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."

88 of 232 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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 jythie · 2012-02-17 05:20 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  A few square kilometers of Utah is a small price to pay....
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
6. Re:Apparently by RoboRay · 2012-02-17 06:11 · Score: 2
  
  That wouldn't leave much of Delaware.
7. Re:Apparently by jythie · 2012-02-17 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  That would make it easier.. they go a lot slower down there.
8. 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.
9. 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
10. 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?
11. 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.
12. Re:Apparently by dead_cthulhu · 2012-02-17 07:24 · Score: 2
  
  And nothing of value would be lost.
13. 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
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 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
3. 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.
4. 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....
5. 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. :)
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 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.
6. 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?
7. Re:Statute of limitations by ilsaloving · 2012-02-17 05:06 · Score: 2
  
  It's only a flesh wound!
8. 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.
9. 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
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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!"
14. 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?
15. 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.
16. 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 */
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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!
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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?
28. 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.
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...
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.
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 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/
2. 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.
3. Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? by pak9rabid · 2012-02-17 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  The M$ cloud
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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'
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..."
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]
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....
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 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/
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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 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
2. 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.
3. 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.
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?
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.
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.
Re:It's Microsoft by oni · 2012-02-17 07:59 · Score: 2

Microsoft? Are they still around?
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.
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."
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..."
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-02-17 14:03 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion