Slashdot Mirror
The SCO Vs IBM Zombie Shambles On (uscourts.gov)
Long-time Slashdot reader UncleJosh writes:
At the end of last October, the 10th Circuit issued an opinion overturning the lower court's summary judgement in favor of IBM on one of SCO's claims, sending it back to the lower court for trial. Shortly thereafter, IBM filed for a re-hearing en banc. On January 2nd, the 10th circuit essentially denied IBM's request, issuing a slightly revised opinion with the same conclusions and result.
The charge being reheard accuses IBM of "stealing and improperly using [SCO's] source code to strengthen its own operating system, thereby committing the tort of unfair competition by means of misappropriation" -- though that charged is based on an implied duty that SCO says IBM incurred by entering into a development relationship with SCO. "SCO believes that IBM merely pretended to go along with the arrangement in order to gain access to Santa Cruz's coveted source code."
The court's 46-page document adds that "We are now almost fifteen years into this litigation."
The charge being reheard accuses IBM of "stealing and improperly using [SCO's] source code to strengthen its own operating system, thereby committing the tort of unfair competition by means of misappropriation" -- though that charged is based on an implied duty that SCO says IBM incurred by entering into a development relationship with SCO. "SCO believes that IBM merely pretended to go along with the arrangement in order to gain access to Santa Cruz's coveted source code."
The court's 46-page document adds that "We are now almost fifteen years into this litigation."
Erm, according to the plaintiff's sorry excuse for a blog, the legal counsel has pledged to continue until they are disbarred or they make a "success" of the case, whatever that means.
You know what's funny...and I'm going to be modded down for this...but if you look at the millions of man-years spent wasting everyone's time on the litigation versus how much time it would take to write a *decent* OS entirely from scratch, you're looking at a 1000000:1 effort.
This is like spending 50 years in the court system over someone jaywalking when he never jaywalked in the first place.
Years of this litigation were documented at https://www.groklaw.net/. The trustee is Edward Cahn.
http://www.groklaw.net/article...
And how fitting that his last name is pronounced "Con" because that's what this whole thing is.
In the very first paragraph of this most recent filing by SCO we see The Big Lie repeated:
The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. (Santa Cruz) entered into a business arrangement with International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) to develop a new operating system that would run on a more advanced processor manufactured by Intel Corporation (Intel). The parties signed an agreement memorializing this collaborative effort and called it Project Monterey. Another technology company, The SCO Group, Inc. (SCO), then acquired Santa Cruz’s intellectual property assets and now brings this lawsuit for IBM’s alleged misconduct during and immediately after Project Monterey.
The original SCO, The Santa Cruz Operation, sold their Unix business to Caldera. After the sale, Santa Cruz, the original SCO, changed their name to Taligent. It wasn't until a few years later, just before filing their original lawsuit against IBM, that Caldera changed their name to The SCO Group.
The name change was done for the sole purpose of facilitating this lawsuit and creating confusion -- pretending that The SCO Group is the original SCO. An example of this was seen in 2004 when The SCO Group announced on their website the 25th anniversary of the company. The problem is, Caldera, the predecessor to The SCO Group, was only founded in the early 90s. 2004 was the 25th anniversary of the original SCO not the current phoney, pretend SCO.