Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Grokking SCO's Demise

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:00 PM
from the remember-that-one dept.
An anonymous reader writes "You have already heard the news that the SCO Group's US$5 billion threat against Linux is effectively finished. It was the Web site Groklaw.net that broke the news and posted the complete 102-page ruling; after that, it was picked up by mainstream media and trade press. In fact, it's Groklaw that has covered every aspect of SCO's legal fights with Linux vendors IBM , Novell and Red Hat and Linux users Daimler Chrysler and AutoZone ever since paralegal Pamela Jones started the site as a hobby in 2003. This feature does a great job of chronicling Groklaws' hand in the demise of SCO's case."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Grokking SCO's demise by Anonymous Coward
[+] News: Final Judgment — SCO Loses, Owes $3,506,526 265 comments
Xenographic writes "SCO has finally lost to Novell, now that Judge Kimball has entered final judgment against SCO. Of course, this is SCO we're talking about. There's still the litigation in bankruptcy court, which allowed this case to resume so that they could figure out just how much SCO owes, which is $3,506,526, if I calculated the interest properly, $625,486.90 of which will go into a constructive trust. And then there's the possibility that SCO could seek to have the judgment overturned in the appeals courts, or even the Supreme Court when that fails. Of course, they need money to do that and they don't really have much of that any more. Remember how Enderle, O'Gara and company told us that SCO was sure to win? I wonder how many people have emailed them to say, 'I told you so.'"
[+] Groklaw's PJ Says SCO's Demise Greatly Exaggerated 152 comments
blackbearnh writes "Last week, the net was all abuzz with speculation that SCO was finally gone and done for. With the final judgment in SCO v. Novell in, and SCO millions of dollars in the hole to Novell, it seemed like the fat lady had finally sung. But like most things in the legal system, it isn't nearly that simple. O'Reilly Media sought out Groklaw's Pamela Jones, and got a rundown of what's still alive, and why a final end to the madness may be many years away. 'Summing up, it looks bleak for SCO at the moment, but let's enter the alternate realm of SCO's best-case scenario in its dreams: in that realm, SCO wins on appeal, which one of SCO's lawyers indicated might take a year and a half or five years, and the case is sent back to Utah for trial by jury, which is what SCO wanted (as opposed to trial by judge, which is what it got), then everything listed above (except for the IPO class action) comes alive again, presumably, depending on what the appellate court decides. Then SCO is in position once again to go after Linux end users, as well as IBM, et al.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by twitter (104583) * on Monday August 18 2008, @12:01PM (#24647371) Homepage Journal

    We just filtered out the partisan crowd noise -- no mistake, this is a pro-Linux crowd -- and dug into that virtual mountain of legal documents. Everything was there, posted, transcribed, organized and searchable. That's why we all picked up the ruling from Groklaw. And that treasure trove of documents is how we know now that SCO is stick-a-fork-in-it done.

    If, after looking at everything carefully, you conclude that the GNU/Linux people were right, how can you call what they say, "partisan crowd noise" ? Perhaps you need to remove that M$ beam from your eye. GNU/Linux people correctly identified the motives, facts and outcome of this trial in days. Then they meticulously documented every bluff, bluster and lie from the SCO/M$ PR people threw out over years in their criminal abuse of the judical system. How can anyone possibly hold the same level of credibility for M$/SCO and GNU/Linux advocates after all of that? This is only something you can do if you are a dedicated MicroSoftologist. It is completely irrational.

    • by Zerth (26112) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:26PM (#24647749) Homepage

      If, after looking at everything carefully, you conclude that the GNU/Linux people were right, how can you call what they say, "partisan crowd noise" ?

