Slashdot Mirror


Not Quite Dead: SCO Linux Suit Against IBM Stirs In Utah

An anonymous reader points to a story in the Salt Lake Tribune which says that The nearly defunct Utah company SCO Group Inc. and IBM filed a joint report to the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City saying that legal issues remain in the case, which was initiated in 2003 with SCO claiming damages of $5 billion against the technology giant, based in Armonk, N.Y. That likely means that U.S. District Judge David Nuffer, who now presides over the dispute, will start moving the lawsuit — largely dormant for about four years while a related suit against Novell Inc. was adjudicated — ahead. What kind of issues? In addition to its claims of IBM misappropriation of code, SCO alleges that IBM executives and lawyers directed the company's Linux programmers to destroy source code on their computers after SCO made its allegations. The company's other remaining claims are that IBM's actions amounted to unfair competition and interference with its contracts and business relations with other companies. IBM has remaining claims against SCO that allege the Utah company violated contracts, copied and distributed IBM code that had been placed in Linux and that SCO created a campaign of "fear, uncertainty and doubt" about IBM's products and services because of the dispute over Unix code.

170 comments

  1. Throwback? by bradgoodman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is this "Throwback Tuesday"? I had to re-read it a few times to make sure I wasn't reading a VERY old article...

    1. Re:Throwback? by bradgoodman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      P.S. DIE ALREADY!!!!

    2. Re:Throwback? by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Throwback Tuesday on a Wednesday, dont make those sorts of recommendations here, they may listen.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    3. Re:Throwback? by sycodon · · Score: 4, Funny

      SCO is like some old guy in the mountains with his mule panning for gold. He just knows he'll strike it rich one day.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:Throwback? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That wont work! We need to kill their necromancer and monk so they quit resurrecting the damn corpse then salt the damn thing followed by burning then to be absolutely sure nuke it from orbit

    5. Re:Throwback? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's not enough alliteration in "Throwback Tuesday" but since Tuesday was St. Patrick's day we could say "T'rowbeck Tuesday"

    6. Re:Throwback? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love SCO. It brights out the real maturity among the Linux brethren.

    7. Re:Throwback? by number6x · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does the summary fail to mention the many outstanding charges that IBM has against SCO, some already decided against SCO, with hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties on hold while SCO works through its bankruptcy?

      As soon as SCO pokes its head out of bankruptcy court the Nazgul will be there, waiting for the payment owed. Do those silly bumpkins in Utah think IBM is going to not notice? Darl and his telemarketing scheme buddies are scam artists with a long history of swindling people (check out IKON Office Supplies). SCO is a bunch of petty criminals with no moral integrity, very small pea brains and only the ability to annoy people until paid to go away. If Martha Stewart was sent to a tennis-club prison for her 'crimes', these people should be doing hard time. They should certainly be shunned by the people of Utah, for their long history of immoral criminal activity.

    8. Re:Throwback? by Clived · · Score: 1

      Talk about a dog holding onto a bone. What a total waste of time!

      --
      Clive DaSilva Email: clive.dasilva@gmail.com Ubuntu 18.10 Kernel 4.18
    9. Re:Throwback? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf

    10. Re:Throwback? by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Funny

      He's mighty lucky... My goddamn mule just stands there and eats!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    11. Re:Throwback? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is TJ when you need her?

      (IN case you forgot, she was the paralegal who wrote amazing summaries when this was going around the first time and Linux was in jeopardy.)

    12. Re:Throwback? by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

      Where is TJ when you need her?

      That's PJ, son.

      --
      ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    13. Re:Throwback? by Ultracrepidarian · · Score: 1

      I still own some SCO stock, but I wish someone would just drive a stake through this.

    14. Re:Throwback? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PJ isn't needed anymore; there are no issues of fact outstanding, IMO, and since she had to go into hiding for fear of her life at the hands of the litigants, I can understand her reluctance to rejoin this melodrama. If the legal issues become important, she just might come back, IMO again.

    15. Re:Throwback? by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Perhaps, but she shut down Groklaw because she realized that she couldn't manage secure communication with people who wanted to send her information. See the NSA, et al.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    16. Re:Throwback? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd have to first create a few alternate sites that incorporate a throwback tuesday on a wednesday for them to listen...

    17. Re:Throwback? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'll see your shares and raise you an actual retail copy of caldera linux... sco can keep this suit going as long as they want, my ass is covered.

  2. Oh, for Pete's sake. Not again! by some+old+guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, is there no limit to this barratry-fest? Surely the judge must tire of it eventually.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    1. Re:Oh, for Pete's sake. Not again! by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They have had like 4-5 judges in this case already.

      The judges has done alot to try and get away from this case.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    2. Re:Oh, for Pete's sake. Not again! by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Judging can be hard work, it's not all bribery and good ol' boyism. Sometimes you have to sit through some real snoozefests.

    3. Re:Oh, for Pete's sake. Not again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He did. That's why they switched him out. Four times now apparently, too.

    4. Re:Oh, for Pete's sake. Not again! by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      It will become a mark of incompetence. If you weren't resourceful enough to avoid being selected as an SCO case's judge, you don't deserve your position.

    5. Re:Oh, for Pete's sake. Not again! by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      Didn't SCO already file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy? If I'm not mistake, unlike Chapter 11, it pretty much means "I give up" as a company, right? How do you file Chapter 7 and still exist as a company in order to press on with lawsuits?

      I'd love for someone to explain this one to me, because that sounds like a hell of a deal: erase all your debts, continue with the lawsuit (no doubt on contingency), and if you just win big: jackpot! You won't even have to pay back your original debtors!

