Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Rules: SCO v. IBM Case Can Continue (arstechnica.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader Freshly Exhumed quotes Ars Technica:
A federal appeals court has now partially ruled in favor of the SCO Group, breathing new life into a lawsuit and a company (now bankrupt and nearly dead) that has been suing IBM for nearly 15 years.
Last year, U.S. District Judge David Nuffer had ruled against SCO (whose original name was Santa Cruz Operation) in two summary judgment orders, and the court refused to allow SCO to amend its initial complaint against IBM. SCO soon appealed. On Monday, the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals found that SCO's claims of misappropriation could go forward while also upholding Judge Nuffer's other two orders.
Here's Slashdot's first story about the trial more than 14 years ago, and a nice timeline from 2012 of the next nine years of legal drama.
Last year, U.S. District Judge David Nuffer had ruled against SCO (whose original name was Santa Cruz Operation) in two summary judgment orders, and the court refused to allow SCO to amend its initial complaint against IBM. SCO soon appealed. On Monday, the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals found that SCO's claims of misappropriation could go forward while also upholding Judge Nuffer's other two orders.
Here's Slashdot's first story about the trial more than 14 years ago, and a nice timeline from 2012 of the next nine years of legal drama.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Good thing I paid my $699 License Fee to SCO. Who is laughing now???
They sell licenses for $699 each. That can buy some lawyers.
Anyone besides 10 people bought them? I realized Microsoft 13 years ago funded them but ironically Windows 10 and Azure would have to pay some fees with the WSL Linux subsystem and Azure images so it would not be in there best interests for a SCO win.
My hunch is fucking thank Oracle due to the lawsuit with Android the courts have now interpreted clean room implementations and look alikes as actual derivatives. So Wine is owned by Microsoft even they didn't write it! GNUC is owned by AT&T even if they didn't write any of it. Look Linux has grep therefore it is owned by SCO etc.
I sense desperation, but Novel owns the Unix license so there is hope. This is a very very old argument and flame here from Bush's 1st term of office on slashdot. It comes to show how much corruption and problems with the legal system there is as it is unreasonable for a frivolous 15 year old lawsuit can continue.
http://saveie6.com/
Does this mean Groklaw is coming back to cover this mess again? :-)
Well, I guess its still not time to say "Goodnight PJ, wherever you are."
Owing for the most part to this ongoing SCO saga, the web was once gifted with the presence of Groklaw and the inimitable Pamela Jones, who brushed aside direct and very personal attacks from Darl McBride, Maureen O'Gara, and others as she provided insights and clarity for computer geeks on what tends to be a quite opaque judicial system. The comfort bar amongst FOSS supporters was raised significantly by her.
Now please, SCO, die already. Just die.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
This is just the legal system grinding out the last little bits of this farce. The courts really don't care how stupid the case is, all the little technical bits still have to get handled the same.
The reason it is still around is that IBM isn't willing to just walk away and let it go, they want to burn the case completely to the ground as a warning to others who would sue them. So as long as SCO isn't willing to walk away the clear loser, they can drag it out like this. Both sides have lots of money, so the Court doesn't really care if they want to hash out the correct answer to each legal argument that was made in the case. Neither side is crying about the process.
What copyrights? As the article indicated, it was discovered at the end that SCO never owned the copyright to UNIX, they'd just bought for about 5% the value of that the right to administrate the licencing of it. And they demonstrated they knew this just before starting SCO v. The World by trying to get the rights from Novell.
Now is not the time for zombies to rise from their graves.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
> ruled against SCO (whose original name was Santa Cruz Operation)
There was a company called "SCO (whose original name was Santa Cruz Operation)" but this isn't them, they changed their name to Tarantella when they sold the business to Caldera. Caldera changed their name to 'The SCO Group'.
SCO did not litigate against IBM, that was TSG.
My first thought this was one of the randomly generated Slashdot stories from last week from, say, 2006.
You missed the part where it turned out that SCO didn't actually own any of the source that went into the Linux kernel. Also the part where evidence suggests they knew that but figured they could grab a few million off of IBM.
Now, they're claiming IBM distributed code as part of AIX that they were only permitted under a technicality. They wish for the court to find that the technicality was too thin.