      Well, it is well known that reality has a GNU/Linux bias.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 18 2008, @02:22PM (#24649335)

        It's not a bias. Reality is open sourced. Anyone can participate in it, modify it and force the changes in the reality to everyone else. In fact, it is so open source that the act of not participating in the reality modifies the reality. And if you believe in multiverse theories, reality has been forked many times too.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 18 2008, @03:00PM (#24649801)
          Ah, but we can't see the source or recompile it. Only someone with the username "God" has any access to the CVS repository. And it supposedly takes days to compile modreality.
    • by hardburn (141468) <hardburn.wumpus-cave@net> on Monday August 18 2008, @12:27PM (#24647759)

      Because it's perfectly possible to come to the correct conclusion even while being intellectually dishonest.

    • by LarsG (31008) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:40PM (#24647963) Journal

      Oh, please...

      It is perfectly possible to be both correct and partisan noisy at the same time.

    • They have confused reasoned opinion with bias. Our mass media has decided that being unbiased means not favoring one side. This is wrong, of course; if the facts overwhelmingly favor one side, it would be dishonest not to report that fact. Unfortunately, it's easier just to take one press release from each side of a dispute and report both, without making an effort to determine which side is full of liars.

      And anyone who does call a liar a liar is called "partisan". It's pathetic.

    • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Monday August 18 2008, @01:00PM (#24648325)
      And there was this little gem:

      Did Groklaw really have an impact on those court cases? Naaah.

      Boy, does this guy do Groklaw and all its contributors an injustice.
      • by someone1234 (830754) on Monday August 18 2008, @03:49PM (#24650469)

        Then the court system is rotten to the core.
        Luckily it isn't :)
        How do you think a paralegal site should (and could) influence a court case significantly?
        The courts must (and i bet they would) have decided the same way without Groklaw.
        Of course Groklaw was sorely needed to dispel the fud and to keep concerned people informed.
        It balanced SCO quite well, even with its 'partisan noise' :)

    • If, after looking at everything carefully, you conclude that the GNU/Linux people were right, how can you call what they say, "partisan crowd noise" ?

      Ain't nothing sacred about being right. People become partisan because we believe that there's something 'right' about that partisan attitude. Sometimes we're right. Sometimes we're wrong.

      PJ is, in this case, both clearly pro-Linux and clearly right. She claims and I believe) that if things were coming out tha would have been clearly bad for the linux side, she would have documented it just as clearly (unhappily but clearly).

      As somebody else intimated, pretending to be unbiased is one of the prime inauthenticities. Journalists (unfortunately) get taught to write like they're dispassionate (no matter how biased they are -- or are told to be -- about what's going on). It really messes up the people who buy that line.

      That's part of the reason why I like (pseudo) amateur rags.... they'll actually say things like "We hate so and so. we think you should to, and here's why (no matter how sucky the reasons why may be). That way, you at least know their bias, and can read around it.

      PJ is about the best I think we can hope for: She's open about her bias and attempting to produce the most clean record possible inside of that bias. Sge states her bias and her opinions, and then gathers together as much of the documentation a spossible so that you can check her opinions against reality.

  • by bigtallmofo (695287) * on Monday August 18 2008, @12:02PM (#24647399)
    SCO is dead!? I just bought a new SCO Source license yesterday for $699! Why wasn't I told about this sooner? Thanks a lot, guys.

    Anyway, I'm still glad I have the peace of mind of fully licensing all of SCO's Unix intellectual property within my installation of Ubuntu. If you'd like this peace of mind, buy today at:

    http://www.caldera.com/scosource/ [caldera.com]

    Now does anyone know where I can purchase a rock that wards off tigers?
        • With thirteen seasons worth of material out there it's a little difficult to keep it all memorized.

          You obviously have a life.
          Please hand over your geek card and Slashdot ID... oh, wait!

