me some of what you're smoking?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      In 100 years when Linux rules all, the name SCO will be uttered in hushed tones like an unmentionably profane word, told to naughty children by mothers to warn them against Bad Things, and the generic name for products that burned into a black hole of public hatred... "did you see that BeegleSearch did a SCO?".

      Time for the cricket bat to put this zombie down for good.

      "You mean Valdemort?"

      "Shhh!"

      No doubt your right. Sort of a negative take on "Doing an Apple."

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure saying SCOX at school can get you that reaction right now.

    4. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by Threni · · Score: 1

      If you have a smartphone it runs Linux. If you use a browser then you've been served up pages from a Linux server.

      But yeah, if you work for some shitty company or other you might have to use a Windows pc at some point, and if you're like a user or something then you might have a Windows pc at home on some shitty laptop which keeps overheating and is no use for games.

    5. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Actually I have a desktop that boots debian, ubuntu and windows 7. For some reason I always use Windows 7, except when I do my online banking. Why? Because you simply cannot argue with 90-odd percent market share. All the new drivers come out for Windows 7 first. All the new software is supported for Windows 7 first. I don't have to fiddle with the command line. I don't have to download packages. I don't have to be insulted on random websites when I ask what apparently are extremely stupid questions because I can't seem to get my hardware to work despite everyone swearing how easy it is.

      The time for rolling up my sleeves and fiddling around with bits of computer or OS are gone. I am too old. I enjoyed it when I was young, but it belongs in the past. Just like I used to swear by manual transmissions, I've had an automatic now for years and I love it. I'm not a kid anymore. So, while I agree that linux has its niche, linux will never "rule all" unless they undergo a fundamental design change from a specialist OS to a mass market OS. But if that happens it will just stop being linux.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by Loosifur · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about the smartphone that I have to pull the battery out of every day or so because it hung while getting a text message and email at the same time? And the Windows PC that I'm currently playing Battlefield 3 on, that I haven't had to restart in a week? 'Cause if that's the comparison, you just sold me against Linux. Which is weird, because I dual boot.

      --
      This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
    7. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that make you bi(OS)?

    8. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 1

      Funnily enough, I have the exact opposite experience...

      I was given a windows-only mp3 player and have never been able to sync it with Windows. I plug it in, windows then tells me I need to install drivers so I install them. It then tells me to reboot, so I reboot. I launch WMP, then after clicking all over the place I finally find the device to try and sync it with some playlists. At the end of the sync, WMP tells me "there was an error please try again later". I check the player, nothing on it... the damned thing spent a good 20 minutes churning away to do nothing. I plug it into a Linux box, a pop-up comes and asks me if I prefer to use Rythmbox or AmaroK to manage the player. It syncs no problem. After asking on forums, I'm told I must be some kind of moron or my windows installation has a serious problem (or both) as those devices are plug-and-play. Or maybe the device is defective... but it works 100% fine with Linux even tho it is a windows-only mp3 player. So I try on another machine, same result. A third machine with a more recent installation of windows, same result. A VM with a fresh installation of windows and all patches applied... same result.

      Last week, I bought a random cheapo no-name USB wireless stick. I plugged it on my Linux box and it worked directly. Windows required me to install drivers.

    9. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 100 years when Linux rules all, the name SCO will be uttered in hushed tones like an unmentionably profane word, told to naughty children by mothers to warn them against Bad Things, and the generic name for products that burned into a black hole of public hatred... "did you see that BeegleSearch did a SCO?".

      Time for the cricket bat to put this zombie down for good.

      Naw. SCO will be a term of derision, used to brand idiots with dumb ideas.

    10. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you hit a bat with a cricket or a cricket with a bat? Utter nonsense. If you want to hit something with something else, it's best to use something designed for hitting, like a baseball bat or golf club. Or use an actual club-club. A chunk of a tree in the shape of the top 99% of an exclamation mark, like this one !

    11. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Codeine may be considered old-fashioned by some, but it seems to work for me.

    12. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by Kjella · · Score: 1

      A hundred years is a very long time. In many ways the computer industry is still young, things keep changing all the time at least on the hardware and interface level. Right now it's mobile devices, multipoint touchscreens and so on but there's been plenty others over the last decade, people are still finding reasons to upgrade from XP and OS X 10.0 that was state of the art 10 years ago. Is operating in 2021 going to look that much different from 2011? 2031 to 2021? ...and so on. I'm not going to pretend I know when it slows down, but I'm sure it will at some time. That the computer you get 10 years later is pretty much the same as 10 years ago, of course a little better and all that but not more revolutionary than a new car to one from 2001.

      Even if Linux were to flop completely in the commercial market (which would require quite profitable companies like Red Hat to go under, not just Ubuntu etc.) there'd still be people working on it. The pace might be slow (some would say glacial) but if the finish line stops moving it would eventually catch up. That an OS will be a commodity in 100 years doesn't sound all that improbable to me. If it'll be Linux is a very uncertain prediction, but it certainly seems to have hit critical mass on the server side and via Android on the phone side. That in a decade or two maybe Apple and Microsoft go "Hey, why are we spending all this effort on a kernel?" and move to a proprietary-on-top-of-Linux model. And then maybe a decade or two after that again we get to the point where people say "Uh, why am I paying for an UI to launch my apps?"

      Of course during the same time free applications also improve. I'm sure you don't remember but there's plenty apps you used to have to pay for that you wouldn't dream of paying for today. If you take GIMP + 50 years development, are you going to need Photoshop? Are they going to invent so much magic that people still be paying, or are the tools going to outpace the people using it? Maybe not in every niche, I think there will be plenty proprietary software in 100 years. But I think open source software will be a much, much larger part of the total, it's like a baseline of what can you already get for free. Hell, if MS Office was cross-platform I'm sure very many corporate desktops would already be on Linux today. So how about LibreOffice + 50 years development, are you still going to need MS Office?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      In 100 years when Linux rules all,

      Dude I don't normally say this, but today I have a real bad back-ache and I'm in a lot of pain. So could you give me some of what you're smoking?

      It's probably just Mike & Ike.

    14. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      100 years will probably see quantum computing become useful, and Linux won't work on a non-Von-Neumann architecture system.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    15. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      i wouldn't count it out of quantum computing, i mean we have no clue how it will really work out entirely until we have a quantum chip that are actually useful. i would not be surprised if it were to be ported to a quantum architecture fairly early on along with quantum c.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    16. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by Bill+Currie · · Score: 1

      You sir, need to learn what a crumpet is. After that, you might understand cricket.

      --

      Bill - aka taniwha
      --
      Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak

    17. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and is no use for games."

      This tells you all you need to know - basement-dweller! Say hi to your parents for me!

    18. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 100 years when Linux rules all

      2111, the year of desktop Linux!

    19. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by syousef · · Score: 1

      If you have a smartphone it runs Linux. If you use a browser then you've been served up pages from a Linux server.

      But yeah, if you work for some shitty company or other you might have to use a Windows pc at some point, and if you're like a user or something then you might have a Windows pc at home on some shitty laptop which keeps overheating and is no use for games.

      I say this as someone who's run Linux VMs, and currently runs an Android phone. Grow the fuck up.

      By the way I have just upgraded from a Nokia which had a browser, apps etc. and was considered a smart phone. Symbian's not Linux based. Nor are Windows 7 phones Linux based for that matter. You're just talking smack.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    20. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Does that make you bi(OS)?

      Or 'bi-curi(OS)'.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    21. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Dude, what the hell are you doing with Debian of all things? That's for fire and forget servers. Hell, CentOS is a better choice. Try Arch - nice and fresh packages, great documentation - and I never saw the need to ask anyone anything. Oh, and - hating th CLI and manual transimtions is plain lazy. This is coming from a person who killed half an hour setting up zsh for the autocomplete - I know what lazy is about, but you are just not being efficient at being lazy.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    22. Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      If you are using a factory firmware, you might as well be running WinME. I'm not blaming you, just flash CyanogenMod, and tell me what the results are.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  6. Zombies versus Nazgul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New book, to be followed by the B-movie.

  7. Now I believe it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our legal system is truly broken.

    1. Re:Now I believe it. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2

      Our legal system is truly broken.

      Broken? I don't know: we give everyone a chance to have their day in court ... multiple chances even. You don't want justice (or whatever passes for it nowadays) to be too swift. But you're right: SCO had their chance, they blew it (because they were wrong) and they should just go away. Fact is, had they been left to themselves, they'd have been cremated years ago. The problem is, there are too many powerful entities (Gates, Ballmer, Hell & Co, for one) who see a strategic advantage in continually resurrecting this particular corpse.

      I'm sure the Nazgûl are probably thinking "Oh, please. Not again!" right about now.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Now I believe it. by ari_j · · Score: 2

      You believe that our legal system is broken, based on what? Reading even just the introductory paragraphs of SCO's brief on its motion to reopen the case, you will see that the judge ruled in closing the case that "When the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its decision in the Novell litigation (No. 10-4122), either party may move the court to re-open the case." SCO is doing exactly what the judge ordered it to do. Groklaw and Slashdot may sensationalize this all they want, but don't let two sensationalist, biased websites convince you that the legal system is broken.

      A little more understanding will help, as well. The court in SCO v. IBM did not rule on IBM's motions for summary judgment, by which SCO's claims would be extinguished. It chose not to rule on them until the Novell case was finally decided, on appeal or otherwise. SCO is asking for the court to rule on IBM's motions for summary judgment. It of course wants them to be denied, but how does it prove to you that our legal system broken when someone asks a judge to consider the merits of the opposing party's motions (which has not been done yet) and does exactly what the judge ordered them to do, moving to reopen the case after a related case was over with?

      This isn't a case where someone has completely and finally lost and keeps scrounging up cash to pay lawyers to fight. It only looks like that because the people reporting on it haven't bothered to read and understand what is going on before telling you what is going on.

    3. Re:Now I believe it. by Grave · · Score: 2

      You're missing the point. Lawyers do that all the time because they get caught up in technicalities, and it's why they are so despised. Back away from the case, look at it objectively, and you can see that the legal frameworks surrounding patent and copyright are fundamentally broken. Laws are supposed to come into existence because of a fundamental need to protect. When they become subverted and abused, like the entire "intellectual property" industry has done, they start damaging far more than protecting. In the same way that the First Amendment does not protect you yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, or threatening to kill someone, patent and copyright law should not protect trolls or obvious implementations.

      Your argument largely consists of "this is legal", and while that may be true, that was not the point of the parent post. The point of the parent post was that for this nonsense to continue provides evidence of a fundamentally broken system because it has been many many years, and this case has been dealt setback after setback, yet it's not done. If the system is so overly complex and backlogged that it takes, what, almost a decade for this sort of thing to be resolved, that is a massive problem.

    4. Re:Now I believe it. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      For me it demonstrates a serious problem, in that a complainant who has no evidence to back up their claims is permitted literally years to gobble up time. There should be a mandatory one week preliminary hearing in such a case where both sides have to provide a reasonably large body of their evidence, and if they cannot, the case is dismissed. If you have evidence, you should be able to summarize it in the space of a week.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Now I believe it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The problem is, there are too many powerful entities (Gates, Ballmer, Hell & Co, for one) who see a strategic advantage in continually resurrecting this particular corpse.

      The McBride of Frankenstein? :)

    6. Re:Now I believe it. by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      Back away from the case, look at it objectively, and you can see that the legal frameworks surrounding patent and copyright are fundamentally broken.

      That would be be hard to see in this case because there are no patent or copyright issues involved.

      TSCOG (SCOX) hold no patents and own no copyright to UNIX code.

    7. Re:Now I believe it. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      For me it demonstrates a serious problem, in that a complainant who has no evidence to back up their claims is permitted literally years to gobble up time. There should be a mandatory one week preliminary hearing in such a case where both sides have to provide a reasonably large body of their evidence, and if they cannot, the case is dismissed. If you have evidence, you should be able to summarize it in the space of a week.

      Depends. One week simply might not be enough time to determine the merits of a case that involves thousands of pages of contracts and involves multiple facts of the law. If SCO had happened to be in the right, we'd would have wanted them to have every chance of success.

      Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that the legal system doesn't have any real defense against large-scale corporate abusers. The can bury their opponents and the court in paperwork. At a certain point, though, I agree. Enough is enough.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:Now I believe it. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The problem is, there are too many powerful entities (Gates, Ballmer, Hell & Co, for one) who see a strategic advantage in continually resurrecting this particular corpse.

      The McBride of Frankenstein? :)

      Well, if you consider Microsoft to be an unstoppable abomination that stumbles around crushing everything in its path, all the while moaning, "Linux ... baaad!" then yeah. Pretty much.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:Now I believe it. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      multiple facts of the law.

      Facets, dammit. Facets.. Where's the damn "edit" button when you need it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:Now I believe it. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      There should be a mandatory one week preliminary hearing in such a case where both sides have to provide a reasonably large body of their evidence, and if they cannot, the case is dismissed.

      SCO has never had trouble providing evidence. Every time they file, they provide reams and reams of evidence. All of their evidence is garbage, but it requires the court to *read* and *understand* all that garbage in order to rule it so.

    11. Re:Now I believe it. by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Please feel free to submit your proposal for a legal system that solves the problems you perceive with our existing one without introducing more critical problems. Complicated cases take a while to resolve because they are complicated. This case, notwithstanding the general feeling among Slashdotters that SCO is evil and should just die already, is a complicated one. The time it has taken to resolve does not demonstrate any flaw in the legal system.

  8. Linus's view on the scox-scam by walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In a recent interview, Linus expresses his opinions on patents and copyrights and made the following remark about SCO and the US justice system

    "SCO was a classic example of that. Where they tried to use copyrights, which turned out to be completely bogus in so many ways, and made it into a nasty legal battle. They lost badly. What was irritating about the whole thing, as an insider knowing about what they claimed was completely bogus, was that it took them 10 years to lose. It is scary. 10 years! I don't know how many hundreds and millions of dollars IBM and Novell spent on fighting completely bogus crap stuff; fighting lawsuits that made no sense. Literally it made no sense what so ever. To the point that it ended up turning out that they did not even own the copyrights that they were claiming, never mind the copyrights they were claiming weren't actually true. Christ what a chaos!"

    http://www.muktware.com/news/2866

    1. Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Whatever you say, Mr. Stallman.

    2. Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      If the legal teams that IBM & Novell hired were any good (IANAL), why didn't they just look up the copyrights, see SCO had no grounds, and then tell the guys to go jump off a cliff?

      --
      -
    3. Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam by jimicus · · Score: 2

      AFAICT "not having a case" is absolutely no barrier to using the US legal system to its fullest extent.

    4. Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCO would not tell them *what* copyrights they allegedly had, or what code was allegedly infringing! Once they finally did, Novel was pretty fast in telling SCO to STFU (in nice legalese). Of course, that was years again, and SCO won't ever give up. Apparently not even bankruptcy has stopped them.

    5. Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're willing to lie, cheat and steal, no legal system is a barrier to "not having a case".

    6. Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam by Patch86 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because they can't tell them to jump off a cliff. They have to tell the judge to tell them to jump off a cliff. And for that to happen, you have to persuade the judge that you're right. And the SCO lawyers are trying to persuade him that they're right instead. And the judge doesn't know the technicalities that well, and is forced to address every single point, one at a time, letting both sides have a fair crack at persuading him in intricate technical and legal detail for every one of 100s and 100s of points. And then even when he's made his mind up on any given batch of points, an appeal might be called and another judge will need to do the exact same thing.

      That's what takes 10 torturous, expensive years.

    7. Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the legal teams that IBM & Novell hired were any good (IANAL), why didn't they just look up the copyrights, see SCO had no grounds, and then tell the guys to go jump off a cliff?

      There was a dispute over whether or not the material in question was protected by copyright. There was a separate dispute of whether or not the copyright had transferred to SCO.

      SCO was making claims to a broad range of material--much of which they never disclosed publicy. The first issue had to do with BSD and whether or not all of the claimed material had transferred to the public domain.

      The second issue had to do with a contract between SCO and Novell. Novell claims SCO was acting as an agent to sell Unix licenses. SCO claims the contract granted them the copyright.

      So, simply looking up the copyright was not sufficient. The material was protected by copyright at one time and it could be traced to Novell as SCO had claimed.

      SCO was also making other claims against IBM regarding breach of contract in disclosing trade secrets and disclosing material that SCO had personally written.

    8. Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't at all clear who owned the copyrights that SCO claimed had been infringed. (The US government keeps a register of copyrights and who owns them, but it's no longer compulsory for copyright owners to inform the government of new or transferred copyrights.) Novell sold their UNIX business to SCO, but the contract didn't transfer everything, and it was worded in such a way that it wasn't clear exactly what was being transferred. What SCO thought they were buying wasn't what Novell thought they were selling.

      So SCO and Novell had to fight in court to figure out who owned the UNIX copyrights. Once the judge ruled that Novell still owned them, SCO's other cases should've collapsed immediately, but their lawyers were (are?) very good at delays and diversionary tactics. SCO's cases will be studied in law schools for decades to come, as examples of how to keep a case going with the flimsiest of evidence...

    9. Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam by dissy · · Score: 1

      If the legal teams that IBM & Novell hired were any good (IANAL), why didn't they just look up the copyrights, see SCO had no grounds, and then tell the guys to go jump off a cliff?

      They did, that was his point. It costs 10 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to say STFU using the US legal system! And he's right, it's crazy.

    10. Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      If the legal teams that IBM & Novell hired were any good (IANAL), why didn't they just look up the copyrights, see SCO had no grounds, and then tell the guys to go jump off a cliff?

      What does "look up a copyright" mean?

      That's not how it works.

      You go to the judge and say "I own the copyright to this and that is a copy of this".

      TSCOG (SCOX) didn't own the copyright (Novell does) and the Linux code wasn't copied. The only person who can decide that is a Judge, not IBM & Novell.

    11. Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam by AlterEager · · Score: 2

      What SCO thought they were buying wasn't what Novell thought they were selling.

