Slashdot Mirror


13-Year-Old Linux Dispute Returns As SCO Files New Appeal (theinquirer.net)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from THE INQUIRER: Now-defunct Unix vendor, which claimed that Linux infringed its intellectual property and sought as much as $5 billion in compensation from IBM, has filed notice of yet another appeal in the 13-year-old dispute. The appeal comes after a ruling at the end of February when SCO's arguments claiming intellectual property ownership over parts of Unix were rejected by a U.S. district court. That judgment noted that SCO had minimal resources to defend counter-claims filed by IBM due to SCO's bankruptcy. "It is ordered and adjudged that pursuant to the orders of the court entered on July 10, 2013, February 5, 2016, and February 8, 2016, judgement is entered in favor of the defendant and plaintiff's causes of action are dismissed with prejudice," stated the document. Now, though, SCO has filed yet again to appeal that judgement, although the precise grounds it is claiming haven't yet been disclosed.

5 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Zombie by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can't someone kill this zombie process

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Zombie by mikael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've seen it happen a lot on servers. It usually happens because the process is already suspended while waiting for a resource to be freed. Like trying to get an exclusive lock on a network shared file after the connection is lost. As it is waiting for a response from the network, it's put in a suspended state. But since there is no connection, there's never going to be a reply. So it just waits and waits.

      Sending a kill signal might nudge it closer to the afterlife and get local resource freed, but when remote resources on network servers are tried to be released, it locks up.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:Zombie by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll give SCO $500 just to go away.

      Well, it's a good thing it's not up to you then. That's precisely what IBM is refusing to do, because that gives these slimes a precedent and an opportunity to go after potentially softer targets. Good on IBM for not taking the easy way out.

      You're over-thinking this. This is absolutely still about money. It's just lawyers on contingent (meaning no one is paying them) just putting in a minimal amount of effort and expenses to file a few more court documents, hoping for a big miracle payday. Sure, the odds are low, but when the potential payout is massive, why not?

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  2. Follow the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who is funding the appeals at this point?

  3. Re:March 31 by Teun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The licensing was taken care of, Miscrosoft purchased legal protection from SCO for their UNIX tool-kit for windows,.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."