  • Gambling problem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by suck_burners_rice (1258684) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:04PM (#24647429)
    Perhaps instead of expending all that time, effort, money, and resources on suing the whole world (and causing the whole world to expend a similar amount of time, effort, money, and resources to defend itself), SCO should have concentrated on making technically superior products, marketing them effectively, and earning the rewards that come from making good business decisions. But no, they had to go play the lawsuit lottery. Well, playing that lottery is gambling and is no different than going to a casino and throwing millions on a Poker table. Maybe you'll win, but probably you won't.
    • by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:10PM (#24647519) Journal

      I don't think that was what this was all about at all. There's enough peculiar connections to Microsoft, plus shades of pump and dump, to make me suspicious that this whole thing was orchestrated as FUD against Linux. Sure SCO must have been upset that it was being relegated to a few legacy POS applications. We'll probably never know the whole truth, but this has all the hallmarks of a deliberate attempt to destroy Linux's legitimacy.

      • Re:Gambling problem (Score:5, Interesting)

        by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Monday August 18 2008, @01:16PM (#24648551)

        It does look suspicious. But the situation could certainly have come around without Microsoft directing it. Though - Microsoft definitely played a strong role.

        Ransom Love has commented several times that Caldera had been working with a way to leverage their new SCO acquisition to better their Linux business. There had been some talk of using the Unix code to provide a better Linux (possibly including indemnity). But some time after Darl McBride takes the helm, Ransom Love is out (who then cashes out on news of the IBM suit). New leadership - new strategy time.

        Around the same time, Microsoft has been talking about Linux and IP issues. It's labled as typical FUD. But what if it wasn't simply FUD but a public suggestion? An offered business strategy from Microsoft's tactical play book.

        The SCO Group (formally Caldera) has been keen for a new play. Their old strategies have lost their charm. They were jilted by IBM. Their fortunes were tied to industries that have felt the sting of a sluggish economy. They hear Microsoft's words and something strikes a chord - "indemnity."

        Suddenly things are going in very different directions. Microsoft even ponies up for a license. Exactly why is something of a mystery. Maybe it's insurance - Microsoft has toyed with enough Unix and GPL code that there could be easier to buy protection than wonder if something unexpected is coming their way. Maybe Microsoft is really pleased SOMEONE has finally picked up their suggestion and is keen to either support it with cash or lend an air of legitimacy - or both.

        I'm pretty sure Microsoft wasn't unhappy about any aspect of this whole case. But I would expect more evidence to support the idea that they outright orchestrated it. Even if I wouldn't be shocked that such evidence is available to be uncovered.

  • Groklaw (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jhines (82154) <john@jhines.org> on Monday August 18 2008, @12:05PM (#24647439) Homepage

    Groklaw is the best thing to come out of SCO's mess. Thanks PJ.

    • Re:Groklaw (Score:5, Informative)

      by hyperz69 (1226464) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:11PM (#24647545)
      Second best thing... SCO's demise is the first ;)
      • Re:Groklaw (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LehiNephi (695428) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:38PM (#24647947) Journal
        While SCO's demise brings a smile to the faces of nearly all of us, I would argue that the impact of Groklaw will far outlive the SCO vs. Linux cases. Groklaw has also brought to light (and made easily accessible and searchable) the flaws in the OOXML comedy, the testing of open source licenses, and some of the intricacies of the piracy and DRM debates. SCO is done, but Groklaw will continue to provide a valuable service, hopefully for years to come. Yes, Thanks, PJ.
    • Re:Groklaw (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:13PM (#24647569) Journal

      Which is why so much energy was spent by SCO and its allies in trying to out PJ whilst simultaneously claiming that she was nothing more than a front for IBM's legal team. That she had the fortitude to withstand constant attack from SCO and its various Wall Street shills, including that lying little piece of shit Daniel Lyons.