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    6. Re:Oh, for Pete's sake. Not again! by ewilts · · Score: 1

      The article says that this will be judge #7.

      --
      .../Ed
    7. Re:Oh, for Pete's sake. Not again! by jbolden · · Score: 4, Informative

      They filed they aren't threw the bankruptcy yet. A trustee has been appointed and the trustee decided there still are outstanding legal issues.

    8. Re:Oh, for Pete's sake. Not again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were a judge, I'd volunteer to be on this case, just to put SCO out of our misery.

    9. Re:Oh, for Pete's sake. Not again! by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      ...just to put SCO out of our misery.

      Aptly put :)

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    10. Re:Oh, for Pete's sake. Not again! by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      That's the technical truth, although it is qualified. Judge Dale Kimball was the primary judge that heard the consolidated cases. There were 4 other earlier cases against RedHat, AutoZone, and DaimlerChrysler that were initially heard by other judges but didn't go anywhere in SCO's favor. There was at leats one magistrate judge I thought that dealt with some procedural and "lesser" matters on Kimball's behalf. There is also a federal bankruptcy judge and then this new judge. There's even more if you include appeals court judges that told SCO to STFU.

    11. Re:Oh, for Pete's sake. Not again! by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      whoever ends up controlling the mess left behind can still push through the lawsuits. the property(imaginary as well) doesn't just disappear into a black hole, unfortunately.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    12. Re:Oh, for Pete's sake. Not again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would become a judge just to dismiss the cases outright and say "You're a bunch of whining babies and this crap has gone on for far too long. Any further complaints results in contempt of court charges starting at 20 billion dollars. Anyone want to step up and open your mouths, now? CASE DISMISSED. GET OUT OF MY FACE."

    13. Re:Oh, for Pete's sake. Not again! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      This is the Nazgul financially sodomizing SCO's shysters.

      They are required to do all legal work for SCO, for which they got a big old block of SCO stock.

      They want SCO to be put out of their misery. Suffer bitches! Perhaps the Nazgul would like some ghost pepper lube?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Oh, for Pete's sake. Not again! by sconeu · · Score: 1

      The magistrate judge was Judge Wells.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  3. Pining? by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Funny

    I didn't realize that there were fjords in Utah.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Pining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good ol'e FUD defense get it's vessels pining again, cap'ain.

  4. NUKE IT FROM ORBIT by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's the only way to be sure.

    OK, that was easy, but, seriously? SCO is still... acting up? Moving? I thought that thing (and the other... er... thing) and the one before that were settled?

    Like, drive a wooden stake through its heart? Bury the head and body separately? What is wrong with the world when fsck SCO is still at large?

    Come on, IBM, do everyone a favor: crush them like a bug. Please. I don't know, open a Kickstarter or something, I'll send you money and you a send me a Big Blue T-Shirt with little penguins on it. Please, make it stop. Please, I beg you. Pleeeeeeaaaaaaseeeee, I can't take it anymore! It's not the suspense, it's just the sheer idiocy of it all.

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  5. IBM should put SCO out of misery by sxpert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can't IBM just buy whatever remains of SCO for scrap and shoot it down for good ?

    1. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why should they reward SCO with any money?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt it would be a good move for IBM. IANAL, but they may have to fend off counter suits against SCO if they take ownership.

    3. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      Since SCO consists almost entirely of lawyers at this point, its just a question of which lawyers get paid...theirs or yours. Go for the less-lawyers solution.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    4. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by rkhalloran · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This was obviously what SCOXQ.BK wanted to begin with, a nice payout to STFU and go away. Problem is, given IBMs deep pockets, it would encourage all the other trolls to come out of the woodwork looking for a similar deal. IBM is making them the latest Horrible Warning about frivolous lawsuits against them. The other issue, that I honestly think the SCOundrels didn't take into account, was that charging IBM with stealing code, when their consulting arm works with any number of Fortune 100 companies, was a charge they couldn't let stand. Buying them off gives that charge credibility, where reducing them to a greasestain on the Utah sands proves the baseless nature of the case (the millions-for-defense-not-one-cent-in-tribute argument). SCO's lawyers took a flat fee for handling the case through all appeals; at this point they're running up time they can't bill for. IBM can post a couple of interns on the case and wait until what little cash SCOX has left is burned out, then graciously propose a settlement involving the public flogging of all current and former SCOX execs and a full-page ad in the SLC Tribune calling SCOX out as a malicious copyright troll. [ Disclaimer: 12 years at ATT; seeing these vermin trying to troll based on the legacy UNIX source code has pissed me off to no end, and wrapping them in bacon and trolling them through a school of great whites would be less than they deserve. ]

    5. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Take it over by force, find evidence that it was a sock puppet, sue the lawyers

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by wasteoid · · Score: 1

      There are probably only a handful of employees left, trying hard to get that big payout. With few employees left at the company, fewer people to split the winnings with (not that they would have anyway). No way are they going to settle for scraps when they've held out this long!

      Big money, no whammies, STOP!

    7. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What needs to happen:

      [IBM] Say sue again.. I dare, I double-dare ya motherfucker! [/IBM]

      [SCO] *trembling* ... sue? [/SCO]

      [IBM] *BLAM* [/IBM]

    8. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      It is so sad that SCO which was a really good company is going to be remembered for this. Novell on the other hand while also a sad shadow of it's former self at least will be remembered in a good light.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      Why would they? They already have plenty of lawyers.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    10. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by Langalf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Seriously, the SCO we know and hate was NEVER a good company. Santa Cruz Operations was an OK provider of Unix, but SCO Group was little more than a poor caretaker of the legacy.

    11. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by Damouze · · Score: 5, Informative

      The SCO that is currently trolling IBM is not the SCO that you remember as "such a good company". There are two SCO's:

      * The Santa Cruz Operation (1979-2001). This is the SCO that you remember. They brought us Xenix (bought from M$), SCO Unix and Unixware. This SCO sold their rights to UNIX to Caldera Systems (then primarily known for Caldera/Open Linux and OpenDOS (bought from Novell, which had in turn bought it from Digital Research earlier). In those years they were mostly famous for filing an antitrust campaign against Microsoft). After selling their UNIX servers and services division to Caldera they renamed themselves as Tarantella Inc., after the product line they retained. Tarantella was subsequently bought by Sun Microsystems in 2005, which in turn was bought by Oracle in 2010.
      * The SCO Group (2005-), formerly known as Caldera Systems / Caldera International. As Caldera they bought above SCO's UNIX servers and services division and subsequently renamed themselves to "The SCO Group". Like an evil David they tried to topple Goliath IBM by (falsely) claiming in court that programmers from IBM illegally copied code from SCO's OpenServer sources (supposedly their intellectual property was so secret that their allegations of verbatim copying code by IBM was "proven" by presentational slides which had the SCO code shown in Greek alphabet). Around the same time they started selling subscription based Linux licenses to large IT companies (which were led to believe that The SCO Group owned the rights to Linux). This ridiculous scheme went on for several years, until a judge decided, once and for all, that enough was enough and told them to bugger off, as in the meantime, it had become clear in a separate lawsuit that Novell was in fact the owner of the UNIX copyrights, not the SCO Group.

      --
      And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
    12. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrapping them in bacon and trolling them through a school of great whites would be less than they deserve.

      Unfortunately for your plans, sharks do not like bacon. Sigh.

      But...

      They have lasers!!!!

    13. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Funny

      IBM has Nazgul on staff. SCO's shysters were paid in SCO stock to represent them for the duration.

      Let the Nazgul feast on Darl's liver.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Always encouraging to see management failing to understand the sunk-cost fallacy.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    15. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by walterbyrd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft also a huge part of this. Those $50M "loans" had to be backed by somebody.

      Just a MS smear campaign against Linux.

      And Microsoft gets to pretend they had nothing to do with it.

    16. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well, they did file a joint return. It seems the divorce is not complete yet.

      I kinda figure that while Microsoft can squeeze money out of Android through patent trolling, this SCO thing will always have legs.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    17. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      sorry, all evidence is already destroyed - SCO got permission to shred all their documents as part of the bankruptcy.

    18. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

      For those who don't recall Caldera also put out the screwy RedHat derivative/clone that attempted to create a 'registry' for Linux. I once witnessed a Caldera representative visiting a Linux enthusiasts group unable to give away 5 free install CDs. Yes, it really was that bad.

    19. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Meh. The SCO you remember was old SCO, that actually did something besides sue.

      Even then, they weren't THAT great. They helped make Xenix with MS help, then that became SCO OpenServer. (Yeah, MS got some cash from UNIX sales, and now gets cash on every Android sale). I actually worked with it. It wasn't that good of a distro, and got killed in the marketplace when Linux got rolling. Eventually they bought out the UNIX copyright/trademark for SVR4. They did eventually release SVR4.2, and SVR5, but neither set the world on fire.

      They were "good" when there weren't too many other alternatives for x86 UNIX (remember *BSD was mired in lawsuits with AT&T). In comparison to a very raw Linux or FreeBSD at the time, OpenServer was just passable. The world quickly passed them by.

      They did spin off some web thing called Tarantella. It got decent reviews at the time. But I don't think i've heard any mention of it in the last decade.

    20. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't IBM just buy whatever remains of SCO for scrap and shoot it down for good ?

      That was the original plan. SCO was failing, so they sued their biggest customer for more than it would cost to buy them outright. IBM just refused to take the bait.

    21. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > Can't IBM just buy whatever remains of SCO

      That's what the remaining few owners are hoping for. It would be like paying blackmail,and encourage other ambulance chasing intellectual property lawyers.

    22. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      sorry, all evidence is already destroyed - SCO got permission to shred all their documents as part of the bankruptcy.

      So how do they prove anything now?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft also a huge part of this. Those $50M "loans" had to be backed by somebody.

      Actually MS had nothing to do with the $50mm investment in SCO. The investment was made by a VC firm in the SF Bay Area. Someone who worked for MS did make introductions but that was the extent of it. Go read the Groklaw site for heavens sake.

    24. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by jrumney · · Score: 1

      There are no employees left. The legal cases were sold off to one of the execs who wanted to keep going and a bunch of lawyers as part of the bankruptcy. The rest of the company shut down.

    25. Re:IBM should put SCO out of misery by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      True but it is still the same name and will be remembered as the Evil SCO.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  6. Does this mean Groklaw will come back? by satch89450 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That would be the only GOOD thing that would come out of this action by SCO and IBM. :)

    1. Re:Does this mean Groklaw will come back? by drakaan · · Score: 2

      Oh, how I wish that would happen.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    2. Re:Does this mean Groklaw will come back? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who paid her? Who was she shilling for? As far as I ever knew, she was an independent Paralegal who started the site as a personal project to follow the SCO case. Seems you are one of the Microsoft/SCO OSS haters out to continue to slander and bash PJ and anyone who supports Open Source or freedom of Speech.

  7. It's a zombie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't kill the undead! The only good thing about SCO is that it was from Santa Cruz, CA. A nice place where we lived when we (my wife and I) decided to get married about 40 years ago...

