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."

32 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 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 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 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
7. 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.
8. 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!"
9. 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 */
10. 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.
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 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.
4. 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.
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.
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/
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)
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.