SCO vs. IBM Trial Back On Again

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO vs. IBM Trial Back On Again

Posted by Soulskill on Friday February 17, 2012 @04:36AM from the it-just-goes-on-and-on-my-friends dept.

D___Breath writes "The lawsuit SCO started years ago against IBM (but really against Linux) is back on again. SCO first filed this clue-challenged lawsuit in March 2003. SCO claimed Linux was contaminated with code IBM stole from UNIX and that it was impossible to remove the infringement. Therefore, said SCO, all Linux users owe SCO a license fee of $1399 per cpu — but since SCO are such great guys, for a limited time, you can pay only $699 per CPU for your dirty, infringing copy of Linux. Of course, Novell claimed and later proved in court that SCO doesn't even own the copyrights on UNIX that it is suing over. IBM claims there is no infringing code in Linux. SCO never provided evidence of the massive infringement it claimed existed. The court ordered SCO three times to produce its evidence, twice extending the deadline, until it set a 'final' deadline of Dec 22, 2005 — which came and went — with SCO producing nothing but a lot of hand waving. In the meantime, SCO filed for bankruptcy protection in September 2007 because it was being beaten up in court so badly with the court going against SCO."

232 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It's Microsoft by Harry+Nelson · 2012-02-17 04:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

Like the article states, SCO is related to Microsoft. This is direct attack against Linux.
1. Re:It's Microsoft by u38cg · 2012-02-17 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know. I feel rather sentimental about this whole sorry affair, since I installed Linux for the first time around two weeks before it all kicked off. Happy times.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
2. Re:It's Microsoft by walterbyrd · 2012-02-17 07:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Nice try. But the facts are against you. This is indeed a Microsoft scam, Microsoft financed the entire thing since day one. Now why do you thing Microsoft would do that?
3. Re:It's Microsoft by sycodon · 2012-02-17 07:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I only perused TFA but it seems to me that the what is back on is IBM nailing SCO to the wall.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
4. Re:It's Microsoft by oni · 2012-02-17 07:59 · Score: 2
  
  Microsoft? Are they still around?
5. Re:It's Microsoft by pjt33 · 2012-02-17 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you. With just one sentence you provided what was missing from the "summary": the new development in a saga whose history we all already know.
6. Re:It's Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-18 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  Probably IBM is trying to get evidence on the table of this. If it does, we could see a clash of titans.
  IBM suing Microsoft over anti-trust violations. racketeering, market sabotage, extortion, attempts to damage the competition.
  If IBM can get evidence on the table of this, they can make sure Microsoft is in for a world of hurt. Better yet, they might just get the entire linux community behind them, looking for every bit of Microsoft dirt they can find.
  I pity Microsoft, because it's in for a world of hurt.
Apparently by DarthVain · 2012-02-17 04:38 · Score: 5, Funny

nuking from orbit IS the only way to be sure...
1. Re:Apparently by ackthpt · 2012-02-17 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  nuking from orbit IS the only way to be sure...
  Harms the environment. Perhaps someone can distill Intellect and inject it into a few heads.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
2. Re:Apparently by Like2Byte · 2012-02-17 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  nuking from orbit IS the only way to be sure...
  Harms the environment. Perhaps someone can distill Intellect and inject it into a few heads.
  Burke? Is that you?
3. Re:Apparently by jythie · 2012-02-17 05:20 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  A few square kilometers of Utah is a small price to pay....
4. Re:Apparently by rahvin112 · 2012-02-17 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Of course as SCO is a Delaware corporation you really meant a several dozen square miles of Deleware right?
5. Re:Apparently by rk · 2012-02-17 05:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Many MANY companies are a Delaware corporation, even if they do no business at all in Delaware: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-delaware-corporation.htm
  The original poster is right: http://www.sco.com/worldwide/us.html
  HTH.
6. Re:Apparently by SydShamino · 2012-02-17 05:55 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Better hit all of Delaware. It's the only way to be sure.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
7. Re:Apparently by Xibby · 2012-02-17 06:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  What is the obsession with nuking from orbit? If you're in orbit, a kinetic projectile of sufficient mass will get the job done. No nuclear materials, or any sort of intelligence on the projectile is needed. A sufficiently massive chunk of iron at sufficient velocity will get the job done.
  
  --
  I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
8. Re:Apparently by Compaqt · 2012-02-17 06:03 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Hey, can we get the guy that posts the long "why your solution to spam won't work" thing in response to antispam proposals to think one up for "why SCO won't die this time"?
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
9. Re:Apparently by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Just make sure you aim SOUTH.
10. Re:Apparently by RoboRay · 2012-02-17 06:11 · Score: 2
  
  That wouldn't leave much of Delaware.
11. Re:Apparently by jythie · 2012-02-17 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  I think their physical presence is still in Utah: Contact Us, but I admit I did very little research and mostly depended on a vague association remembered from years ago ^_^
12. Re:Apparently by jythie · 2012-02-17 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  That would make it easier.. they go a lot slower down there.
13. Re:Apparently by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  Amen
14. Re:Apparently by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 06:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Your question seems sincere, so I'll give you a straight answer.
  It's a quote from a famous movie.
15. Re:Apparently by RenderSeven · 2012-02-17 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  A few square kilometers of Redmond is a small price to pay....
  There fixed that for ya
16. Re:Apparently by RenderSeven · 2012-02-17 06:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Because using a kinetic projectile is meming Heinlein not Alien. Or more to the point quoting a book instead of a movie, and who has time to actually read these days?
17. Re:Apparently by mcrbids · 2012-02-17 06:33 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  A sufficiently massive chunk of iron at sufficient velocity will get the job done.
  To be fair, a sufficiently massive chunk of ice cream at sufficient velocity would be just as effective.
  
  --
  I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
18. Re:Apparently by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  nuking from orbit IS the only way to be sure...
  No, to be really sure eliminate the scum like parasitic life form known as lawyers that keep the whole SCO scam still going strong. Oh and also eliminate the CEOs that are paying for the scum lawyers keeping the SCO scam still alive (ie Microsofties).
  So is there someone in the crime syndicate up to the challenge ?
  Colonial Marines are not up for this heavy duty stuff.
19. Re:Apparently by TheDarkMaster · 2012-02-17 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  We will need a bigger nuke. Someone have the blueprints to the Tsar bomb?
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
20. Re:Apparently by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  Can be done safely...
  Just use a 1K meter rock.
  The minor X rays released fade real quick, but the hole remaining is the same.
21. Re:Apparently by jamstar7 · 2012-02-17 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  So Ice Cream Sundae falls on a Tuesdae this year?
  
  Great book, btw...
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
22. Re:Apparently by Bigbutt · 2012-02-17 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, I was thinking Niven and not Heinlein. And Footfall for the falling tanker bars.
  [John]
  
  --
  Shit better not happen!
23. Re:Apparently by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's because Ripley didn't have a kinetic projectile of sufficient mass in orbit, save the Sulaco she was relying on for escape. What she did have on board said ship, was a load of nukes.
  tl;dr She didn't want to be stranded on LV-426, understandable really.
24. Re:Apparently by dead_cthulhu · 2012-02-17 07:24 · Score: 2
  
  And nothing of value would be lost.
25. Re:Apparently by frost_knight · 2012-02-17 07:35 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Plant some Roundup Ready corn around their building and send Monsanto after them.
  
  --
  It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. --Hofstadter's Law
26. Re:Apparently by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  I would melt into steam on the way down. You must remember the amount of friction passing at high velocity through the atmosphere.
27. Re:Apparently by Spugglefink · 2012-02-17 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  And nothing of value would be lost.
  Hold on a sec... Where would they hold the Punkin' Chunkin'?
28. Re:Apparently by dead_cthulhu · 2012-02-17 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Wherever alcohol, squash, and modern interpretations of siege devices are found together.
29. Re:Apparently by Al+Al+Cool+J · 2012-02-17 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  A sufficiently massive projectile of sufficient velocity will result in a huge amount of momentum that needs to be conserved. You will either need
  1) a very very massive ship,
  2) powerful engines,
  3) to shoot an identical projectile in the opposite direction, or
  4) to live with the fact that you will propel yourself into a much higher orbit, or quite possibly out of orbit
  Nuking has its advantages.
30. Re:Apparently by Lord+Apathy · 2012-02-17 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Because it is a reference to one of the all time best lines in a movie that had one flaming hot chick at the time. By geek standards.
  
  --
  Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
31. Re:Apparently by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  But you have to admit a ship sized piece of depleted uranium would do the job just marvelously, especially if swung besides Jupiter for that meaningful impact velocity.
32. Re:Apparently by Darinbob · 2012-02-17 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Nuke it, then send down bulldozers to go back and forth over it a few years. Then poke it with a stick to see if it moves. Then remember the double-tap.
33. Re:Apparently by chromas · 2012-02-17 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  I always wondered why people thought she was so great. Now I know that it's because the audience is blind.
34. Re:Apparently by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  Everybody who gave up on TV.
  And social life? Don't worry about it -- there's enough noise around you that you pick up all the memes just the same.
35. Re:Apparently by maestroX · 2012-02-17 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, a sufficiently massive chunk of ice cream at sufficient velocity would be just as effective.
  
  For the sake of justice, a steaming pile of manure at dropspeed would be more appropriate.
36. Re:Apparently by RobbieThe1st · 2012-02-17 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  Is that the same guy as the HOSTS file guy?
37. Re:Apparently by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 17:04 · Score: 0
  
  Nukw em til they glow, then shoot em in the dark!
38. Re:Apparently by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 18:20 · Score: 0
  
  And delicious!
39. Re:Apparently by Agripa · 2012-02-18 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Hot fudge sundae falls on a Tuesday.
40. Re:Apparently by gmhowell · 2012-02-18 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  I always wondered why people thought she was so great. Now I know that it's because the audience is blind.
  Knowing slashdot, he was referring to Vasquez.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
41. Re:Apparently by splutty · 2012-02-20 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Considering the book referenced is from something like 1966, when books were still quite useful, I'd imagine a lot of people have read it before they got taken over by computer and pads :)
  And of course the Alien movies were quite a bit after that as well.
  
  --
  Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
42. Re:Apparently by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  Or from the book.
  "Convicts threaten to throw rice"
Hollywood lied to me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 04:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Clearly, Zombies are *incredibly* hard to kill.
1. Re:Hollywood lied to me by Chrisq · 2012-02-17 04:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  This is getting past the "scarer" plot when you think the monster is dead but it gets up again. Its like the B movie when it has happened so many times you have passed the scared point, the laughing point and just wish the bloody thing would finish so you can go home.
2. Re:Hollywood lied to me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, IBM was all like "I closed the door you stupid zombie so suck it" and SCO was all like "You're playing difficulty hard you lamer" and breaks down the door. Heeeeeeeeeeeere's JOHNNY!
3. Re:Hollywood lied to me by ackthpt · 2012-02-17 05:00 · Score: 2
  
  Clearly, Zombies are *incredibly* hard to kill.
  Have your read up on Mr. Slant from Discworld? Fire.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
4. Re:Hollywood lied to me by Jerry+Atrick · 2012-02-17 06:59 · Score: 2
  
  Zombie lawyers are harder.
  Compare the novel legal theories in SCO vs the world and Oracle vs Google. Looks like BS&F just took the SCO claims, changed a few words and threw them at Google. Even when SCO are finally salted and burned, the zombie plague continues over at Oracle, spread by the infected fscking lawyers.
5. Re:Hollywood lied to me by jamstar7 · 2012-02-17 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, this would make a typical Syfy Channel movie, alright: "The Zombies of SCO vs Plan 9 From Outer Space".
  
  Mebbe I oughta do a treatment, find an agent, and pitch it to them...
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
6. Re:Hollywood lied to me by Guy+Harris · 2012-02-17 08:04 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm just waiting for the bots to start commenting on the movie....
7. Re:Hollywood lied to me by equex · 2012-02-17 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  This is worse. It's like Aliens 4. (Ripley dies in a molten steel container at the end of A3, but is back in A4, 'genetically reconstructed')
  
  --
  Can I light a sig ?
8. Re:Hollywood lied to me by Xtifr · 2012-02-17 09:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Have you read Brooks? Set a zombie on fire, and now you're facing a flaming zombie, lurching around, trying to eat your brains, and, incidentally, setting everything around it on fire--possibly including you.
  Before you try fire as an anti-zombie measure, you need to find out whether you're dealing with a Pratchett zombie or a Brooks/Romero type zombie. One key difference is that Pratchett zombies are smart. SCO? Not so much. :)
9. Re:Hollywood lied to me by KermitJunior · 2012-02-17 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I kinda thought A4 was sufficiently mindbending that it actually made up for A3...
  
  --
  There is a Universal Life Value Check it
10. Re:Hollywood lied to me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  I'll bring MY chainsaw
11. Re:Hollywood lied to me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 15:56 · Score: 0
  
  What I don't understand is, who's paying the lawyers?
Statute of limitations by chipperdog · 2012-02-17 04:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Can't IBM make a statute of limitations claim, otherwise SCO can just keep backing off and then bringing this up again and again
1. Re:Statute of limitations by SJHillman · 2012-02-17 04:47 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  At this point, if I were IBM I would be looking into hiring mercenaries to eliminate the problem. The courts might even chip in to help.
2. Re:Statute of limitations by doconnor · 2012-02-17 04:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It would be cheaper for IBM just to buy SCO. Since they are in bankruptcy protection they can't turn down a responsible offer.
3. Re:Statute of limitations by rwise2112 · 2012-02-17 04:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Maybe that's what they're after.
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
4. Re:Statute of limitations by UnknowingFool · 2012-02-17 04:55 · Score: 2
  
  IBM could make that claim in the beginning; statute of limitations does not apply to the length of a lawsuit. SCO filed within the statute; them dragging a non-case for years is another matter. Now should SCO file new claims then IBM can invoke statute of limitations.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
5. Re:Statute of limitations by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  but the responsible offer is over 9000 THOUSAND TRILLION DOLLARS!!!
6. Re:Statute of limitations by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  I am pretty sure that is what SCO wanted the first time they sued IBM.
7. Re:Statute of limitations by UnknowingFool · 2012-02-17 05:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yes but this was SCO's plan all along. At this point IBM is pissed enough that they want to grind SCO to dust rather than purchase them. Also buying SCO also means buying SCO's liabilities which include numerous lawsuits. (This was the one aspect SCO forgot in that when they bought Santa Cruz's business they also bought Santa Cruz's liabilities to Novell). Really SCO has no assets IBM wants.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
8. Re:Statute of limitations by MachDelta · 2012-02-17 05:04 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Buy me or i'll gnaw your legs off?
  Er, toe?
  Maybe nibble on the nail bed a bit?
9. Re:Statute of limitations by ilsaloving · 2012-02-17 05:06 · Score: 2
  
  It's only a flesh wound!
10. Re:Statute of limitations by idontgno · 2012-02-17 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes. IBM's end goal involves salting earth, poisoning wells, and the lamentation of women. And frankly, that's better than Darl deserves.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
11. Re:Statute of limitations by ackthpt · 2012-02-17 05:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I am pretty sure that is what SCO wanted the first time they sued IBM.
  To drive their own business into the ground, alienate customers, remove any funding for R&D and divert it to legal efforts?
  Didn't work for Ashton Tate. Doesn't anyone learn?
  Oh, wait, greedy people and lawyers involved .. nemmind
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
12. Re:Statute of limitations by gtall · 2012-02-17 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  Errr...Darl was sacked long ago. I forget who's running the show, but they have worth now, last I read on Groklaw.
13. Re:Statute of limitations by MightyMartian · 2012-02-17 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  The plan made sense when SCO was actually worth something. Now it's basically worthless, other than it's highly dubious claims against IBM. It looks more to me like IBM is trying to get a court to squash the case once and for all.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
14. Re:Statute of limitations by jythie · 2012-02-17 05:21 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I think at this point a 'reasonable offer' would be a bag of corn nuts. At least then their VC parters would get a snack out of the deal.
15. Re:Statute of limitations by stoicfaux · 2012-02-17 05:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  IBM buying SCO would be a win for SCO's backers. They would point at the purchase and say, "How nefarious! IBM had to buy SCO to cover up IBM's perfidy and malfeasance! Linux really does infringe and contains tainted code! Open Source is Teh Evil!"
16. Re:Statute of limitations by Phat_Tony · 2012-02-17 05:24 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  They can claim the value of the pending legal action against IBM is $1 trillion dollars if they want to resist a buy-out. Unlike other people who replied here, I don't think SCO wants a buy-out, I don't think they're in this for the money. I mean, they're in it for the money, but they're in it for the massive cash M$ already paid them, and in exchange for that, they are providing FUD. If they let IBM buy them, they will have no FUD left to sell.
  