  8. Re:Actually, It's about Ethics in Copyright Law by Sique · · Score: 0

    I doubt that Anita Sarkeesian ever wants to be seen in the same camp than SCO. It's just a silly attempt of you to try a "guilty by association".

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  9. Almost DNF by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this goes on much longer, this lawsuit will have a longer lifespan than Duke Nukem's development hell.

    SCO, taking the idea of vaporware to a whole new level.

  10. Litigious Bastards by monkeypushbutton · · Score: 1

    Ahhh, fond memories!

  11. which begs the question by nimbius · · Score: 2

    who is the sadistic ambulance chasing short fat attorney with the gin blossoms and seersucker suit thats convinced poor SCO to give this another go? Dear god man let the dead have their peace!

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:which begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good question. Wrong title.

      http://begthequestion.info/

    2. Re:which begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "who is the sadistic ambulance chasing short fat attorney with the gin blossoms and seersucker suit thats convinced poor SCO to give this another go? " Shaft, John Shaft!

  12. Destruction of documents by bernywork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hope they kept everything, SCO was going to start destroying stuff in 2013.

    http://www.groklaw.net/article...

    --
    Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
    1. Re:Destruction of documents by jrumney · · Score: 3, Informative

      They kept all the documents related to how IBM had put the same header files to some POSIX APIs in Linux as what SCO saw in Unix, right down to the function prototypes being in the same alphabetical order, but sneakily they had changed all the comments to hide their copying. The documents they destroyed were the ones related to the fact that Novel, not SCO owned the copyrights in question. There was no point to keeping those documents, as SCO have already lost that case and exhausted all avenues of appeal.

    2. Re:Destruction of documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if Novel owns the copyrights (which I also know to be fact, I'm not challenging this), then how does SCO have a case? If IBM copied header files then Novel, as owner of the copyrights, would be the wronged party. How can SCO sue because someone else's copyrights were violated?

    3. Re:Destruction of documents by jrumney · · Score: 1

      They don't have a case. But since they destroyed all their documents that show that, they are not aware of this themselves.

    4. Re:Destruction of documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess what I don't understand is why the courts haven't already issued a summary judgement and tossed this out of court in light of the Novel ruling. I suppose maybe the allegations of unfair competition might need sorting out, but how is the misappropriation of code still in court? Maybe SCO still thinks they owned the copyright, but surely the courts know better.

  13. More fucking gruel! by paiute · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We asked a gentleman by us, if he knew what cause was on? He told us Jarndyce and Jarndyce. We asked him if he knew what was doing in it? He said, really no he did not, nobody ever did; but as well as he could make out, it was over. Over for the day? we asked him. No, he said; over for good.

    Over for good!

    When we heard this unaccountable answer, we looked at one another quite lost in amazement. Could it be possible that the Will had set things right at last, and that Richard and Ada were going to be rich? It seemed too good to be true. Alas, it was!

    Our suspense was short; for a break up soon took place in the crowd, and the people came streaming out looking flushed and hot, and bringing a quantity of bad air with them. Still they were all exceedingly amused, and were more like people coming out from a Farce or a Juggler than from a court of Justice. We stood aside, watching for any countenance we knew; and presently great bundles of paper began to be carried outâ"bundles in bags, bundles too large to be got into any bags, immense masses of papers of all shapes and no shapes, which the bearers staggered under, and threw down for the time being, anyhow, on the Hall pavement, while they went back to bring out more. Even these clerks were laughing. We glanced at the papers, and seeing Jarndyce and Jarndyce everywhere, asked an official-looking person who was standing in the midst of them, whether the cause was over. "Yes," he said; "it was all up with it at last!" and burst out laughing too. ...

    "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.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  14. Re:Actually, It's about Ethics in Copyright Law by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

    Why not, she's already in the same camp of "people we wish to hear less from"

  15. I'm not a violent person... by dmgxmichael · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... but my kneejerk reaction is to find the remaining SCO layers, some strong hemp rope and a stout oak tree.

    Seriously though, nothing cries out for Tort reform like this nonsense.

    1. Re:I'm not a violent person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The settlement - when it comes - will happily make sure the lawyers on both sides are whole. And as former and future lawyers the judges will keep it going for that reason alone. We have the best legal system you can buy.

    2. Re:I'm not a violent person... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      SCO's shysters got paid in SCO stock and are stuck with the case for the duration.

      This whole deal is the Nazgul torturing SCO's lawyers. Like a cat with a half dead rat. I hope they kill the law firm and leave the partners heads on pikes outside the office.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  16. Zombies! by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

    Somebody shoot the zombie in the head!

    1. Re:Zombies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These are SCO zombies - no brains required.

    2. Re:Zombies! by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      kill -9!!! Kill -9!!!! Why isn't it working!?!?!? Where's the Parent!? KILL THE PARENT PROCESS!!! NOW!!!!

    3. Re:Zombies! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You don't just shoot them in the head, then you need to fill their mouth with salt and sew their lips together to keep them from spitting it out. Shooting them in the head is just to slow them down enough so that you can do that.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  17. Re:Actually, It's about Ethics in Copyright Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This post triggered me and gave me PTSD.

  18. Give them $5 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say give SCO the $5 billion so we can have this great entertainment continue for another 100 years! Could we buy better entertainment? Would we not be happy to see IBM have to pay out $5 billion and bring down the current regime?

    1. Re:Give them $5 billion by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Not over this matter. In this case it's quite important that IBM win.

