Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO vs. IBM Trial Back On Again

Posted by Soulskill on 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."

6 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Statute of limitations by rwise2112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe that's what they're after.

    --

    "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
  2. Re:$1,515,129 by tokul · · 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.

  3. Re:Statute of limitations by ackthpt · · 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
  4. Re:Statute of limitations by stoicfaux · · 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!"

  5. Re:Statute of limitations by Lando · · 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 */
  6. Re:It's Microsoft by sycodon · · 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.