  Incidentally, the rumor mill says this sort of thing has happened before - a supposedly infringing company that would rather just buy the company who's IP they're infringing, but can not afford to buy that company for the sole reason that the perceived value of the lawsuit against them makes the company unaffordable. A higher offer simply provides evidence that the lawsuit is worth that much more. Supposedly Steve Jobs tried to just buy Apple Corps, and offered more than anyone thought the perpetual rights to the Beatles catalog is worth, but that wasn't enough because they wanted the value of the Beatles catalog plus the value of the lawsuit against Apple... and the lawsuit against Apple was worth at least any offer Jobs would make for Apple Corps...
  
  --
  Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
17. Re:Statute of limitations by Anubis+IV · 2012-02-17 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  UNIX is nowhere near old enough to have had its copyright expire yet. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that SCO doesn't own the copyright.
18. Re:Statute of limitations by unixisc · 2012-02-17 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  I thought that SCO was totally transformed into a new company called UnXiS, which owns SCO OSE and Unixware, and apparently doesn't have a clue on what to do w/ them. They're still alive to sue? Does anyone other than its board really work there? What's their source of income, for starters? After Monterrey went south, I thought it was over for them.
  Honestly, I think their best hope would be to port Unixware to the Itanium, and try to get bought by Intel.
19. Re:Statute of limitations by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  Let's be generous.
  IBM should go to bankruptcy judge and offer $20 and a Costco-size bag of Corn nuts for SCO.
  If the judge balks, IBM can then say, "with all due respects, your honor, we've already established the nature of the relationship. Now we're just niggling about the financial terms..."
20. Re:Statute of limitations by hduff · 2012-02-17 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  It would be cheaper for IBM just to buy SCO. Since they are in bankruptcy protection they can't turn down a responsible offer.
  If so, then they could disclose all the 'infringing Linux code' and release any SCO IP they purchased as public domain.
  
  --
  "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
21. Re:Statute of limitations by forkfail · 2012-02-17 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  This is modded as funny.
  It should be modded as "good business model."
  
  --
  Check your premises.
22. Re:Statute of limitations by forkfail · 2012-02-17 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  I think that a reasonable offer would be to not take every single one of them out to a deserted field and put a bullet in the back of their heads.
  
  --
  Check your premises.
23. Re:Statute of limitations by idontgno · 2012-02-17 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  I see what you did there.
  Good eye, catching the similarity.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
24. Re:Statute of limitations by Lando · 2012-02-17 05:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yeah when they first started out it was noted that IBM could have just bought out the company at the then market place for less than the lawsuit was expected to cost, but IBM didn't do so. The conjecture here was that it would just create copy cat lawsuilts.
  
  --
  /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
25. Re:Statute of limitations by MMC+Monster · 2012-02-17 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  I think SCO's original plan was a buyout from IBM.
  But it's better for IBM's reputation to burn SCO to the ground, salt the earth, and put up a plaque describing the events for anyone who would ever fuck with them in the future.
  IBM wins the game. The money is worth it to them. It buys them a reputation that no other use of the money can come close to.
  No one will play this game against IBM again.
  
  --
  Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
26. Re:Statute of limitations by debrain · 2012-02-17 06:12 · Score: 2
  
  Statute of limitations, and its equitable cousin laches, prevent one from bringing claims after a certain period of time eg 2 years after an incident. SCO brought the claim within the appropriate time frame, and in any case they allege the infringement is ongoing (and so the only issue related to statute of limitations is how far back damages can be calculated - usually two or so years before the claim was issued).
  There are other doctrines that may apply during and after a proceeding. For example res judicata (the civil/tort equivalent of what we call 'double jeopardy' in a criminal context, which prevents re-hearing a claim that has been determined already on the merits in an ongoing or previous proceeding) or its related (sometimes included) cousin collateral estoppel (prevents re-hearing an issue that has been determined in an ongoing, previous or parallel proceeding).
  I do not know the facts of this case well enough to comment, but the above are the legal concepts that prevent re-hearing of issues that have already been decided (IAAL; this is not legal advice, and please seek out a lawyer for advice). I expect these issues are more likely to apply than statute of limitations.
27. Re:Statute of limitations by jythie · 2012-02-17 06:20 · Score: 2
  
  That sounds expensive.... I think these people have already cost too much,.. they should be required to bludgeon themselves to death with one of those crates of source print outs they submitted to the poor judge years ago. See, recycling can be entertaining!
28. Re:Statute of limitations by Svartalf · 2012-02-17 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Uh... NO. Then you'd have every two-bit scam-artist company (Just like TSG, known as SCO) hit them up for money in the same manner.
  Better to leave a rotting corpse on the yardarm as a message to those that would try this stupidity again at a later date.
  
  --
  I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
29. Re:Statute of limitations by debrain · 2012-02-17 06:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  UNIX is nowhere near old enough to have had its copyright expire yet. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that SCO doesn't own the copyright.
  Expiration of copyright and statute of limitations are separate issues.
  Copying of a work after the copyrights expire does not constitute copyright infringement.
  If infringement has occurred, one must bring a claim before the statute of limitations expires.
  Expiration of copyright is somewhere in the order of 80 years or so, depending on where you are. The typical statute of limitations is usually between 1 and 6 years, depending on the claim and the jurisdiction.
  IAAL, but this is not legal advice. Please seek legal counsel for advice on any specific issues.
30. Re:Statute of limitations by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  Reading the article, it seems IBM is suing SCO and there was a stay that has been lifted, which technically reopens both cases, but only the IBM one is still "alive" at this point.
31. Re:Statute of limitations by tragedy · 2012-02-17 06:30 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, IBM wants to go forward at this point so that they can thoroughly crush SCO into the dirt. A good part of this is about taking away any last assets SCO may have so that they don't get paid to SCO's lawyers.
32. Re:Statute of limitations by rkhalloran · 2012-02-17 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  Given the amount of Other Companies' Servers they run, and the number of ISVs they work with, a frivolous claim of stealing code from a (former) development partner couldn't be allowed to stand and damage their professional reputation.
  Hence the scorched-earth/blacken-their-sky-with-lawyers/never-one-cent-in-tribute policy that's clearly meant as a don't-fsck-with-us message to any other dying company seeing a very deep set of pockets to try picking.
33. Re:Statute of limitations by dmgxmichael · 2012-02-17 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  Statute of Limitations, in all cases, is a limit on how long you can wait to file a complaint. It is not a limit on how long the courts can take to decide the merits of the case.
34. Re:Statute of limitations by Jerry+Atrick · 2012-02-17 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  SCO missed the deadline on Project Monterrey claims and a great deal of the dancing they did was to drag Monterrey in by any means, foul or fouler. I almost wish that had worked since we already know IBM cancelled the contract *because* the scumbags bought the company, triggering the right to terminate. Watching Boies try to talk around that would have been hilarious.
35. Re:Statute of limitations by idontgno · 2012-02-17 07:06 · Score: 2
  
  Darl may have successfully disentangled himself from that abortion of an ill-advised lawsuit, but I still think he should be eligible for every fiendish punishment IBM's legal specialists can think of. The only variation would be the "lamentation" bit, because I don't think any dire fate he could suffer would cause a wink of lamentation from anyone.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
36. Re:Statute of limitations by m.ducharme · 2012-02-17 07:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think IBM wants its counterclaims adjudicated. This isn't about a reanimated SCO zombie, this is IBM kicking around a corpse. Stand not between the Nazgul and its prey.
  