      A not so minor quibble:

      What Caldera thought SCO bought from Novell wasn't what Novell thought they sold to SCO.

      SCO then sold whatever it was to Caldera and renamed themselves Tarentella (and got bought by Sun who got bought by Oracle).

      Then Caldera (you know, Mickey Mouse's ear) renamed themselves to "The SCO Group".

      TSCOG never bought anything from Novell.

    12. Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine the chaos that a company with infinite money could cause. *cough* Apple *cough*

    13. Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole thing just proves that some people really DO deserve killing. I'm talking about all those SCO assholes who keep doing this.

  9. SCO Zombie ... by subreality · · Score: 1

    ... No problem, L4D taught us how to deal with this: AIM FOR THE HEAD.

    1. Re:SCO Zombie ... by EdgeCreeper · · Score: 1

      Which one?

  10. Maybe by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 1

    They are just bored! who knows, world's been kind of dull lately.

  11. How do you kill a zombie? by gstrickler · · Score: 1

    Shotgun blast to the head, right? But what kind of shotgun do you use for a corporation?

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    1. Re:How do you kill a zombie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shotgun blast to the head, right? But what kind of shotgun do you use for a corporation?

      Atomic.

    2. Re:How do you kill a zombie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the only way to be sure.

    3. Re:How do you kill a zombie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of them at once!

    4. Re:How do you kill a zombie? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "But what kind of shotgun do you use for a corporation?"

      The Irish Republican Army had a quaint custom called "kneecapping".

      It's not murder, but was an effective way to deal with human obstacles and appeared to have a cautionary effect on those who saw the results.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:How do you kill a zombie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 gauge SABOT round to their servers. Be sure to get their backups too. Without data, a Corp is a corpse.

    6. Re:How do you kill a zombie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shotgun blast to the head, right? But what kind of shotgun do you use for a corporation?

      Well, according to some on the right, it should be the same as for a human... right? heh.

  12. Even if SCO had the best *nix in the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it wouldn't be worth it for anyone to do business with them. They have no one to blame for all the bad press they've gotten themselves.

    1. Re:Even if SCO had the best *nix in the world... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Nobody's done business with them for a decade already. There's nothing left except lawyers and the only reason they're there is because SCO bought their services until this is resolved, back before they ran out of money.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  13. It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by walterbyrd · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

    Microsoft financed the entire scam. And doesn't it fit the MS MO perfectly? MS is always abusing the legal system to hurt it's competition.

    It also fit's the MS MO to pull these legal system scams by proxie. A US federal judge once accused MS of using "Tonya Harding" tactics. At least somebody in the US justice system gets it.

    1. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Microsoft financed the entire scam"

      Citation needed please....

    2. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      go to groklaw. Do you really think they purchased sco licenseing because they felt it was needed. put on your reality glasses

    3. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Microsoft and Sun. The both funded SCO using the same man behind the scene technique.

    4. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a lot of speculation on many sites about Microsoft being the financier but AFAIK there is NO PROOF.

      hence

      Citation Needed.

      and

      Where's the Beef (to borrow a phrase from a US Election)

    5. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 1

      This... I fail to understand how the co-creator of SysVr4 would need to pay SCO a license in relation to the x86 version of their OS.

    6. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by walterbyrd · · Score: 2

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents

    7. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by walterbyrd · · Score: 2

      Because Sun was schizophrenia. Sun loved linux, then sun hated linux, then sun claimed to own linux. At one point McNealy said something like: "of course we are pleased to own the only legal version of linux." Soon afterwards, Novell made the same claim about SuSe. The scammers want to say that only their version of linux is legal because it has been blessed by Microsoft.

      Classic extortion: pay us not to sue you, or your customers; then you can say you have the only legal version. MS is still pulling the same scam all over the place.

    8. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by unixisc · · Score: 1

      In fact, to support GP's contention, Sun even bought Interactive Unix, so there was no reason for them to pay SCO squat. Later, they did buy Tarantella from them.

    9. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      You are posting as A/C, Ballmer is that you ?

    10. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by jbengt · · Score: 1

      MS did purchase licenses from SCO. More important, MS helped finance BayStar shortly before BayStar helped finance SCO for the lawsuits, thus preserving plausible deniability.
      See the Halloween documents indicated in another post above as well as this and this.

    11. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      In fact, to support GP's contention, Sun even bought Interactive Unix, so there was no reason for them to pay SCO squat. Later, they did buy Tarantella from them.

      ISC had a license from AT&T for Unix SRV3.2. That license included terms that required ISC to keep the code closed source.

      SUN bought ISC.

      SUN had a license from At&T for Unix SRV4 (yes, they bought a license, even thought they (mostly) wrote it). That license included terms that required SUN to keep the code closed source.

      Novell bought Unix from At&T. Not a license, they bought the copyright.

      Novell sold a license to SUN that allowed SUN to do whatever they wanted with there Unix derived code, including open sourcing it.

      Novell sold something to SCO, no-one really knows what, but it wasn't the copyrights to Unix.

      SCO sold whatever it was to Caldera.

      SCO renamed themselves to Tarentella then got bought by SUN.

      Caldera renamed themselves to The SCO Group.

      TSOG sold nothing to SUN. (The couldn't, they didn't own anything anyone understands).

      The world of proprietary software and IP is too complicated for any sane human being to understand.

    12. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The copyrights to Unix were sold/given to the X/Open consortium, which later merged into OSF, creating the Open Group. They own the UNIX copyright and trademarks - in fact, they even own the trademark to Unixware. However, what Novell did sell to SCO was the copyright to Unixware. That's why SCO has 2 Unixes - one is SCO OSE, and the other is Unixware. Novell essentially exited the Unix business by giving/selling everything to X/Open & SCO, until they decided to buy SUSE

    13. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by phands · · Score: 1

      Bullcrap. Look up Mike Anderer and the Halloween Memo.

    14. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      Urgh, this shit makes my brain ache.

      However, what Novell did sell to SCO was the copyright to Unixware

      Not so fast:

      On August 10, 2007, Judge Kimball, hearing the SCO v. Novell case, ruled that "...the court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare Copyrights".

    15. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2

      BayStar took money from Microsoft, BayStar did a PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity) in SCO.

      http://slashdot.org/story/04/03/11/158214/baystar-confirms-microsoft-behind-sco-investment

      and

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies#SCO_and_BayStar_Capital

      also see below at that page under "Microsoft funding of SCO controversy".

      Which leads to:
      http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween10.html

      So that's pretty much as much evidence as I can imagine needing.

    16. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that, I just shared that comment out to my lists etc as it so succinctly draws the map with only links to fairly reliable sites. Just one more way in which Microsoft is evil which must be waved around before the lovers of Gates and his almighty foundation of IP law.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      No. The copyrights and trademarks of Unix were bought by Novell . The X/Open consortium got the trademarks to Unix when Novell transferred them to the consortium. The X/Open Consortium later formed the Open Group. Santa Cruz wanted to buy Unix copyrights and business from Novell. However they didn't have enough money and Novell was concerned with the financial stability of the company. So Santa Cruz got the Unix and UnixWare business but not the copyrights to Unix. For every Unix license Santa Cruz sold, they kept 5% but had to give Novell 95% of the revenue. This arrangement worked for over 8 years until Caldera bought Santa Cruz and renamed themselves SCO. Under Darl McBride they conveniently forgot about the arrangement and considered themselves the owner or Unix.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    18. Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      There is a lot of speculation on many sites about Microsoft being the financier but AFAIK there is NO PROOF.

      hence

      Citation Needed.

      and

      Where's the Beef (to borrow a phrase from a US Election)

      OK, dipshit. Here you go: "In early 2003, Microsoft started paying SCO what eventually grew to $16.6 million for a Unix license, according to regulatory filings."

      Of course, this won't satisfy you as your dipshit A/C modus operandi is to reflexively deny things such as the Holocaust and Microsoft supporting SCOX.

  14. It was all fun and stuff... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but now it's time to KILL IT WITH FIRE!

  15. Rule #2 by bragr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Double tap.

    For exactly this reason

    1. Re:Rule #2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Night of the Dead litigation?

    2. Re:Rule #2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For zombies you use tracers.

  16. Did Larry Ellison buy SCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like the latest installment of the Oracle horror movie. ...and the captcha word is "anarchic"

  17. SCO have hired a superstar attorney for their case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jack Thompson will argue that Rogue turned thousands of teenagers into serial killers.

  18. Oh goodie a car analogy by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    Siblings are using their mom's old car. She doesn't care what any of them do with it. The youngest used it to sell and deliver pizza. His older brother let his friends use it to deliver free pizza in return for free pizza and free recipes. The youngest complained to dad. Dad tells him to GFY. So he complains again, and again, and again. If we are lucky we will get to watch dad beating the shit out of him on youtube.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  19. Re:SCO = Submarine by muon-catalyzed · · Score: 1

    SCO U-Boot has just fired its submarine software patent torpedo..

  20. What it really means ... by tomhudson · · Score: 2

    ... is that Cahn (the trustee) found there was still some loose change floating around, and he can continue to grind out trustee fees by demanding BSF continue to litigate for free as per the agreement.

    Not that anyone else even cares any more. Even if SCO were to somehow win everything they ask for in some parallel universe, it wouldn't affect anyone outside the USofA, and there's enough connectivity now that all the data centers running linux could just move north and south of the borders.

    So who would that leave? Pretty much nobody.

    1. Re:What it really means ... by Fished · · Score: 1

      This. SCOx is bankrupt, and the trustee is obligated to conserve their assets. Arguably, this would include pursuing this case into the ground, so long as there's ANY chance if settlement, especially since the legal fees are (maybe) already covered.

      --
      "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    2. Re:What it really means ... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Not when the estate is responsible for all other costs of pursuing litigation, such as transcripts, witnesses, etc. Look at the bills over the last couple of years - millions blown even after the supposed fee cap.

      He would have done better spending it on booze and hookers, and returning the empties for a refund.

    3. Re:What it really means ... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Not when the estate is responsible for all other costs of pursuing litigation, such as transcripts, witnesses, etc. Look at the bills over the last couple of years - millions blown even after the supposed fee cap.

      He would have done better spending it on booze and hookers, and returning the empties for a refund.

      Even given that blowing all that cash on booze & hookers and returning the empties would have brought in more cash than continuing the pursuit of the suit, it wouldn't have been legal under the bankruptcy laws for him to do this. By law, the trustee(s) is/are obligated to continue pursuit until a final judge drops the final hammer for good or evil.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    4. Re:What it really means ... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Not when the estate is responsible for all other costs of pursuing litigation, such as transcripts, witnesses, etc. Look at the bills over the last couple of years - millions blown even after the supposed fee cap.

      He would have done better spending it on booze and hookers, and returning the empties for a refund.

      Even given that blowing all that cash on booze & hookers and returning the empties would have brought in more cash than continuing the pursuit of the suit, it wouldn't have been legal under the bankruptcy laws for him to do this. By law, the trustee(s) is/are obligated to continue pursuit until a final judge drops the final hammer for good or evil.

      [citation needed]

      Better yet, don't bother - they're not. Trustees have a huge amount of discretion in bankruptcy. Your belief is as inaccurate as the one that "corporations are required by law to maximize shareholder value" - often repeated, NEVER backed up when challenged, because no such law exists.

      Second, there already is a judgment in place. Appeals are a cost/benefits analysis that are in the trustee's discretion. There is no law requiring any and all avenues be exhausted to the ruination of the estate. Your belief would result in every bankruptcy having every possible useless appeal to the supreme court being made "just in case".

    5. Re:What it really means ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!

    6. Re:What it really means ... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      He would have done better spending it on booze and hookers, and returning the empties for a refund.

      You can return them instead of burying them in the desert? You learn something new every day...

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    7. Re:What it really means ... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      If you had invested in beer instead of Nortel stock at the peak, drank all the beer, returned the empties, used the money to buy still more beer, and returned THOSE empties for still more beer, and returned THOSE empties, you would have been ahead of the game financially.

      I suspect it will be the same for Groupon, and that the reason they refused google's offer was because they would have had to open their books, and their books show that they're in the hole for about a half billion (and every dollar they bring in still costs them more than a buck). I know, "we'll make it up in volume!"

  21. SCO resulted in some good by Henriok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The whole SCO story isn't all bad, perhaps not bad at all. It has resulted in some pretty important stuff like auditing the Linux code for copyrighted stuff, keeping developers and contributors honest to the code, and really putting these legal issues to test so the rules are clear and hardening Linux while showing that it is a serious player and that large companies can get involved. Linux as a project is absolutely better off for it. Hard times makes does that to stuff, if it doesn't kill you. I thing the battling with Apple will result in the same thing: Less copying/imitating/plagiarism and more innovating. That's what we want, isn't it? New great products, not more of the same?

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
    1. Re:SCO resulted in some good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      True. I would however enjoy seeing McBride drown in a vat of piss.

    2. Re:SCO resulted in some good by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

      I'd mod this comment up. Though I might nitpick the spelling. :)

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    3. Re:SCO resulted in some good by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Way more bad than good, IMO. Now, Microsoft used their lessons from the scox-scam to file bogus IP lawsuits all over the place. It's practically all MS does anymore. Bogus lawsuits work, they work like all hell.

    4. Re:SCO resulted in some good by Billly+Gates · · Score: 0

      It also resulted in no GPL software on the network polices of businesses. Fortune 500 companies have got rid of Linux and switched to Windows to be sox compliant as GPL is viewed as viral. There is even a bank that uses a proprietary old SSH because the BSD OpenSSH is considered GPL and therefore owned by SCO.

      Gee, thanks SCO. ... and thanks MS for funding it through Baystar to hide its fud.

      Lawyers scare people and legal FUD and lawsuits are very effective. Just look at Samsung and its Galaxy Tab? Even if Samsung wins 5 years from now Apple will be a monopoly by then and no one will be able to get parts as Apple will have so much power over suppliers.

    5. Re:SCO resulted in some good by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      There is even a bank that uses a proprietary old SSH because the BSD OpenSSH is considered GPL and therefore owned by SCO.

      Citation needed.

      This non-existant bank obviously has the worst lawyers in the world.

      BSD OpenSSH is GPL software?

    6. Re:SCO resulted in some good by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I think it did a lot damage for over a year or two during a crucial period of time when companies were seriously about possibly switching it created legal doubt as to Linux's standing. The legal issues were 2nd to the failure (with a few exceptions) of all but Unix shops transitioning in having killed corporate desktop Linux.

    7. Re:SCO resulted in some good by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      It has resulted in some pretty important stuff like auditing the Linux code for copyrighted stuff, keeping developers and contributors honest to the code

      Meanwhile, it's proprietary competition has no such scrutiny required, and is even more likely to be able to hide such instances, as their source is not publicly available.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  22. Grasping at straws and nitpicking at details by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Informative

    The new round of SCO claims is more laughable than the original claims. These new claims deal with the ill-fated Project Monterrey.

    Way back in the late 1990s, Project Monterrey was an effort to bring a single Unix that ran on 32-bit and 64-bit. It was supposed to run on POWER, PowerPC, x86 and Itanium. IBM would work on the PowerPC part, Sequent was supposed to bring in multi-processor support, and Santa Cruz would work on IA-32. Intel would help develop Itanium support. The project became large and unwieldy at the same time Linux started gaining traction. IBM bought Sequent in 1999. IBM seeing that the future was Linux and not Project Monterrey declared the project dead in 2000 but not before making all the contributions they felt necessary to complete their end. Itanium was delayed and thus never got much traction. Santa Cruz was bought out by Caldera in 2000 and renamed themselves SCO.

    As part of the agreement, all the partners would share in any development efforts. According to SCO, IBM took the Project Monterrey parts and put it in Linux. I think they may even allege they took the Santa Cruz parts. They also accuse IBM of interfering with their efforts in Project Monterrey.

    Unfortunately for SCO, there isn't much evidence to support them. Project Monterrey failed because Linux was a far more attractive project with more support and more partners. Project Monterrey would at best be a niche platform especially since Itanium never took off. IBM only sold a few dozen licenses from the project where they normally sell hundreds of thousands of licenses.

    Also there is no evidence that IBM took any part of PM and contributed to Linux much less Santa Cruz parts. Again SCO is vague about what parts but SMP, NUMA, and JFS are possible candidates. However all these predate PM with SMP and NUMA coming from Sequent and JFS coming from IBM's OS/2 efforts. The disagreement if the parts don't involve these revolve whether the PM license allowed IBM to take. SCO first has to identify the parts and then place them as originating from their part of PM.

    To show how misguided SCO's claims are they have this bit.

    The fact that Novell waived those contract claims years after the disclosures started does not diminish the impropriety of the disclosures or the damage they caused to SCO.

    In laymen's terms, SCO says just because Novell waived any IBM transgression in 2003, that doesn't SCO wasn't hurt when IBM transgressed on Novell's rights. So SCO is forgetting again the fact that SCO never owned the copyrights so they absolutely no complaint in the matter between IBM and Novell. Only Novell does and they waived it. It doesn't matter when as SCO is not a party to it.

    Indeed, insofar as IBM requires the waiver to avoid liability for breach of contract, Novell's waiver only highlights the wrongfulness of IBM's conduct. In addition, the Tortious Interference Claims are also based on IBM's disclosure of confidential UnixWare technologies that SCO developed after 1995 and that are unrelated to IBM's AT&T licensing agreements for UNIX.

    SCO tries to imply that IBM may have transgressed on Novell thus they are likely to transgress on their claims. The problem is that SCO never had any proof that IBM transgressed on Novell at all. Novell never considered what IBM did to be a transgression. Also any transgression IBM did to SCO must be proved. They keep forgetting the "proof" part.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Grasping at straws and nitpicking at details by catmistake · · Score: 1

      I'd like to get my hands on Monterey... for reference, it'd be nice to have an AIX that ran on a vm in i386/x86_64. But with it being very expensive, and less than 40 licenses ever sold, I wonder if it even exists anywhere anymore. I haven't checked usenet, but I see no torrents for it at tpb. IBM ought to release it as OSS on x86... with a fork, it could compete with Linux, as difficult or unrealistic as that sounds today, it would have crushed Linux back in 2001.