      • Re:Groklaw (Score:5, Informative)

        by UnknowingFool (672806) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:48PM (#24648109)
        It's a well known tactic. When losing a debate on actual arguments, smear the other side. It reminds me of the old Saturday Night skits with Jane Curtain and Dan Aykroyd where he would start off his counterpoint with "Jane, you ignorant slut." While PJ always had some commentary to the information, it was hard to refute the well-researched and reasoned points in her analysis. So the opposition had to dig dirt on her to make her look bad. Maureen O'Gara tried to post an expose on her and invade her privacy after PJ dismantled O'Gara's arguments and analysis. That move cost O'Gara her jobs as many would argue that breached professional ethics. Both SCO and an MS blogger have tried to allege that she works for IBM directly and indirectly by using a Kevin-Bacon type connection that since IBM belongs to a group that funds the hosting server which Groklaw appears, she worked for IBM.
  • This is a year late (Score:5, Informative)

    by mapsjanhere (1130359) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:10PM (#24647515)
    The way TFA starts about the August 10th ruling, you could think it was a recent event. The author refers to the summary judgment decision of 8/10/2007.
    Since then there was a trial, and currently the bankrupt SCO is waiting for the final judgment to be entered to appeal - mainly that year old decision.
  • by RyanFenton (230700) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:10PM (#24647517)

    Some folks are still willing to see SCO as the 'comeback kids' [sltrib.com] (Found from a Groklaw link from today

    And, of course, McBride is still harping about how misguided all the 'naysayers' are. Ah, corporate message control - so consistent, no matter the insanity of what is said.

    I guess that's the point of freedom - for every choice that can be used to help build something greater, there is also choice to harm others. It's too bad that so much freedom ends up being used to crush the freedom of others for minimal short-term benefit, like those of SCO (which in turn was at least partly on behalf of Microsoft's FUD campaign).

    Ryan Fenton
    Ryan Fenton

  • Umm, has anyone else noticed TFA is claiming the judge's ruling from over a year ago was made last week?
  • by scribblej (195445) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:12PM (#24647563)

    From the article:

    Did Groklaw really have an impact on those court cases? Naaah.

    I love Groklaw as much as the next guy, but this article is truly worthless; it just reads as worthless praise for groklaw without even so much as a particular.

  • And SCO is a nice pelt to hang on the fence for anyone getting similar ideas. The SCO case was a stereotype of every piece of misinformation MS had ever put out about Linux and they got crushed. It's also a good example for companies thinking about getting in bed with Microsoft, which financed this whole charade. I wonder if Sun will ever live it down that they were part of the clown posse?

    IBM showed a lot of foresight and got to dish out a little payback to MS over the OS2 incident. You can't buy that kind of advertising and then using it to tweak Redmond was priceless.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Exactly how is this the power of open source? Looks to me more like the power of high priced corporate attorneys.

    • Thing is, I believe that SCO knew it was doomed from the start, but did it anyway.

      McBride still made millions of bucks off of the deal, as did most of SCO's principals. Unless/Until there's criminal proceedings for SEC violations, they probably don't care, and are only making noises for long enough to provide plausible deniability. In short - they got their dough, and they probably don't care what happens to SCO from this point on.

      SCO lasted five years longer than it probably would have if it had simply died quietly as Yet Another Dot-Bust Carcass.

      Finally, most corps know nowadays that getting into bed with MSFT is a sure recipe for disaster. PlaysForSure, HD-DVD, Windows Defender, OS/2, and numerous other smaller examples are proof-positive of just how badly you get burned in any partnership with MSFT... unless of course you're Microsoft. I think only NBC has managed to not get raped in a MSFT partnership (and even then, only because of NBC's vastly different market segments).

      As for Sun? I think they simply got caught in the crossfire. They were looking to license SVR permanently so that they could protect (and eventually open-source) Solaris. Otherwise, they were (and are) hating life anyway, as market dynamics dictate that buying pricey Sparc-based servers is kinda stupid for most applications.

      /P

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Oh, I don't think the SEC has even started yet. Those things take time, and the SEC is waiting for the legal fallout to happen first. This is a typical pattern for the SEC as well, where they wait for all of the normal legal evidence to come out in the various lawsuits, and then add the final insult to injury in the end.

        Too bad the SEC couldn't have saved the shareholders (*cough*) some grief by more closely investigating the pump and dump accusations. From what I've seen, besides the compensation on the

    • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:32PM (#24647831)
      In fairness to Sun, Sun actually got something from their SCO agreement. They paid SCO for the right to essentially open source Solaris as some parts of Solaris were covered by their Unix agreements. The problem was SCO didn't have the right to grant Sun this ability. Only Novell has this right. MS on the other hand, paid tens of millions of dollars for things they haven't used yet. Maybe future versions of Windows will use parts of legacy Unix and the newer Unixware, but I doubt it.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            SFU is a licensed port os System Vr4 running on Windows. It's not BSD based and never was. Also, remember that Xenix was sold to The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) and Microsoft made agreements with them about what they could and couldn't do. SCO later sold all their Unix intersts to Caldera, and changed their name to Tarantella, and Caldera became the "new" SCO.

  • by Tolvor (579446) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:19PM (#24647637)

    Groklaw was certainly informative, and it is nice to see major media give a nod of thanks to an internet site that had done their research. What I wonder is where is Groklaw to grok next?

    I'd vote for Groking RIAA, big time.

    Grok IP law and squelch that mess once and for all.

    And since it the season, groking certain political parties (or all of them) would be nice.

  • Props to Groklaw... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Penguinisto (415985) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:21PM (#24647665) Journal

    Pamela has taught us (well, at least myself) quite a few things about tech and the law:

    * Legal matters may be messy, disgusting things, but in a perverse way, being a lawyer or judge often requires as much (if not more) logical and mental discipline than programming ever did.

    * This crap takes time. Five years... five years! Just to throw out what folks who knew better (read: those of us who lived/worked/breathed Linux) saw instantly as an obvious cock-and-bull scam by a dying dot-bust corporation.

    * There's a lot going on behind the curtain. Without Groklaw, Microsoft could have credibly denied being any part of the proceedings, and would've been almost perfectly insulated from the whole SCO mess. Now, they're painted with 98 shades of evil, and the tech community at large** has even more reason to reject them unless absolutely necessary.

    * Most folks think that IT/Tech is pretty insulated and isolated from the usual crap that infects most businesses. Groklaw proves otherwise. As much as we'd like to be otherwise, we're just as mired and smothered in politics and legal crap as any other commercial endeavor.

    I highly recommend Groklaw as a solid starting point for any CS student, perhaps as a semester or two of curricula... just to get the students to realize just what the hell kind of crazy world they're signing on to.

    /P

    ** I mean real techs who use multiple platforms, not "Em-See-Ess-Aaay's" who happily swallow Redmond's Kool-Aid (among other fluids) on a near daily basis.

    • by oyenstikker (536040) <slashdot.sbyrne@org> on Monday August 18 2008, @12:31PM (#24647813) Homepage Journal

      Now, they're painted with 98 shades of evil. . .

      Everybody who thought they were evil beforehand still does. Everybody who loved them beforehand still does. Everybody who did not have a clue beforehand still does not.

      No PHB is going to avoid Microsoft products because of this.

      • by c1t1z3nk41n3 (1112059) on Monday August 18 2008, @02:01PM (#24649131)
        Well actually Microsoft used to be 98 shades of evil. Then they tried to make evil pretty for the MillEnnium. After that they grew to 2000 shades of evil. Eventually they became eXPerienced at being evil. Finally nowadays they've moved to a much broader form of evil. A VISTA if you will.
  • Great job? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PinkPanther (42194) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:23PM (#24647693)

    ... a great job of chronicling Groklaws' hand in the demise of SCO's case

    What is this article doing that is great? At best it is a 100,000 foot view of the past 5 years...but there is no "chronicling" going on.

    The information in this article is barely worthwhile to someone who knows nothing about the SCO case (and that type of person wouldn't care about Groklaw anyways), and has ZERO information in it for everyone else.

  • by i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:24PM (#24647711) Homepage Journal
    Like donating to the site. It's a massive amount of work that PJ has put into the site. So if you got a few bucks, donate. Sorry, but it has to be said and PJ won't say it.
  • by bogaboga (793279) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:42PM (#24648009)

    I have always wondered who Pamela Jones is. This lady is very meticulous in what she does and I congratulate her. I have done an image search on Google and got some images.

    But I am not sure the images I get in the search actually represent Pamela Jones. Googling my own name returns images other than mine!

    Request: I am looking for a kind slashdotter to help me put a face on the name "Pamela Jones" of Groklaw.net.

    Thanks.

  • by Animats (122034) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:49PM (#24648131) Homepage

    The real turning point in the case was when IBM decided to fight SCO's claims and put Cravath, Swaine, and Moore LLP on the job. Cravath is very good; they say of themselves "Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP is known as the premier American law firm.", and nobody laughs. They're very organized and thorough. Cravath was the first firm to use litigation support systems (developed by IBM for an IBM case). They can't be snowed with documents; they'll put enough people and hardware on the job to deal with truckloads of materials when necessary. At times, the staff for a single case has filled a sizable office building. This is expensive, but it works.

    It works especially well when the other side has voluminous but bogus claims. That's what happened with SCO. All SCO's claims were analyzed by that huge staff, checked, and countered. In the end, SCO had nothing left.

    Groklaw reported on all this, but Cravath really did the work.

    • by onkelonkel (560274) on Monday August 18 2008, @01:11PM (#24648477)
      Must have been an amazing sight, each morning as the lawyers from CS&M landed their fell beasts on the courthouse steps, Armani suits so dark they seem to drink the light, Morghul briefcases clutched in their skeletal hands, eyes glowing with lambent red flame as they gleefully contemplated slicing off and devouring tiny slivers of Darl's withered soul.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Cravath is impressive. I remember one argument where they gave the judge five reasons they were right. If any of the five were accepted, then they won their argument. They always addressed SCO's every point while SCO at times failed to address IBM's points. There was a few episodes where IBM pointed out the SCO didn't address their points at all but used a maze of circular cross references that led nowhere. [flickr.com] (See Arg 233 -> See Arg 228 -> See Arg 27 -> See Arg 187 -> See Arg 27 -> infinit
  • by macraig (621737) <mark,a,craig&gmail,com> on Monday August 18 2008, @02:18PM (#24649295) Homepage

    What is most incredible to me is that Darl McBride and company will be able to walk away from this... humbled and humiliated publicly, but nonetheless able to walk away and try to do the same all over again. Everyone knows what they did was socially and economically unethical, and yet the corporate Old Boys' Network simply views what they did with a knowing wink and a nod. In the back social rooms, McBride will laugh and joke and reminisce with other CEOs about his stunt, and perhaps even be offered a few sage tips how he can improve his chances the next time. For people like this, there's always a next time because they never pay the full consequences of their actions.

  • Let the names of the "expert testimony" scumbags that aided and abetted the SCO scam; selling themselves for a few dollars at the expense of their good names. Two come to the top of the list: Marc Rochkind and Thomas Cargill.

    May their names be soiled with SCO for all time.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Even Novell didn't know they still owned the copyrights, so anyone "pointing out the question" was simply grasping at straws. You caught one ;)

      Novell, for years, had lost the paperwork and had no idea that it still had any interest in Unixware. All the people that had done the deal were gone, and the current regime spent a lot of time digging up the paperwork to figure out what was going on.

    • by rewt66 (738525) on Monday August 18 2008, @04:25PM (#24650863)
      The ".PK" means that they are "pink sheet" - penny stock, less than one dollar a share. The "Q" means that they are in bankruptcy. So the stock was originally called SCOX, then they declared bankruptcy and fell below $1 (I forget the order), and now they're SCOXQ.PK.