  --
  Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
37. Re:Statute of limitations by jamstar7 · 2012-02-17 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Make them dig their own graves AND pay for their own bullets.
  
  Oh, and the hourly rate of the executioners. Nothing like adding a little bit of insult to injury.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
38. Re:Statute of limitations by houghi · 2012-02-17 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  The only responsible offer would be that SCO gives anybody who buys them money.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
39. Re:Statute of limitations by Asic+Eng · 2012-02-17 07:36 · Score: 2
  
  It worked for Darl. Cushy job with a great salary for many years, company kept afloat with MS cash, not much to do apart from talking to your lawyers.
40. Re:Statute of limitations by Anubis+IV · 2012-02-17 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  I am aware of the difference between the two, but the reason I cited the copyright is because I thought it was more relevant. IANAL, so you'd know better than I would, but I thought that the statute of limitations applied from the last instance of infringement. Since IBM continues to sell Linux products, wouldn't they effectively be in an ongoing state of infringement until the copyright expired or they discontinued the infringing products? And wouldn't that mean that, at least for the foreseeable future, the statute of limitations is just a moving marker that is always X years ahead of today's date?
  I'm genuinely curious. That's the whole reason I mentioned copyright, and I'm always eager to have my misconceptions corrected.
41. Re:Statute of limitations by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  Believe me (the voice of experience), you don't want to work for those clowns!
42. Re:Statute of limitations by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  I seriously doubt that would happen. SCO sold off all the assets that were worth anything to UNXIS. They simply have nothing left to purchase except their lawsuit vs IBM, and that has significantly negative value.
43. Re:Statute of limitations by Dishevel · 2012-02-17 08:54 · Score: 2
  
  You were close to him and did not take the opportunity to kill him.
  I bet you feel bad.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
44. Re:Statute of limitations by Xtifr · 2012-02-17 09:10 · Score: 2
  
  Darl was just a hired gun all along, brought in by the real villains of the piece who have been doing their best to hide behind the curtain of the corporate veil, but almost certainly include Ralph Yarro as a (if not the) real mastermind. The fact that Canopy told Yarro to go away and take The SCO Group with him is pretty strong (albeit circumstantial) evidence that Yarro is deeply involved in the whole plot.
  Darl just did what he was paid to do. Sure, he shouldn't get off scott-free, but trying to paint him as the villain who deserves all our fury is exactly what the real bad guys want.
45. Re:Statute of limitations by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 10:53 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure what sort of backer would take the time to spell "perfidy" and "malfeasance" correctly only to degrade to "Teh Evil!" by the end.
46. Re:Statute of limitations by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  Heh yeah.. that would be like.. totally cool!
47. Re:Statute of limitations by smash · 2012-02-17 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  This is not about money
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
48. Re:Statute of limitations by dbIII · 2012-02-17 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  Even better, his brother was one of the lawyers he got to funnel the SCO money to.
49. Re:Statute of limitations by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-19 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Novell was bought out in 2010 (http://www.novell.com/news/press/2010/11/novell-agrees-to-be-acquired-by-attachmate-corporation.html) by Attachmate. But some of Novell's intellectual property was purchased by CPTN Holdings LLC which is owned, in part, by Microsoft. Perhaps IBM would like to have things resolved with the SCO case so they do not pop back up again with CPTN Holdings LLC.
50. Re:Statute of limitations by UnknowingFool · 2012-02-20 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Novell has already waived IBM from any issues with the Unix agreements back when this thing started in 2003. Anyone purchasing Novell assets must honor these waivers.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
a sign of the apocalypse? by sammy+baby · 2012-02-17 04:44 · Score: 2, Funny

I suppose this was unavoidable once Duke Nukem Forever went gold...
1. Re:a sign of the apocalypse? by medv4380 · 2012-02-17 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Duke Nukem Forever was certainly a sign, but SCO's continued existence is more of a business as usual. Now if SCO finally dropped dead and stopped rising from the grave. Then I would worry.
Where do I send my check? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 04:46 · Score: 0

Where do I send my check? I want to be free of this issue once and for all. Do you understand Daryl?
1. Re:Where do I send my check? by Kenja · 2012-02-17 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Too late for money to matter I fear, SCOX was delisted so you cant get a majority share and tell them to sit down and shut up. What we're left with is some sort of zombie corporation that's still attacking even efter we shotgunned its head.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
2. Re:Where do I send my check? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  That's why corporations shouldn't be treated as people; at least people (even very dumb ones) are intelligent enough to know when they're dead.
Can't someone just buy them out already? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 04:48 · Score: 0

If they're bankrupt can't someone just buy them out for pennies to end this once and for all?
Seriously, let's start a kickstarter campaign.
g=
1. Re:Can't someone just buy them out already? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  You're assuming SCO's worth the pennies.
2. Re:Can't someone just buy them out already? by unixisc · 2012-02-17 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  In fact, as someone pointed out above, anyone stupid enough to buy them is just accepting all their liabilities.
3. Re:Can't someone just buy them out already? by shentino · 2012-02-17 06:29 · Score: 2
  
  Not really.
  One of the advantages of corporations is limited liability.
  SCO shareholders won't be on the hook for a penny.
4. Re:Can't someone just buy them out already? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  Well, you'd have trademark rights, so you could print "I bought out SCO and all I got was this cock-smoking teeshirt" shirts. You could list them for $13.99, but sell them for ONLY $6.99!
  Seriously, I would buy one or several. But they have like 10 million bucks of liability and a million of assets -- finding the cash to successfully get out of bankruptcy would be much harder than finding the cash to purchase it in the first place.
5. Re:Can't someone just buy them out already? by jamstar7 · 2012-02-17 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  No, but any corporation stupid enough to buy them would be. In a buyout, the SCO shareholders would be paid off and out of it to go enjoy the sunshine. Why let them off the hook so easily?
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
6. Re:Can't someone just buy them out already? by Archangel+Michael · 2012-02-17 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, they already are on the hook. The stock value is penny or two. People holding stock in SCO have lost everything, as they should.
  What you're complaining about is that they can't lose more than everything.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
7. Re:Can't someone just buy them out already? by shentino · 2012-02-17 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't complaining about anything. I was explaining the same point you did.
8. Re:Can't someone just buy them out already? by shentino · 2012-02-17 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  They lost it when they bought the stock.
  It became worthless some time after.
  It's not quite like having your bank account drained. It's more like buying an expensive cheese collection (and spending a shitton of money in the process) and having it mold out and get worthless on you (long after you've spent the money).
uh-oh by demonbug · 2012-02-17 04:48 · Score: 4, Funny

I better go pay my $699 per CPU fee, because clearly Zombie SCO cannot be stopped.
1. Re:uh-oh by twotacocombo · 2012-02-17 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  If a corporation is a 'person', then clearly there must be some way to remove the head or destroy the brain, right? Oh jesus, what have we done...
2. Re:uh-oh by EdIII · 2012-02-17 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  You are assuming there is a brain?
  This is more like a parasite.
3. Re:uh-oh by Gilmoure · 2012-02-17 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, this is like when you pull the body of a tick off you and the head stays buried in skin; it's kinda' itchy.
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
4. Re:uh-oh by Anne+Thwacks · 2012-02-17 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  A rump steak through the heart is rumored to be quite effective. http://thestir.cafemom.com/food_party/133095/man_eats_at_heart_attack
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
5. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  Only quads can stop Zombie SCO...
  Oh wait... wrong board.
IBM wants this by Sez+Zero · 2012-02-17 04:49 · Score: 4, Informative

They want it to proceed (which I believe was frozen after SCO went into bankruptcy) so that IBM can pound the shit out of SCO in court again.
Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by denis-The-menace · 2012-02-17 04:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

In the article, it says SCO is broke:
"total assets as $0 (yes, that's "zero"), down from $1,326,293 on petition date, and total liabilities of $1,119,238, up from $418,965 on petition date."
So who the F@#K would represent them for free?
Is money coming from "the cloud"?