      Pick another case.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  19. What will it take to kill SCO permanently? by TomTraynor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe a laminated stake through the hear (wood & silver soaked in garlic and holy water). Then stuffed in a coffin placed in a double hulled container, the container gap is filled with holy water and garlic juice. Put into a rocket and launched into an orbit near the sun. Even then I would be willing to bet it would get out and return.

    --
    Panic now, beat the rush!
    1. Re:What will it take to kill SCO permanently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    2. Re:What will it take to kill SCO permanently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Play it cautious. Sure, nuke it from orbit, but be in orbit round a different star system.

  20. Ad rotator = Perfect Timing... by kaizendojo · · Score: 1

    When I came here to look at the article, the ad rotated right underneath was for "New Relic".... how appropos...

  21. Throw Up by swschrad · · Score: 1

    somebody take a wagon load of hickory stakes and a box of silver bullets to Utah and kill that vampire once and for all !

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  22. Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The SCO that was from Santa Cruz is currently Tarantella, now owned by Oracle (via Sun).

    The SCO we all know and hate was Caldera, which was a scummy outfit even back when they were a Linux distro.

  23. Re:Actually, It's about Ethics in Copyright Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it sexist to say Sarkeesian really has the most terrible dress sense? I think she bought those stupid earrings from a magician's fire sale.

  24. Only the lawyers win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That it was a JOINT filing says to me that the lawyers got bored, and were looking for another way to pad their fee base. In cases like this, as another commenter pointed out, only the lawyers win.

    Furthermore, they lose if the case stops.

    Wouldn't that be a tragedy?

    AC

    1. Re:Only the lawyers win by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      SCO's lawyers got paid in SCO stock to represent them for the duration. At this point its IBM's lawyers racking them over the coals for LOLs.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  25. Scheduling conflict for the suit by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    PJ's all booked up

  26. Time to restart the Groklaw again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it groundhog day all over again? Do we need to startup Groklaw.net again just to finish up the details. I wonder what Pamela Jones (aka pj) thinks of a whole new round of litigation.

  27. Was SCO really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    When this debacle broke out several years ago, SCO was seen as the most dangerous threat to Linux. But things have changed, and in hindsight I think that the threat posted by SCO was actually quite minor.

    For example, it's of my opinion that systemd has caused far more harm to the Linux community than SCO ever managed to do, and perhaps ever could have done. Systemd has, without a doubt, split the Linux community into several camps. It has provoked animosity the likes we've never seen before, even within a community where heated debate and disagreement was common.

    Debian, once seen as the most stable and reliable Linux distribution, with one of the most cohesive communities, has suffered particularly badly since switching to systemd. It's no secret that its reliability has since dropped far below expectations (the many systemd-related bug reports and mailing list postings confirm this). This has driven many users to seek alternatives, including Slackware and even FreeBSD. The Debian community is in shambles, not only from the technical issues surrounding systemd, but also the many political squabbles that took place while choosing systemd.

    On a personal level, SCO never interfered with my desktops and servers. Yet systemd has prevented them from booting properly on numerous occasions. Systemd has done more harm to me and many others in Linux community than SCO ever did, or probably even ever could have done.

    1. Re:Was SCO really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Furthermore most of the squabbling over systemd seems to be about the fact that some people do not like that systemd gives you more control and flexibility over the startup process[citation needed]. It seems as this group is opposed[citation needed] to anything that would extend or improve upon Linux's mechanisms that would allow for more options and control. They are opposed[citation needed] to being able to start a program on the NIC coming online, if that is what you need to do. systemd does not take away any functionality[citation needed], it fully supports the full SysV init system[citation needed], so its not as if systemd is taking away your ability to set up your init system like you always have[citation needed]. All of the functionality it adds is in addition[citation needed] to the existing functionality of previous init systems. What this means is that those who oppose systemd are only about taking away choice, control and flexibility from other users[citation needed], they do not want other users to be able to utilize certain features[citation needed]. So these people basically want to keep Linux difficult to use, unconfigurable and inflexible[citation needed]. In fact, those who suffer and lose the most from the attacks on systemd are techie types who can most benefit from the kinds of control and customizability that systemd can provide in initialization and system control[citation needed]. I believe that many of those who oppose systemd are in fact agents of Microsoft trying to undermine Linux and attack anything that could actually make it better.

      I call bullshit on pretty much everything you just said. That paragraph is very long on ad hominem arguments, imputing all kinds of bad will on systemd naysayers, and completely devoid of technical arguments.

      Systemd breaks systems. Period. Sure, it can be made to work after much futzing around, but even distros which have had it for a while still have breakage tied to the replacement of SysV init with systemd. (As one example, OpenSuSE 13.2's "log viewer" still tries to open the no-longer-existant /var/log/messages file.)

      Your last sentence is particularly telling. "I believe that many of those who oppose systemd are in fact agents of Microsoft trying to undermine Linux and attack anything that could actually make it better." It reads like the classic technique of a culprit accusing his accusers of exactly the thing that he himself did so as to deflect criticism.

    2. Re: Was SCO really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the people speaking out against systemd have been working with and contributing to Linux for ten or even twenty years, if not longer. Many of them used other UNIX variants long before then. They aren't "agents of Microsoft", that's for sure!

    3. Re:Was SCO really that bad? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I agree: systemd has damaged Linux far worse than scox.

      IMO: both systemd, and scox, stem from the same idea: companies like Linux being free, but dislike not being able to own Linux.

      IMO: Red Hat, the company behind systemd, is much smarter, and is much more likely to successfully steal Linux.

    4. Re:Was SCO really that bad? by rnturn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ``What this means is that those who oppose systemd are only about taking away choice, control and flexibility from other users, they do not want other users to be able to utilize certain features. So these people basically want to keep Linux difficult to use, unconfigurable and inflexible.''

      Your arm must be really tired from painting with that broad brush. As for those who oppose systemd being Microsoft ``agents'', the feature usurpation being done by the systemd developers seems to show just the opposite.

      But... WTF does any of this have to do with SCO and their ridiculous legal arguments rising from the dead? Again?

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    5. Re: Was SCO really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your allegation that anyone standing against systemd is an 'agent of Microsoft' is a pretty serious one. Please immediately provide us with some conclusive evidence to back up these claims. If you cannot provide that evidence, then you should immediately retract your allegation and apologize.

    6. Re: Was SCO really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The modding here is screwed up. The GP's comment is insightful and probably correct, yet it's at -1. Then there's the parent comment, which is obvious nonsense from top to bottom, at +1, Insightful. The unsubstantiated "agents of Microsoft" jab is particularly pathetic. Come on, /. mods. You can do better.

    7. Re:Was SCO really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This past week, I turned on a 400 CPU HPC cluster running CentOS 6.6 without systemd. It worked flawlessly! On my desktop with Mageia4, I made *ONE* change to the systemd and had to reinstall the rootfs. I'm a very experienced sysadmin and I can tell you, I hate systemd with a passion! Not only do I have to re-learn a bunch of crap, but it's the most inflexible, inhospitable, terse, bloated, and obnoxious system I've ever had the "pleasure" to work with. What a crash prone evil joke the distros have push on us. Thank god for Slackware and the few sane distros out there.

    8. Re:Was SCO really that bad? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Furthermore most of the squabbling over systemd seems to be about the fact that some people do not like that systemd gives you more control and flexibility over the startup process.

      You appear to have misinterpreted what "most of the squabbling" is actually about.

      who if they wanted to could simply tailor Debian to use their own init system, so if they dont like systemd, why dont they just put in their own init program after they install debian?

      ...and after they remove all of the dependencies on systemd from all of the non-init-related packages that are using it.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    9. Re:Was SCO really that bad? by tsa · · Score: 1

      Why feed the troll?

      --

      -- Cheers!

    10. Re: Was SCO really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only trolling I see in this thread is coming from just two users: Eravnrekaree and tsa.

    11. Re:Was SCO really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People don't like SystemD because of poor design that allows for in-deterministic failure cases and cases that should not ever happen. Some of these issues may have been fixed, but there have been many WTF moments with SystemD for many to even trust that the programmers know what they're doing. They seem like a bunch of monkeys slapping together code and give it a stamp of approval as long as it passes their units tests.

    12. Re: Was SCO really that bad? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The modding here is screwed up. The GP's comment is insightful and probably correct, yet it's at -1. Then there's the parent comment, which is obvious nonsense from top to bottom, at +1, Insightful. The unsubstantiated "agents of Microsoft" jab is particularly pathetic. Come on, /. mods. You can do better.

      While he may be correct about most of the squabbling over systemd, accusing systemd detractors of being agents of Microsoft is a pretty quick and easy way to minus-one-land.

    13. Re:Was SCO really that bad? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      This past week, I turned on a 400 CPU HPC cluster running CentOS 6.6 without systemd. It worked flawlessly! On my desktop with Mageia4, I made *ONE* change to the systemd and had to reinstall the rootfs. I'm a very experienced sysadmin and I can tell you, I hate systemd with a passion! Not only do I have to re-learn a bunch of crap, but it's the most inflexible, inhospitable, terse, bloated, and obnoxious system I've ever had the "pleasure" to work with. What a crash prone evil joke the distros have push on us. Thank god for Slackware and the few sane distros out there.

      Why don't you tell us which change it was that made you have to reinstall the rootfs and/or point to the systemd bug report?

    14. Re:Was SCO really that bad? by mr_mischief · · Score: 0

      Well, systemd takes some getting used to. It's not perfect. It is nice to write one systemd definition for a service across all systemd-using distros and get daemon watching for free vs. hand-writing all those SysV init scripts.

    15. Re:Was SCO really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. It is much easier to administer large deployments if user customization is limited.

      Q: If I wanted to limit customization of config by users, would coupling systemd with Gnome be a way to go?

      I dunno if this is "the Plan" but it sure makes me resist the movement to systemd, which is now, I understand, a dependency for GTK's new toolkit. So, installing GiMP requires .... Systemd (even if I run otherwise only KDE and Qt libraries).

      Sucks,

    16. Re:Was SCO really that bad? by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      I'm a very experienced sysadmin

      Not anymore. Things change.

      terse, bloated

      Terse _and_ bloated?

    17. Re:Was SCO really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terse in that the commands have vowels removed because Poettering is clearly embarrassed by his vowel-ly name.
      Bloated in that it tries to be the damn kitchen sink with the Dispose-All® and drains running backwards and bringing all kinds of rotten mildewy shit out of the sewers.

  28. I'm no fan of IBM by MichaelMacDonald · · Score: 1

    I'm no fan of IBM, but SCO will just burn through that $5 billion and do nothing good with it. Their time is over. If they had any chance at producing a good product, they would have a long time ago. Just let them die. Sorry.

  29. All right, WHO went out and purchased by bobbied · · Score: 1

    A license from SCO?

    Come on dude, all that money you paid just went directly to the lawyers who now are using it to file another pathetic round of "legal actions". PLEASE just stop buying their stuff. If you need help porting your legacy application off of their platform let me know, I'm sure we can arrange to get it done for you. Not to mention that the hardware you are using has to be nearly 20 years old now... Time to let this garbage go..

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:All right, WHO went out and purchased by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      I bought a boxed copy of Caldera OpenLinux back before they merged with SCO and started their "we own Linux" campaign. Even if I needed a Linux license from them, which nobody does, I already had it.

  30. Arduino by pjrc · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else see a similarity SCO and the recent Arduino drama?

  31. Huh? by rnturn · · Score: 1

    IBM ordered source code to be destroyed?

    Just what would that even accomplish? I get the source code to the Linux kernel with every set of CDs/DVDs that I've downloaded or purchased over the years. Is SCO seriously going to argue that that source code has been magically cleansed of the code that IBM allegedly ordered purged from IBM's developers' computers? That would only make any sense if IBM offered a Linux distribution -- tweaked, I assume SCO is thinking by the code they are alleged to have stolen from SCO. (SCO thinking... ha ha ha... I crack myself up.) Wait... I've never heard of an IBM Linux.

    I stopped thinking about SCO and their delusions years ago. Looks like their legal department -- and that's likely all that's left of the company now -- hasn't and is still sitting in their office dreaming up conspiracy theories. It's all they can do now. Hell, it's all they've ever had.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    1. Re:Huh? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      As long as there are investors who think this case will pay off, the case will go on.

  32. Why don't courts demand evidence right away? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Court: do you have evidence IBM stole your code?
    SCOX: nope
    Court: case closed.

    Instead, the case drags on 13 years while scox plays "hide the ball" with evidence.

    1. Re:Why don't courts demand evidence right away? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The odd thing is, they WERE ordered to present the evidence. They even got an extention until the end of January (severl years ago) because their lawyers went on vacation over Christmas. They still didn't present any evidence (to speak of). And yet the case went on.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Why don't courts demand evidence right away? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      PJ, of Groklaw fame, said that the court system was designed to keep the defendant from delaying the lawsuit interminably, since the plaintiff would presumably want to move ahead. Therefore, it had few defenses against SCO trying to drag things on as long as possible (and, by now, much longer than that).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  33. Re:Actually, It's about Ethics in Copyright Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gamergate punks fuck off.

  34. Like O.J... by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 0

    Your last sentence is particularly telling.... It reads like the classic technique of a culprit accusing his accusers of exactly the thing that he himself did so as to deflect criticism.

    Like O.J. and and V. Putin vowing to find the "real killers."

    1. Re:Like O.J... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Your last sentence is particularly telling.... It reads like the classic technique of a culprit accusing his accusers of exactly the thing that he himself did so as to deflect criticism.

      Like O.J. and and V. Putin vowing to find the "real killers."

      Whoa, whoa - WHOA. They're going after Lennart Poettering?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Like O.J... by mr_mischief · · Score: 2

      Wait... wait... you hate Lennart so much as to pass on a Hans Reiser joke?

    3. Re:Like O.J... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reiser was only dangerous to *one* person.

    4. Re:Like O.J... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reiser is a technically competent pile of shit who made a pretty good file system.

      Poettering is an incompetent pile of shit who made a pile of shit.

      Reiser is a good IT guy, and a bad human being.

      Poettering is a horrible IT guy, and a horrible human being (just look at the shit he spouts against anybody who dares tell him he's wrong).

      Clearly, Poettering is much more deserving of hate.

  35. This sounds like an episode of by tgibson · · Score: 1

    Better Call Saul

    1. Re:This sounds like an episode of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source code to be discovered in the back of a VW beetle when they remake the movie "Sleeper" by by Woody Allen

  36. Seriously.... by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 1
    This is just a really, really obscure promo for The Walking Dead, right? Ha, ha, guys, you so funny, can't wait for Mad Men....

    Seriously? This is a real thing? Fuck the current Tort system...

    --
    Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
  37. Re:Actually, It's about Ethics in Copyright Law by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

    If it weren't for the AC my "Days since last Sarkeesian Incident" counter would still be counting, instead of writing 68 to the database and resetting to 0.

  38. SCOX would not sell you a license if you begged by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    I know because I called, and asked to buy a license - twice.

    I suspect that selling a license to something you don't own is seriously illegal.

    1. Re:SCOX would not sell you a license if you begged by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I KNOW that "SCO Unix" was a licensed product. I actually used this platform at 3 past employers and we spent a lot of cash paying SCO for the right to install and use it in literally thousands of locations world wide.

      All this "We own UNIX and you owe us for running Linux" stuff was bunk, but they did have a licensed product which they DID legally own, it just so happened that the stuff they owned didn't include Linux.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  39. Scox scam just another successful MS scam by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft was behind it all along.

    Who do you think arranged all these just-in-time multi-million dollar "loans."

    For Microsoft, $100M is nothing. Less than the cost of one commercial.

    A successful Linux smear campaign for $100M is a bargain.

    1. Re:Scox scam just another successful MS scam by ruir · · Score: 1

      Vote with your feet and your wallet.

  40. Mostly IBM vs SCO by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that most of the remaining case is IBM suing SCO. most of the other part has gone away( but not all.).

  41. For those who don't know, it's Dickens. by Zordak · · Score: 1

    Who has won the case of SCO v. IBM? Why, IBM's lawyers, of course.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    1. Re:For those who don't know, it's Dickens. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      FYI IBM lawyers have been known as Nazgul for 50 years.They are staff, but I'm sure they enjoyed this.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  42. GAH! by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

    Almost two years after the last time I logged in and this *STILL* isn't dead?!?

    --
    I call it 'The Aristocrats'
  43. They *still* libel Linux by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to SCO's website:

    The UNIX ABIs were never authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux®. As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission. Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux®, and improperly distributed under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX copyrighted software code.

    Wasn't it proven that Novell owned any and all copyrights involved here? How long do you get to publicly libel someone (like everyone who uses Linux) before a judge can order you to cease and desist that idiocy?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:They *still* libel Linux by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ABI is the binary interface.....it's hard for me to believe that any of Linux is binary compatible with AT&T Unix. For one thing, the method of making a system call is completely different.....

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:They *still* libel Linux by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Linux has been able to run executables from BSDs, SCO Unix and a few other x386 Unixes since quite early on. You also need all the dependencies from the target system, and constructing such a system would require a license for the Unix variant in question, but the binary compatibility is there in Linux. The question is whether it contains any SCO copyrighted code. The answer is a definitive no - what code is common appears to have come from BSD, or is trivial headers that could easily be common by chance, and more importantly, a court has already delivered the judgement that Novell, not SCO, owns the Unix copyrights.

    3. Re:They *still* libel Linux by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that Linux can load the executable format (I'm guessing a.out), and call the libraries, but the libraries would need to know how to make system calls into Linux instead of BSD/AT&T/etc?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:They *still* libel Linux by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Some distributions used to also distribute ABI compatibility, back when commercial software targeted Sco/Unixware/Xenix etc and ignored Linux. See here for example. These days, I expect it is the other way around - anyone left still shipping traditional Unix on x86 (or even other architectures) needs to provide a Linux ABI if they want to ensure that proprietary software will run on their platform.

  44. What is this, 1740? by John.Banister · · Score: 1

    Use nylon.

  45. FUD? Nothing wrong there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nothing wrong with spreading FUD. That's a standard business practice.

  46. Maybe it's time to tranfser this case to the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pripyat Circuit Court.

  47. SCO owns the Unix computer? by DougPaulson · · Score: 1

    "The case involves SCO's claims that IBM misappropriated code from the Unix computer operating system software, owned by SCO."

    NO, SCO (formerly Caldera Systems) owned a version of Unix that they bought from Novell, besides which Novell still retained rights.

    Unix Tree

  48. Re:Actually, It's about Ethics in Copyright Law by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

    Yeah, where are my OffTopic moderator points when I need them...

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
  49. Re: Ownership of Unix copyrights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Novell was in fact the owner of the UNIX copyrights, not the SCO Group.

    That is not quite true. The ruling was that SCO (the original Santa Cruz Operation) had not purchased the copyrights from Novell, and had thus not passed them on to The SCO Group. It made no comment about whether there were, in fact, any protectable copyrights existing in Unix let alone who would have owned these.

    In many cases parts of the source of Unix may have failed to have been copyrighted, may have been released to public domain, or may be owned by others, such as Berkeley and a whole host of third parties.

  50. I miss the middle ages by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

    Hundreds of years ago, both parties would choose their best man, and it wold be settled on the field of battle. No appeal. Just think about how much less corporate malfeasance there would be if CEOs and board members had to defend themselves with a broad sword.

  51. Groklaw updated! by jjohn_h · · Score: 1

    A mystery man or woman updated the SCO timeline on Groklaw:

    http://www.groklaw.net/staticp...

    Unfortunately, no update of the legendary PJ comments. But the timeline shows that the judge granted partially and dismissed partially an IBM request for summary judgement in Dec. 2014.

    Appeal to jurists with Pacer access: please report on SCO-IBM fight of the last two years. The case was revived (with IBM's consent) the same day Groklaw shut down.

  52. TSG Execs have a planned stock sale by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

    The SCO Group (not SCO) execs have a planned stock sale in the works or they would not be making these disproven claims.

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  53. OH NOES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just think: if there are fjords to pine over in Utah, then it stands to reason that there are seester biting moose as well. This could be the first sign of Armageddon...

  54. Re:NUKE IT FROM ORBIT by Indigo · · Score: 1

    You win the Internets for today, Sir. That is all.

  55. Red Hat case also by rkhalloran · · Score: 1

    Remember too that Red Hat has a libel case against SCOX that was put on hold behind this. The likelihood of any payoff is slight, but it's on the list of liabilities to the BK trustee.

  56. As Lovecraft predicted by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    That is not dead which can eternal lie/And with endless lawsuits even death can die.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  57. Worse than a bad zombie movie! by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    for x in listOfSynonymsForWorse:
      print("{} than a bad zombie movie".format(x))

    --
    John_Chalisque
  58. The real villain of the piece.. by chris2kari · · Score: 0

    Darl Mc Bride, the failed salesman who attempted to sue his past employer joined Caldera Systems a dying Unix/Linux vendor, talked the aged & infirm owner into trying to sue their own customers as a revenue source using bogus claims of 'owning' Unix. Untrue, they were a licensee who incidentally didn't pay the license fees to the the true owner (Novell). When that didn't work he then launched a claim of IBM copying code from Unix into Linux & sought a huge financial remedy all the while knowing that his company did not 'own' Unix & that there was no code copied. In effect copyright/patent trolling with no IP/patents to go to war with. That this was doomed to failure was never in doubt but along the way Microsoft found a need to pay $100 million in 'license fees' to Caldera now renamed 'The Sco Group'. Some very murky venture capitalists in the shadows tipped in obscene amounts of money into this scam also. IBM & others fought back in court & refuted this drivel. TSCOG ran away & hid in bankruptcy rather than pay Novell what it was due. Curiously the extremely well paid bankruptcy administrator was highly motivated to keep pressing on with the fictitious claims in litigation. This scam was attempted in other countries where Caldera had offices but was immediately slapped down by courts in those jurisdictions. Only in America could this nonsense be allowed to go on for 12 long years & still running... American judicial system is a joke!