    2. Re:Grasping at straws and nitpicking at details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Santa Cruz was bought out by Caldera in 2000 and renamed themselves SCO

      No. That is not what happened, and this is important.

      Santa Cruz sold some assets to Caldera. These included the Novell APA and associated Unix business and also the OpenServer franchise. It also included the name SCO. Caldera renamed themselves 'The SCO Group'.

      Santa Cruz renamed themselves Tarantella (the name of one of the products they retained) and were later bought by Sun.

      The Project Monteray contacts had a section that required IBM approval if there was to be a change of control. Because this was not asked for nor granted then this requirement voids the contract and so Caldera/The SCO Group have no standing.

  23. Back! by hilather · · Score: 1

    By popular demand!

  24. Re:SCO have hired a superstar attorney for their c by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Jack Thompson is not allowed to practice law anymore so it will be interesting to watch if they did.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  25. To the citizens of Utah by countertrolling · · Score: 1
    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  26. Memoirs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By Richard M. Nixon

  27. Actually MS legitimized slapping lic. fee on Linux by Burz · · Score: 1

    With all the license fees MS are collecting for Android, MS was able to do directly what they were unable to do via SCO. This is about the SCO henchmen getting their cut after MS finally found an M.O. that worked.

  28. Scox-scam continues to be a great success for MS by walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The idea of the scox-scam was never to win a jury verdict. Nor was the idea to collect fees for Linux (I called twice, and asked to be invoiced, scox refused to do so).

    The idea behind the scox-scam was to smear linux, and intimidate some people away from using linux, and to scare some companies away from contributing to linux.

    Think about it: why did scox (really Microsoft) sue IBM? Why not redhat? IBM is not even have a linux distribution. The reason is: IBM had just contributed a file system to Linux. And Microsoft wants other companies to know that if they contribute to Linux, they better be ready to spend $100 million defending that decision. I would bet this tactic actually worked.

    Follow the money. Who stands to benefit from smearing Linux? Caldera/Scox was a linux company. But scox made a lot more $$ accepting MS loot, than from trying to sell Linux.

  29. I tried, scox would not let me by walterbyrd · · Score: 2

    I called scox two times, a few months apart, and asked to be sent an invoice. Scox refused to do so.

    The first time I called, scox seemed bewildered that anybody would even call about it.

    1. Re:I tried, scox would not let me by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      I emailed them telling them I was running linux and refused to pay, and to please sue me ... total silence.

    2. Re:I tried, scox would not let me by pionzypher · · Score: 1

      Here, you're supposed to go here to make sure you're legal..

      How the hell that is still up is bewildering.

      --
      I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
  30. Re:Actually MS legitimized slapping lic. fee on Li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't understand why anyone sane would pay Microsoft one cent for using Android.

    MS simply has nothing on that system. It's a signal of how broken the system is. If you are a big enough bully, you can get paid for other people's work!

    And that is scary.

  31. Re:Herman Cain's dong by The+Askylist · · Score: 1, Insightful
    May I just say that from a transatlantic perspective, it's at least good to have someone with successful business experience and no political axe to grind aiming for the Whitehouse. The current bloke you have only understands politics, and hasn't got a chance of helping the US out of recession.

    That they both are of a darker hue than I am makes not a jot of difference.

  32. SCO's sentence should be 'Work on Itanium'!!! by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Along the lines of George Costanza's script where a guilty party was sentenced by a judge to be a butler, the judge in this case should sentence SCO or UnXis to complete Monterrey on just the Itanium. After all, everybody has been deserting that platform in droves, just like they've been deserting SCO, so SCO should be asked to port every piece of software they own - SCO OSE, Unixware, Monterrey, Vision and everything else - to the Itanium. In fact, sentence them to developing software for only Itanium all their lives. So that the platform, instead of being restricted to just HP/UX and Debian, will get another Unix to run on it. Oh, and make sure it's all native EPIC code - no x86 emulation or anything of that sort.

    I can't think of a more fitting punishment for SCO

  33. Where is SCO? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Where is SCO/UnXis based? Wasn't it in Santa Cruz (hence the name)?

    1. Re:Where is SCO? by Fished · · Score: 1

      The original SCO was in Santa Cruz, and was actually, believe it or not, a Microsoft spinoff. They sold their unix assets and name to Caldera (a Linux company just off a .com IPO) around 1999. After the bust, Caldera changed mgmt and decided to start suing people, a model they used successfully in the 90s by suing Microsift over DRDOS.

      --
      "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
  34. Re:Herman Cain's dong by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    it's at least good to have someone with successful business experience and no political axe to grind aiming for the Whitehouse

    Who would that be? Everyone currently running for the whitehouse has a political agenda, including Cain.

  35. Who's paying for cuntbaggery? by Slashdot+Assistant · · Score: 1

    SCO as a company has sold most of its assets, fired most of its employees, and changed its name. They've been litigating now for nearly 10 years, with little to show for it. During this period McBride ran a previously well-regarded company in to the ground. Here the thing I find most strange is that the owners didn't step-in earlier to remove McBride and his army of cunts. How do companies have any reasonable expectation of reclaiming costs of such an extended period of legal bullshit when the plaintiff appears willing to continue suing while they still have enough money to buy tea bags for the office? IBM can absorb this, smaller business could not. Where does this end? Can a judge at some point tell SCO's lawyers to fuck off. For bonus points, is there a legal way to have McBride kicked to death by his own grandchildren?

    1. Re:Who's paying for cuntbaggery? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      My guess is that the people with a controlling interest in SCO dont care that the company is being run into the ground, they just care that more FUD is being created regarding Linux being "legally
      risky to use"

    2. Re:Who's paying for cuntbaggery? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      It would be useful to keep the NAMES of the enemy visible.

      Who are the PEOPLE (plural) running this operation?

