Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the no-one-expects-the-mcbride-inquisition dept.

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.

45 of 170 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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!”
    5. 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.
  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 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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)
    6. 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.

    7. 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.
  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?
  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 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. ]

    4. 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.'"
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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'
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

  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. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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
  11. 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"

  12. 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.

  13. Re:Actually, It's about Ethics in Copyright Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This post triggered me and gave me PTSD.

  14. 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!
  15. 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
  16. 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'
  17. 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. . . .
  18. 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.

  19. Re:Like O.J... by mr_mischief · · Score: 2

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

  20. 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?