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
1. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-02-17 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  Someone must be paying the lawyers just to hassle Linux generally and/or IBM specifically.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
2. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by dkleinsc · 2012-02-17 04:55 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  If it's the same as the last round, I'd say that we'd find the answer we were looking for in Redmond, WA.
  And that's not just basic MS bashing - we have the memo.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
3. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by atouk · 2012-02-17 04:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It's probobly a group of ex Righthaven lawyers with some free time doing pro bono work to stay sharp.
4. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by pak9rabid · 2012-02-17 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  The M$ cloud
5. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Nearly all anti-Linux activity is funded by Microsoft. You may have to follow the money through a couple of different shell companies to get there, but when it comes to anti-Linux, all roads lead to Redmond.
6. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by UnknowingFool · 2012-02-17 05:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I believe SCO worked out a deal with Boies in the middle of the case. The trial fees were capped at $25M but Boies was paid upfront. So Boies has to represent SCO; however, with the money gone, no one says they have to represent with their best attorneys.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
7. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by LoyalOpposition · 2012-02-17 05:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  So who the F@#K would represent them for free?
  Boies, Schiller & Flexner. At one point SCO got BS&F to agree to represent them through appeals for what BS&F had already received plus a percentage of the proceeds. Score one for SCO.
  ~Loyal
  
  --
  I aim to misbehave.
8. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Even the people that mod this post down. are based in Redmond in one way or another.
9. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by jythie · 2012-02-17 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  They are probably still borrowing to pay the lawyers, or they have bills piling up with the lawyers too invested to simply quit.. kinda like a 419 scam.
10. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-02-17 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  They got their lawyers to agree to a decent one-time payment plus a share of the final payout in exchange for sticking with the case till all the appeals are done.
  In other words, their lawyers are stuck working for free till the last appeal is over and done...
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
11. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by StormReaver · 2012-02-17 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  At one point SCO got BS&F to agree to represent them through appeals for what BS&F had already received plus a percentage of the proceeds.
  Which is a strategic mistake on the part of BS&F, and should be considered a conflict of interest, since it gives them a stake in the outcome. It no longer makes them attorneys for the plaintiffs, but rather turns them into the plaintiffs. They may have become more focused on their own best interest, and less focused on their client's best interest.
12. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by FridayBob · 2012-02-17 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  ... So who the F@#K would represent them for free? ...
  They themselves? IIRC, companies that engage in patent tolling activities often consist largely or entirely of lawyers.
13. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by unixisc · 2012-02-17 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the lawyers are SCO's owners, and all that's left of their workforce. You didn't think they actually have any Unix programmers left, did you?
14. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by gstoddart · 2012-02-17 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Someone must be paying the lawyers just to hassle Linux generally and/or IBM specifically.
  Well, I can only imagine that some troll somewhere believes that if only they can finally win in this case, the huge amount of windfall it would generate would be massive.
  If you can get a court to say that everyone who is running Linux owes you a bunch of money, that would represent a huge sum. Quite possibly something they project in the billions.
  Now, with luck IBM will finally grind these guys into the ground. So far they've lost any legal claim to the copyright of UNIX, and they've failed to show what was actually infringing ... so hopefully other than trying to wave their peckers around, they'll rapidly discover they haven't got any legal claim to what they're saying.
  I fear it's going to take an actual final court ruling that says "no you don't have any claim and you have no more recourse". Because they're just going to keep coming back until they exhaust all of their legal options. The last case just sort of petered out as they failed to show any evidence, I'd like to see this one end in a pretty firm ruling.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
15. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by HornWumpus · 2012-02-17 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  IBM should assign a Nazgul or two to milk this law firm into bankruptcy. They can afford it.
  Strategic errors in filing, allowing the lawsuit a gasp of O2, that force the shysters to spend more money for nothing. Then subpena the senior partners to testify about conflicts of interest. Repeat until BS&F cries. Then repeat some more, make them get honest jobs.
  Punish the bastards.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
16. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by wierd_w · 2012-02-17 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how many chairs were thrown in/at financial, in order to ship the money...
  Surely marketing and their PR drones would have had a coniption fit about the public backlash should such memos get out? Or, did MS flex its muscles with the MSNBC affiliation to suppress news of the memo?
  I still want a chaircount though.
17. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  The other problem is that does not include any other fees such as filing, depositions, copying, travel, etc.
  SCO has $0 assets and over 1 million dollars in liabilities. Where are they going to get the money from to pay for the incidentals?
18. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  As someone else said: Microsoft or another interested party who wants linux (and more broadly 'viral' open-source code) to die so they can return to their previous methods of market capitalization without credible competition.
19. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by the_raptor · 2012-02-17 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  That may be, but doesn't that happen all the time? Attorneys representing a client for a portion of any damages/settlement is pretty damn common.
  
  --
  
  ========
  CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-02-17 04:52 · Score: 2

"Mr. Kenge," said Allan, appearing enlightened all in a moment. "Excuse me, our time presses. Do I understand that the whole estate is found to have been absorbed in costs?" "Hem! I believe so," returned Mr. Kenge. "Mr. Vholes, what do YOU say?" "I believe so," said Mr. Vholes. "And that thus the suit lapses and melts away?" "Probably," returned Mr. Kenge. "Mr. Vholes?" "Probably," said Mr. Vholes.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
1. Re:Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce by 3dr · 2012-02-17 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  +1 Bleak
  ten bleaks
Summary Judgement by Starmac · 2012-02-17 04:54 · Score: 2

Since I'm not an attorney, I'm shooting from the hip; but shouldn't IBM just move for a summary judgement and request thr court order SCO to pay it's legal costs as well as the court's costs?
1. Re:Summary Judgement by UnknowingFool · 2012-02-17 05:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  IBM has already moved for summary judgement and the court has ruled that there are enough issues of law for the case to proceed. Normally summary judgements are granted when they are no issues of fact. Some of the claims SCO has made may be thrown out because they did not own the copyrights. (IBM violating their Unix agreements have been waived by Novell and Novell owns the Unix copyrights). Claims that IBM interfered with SCO's business and IBM infringed upon UnixWare copyrights is a question of law.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
2. Re:Summary Judgement by freeze128 · 2012-02-17 05:35 · Score: 2
  
  Well, then maybe IBM should move for a Summary Execution....
3. Re:Summary Judgement by unixisc · 2012-02-17 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Weren't all Unix copyrights transferred to OpenGroup after Novell sold USL to SCO?
4. Re:Summary Judgement by UnknowingFool · 2012-02-17 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  No. The Unix trademarks were transferred to the OpenGroup. That is why they can certify an OS as "Unix" as they are the only ones that can allow a company like Apple and IBM claim their OSes are "Unix.". Also Novell did not sell USL to SCO. Novell sold the Unix business to Santa Cruz. Novell had transferred the trademarks before then. It was made clear back then that Santa Cruz would not be getting the copyrights.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
5. Re:Summary Judgement by Xtifr · 2012-02-17 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  IBM has already moved for summary judgement and the court has ruled that there are enough issues of law for the case to proceed.
  No. First of all, this is a complex case with dozens of claims on both sides, and dozens of motions for summary judgment have been filed, but the one you're probably thinking of is IBM's motion to dismiss SCO's infringement claims. That has not been ruled on. The basis for the motion was two-fold: A) SCO was not sufficiently specific about where the infringement occurred, and B) SCO didn't own the code in the first place and had no standing to sue. Point A was used to throw out about 90% of SCO's alleged evidence, leaving approx. 300 lines of code, but the motion (and the trial) was then suspending pending the outcome of SCO v Novell. Once the trial resumes, the question of ownership is almost certainly going to be one of the first things looked at, and it's nearly certain that IBM will finally win their motion.
  Second of all, you have the "issues of law" thing backwards. The judge decides issues of law, while a jury decides issues of fact. Issues of law are exactly what summary judgment is intended to resolve--and legal claims almost always involve both matters of law and fact. For the infringement, it seems like there will be no facts left in dispute--SCO doesn't own the code they claim was infringed, and thus, as a matter of law, has no standing to sue. (Although it's possible that those 300 lines of code will re-appear when it comes time to discuss IBM's Lantham Act claims, as SCO desperately tries to show that they had some basis for all the horrific public statements they made about IBM.)
6. Re:Summary Judgement by UnknowingFool · 2012-02-17 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  The basis for the motion was two-fold: A) SCO was not sufficiently specific about where the infringement occurred, and B) SCO didn't own the code in the first place and had no standing to sue. Point A was used to throw out about 90% of SCO's alleged evidence, leaving approx. 300 lines of code, but the motion (and the trial) was then suspending pending the outcome of SCO v Novell. Once the trial resumes, the question of ownership is almost certainly going to be one of the first things looked at, and it's nearly certain that IBM will finally win their motion.
  That is not the history of this case. This case was deferred for two reasons. The first was that issues in SCO vs Novell had a direct impact on this case and the second was the SCO bankruptcy. The outcome from SCO vs Novell is that Novell owns the Unix copyrights and Novell can waive any claim of breach of contract from the Unix agreements IBM made. The majority of the claims had been thrown out because SCO failed to comply with court orders on specificity anyways. However, there is still a question whether the code left is Unix or UnixWare. SCO does own the copyrights to UnixWare. The pending claims to the court remain whether SCO can show IBM infringed on these copyrights and whether IBM interfered with SCO's business.
  
  Second of all, you have the "issues of law" thing backwards. The judge decides issues of law, while a jury decides issues of fact. Issues of law are exactly what summary judgment is intended to resolve--and legal claims almost always involve both matters of law and fact. For the infringement, it seems like there will be no facts left in dispute--SCO doesn't own the code they claim was infringed, and thus, as a matter of law, has no standing to sue. (Although it's possible that those 300 lines of code will re-appear when it comes time to discuss IBM's Lantham Act claims, as SCO desperately tries to show that they had some basis for all the horrific public statements they made about IBM.)
  There are issues of fact left to dispute. What part of the code is UnixWare and what part is Unix as SCO sued for both. Did IBM infringe on the UnixWare portions? From the Novell decision, they cannot sue for the Unix portions.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Ok, we can go now by residieu · 2012-02-17 04:56 · Score: 2

Now that SCO has spent all its money and sold off all its assets for peanuts, now it can proceed with lawsuits where it will be found liable for additional money. All still safely behind the shield of bankruptcy court of course (A court which thinks selling off all assets and giving the finger to creditors is a plausible way to restructure a business)
$1,515,129 by Bonker · 2012-02-17 05:03 · Score: 2

The MOR for TSG shows total assets as $0 (yes, that's "zero"), down from $1,326,293 on petition date, and total liabilities of $1,119,238, up from $418,965 on petition date. The MOR for TSG Operations shows total assets as $1,515,129, down from $15,493,080 on petition date, and total liabilities of $9,739,295, up from $4,311,640 on petition date. Go SCO! It was not bankrupt when it entered bankruptcy protection, but it surely is now.
Total assets: $1,515,129. Total Debt: $10,858,533
Hmm... SCO's in a world of hurt. I'm trying to figure out how they can even get lawyers to work with them at this point, unless they're using a 'We don't get paid unless you get paid!' ambulance chaser-type personal liability attorney.
Hey, IBM. That's a total of $12,373,662. According to your 2010 income report, it looks like you're making a net of about 14 billion dollars a year... literally more than a thousand times that. And I'm thinking that at least some of that $10.9m is owed to you. If you guys negotiate a bit with the other creditors, I'm betting you could simply up and purchase all SCO's assets for about $2-4m.
That's lunch money for a company like IBM. It's less than a certain Kickstart project we've all been reading about.
Think about the good will you could create by taking a dump truck to what's left of SCO and then public-domaining the entire shebang.

--
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
1. Re:$1,515,129 by tokul · 2012-02-17 05:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm betting you could simply up and purchase all SCO's assets for about $2-4m.
  
  Whole point of this trial is about refusing to buy out company which tries to extort money.
2. Re:$1,515,129 by residieu · 2012-02-17 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  At least for the Novell lawsuit, they paid the lawyers a lump sum and go them to agree to continue with the case through all appeals without further pay. I don't remember whether that agreement applied to the IBM lawsuit as well.
  And that $1.5 million is their TOTAL assets. They sold off everything but their rights to continue the lawsuit with IBM. There's nothing left to public domain.
3. Re:$1,515,129 by dkleinsc · 2012-02-17 05:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  IBM has 3 reasonable purposes here:
  1. They want SCO to have to get up in court and admit that they never had a leg to stand on, or a ruling from the bench to the same effect. This is in part to prevent any successor to SCO from pulling the same stunt.
  2. To deter anyone else who's tempted to make similar claims from even trying it.
  3. Buying them out would be a mercy killing. IBM has no reason to be merciful.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
4. Re:$1,515,129 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  SCO has no assets. they own nothing.
  paying them anything means SCO wins.
  make their lawyers work for free. they love that stuff.
5. Re:$1,515,129 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  They wouldn't get anything for the $2-4 million investment but liabilities to other companies and more debt when the hammer drops on the other lawsuits, plus dozens of other failing companies suing for Linux violations when they realize IBM buys out companies that sue them.
  IBM is taking the right course here.Crush, kill, destroy, and send a message that legal claims of Linux ownership is corporate suicide.
6. Re:$1,515,129 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  I'm betting you could simply up and purchase all SCO's assets for about $2-4m.
  It's less than a certain Kickstart project we've all been reading about.
  If somebody sets up a Kickstart project to buy SCO, this could all be over by the end of February.
7. Re:$1,515,129 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 06:02 · Score: 0, Interesting
  
  I'm betting you could simply up and purchase all SCO's assets for about $2-4m.
  Whole point of this trial is about refusing to buy out company which tries to extort money.
  Only when they're fighting over billions. IBM will spend more on lawyers that SCO would cost to buy right now. It's in their shareholders' interest to end this case as cheaply as possible. Buying what's left of SCO is the quickest and cheapest solution, and a kick in the teeth for Microsoft. IBM will have access to all the documents from MS's and Sun's attack on Linux via SCO, which will prove to be very embarrassing.
8. Re:$1,515,129 by bmo · 2012-02-17 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm... SCO's in a world of hurt. I'm trying to figure out how they can even get lawyers to work with them at this point, unless they're using a 'We don't get paid unless you get paid!' ambulance chaser-type personal liability attorney.
  BS&F are on the hook until the heat death of the universe to provide SCO (as long as it exists) legal counsel. Whether or not SCO can afford it. if they can't, then it will be provided for free.
  That's the kind of contract they signed. They were bamboozled by various supporters of SCO. BS&F bet the farm on an illusory 5 billion dollar lawsuit because it was a "sure thing."
  Ralph Yarro::
  "We don't care how big you are. If you mess with us, we're going to take you on, even to our utter destruction, whatever occurs. We fear nobody, and we are respecters of no persons."
  --
  BMO
9. Re:$1,515,129 by phorm · 2012-02-17 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'd imagine that being able to pull up evidence from any of SCO's emails, computers, etc would also be quite useful, especially as previously linked articles seem to show *interesting* links to a large entity using third-parties to funnel money to SCO
10. Re:$1,515,129 by qpgmr · 2012-02-17 06:40 · Score: 2
  
  Now that's an idea: Initiate a KickStarter project to buy out SCO and release EVERYTHING to public domain.
11. Re:$1,515,129 by UnknowingFool · 2012-02-17 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  At this point (1) is unlikely. What is more likely is a strongly worded decision by the court blasting SCO for dragging this non-case all these years.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
12. Re:$1,515,129 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  It's in their shareholders' interest to end this case as cheaply as possible. Buying what's left of SCO is the quickest and cheapest solution.
  Nope it would actually cost them much more on the long-term: if they buy SCO, any troll can come afterwards and force IBM to buy them too. IBM must make an example, and I sure hope they will.
  captcha is "disagree" ... Big Brother, is that you ?
13. Re:$1,515,129 by number11 · 2012-02-17 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  At least for the Novell lawsuit, they paid the lawyers a lump sum and go them to agree to continue with the case through all appeals without further pay. I don't remember whether that agreement applied to the IBM lawsuit as well.
  And that $1.5 million is their TOTAL assets.
  This arrangement carries the risk of serious abuse.
  1. Have nothing.
  2. Find lawyer to sue the world in your name (for a cut of the action) until they get lucky.
  3. RISK-FREE PROFIT!
  Unless their lawyers, who are now operating on their own dime, can be found liable for judgments against them.
14. Re:$1,515,129 by Todd+Knarr · 2012-02-17 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  The original deal in the IBM lawsuit was that BSF would get paid in shares of SCO stock (which presumably would be worth a lot more after SCO won, making for a tidy windfall for BSF). But that turned out to be a problem for BSF: IBM pointed out that BSF weren't merely counsel but had an actual personal interest in the suit (seeing as they held or would hold an ownership interest in SCO). That scared BSF, because it meant they couldn't avoid liability for judgements if the suit went badly for SCO. That resulted in BSF dropping the equity-ownership deal for a flat-fee contract, to convince the court they weren't a party to the suit in any way.
15. Re:$1,515,129 by Chris+Burke · 2012-02-17 09:18 · Score: 2
  
  Only when they're fighting over billions. IBM will spend more on lawyers that SCO would cost to buy right now. It's in their shareholders' interest to end this case as cheaply as possible. Buying what's left of SCO is the quickest and cheapest solution, and a kick in the teeth for Microsoft.
  "Quickest and cheapest" is only good for short-term shareholders. Those with long-term investments will want IBM to do everything in their power to ensure nobody else is emboldened to try to extort IBM with bullshit charges in the future. Buying out SCO was always the "quickest and cheapest" option. Instead they are making an example of SCO and do not intend to give an inch in the process. This is best in the long term.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
So... can someone... by 3seas · 2012-02-17 05:12 · Score: 1

... wake me the fu& up?
Half way there. by sgt+scrub · 2012-02-17 05:15 · Score: 1

First Half: Gurgle gurgle gurgle woosh squeek squeek cough... Dude, I just had this great idea!
Second Half: Lets sue IBM again.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 05:16 · Score: 0

It's time to make this personal. The people running SCO know the company is trashed beyond repair and everyone hates them so they don't care to take it further. The individuals deciding to do this get to hide behind the corporate curtain while we only talk about SCO like it's some type of evil opaque entity.
I do think entrepreneurs deserve a level of protection with an INC or LLC, but at some point, it becomes a shield for bad and corrupt behavior. We need to expose the people doing this and make sure the tech industry knows who they are and they will be tarnished for hiring them later.
I've traced the lawyer by nevillethedevil · 2012-02-17 05:24 · Score: 1

The only lawyer I can think of who is desperate enough to represent SCO is this guy

"Cases won in 30 minutes or your pizza is free"

--
Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
Already in progress by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-02-17 05:26 · Score: 3, Funny

Error 503 Service Unavailable
Service Unavailable
Guru Meditation:
XID: 1328143252
See, Slashdot? That happens when you don't pay for your licenses!

--
Ezekiel 23:20
repeat this by KingAlanI · 2012-02-17 05:36 · Score: 1

This is the lawsuit that never ends, it goes on and on my friends. some people started suing just because, making...

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Three things will survive the Apocalypse: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 05:38 · Score: 2, Funny

1) Cockroaches
2) Keith Richards
3) The SCO case.
1. Re:Three things will survive the Apocalypse: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  4) The DFS sale
2. Re:Three things will survive the Apocalypse: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  4) The DFS Sale
Oh, no. Not again! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 05:41 · Score: 0

signed,
the petunias
Why still alive? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 05:42 · Score: 0

Why oh why are they still alive? They can hardly gain anything here.....
Except one thing: If Linux is appearing to gain in the marketplace, then the marketing bunnies might use "SCO infringement" to ward off greater Linux penetration in the server marketplace. But who would bankroll "Zombie SCO" to do such a thing? Well, clearly it would have to be a company with ZERO scruples, money to burn, and a presence in the server marketplace. In that regard, the entire SCO action might have been a marketing play from the first day. SCO would act as the 'sacrificial bunny' to scare enough people to not deploy Linux. Of course once deployed, companies can get their own hard numbers on how well Linux performs, and real numbers in hand kill marketing bluster faster than anything. So look for large server contracts coming up for renewal by companies currently served by a nefarious software company , and you will be able to trace back who is bankrolling 'Zombie SCO'.
Microsoft's involvement by metacell · 2012-02-17 05:57 · Score: 4, Informative

It's a fact that Microsoft funded SCO's lawsuits against Linux under the table.

In October 2003, BayStar Capital and Royal Bank of Canada invested US$50 million in The SCO Group to support the legal cost of SCO's Linux campaign. Later it was shown that BayStar was referred to SCO by Microsoft, whose proprietary Windows operating system competes with Linux. In 2003, BayStar looked at SCO on the recommendation of Microsoft, according to Lawrence R. Goldfarb, managing partner of BayStar Capital: "It was evident that Microsoft had an agenda".

On March 4, 2004, a leaked SCO internal e-mail detailed how Microsoft had raised up to $106 million via the BayStar referral and other means. Blake Stowell of SCO confirmed the memo was real. BayStar claimed the deal was suggested by Microsoft, but that no money for it came directly from them. In addition to the Baystar involvement, Microsoft paid SCO $6M (USD) in May 2003 for a license to "Unix and Unix-related patents", despite the lack of Unix-related patents owned by SCO.
(Wikipedia)
1. Re:Microsoft's involvement by walterbyrd · 2012-02-17 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft was also funding scox before Baystar. I think both Microsoft, and Sun, bought a millions of dollars worth scox licenses, right after scox filed the lawsuits.
  Why would MS and Sun suddenly buy millions of licenses worth of licenses that did not need? Both MS, and Sun, already have UNIX licenses.
  After the Baystar, there was another mysterious PIPE loan.
2. Re:Microsoft's involvement by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  If this whole thing isn't an argument against the current patent system, I don't know what is.
Cue ubersoft by lwriemen · 2012-02-17 05:59 · Score: 1

https://www.eviscerati.org/comics/comic/hd/2010/04/real-legal-argument-revealed
OK. Old one, but Chris'll probably have to bite on this.
SCO trading at 2 cents by tekrat · 2012-02-17 06:12 · Score: 3, Funny

And that's up 21% from yesterday's close. This looks like a pump and dump so they can afford lunch.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
1. Re:SCO trading at 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  LOL! Oh man, you made me spit out my lunch!
The article summary is misleading by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 06:20 · Score: 0

It's more like IBM has lured them back into the court room with promises of them being able to give their
get rich quick scheme another shot. Even though SCO doesn't stand a chance.
At the same time, IBM can proceed with their counter claims, which stand a much better chance of succeeding.
SCO lawyer's will doing an Admiral Ackbar at some point is my guess.
So basically SCO is back in court because of greed, where as IBM wants to cement it's alpha dog position.
But I'm no simple country lawyer, so I might be off the mark on my analysis of the legalize.
1. Re:The article summary is misleading by Todd+Knarr · 2012-02-17 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  SCO wanted to reopen the case, not IBM. But SCO wanted to reopen only their side of it, without allowing IBM to bring up any of their side. That... failed to fly with the judge, and SCO and their lawyers really had no choice. If they hadn't reopened the case, I'm fairly sure the next step would've been for IBM and others to move for the bankruptcy court to convert SCO's case over to Chapter 7 liquidation seeing as according to SCO their only asset left is the litigation and that isn't worth anything if SCO can't or won't pursue it.
SCO cellulite by epine · 2012-02-17 06:23 · Score: 1

The summary text did a great job of explaining the history I already know far too well, while doing nothing to convey the pretext for the zombie resurrection. Isn't this the kind of teaser you see on the cover of celebrity magazines (stacked as high as carried children can't grab candy) at the grocery store checkout counter?
Originally I came here because the real world pisses me off when I walk into a convenience store and marked prices are MIA, while quantities and ingredients are obfuscated by maximal signage, and loyalty card prices displayed for pallet quantities in 96 point Helvetica (I'm exactly as loyal to my local gas station as their price/quality/service mix is competitive against convenient alternatives).
Bad, Slashdot, bad.
Colateral Damages by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 06:28 · Score: 0

You would be hitting their old building, in the Lindon business park, taking out I-15 and several other useful tech companies; Domo.com
Better just to ask Josh James to put a potato to some tail pipes.
SCO and Novel - word perfect used to be in the same business park
SCO R&D Department by Al+in+SoCal · 2012-02-17 06:31 · Score: 1

SCO R&D Department = 10 outside legal firms patent trolling
The Agony and The Ecstacy by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-02-17 06:34 · Score: 1

"When will you make an end?"
"When I am finished."
It has the added bonus by DarthVain · 2012-02-17 06:42 · Score: 1

of being tasty.
no, It's... Apple? by Creepy · 2012-02-17 06:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

actually, I'd think it would benefit Apple more than Microsoft
Steve Jobs pre-death said he "wants to go thermonuclear on Android"
Android runs using Java on Linux
SCO owns some interest in UNIX (apparently) and claims to own Linux and is suing for $699-2798 for a license
an Android phone even starting at $699 is already D.O.A. because you can buy a friggin' iPad for that
Apple has the second largest marketshare for smartphones behind Android, so has the most to win - Microsoft has a measly 2%.
ergo an SCO win is a win for Apple, though it would benefit Microsoft as well... until Apple sues them into the ground for swipe to unlock and other copied features...
1. Re:no, It's... Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Then why did microsoft help them with funding during last trials against linux?
2. Re:no, It's... Apple? by slydder · 2012-02-17 08:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Actually this, if it goes through, would clear IBM and such remove the SCO threat to Linux completely (at least from SCO's claims that were filed).
  I would actually bet money that this the deal struck between IBM and SCO is one where SCO gets paid to let IBM win that case. Thus saving (for a time) SCO from complete bankruptcy and clearing IBM, and thus Linux, from the charges leveled by SCO.
  Just a thought.
  
  --
  IT Admins Group: Where you decide the content
3. Re:no, It's... Apple? by Cinder6 · 2012-02-17 08:59 · Score: 3
  
  Apple's OS is a fully certified UNIX platform. Would a victory here make them pay more money?
  
  --
  If you can't convince them, convict them.
4. Re:no, It's... Apple? by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-02-17 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  maybe the unix posix family is such a convoluted mess of shared, reverse engineered, convergent code that has been owned by so many people under so many licenses that no one really knows who owns what all what they ought to do i simply open source the whole mess under a bsd/mit licence and after that you can do what ever the hell you want with it be it lock it up or share with others but that will never happen unfortunately and won't happen be de-facto for another 70 years or so when the copyright finally starts to run out until then it is a sue each-other into oblivion or cross license and hope they actually own what the are licensing.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
5. Re:no, It's... Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 18:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Nice theory. But we don't have any evidence of collusion between SCO and Apple at all. What we DO have is evidence of ~$85 million payed by MS to SCO through third parties.
6. Re:no, It's... Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  Cool story, bro.
"Angel" Investors by aaarrrgggh · 2012-02-17 06:54 · Score: 1

Apparently a mid-eastern venture capital firm committed $25MM to SCO to acquire their assets, and committed to funding them for 18 months from April 2011.
The press release is actually kind of ironic... http://www.dubaibeat.com/2011/04/20/middle_east_investors_acquired.php
1. Re:"Angel" Investors by Shirogitsune · 2012-02-17 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the 'devil' is in the details, after all. :)
Re:Jarndyce _and_ Jarndyce by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 06:54 · Score: 1

As a one time DIckens fan, I just wanted to mention that in "Bleak House" the case is referred to as "Jarndyce and Jarndyce", not "vs"
- TWR, Redondo Beach, California
YHGTBFKM! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 06:55 · Score: 0

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
(runs screaming from the computer)
Back from the dead by Anon-Admin · 2012-02-17 07:02 · Score: 0

Looks like the SCOmbie is back, quick shoot it in the head!
We need Billy Mays for this, really by Rastl · 2012-02-17 07:08 · Score: 1

Everyone shout it along with me - But wait! There's more!
Why doesn't IBM buy SCO? by roc97007 · 2012-02-17 07:11 · Score: 0

Why doesn't IBM purchase and dismantle SCO? It might ultimately be cheaper and less time consuming than letting this crap drag on.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
1. Re:Why doesn't IBM buy SCO? by Todd+Knarr · 2012-02-17 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  Because that would leave the impression that IBM had done what SCO accued them of, and IBM was just burying the evidence. Not the sort of impression you want to give when your clients include major foreign banks, militaries and governments and they have to trust you with access to information they don't want even your government getting access to. And IBM does a lot of business. If losing customer's trust costs IBM even 1-2% a year of business, fighting SCO in court is still cheaper by an order of magnitude.
  I have this picture of a notional exchange between IBM and it's lawyers:
  
  IBM: *drops a check for $1 billion on the lawyer's desk* "That should do to start."
  Lawyer: "... Are you serious?"
  IBM: "Well, we figure 1%'s a good place to start, we can always add more later if you need it."
  
  And then I remember that IBM's lawyers have been with them a long time, they're not going to be surprised by this.
What a competent judge would do: by Mike+Van+Pelt · 2012-02-17 08:10 · Score: 2

"If you do not drop the suit now, or submit the claimed infringing code as evidence in ten days, the suit will be dismissed with prejudice, you will pay all court costs and legal fees for the defendant, and you will be jailed for contempt of court."
1. Re:What a competent judge would do: by nickthisname · 2012-02-17 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  A competent judge? What's that?
Re:Jarndyce _and_ Jarndyce by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-02-17 09:15 · Score: 2

"One time"? What happened? Went to the "dark side" with Thackeray? Or... Bulwer-Lytton? :-)
Tried finishing D'Israeli's "Vivian Grey". My god! What a poof!

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
It's a legal training ground. Firemen do this. by Nefarious+Wheel · 2012-02-17 10:04 · Score: 1

SCO vs. IBM et.al. I see as a sort of infinitely recyclable training ground for the legal profession. The suit can be seen as similar to those burnt-out aircraft fuselages you see at some airports - the ones used by firemen to train their staff.
Nobody expects the aircraft to ever get into the air again.

--
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
You just need to use this ammo... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-17 11:14 · Score: 0

You just need to git yerself some Hornady Zombie Max Bullets instead.
And always remember Rule #2... to Double-Tap :-)
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-02-17 14:03 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-18 11:35 · Score: 0

Won't SCO just fucking die????
get popcorn... by crutchy · 2012-02-18 23:48 · Score: 1

...and flick over to the groklaw channel

[sco army stands at the bottom of a hill with their bows and arrows at the ready. ibm rep rides down from top of hill to meet sco rep]
ibm to sco: "i want you to leave this land and never return"
sco to ibm: "oh yeah, you and what army!?"
[cut to entire ibm behemoth, linux community and other corporations with any vested interest in linux marching over the hill top armed with minguns and bazookas]

...to be continued...
SCO Idiocy by Forty-3 · 2012-02-19 01:50 · Score: 1

God, what the heck do they think they're doing? They lost already. Why the heck are they beating their own dead horse?

--
http://tinyurl.com/42geekcode
UnXis by crutchy · 2012-02-19 22:48 · Score: 1

has anyone tried a little sql injection in the unxis contact form? might make for some more /. entertainment if any sign of it succeeding emerges. or better yet, may a ddos attack by Anonymous