      How can they legally be denied revenue from other sources by boycott and activism?

      It can be argued they are attacking ALL of us who support Free and Open Source software. How can we legitimately strike back?

      Creating a climate of public and professional shame doesn't affect corporate shells, but can affect people.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  36. Time to execure SCO by sjames · · Score: 1

    Surely a corporation that is literally not able to do anything but dredge up old lawsuits that have already been adjudicated to death cannot be seen as being for the public good. Just revoke the charter and be done with it.

    Besides that, shouldn't they have already put everything including old business cards and leftover trade show swag up on ebay to pay their existing debts? Where/how does SCO have any money to pay someone to oversee this crap? Surely at most they should have one person (working from a home office) part time to oversee the shutdown.

  37. Linux was badly designed by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 0, Troll

    Linux was designed badly from a big picture perspective, which is why I never wanted to use it in the first place over a decade ago, but I did anyway in the end for social reasons (things can be useful, even when you know what a mess they are designwise comapred to what they could have been). Linux's design prioritized raw machine processing efficiency over human efficiency -- to begin with, by having a monolithic kernel. That mindset flowed into other applications, but the example was set by the kernel. So software ran a little faster -- but only when it ran, and it often did not for one random breakage or other. And kernel maintainers have said they could care less how much suffering they cause other programmers by incompatible changes (which they probably would not have had so many without being monolithic as well as not message-passing-oriented). UNIX was already obsolete when it was cloned compared to QNX, NeXT, BEOS, and so on. And Smalltalk still had a better model in many ways from the very start decades ago (message passing, virtualization in terms of a VM). Even just Forth might have been a much better model than Linux for a kernel and a module system.

    Anyway, I've been using computers for thirty years (since the KIM-1) so I'm agreeing with you. And I'm mostly using Macs these days -- even though I'd rather use some really cool virtualized thing based around message passing (maybe Squeak-ish someday).

    Still, for many people it is still fun, so things keep going. And "worse is better" up to a point, especially when driven by social adoption and related job opportunities. Sad.

    Still Ubuntu these days seems to have rounded off many of the sharp corners of GNU/Linux (at least 10.04).

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:Linux was badly designed by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      Interesting to get on mod up as interesting and one mod down as a troll. :-)

      Anyway, for the software development community to move forward, we need to really wrestle with these deep design issues. Can't we eventually somehow move beyond "worse is better" as a community?

      Especially now that computers have gotten so fast?

      At what point do we prioritize the user (and/or the maintainer) experience?

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  38. SCO / Groklaw by kiwimate · · Score: 0

    SCO Zombie Creaks Into Motion Again.

    SCO has moved to partially reopen their 10 year old lawsuit against IBM. Unbelievable! Details at Groklaw.

    In other news...

    Groklaw Zombie Creaks Into Motion Again

    Groklaw has moved to partially reopen their 10 year old grudge match against SCO. Unbelievable! Details at SCO. ...

    I predict endless bleatings of Slashdotters and Groklaw peeps who will fail to recognize that they, as much as anything else, served to hyper-extend the original SCO saga by their vigilant, err, vigil on all things about the case.

    1. Re:SCO / Groklaw by phands · · Score: 1

      Groklaw merely reported what SCOX did. One of the main reasons SCOX lost was because GL kept exposing their lies to the cold light of analysis and logic. If that hadn't happened, it's quite possible that SCOX may even have got away with some or all of their extortion scam. Instead of that, SCOX is dead, and GL is archived at the Library of Congress. And, if you are unhappy with lots of discussion and dissection of this news here, why did *you* contribute to it?

  39. Kill 'em already.... by crovira · · Score: 1

    Will some IBM lawyer kindly put a shotgun shell through this zombie's head once and for all?

    Buy SCO's client list, disband SCO's board, take away their DNS entries and set Derle's tomb on fire so we can be done with this crap.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  40. SCOldemort? by aapold · · Score: 1

    You-know-who, who-must-not-be-named?

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  41. Lonley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They must be feeling lonley with all these patent violation claims that are tying up the justice system these days

  42. Just someone kill them already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone must be responsible for the filing of this - an actual person (whether nestled inside an entity of other schrubs). Will someone just double tap these fuckers and get it over with, please?

  43. The Monks: James Bondage by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    http://spotibot.com/track/3Be6KHyD9kmAaLVoW3itWV

    After your comment, its kinda obligatory. Couldn't find it on Youtube, what is the world coming to?

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  44. Re:Scox-scam continues to be a great success for M by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    I have to agree. The only people who benefit from this in any substantial way is Microsoft, and the legion of lawyers their money paid for to run this lawsuit for 10 years. The purpose was to tarnish Linux and Open Source in general. Now someone at MS has ponied up some more cash to run a second scam, ^H^H^H lawsuit and they will likely try to drag it out as long as possible.

    I would love to see some company buy up SCO then opensource all their code, and publicly display all their documents, all their bankrecords, employee histories, legal documents, business agreements etc. Then we could see all of the machinations behind the lawsuits, and perhaps follow the money back to Microsoft.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  45. More like this by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Two man scam. Darl deliberately drove somebody else's car (SCO) into a brick wall (IBM) and took it to his brother's panel shop. I've got no idea how many millions were funnelled out of SCO into his brothers legal firm but that's the way the cash was channelled.
    Of course there's also stock manipulation, resume building (I'm the guy that took on IBM and would have won too if not for those meddling kids and their penguin!), relatively small amount of money coming in from Microsoft who saw they could get a bit of advantage out of the chaos - plus Amityville Horror and Fake Steve Jobs "journalists" stirring the pot for hire. Give it a few years and we'll see Darl pull a similar stunt elsewhere.

  46. Re:Scox-scam continues to be a great success for M by lolcutusofbong · · Score: 1

    Project Monterrey was an effort to bring a single Unix that ran on 32-bit and 64-bit. It was supposed to run on POWER, PowerPC, x86 and Itanium.

    That sounds like Debian, Gentoo, or NetBSD.

  47. Re:Facets, dammit. Facets. by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Maybe you meant that SCO is burying the courts in paper Feces.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine