Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government IBM Software News Linux

SCO Denied Motion To Change IBM Case Again 174

Posted by Zonk from the get-it-over-with dept.
Rob writes "SCO Group Inc's attempt to change its legal case against IBM Corp for the third time has been denied by the judge, who has also set the two companies a deadline to present their respective evidence with specificity. Despite repeated public declarations that it has evidence Linux contains Unix code that infringes its copyright, SCO has yet to present any evidence to the court." Bad news for them all around, lately.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Denied Motion To Change IBM Case Again More

SCO Denied Motion To Change IBM Case Again

Comments Filter:

  • What!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ShaniaTwain ( 197446 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:01PM (#12989623) Homepage
    Since when can you not change your case multiple times over the years? And since when do they have to show evidence? Isn't SCO's word good enough? This is a travesty! There is no justice!

  • Bad news? Why? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:03PM (#12989633)

    SCO Group Inc's attempt to change its legal case against IBM Corp for the third time has been denied by the judge, who has also set the two companies a deadline to present their respective evidence with specificity. **snip** Bad news all around, lately.

    Ok, why exactly is this bad news? Sounds like what we've all been screaming for. The judge finally says "put up or shut up - no more delays!"

    Unless I'm reading it wrong. Am I?

  • Prove What, Again? (Score:2)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:03PM (#12989635)
    When has vaporware is ever been proven to exist? The case needs to stick to the facts.

  • Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Little Pink Bunny ( 881651 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:04PM (#12989642)
    I don't really invest beyond my 401K and a few other small things, so I don't really understand what's going on with their share price. Why is it not much lower than it is? I understand the "unlimited upside, negligible downside" idea, but it seems like that upside is rapidly vanishing with no good news likely on the horizon.

    Don't investors typically eventually say "ain't gonna happen" and walk away? Is there an obvious reason why this hasn't happened yet?

    • Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chmarr ( 18662 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:14PM (#12989710)
      SCOX is no longer a standard, retail-invested stock. The stock is EXCEEDINGLY lightly traded, likely only being held my insiders and investment houses, both scared what will happen to the stock if they unloaded.

      Or... perhaps, they're saying. 'If I try to sell this, it'll plumment to near-zero solely on my measly holdings. I might as well just hang onto it just in case something interesting happens with the case'.

      In short... this is NOT a normal stock anymore. I've given up keeping an eye on it and praying for its collapse. I'm neither long, nor short, but I simply don't want the insiders to make money on this. It'll probably hover around the $3.50-$4 mark right up until the company is liquidated.

      I take heart in the fact that NOONE can offload any significant portion of this stock without it crashing.

      • Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MrLint ( 519792 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:37PM (#12989865) Journal
        I still say IBM wait for SCOs stock to totally crash, buy up all the assets and then open source (id prefer bsd license) the whole of Unix. its the only proper way to add insult to injury.

      • Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:2)

        by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @07:41AM (#12992863)
        In addition, there's a gambler's chance that SCO will win the case. It's enough for SCO to go to investors and lie, much like a lot of dotcom business plans. And they've clearly had a lot of practice lying to investors, because they're hiding as much as possible the amount of their business that remains because Microsoft is propping them up.

        Microsoft is not taking over SCO or themselves directly providing the business because it would show Microsoft sponsorship of the lawsuit. But investing the money through 3-way partnerships and providing "partner" support is a very, very easy way, and much cheaper than doing lawsuits themselves, for Microsoft to cast doubts on the legitimacy of Linux.

        By providing less than enough money for the lawsuits, Microsoft also helps keep SCO, the current owner of the UNIX trademark and source code, crippled as well and interferes with UNIX development. Who wants to use a core OS owned by such an idiot company, and with the SCO/Novell argument casting doubts on the legitimacy of its ownership? So developers remain fragmented with FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux, etc. as only a few companies remain willing to buy or use the core UNIX source, which actually had good stuff in it.

    • Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:15PM (#12989716) Journal
      Because you'll still see longshot speculators who have cash to burn buying up stock in the tiny miniscule chance that a miracle will occur. To that kind of investor, it's like playing the lotto, if they lose... oh well, pick different numbers next week.

    • Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dav3K ( 618318 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:18PM (#12989746)
      Problem is, if you are caught holding the stock today, you are going to be hard pressed to find anyone who will buy it. Also, much of the stock is held by people like Ransom Love, who have other reasons for hanging on to it. Being principle shareholder in a dead company can be handy if you have plans on re-forming.

    • Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:1)

      by Kierthos ( 225954 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:30PM (#12989822) Homepage
      Well, if you take a look at it's performance over the last couple of years, you'll see that it started a fall near the end of 2003 and has never recovered from that. It has traded below $5 a share for pretty much the last calendar year.

      The reason investors don't walk away is because at this point, there probably aren't any more. It's people who are stuck with the stock and can't find anyone to sell it to, or people who are hoping for the litigation version of Powerball to kick in.

      Kierthos

    • Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:2)

      by inkey string ( 35594 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:32PM (#12989839) Homepage
      A stock does not just represent a share of future earnings - it represents a share of ownership in the company.

      Companies have cash in the bank, real estate holdings, computers, etc - all assets that can be liquidated for real cash. The reason this stock still has value is because the company still has value - albeit not much.

      There is little "growth" value left for lack of a better term. However, SCO's real measurable assets have a value >0, which is why the stock is not 0.

      • Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:2)

        by bani ( 467531 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:37PM (#12989867)
        However, SCO's real measurable assets have a value >0, which is why the stock is not 0.

        If you read the recent SCO filings, you realize this may no longer be the case very soon.

      • Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:3, Informative)

        by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:43PM (#12989895) Journal
        A stock does not just represent a share of future earnings - it represents a share of ownership in the company.

        Yes, but the valuation of the company depends upon its future earnings potential and the value of the stock relates to a fraction of that.

        A company may have lots of assets, but if it is losing money such that its assets will soon be worthless and the management are not going to shut it down before bankruptsy, then the value of the assets matters little. All that matters is what cash shareholders can get from the company now or in the future.

    • Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by puzzled ( 12525 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:36PM (#12989863) Journal

      There are two views on SCOX's value being at $4.00 or so.

      The first says look at the treasury - divide cash on hand by number of shares and that is what its worth. This strikes me as foolish.

      The second says look at the value of the Unix revenue streams. Laugh at OpenServer all you want, but there are lots and lots of IVR apps out there that work just fine. This also apparently produces a value of about $4/share.

      I hear there are M&A brokerages taking positions in the company - these are the vultures that will pick the bones.

      Go to Yahoo, search for symbol SCOX, and read the board - stats_for_all probably has the best handle on what is happening, but you have to be a soopergenius to digest it all ...

  • Where it all ends (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:07PM (#12989665)
    There's a lot of discussion on Groklaw about what happens when tSCOg goes bankrupt.

    The minute tSCOg loses the first of the many cases it has going, it goes bankrupt. Its fate is then in the hands of the bankrupcy trustee and the creditors. My guess is that all the cases then get settled out of court on terms agreeable to the creditors. In the case of IBM this means a declaration that Linux is totally unemcumbered by anyone's Unix IP.

    • Re:Where it all ends (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:14PM (#12989713)
      In the case of IBM this means a declaration that Linux is totally unemcumbered by anyone's Unix IP.

      You mean unencumbered by IP that can be licensed by SCO.

    • Oh, this is too funny (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:16PM (#12989727) Homepage Journal
      That the only comment so far moded as +5 Interesting is the one that points at a Groklaw discussion.

      Oh, man, both comments and moderators on /. are more relevant today than they will ever be, and this is not a joke!

    • I bet Sun buys SCO (Score:5, Interesting)

      by team99parody ( 880782 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:22PM (#12989771) Homepage
      My guess is that the creditors auction off SCO's assets (which include any remaining contested IP) to the highest bidder.

      I furthermore guess that this bidder will be Sun, because it's a major licensee of SCO IP and would ABSOLUTELY NOT want to be in a position of having it's Solaris based on the IP of any other potential acquiror.

      Then we'll have some peace for a while, as whomever ends up owning this IP will not have the stomach to continue the lawsuit; but it'll stay in some uncontested limbo forever.

      Other reasons why I think it'll be Sun: Some of sun's management like to see themselves as an operating-systems-IP company. They want to own the part of SCO that IBM licensed to be better positioned in their "IP sharing partnership" with Microsoft. etc.

      • Re:I bet Sun buys SCO (Score:2)

        by iabervon ( 1971 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:47PM (#12989919) Homepage Journal
        Most likely, the IP will wind up with Novell, due to SCO's successor not wanting to get into a copyright battle with Novell based on SCO's insane legal theories and implausible interpretations of contracts. The evidence in SCO v. Novell on SCO's side is sufficiently good for SCO to try to make a case out of it, because they have nothing to lose, but it's nowhere near good enough for anyone with assets vulnerable to a countersuit. If Sun wants the UNIX copyrights, they'd do better to wait until SCO goes away and then buy them from Novell than buy SCO's position.

      • Re:I bet Sun buys SCO (Score:2)

        by cant_get_a_good_nick ( 172131 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:52PM (#12989952)
        I thought that Sun had bought out the rights a long time ago, something even more ironclad than what IBM had (and SCO subsequently tried to revoke).

        Any help here?

  • Bad news all around (Score:4, Funny)

    by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:08PM (#12989671)
    Bad news all around

    Not sure what planet Rob and Zonk are from, but to most of us this is good news.

    • Re:Bad news all around (Score:2)

      by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @08:02PM (#12990011)
      Bad news all around

      Not sure what planet Rob and Zonk are from, but to most of us this is good news.

      Nice try, but it reads Bad news for them all around

    • No It's Not (Score:2)

      by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @01:31AM (#12991615) Homepage Journal
      Soon we will no longer be able to be amused by Darl's monkey-like antics and will have to turn elsewhere for our good laughs. Ballmer seems to have learned to keep his fucking mouth shut, so there's not much amusing chatter coming out of Microsoft these days, and Gartner's only good for a chuckle if you ever read the shit they write and no one in the IT world really does anymore. That means that in the very near future we won't have anyone to laugh at anymore.

      While some might see this as a new era of harmony and cooperation in the IT world, I'll be sad to see the greatest of the court jesters get plowed under. Even though it will be pretty damn funny while it's happening.

  • 2007??? (Score:1, Informative)

    by NaCh0 ( 6124 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:13PM (#12989702) Homepage
    The cbronline.com article says the SCO/IBM case will drag out at least through February 2007! Does that sound excessive to anyone besides me?

    I guess /. will have plenty of future front page material.

  • Why they couldn't amend their complaint (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lheal ( 86013 ) <lheal1999NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:15PM (#12989715) Journal
    Judge Kimball is on to them.

    We non-lawyers think of judges as impartial watchers of the courtroom. Sometimes they are. Most of the time, though, they pick a winner and spend the rest of the case guiding the decision the way they think it should go and covering themselves for appeal.

    That's how it's been with SCO v IBM. After months and months without any credible evidence, after seeing the SCO group twist his words and the words of Magistrate Judge Wells (who's handling much of the pre-trial bickering), he began to take on a more aggressive tone. He hasn't been on IBM's side, but it looks like he has seen the inevitable result and is trying to make sure his decision doesn't get turned over on appeal.

    So when The SCO Group tried to amend their complaint based on an out-of-context reading of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim (a request for a ruling that IBM didn't infringe SCO's copyrights), he said no, that the counterclaim must be read in context. He said they were just delaying. if he thought they had a snowball's chance in July, he might have allowed the change.

    • Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)

      by rjh ( 40933 ) <rjh@sixdemonbag.org> on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @11:40PM (#12991153)

      We non-lawyers think of judges as impartial watchers of the courtroom. Sometimes they are. Most of the time, though, they pick a winner and spend the rest of the case guiding the decision the way they think it should go and covering themselves for appeal.

      Dad is a Federal circuit court judge (former Chief Judge of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals) and my cousin is on the Michigan state bench. That's the Honorable David R. Hansen and the Honorable Katherine L. Hansen, respectively. Dad was appointed to the state bench in 1976 by the (Republican) Governor Robert Ray; he was appointed to the Federal bench for the District of Northern Iowa in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan; he was appointed to the appellate bench by President George H.W. Bush. Officially, Dad has no political party--he's not allowed to, as part of the Federal code of judicial ethics--but I think you can probably figure out from his appointment history that Teddy Kennedy doesn't send him Christmas cards.

      My cousin Katherine, on the other hand, was appointed to the Michigan state bench by Governor Jennifer M. Granholm. Governor Granholm, as you are no doubt aware, is so far in the left wing of the Democratic Party that she was honored with floor time at the last National Convention. I'm not sure whether her judicial ethics allow her to have a party affiliation or not, but... you can draw your own conclusions.

      Why does this matter? Because whether I look at a Federal judge repeatedly appointed by Republicans, or whether I look at a State judge appointed by a dyed-in-the-wool lefty Democrat, I see the same thing: namely, brother, you are wrong, and have no idea just how wrong you are.

      Judges try very hard to be impartial in all hearings... impartial to the point of rudeness. If you step into court and claim that the sky is blue, both Dad and Katherine will interrupt you to ask whether you're going to introduce meterologic testimony into the record attesting to that fact. (Well, Katherine would probably have the good grace to wait until you were finished. Dad's approach is the kinder of the two, though; when Katherine quietly pulls the rug out from under your feet, thoroughly confounding the last ten minutes of your argument, you long for the rough kindness of an interruption.)

      It makes it hell trying to have normal conversations with them, by the by; they have a very hard time disengaging from judicial-think. When I say that I think I did well on an exam, Dad wants to know precisely what evidence leads me to that conclusion. When I talk to Katherine and mention that I have a paper submitted to Black Hat 2005, Katherine doesn't say "that's nice"; she insists that I sit her down and teach her enough computational theory so that she can decide for herself my odds of getting published.

      Both of them live and die by a mantra: neither one of them gives half a damn what you know, they only care what you can prove.

      Nor are they "watchers" of the court in any sense. They are the administrators of the court. They're the ones who decide the ground rules of the court hearing. They decide these ground rules based on pleadings; attorneys for one side say that under one Supreme Court ruling, the standard for evidence should be this, while attorneys for the other side say that decision didn't foresee this particular eventuality and it should be discarded. Only a fool would claim they are "watchers". They are not combatants in the courtroom, in the sense of trial lawyers, no, but they are both the arbiters of fairness and the executors of decisions. If you're able to convince the judge of a fact, then brother, your job is done. At that point the other attorney isn't fighting you anymore, he's fighting the judge, and that's a fight the other lawyer is--with greater than 90% certainty--going to lose.

      Impartiality is difficult to attain. The best solution judges have found, either on the Left or on the Right, is ruthless, r

      • Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by lheal ( 86013 ) <lheal1999NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:40AM (#12991379) Journal
        That was great, but how does it contradict what I said?

        Now, quit laughing. I know that judges are impartial (or "apartial", which is a distinction without a difference). But once the trial starts, they know who's got it and who doesn't. They intentionally keep their minds open - judicial think, you called it.

        A mind isn't open if it isn't processing what it's being given. They don't give a ruling before all the evidence is in, but much of the time the ruling would be no different if they did.

        • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)

          by rjh ( 40933 ) <rjh@sixdemonbag.org> on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:43AM (#12991389)
          Here's what it refutes:
          We non-lawyers think of judges as impartial watchers of the courtroom. Sometimes they are.


          It's not a "sometimes they're impartial".

          And they're not "watchers".

          And if you think either is true, then you don't understand the judiciary at all. Those are two glaring, egregious errors to make.

      • Re:Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bm_luethke ( 253362 ) <luethkeb@comc a s t . net> on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @03:36AM (#12992093)
        Spot on - at the moment we begin arguing about the political background of a judge being relevant we have lost.

        Being a facist, communist, or a feudalist shouldn't make you guilty or not guilty - or change what was meant by the constitution. Sure, there may be borderline cases where that reflects your leanings but, while they may be interesting cases, they shouldn't be *that* far reaching.

        I think the issue that causes is that in some circles, and some judges, this becomes less true. Some low, some high. Some judges allow "creative thinking" to get out of things, others rule based on thier feelings (for the latter - see Judge Judy on TV). Many see people who rule with thier political feelings as an expressway into getting thier agenda's enforced, but that is purely short term thinking - works great as long as the judges always agree with your political bent, terrible when they do not.

        The 8'th circuit court is one of the saner as far as I can tell (but then I'm neither a lawyer ot a judge - just a political junkie). I would rather have 9 of them one level up than the group we have now, regardless of thier political ideas.
      • -1: Dispells cherished Slashdot myths

        Thanks for the interesting explanation. I'm not saying I believe it completely (in the spirit of dogged skepticism), but I hope that it was mostly accurate because it's the most hopeful thing I've read in some time.

      • Re: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. (Score:2)

        by gidds ( 56397 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMgidds.me.uk> on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:34PM (#12995022) Homepage
        Many thanks for a fascinating insight into the judicial set-up. Every time I get fed up with the masses of content-free posts on Slashdot, someone like you pops up and makes it all worthwhile!

        In view of which, it seems churlish to criticise your maths, but your conclusions seem overstated:

        The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is almost evenly split between Republican appointees and Democratic appointees. This means that on their three-judge appellate panels, the odds are only one in eight that three Republican appointees or three Democratic appointees will sit together.

        Despite the overwhelming odds against them possessing united political backgrounds, they hand down unanimous decisions 97% of the time.

        While it's true that (under those conditions) the odds of 3 Republicans is 1 in 8, ditto the odds of 3 Democrats, that makes the odds of 3 the same (of either breed) 1 in 4. Which isn't really 'overwhelming' odds against, is it?

        Still, none of this contradicts your main points, of course. And even where the odds of a cross-party panel are 'only' 3 in 4, the huge proportion of unanimous results is still very telling. (It'd also be interesting to see how many of the 3% of non-unanimous results are cross-party.)

        Here in the UK, of course, judges aren't generally seen as political. Doddery old fools who last had a new thought in 1962 and have no idea who the Beatles are, certainly; but not political. M'lud. :)

        • Re: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. (Score:2)

          by rjh ( 40933 ) <rjh@sixdemonbag.org> on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @04:49PM (#12997614)
          You're right; my statistics were in error. I foolishly considered only one possibility (all Republican appointees) and not all possibilities.

          I made another goof. Generally speaking, Dad's colleagues don't wear their appointments on their sleeve. New judges come on and old judges retire, and the dynamic changes from year to year. Since the last time I bothered to learn the political makeup of the court, President Bush has appointed a few new judges. It's now significantly skewed towards Republican appointees. The 97% unanimity figure dates from a few years ago, though, prior to the new wave of appointees.

  • SCO what? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:16PM (#12989733)
    SCO's new motto:

    No evidence, no customers, no future.

    (And the only way you can convince me that Daryl McBride isn't a worthless cunt is by providing a signed statement from a gynacologist)
  • Obviously, but in addition to denying SCO's motion to Amend, Judge Kimball also set a date this Fall by which SCO must declare with specifity the items on which it will be relying to make its case.

    And that friends, is where the nuts hit the grinder.

  • Press Release (Score:3, Funny)

    by pjrc ( 134994 ) <paul@pjrc.com> on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:24PM (#12989787) Homepage Journal
    SCO Group, The True Owners of all Unix Intellectual Property, announced today that they were pleased with Judge Kimball's ruling. CEO Darl McBride apeared upbeat, commenting "This new ruling will allow us to focus on IBM's illegal misconduct and hasten the resolution of our intellectual property claims".

    Company spokesperson Blake Stonewell took a more conservative posture. "Of course we would have prefered to present recently discovered new evidence of IBM's further misappropriation of our intellectual property to the Power architecture". Stonewell further added "this ruling is actually a major victory for us. IBM has consistently resisted any depositions of upper management, who orchestrated the wholesale theft of our code and trade secrets for inclusion in the derivitive linux kernel".

    Bert Young, Chief Financial Officer of the SCO Group said "we are pleased by the now definitive revised schedule", and added "because legal fees have been capped for the duration of this trail and any appeals, we believe now concentrating on this already well establish course of action will best serve SCO's shareholders. We look forward to the final resolution of this suit, and the opportunity to expand our SCOsource licensing revenue."

    About SCO

    The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of thousands of resellers and developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit www.sco.com.

    SCO, and the associated SCO logo, are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of, and are used to identify products or services of, their respective owners.

    This news release contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. All statements other than statements of historical fact are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements. These statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to uncertainty and changes in circumstances. Actual results may vary materially from the expectations contained herein. The forward-looking statements contained herein include statements about the consummation of the transaction with SCO and benefits of the pending transaction with SCO. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described herein include the inability to obtain regulatory approvals and the inability to successfully integrate the SCO business. GNAA is under no obligation to (and expressly disclaims any such obligation to) update or alter its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

  • Well, see, here is the prob (Score:2, Funny)

    by bosewicht ( 805330 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:24PM (#12989790)
    SCO: Sorry Judge, we have the proof, but see it's on a WinFS computer right now, and see we kinda need more time. Cuz well, the computer is really far away see, and I tried to put it on this usb stick, but the computers here, close by, can't read WinFS yet. See? So we are going to kinda have to postpone this thingy until Longhorn....errr, I mean MS releases the WinFS updates. But in the meantime, can we kinda change our arguments, then we can come back to this later?
  • SCO *IS* bad news

  • In other news: (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:27PM (#12989805)
    A woman astrologer in former Soviet Russia is suing SCO for giving the lawsuit game a bad image.

  • Sorry, Tears for Fears (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dark Coder ( 66759 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:45PM (#12989907)
    Short!
    Short!
    Let it ride out
    These are the things you can do without
    Come on
    I'm shorting on you
    Come on

    In crapping times
    You shouldn't have to pump up your stocks
    In up and downs
    We really ought to know
    Those one track minds
    That took you for a sucker boy
    Kiss your ass goodbye

    We shouldn't have to jump for joy
    but we will defintely will short your joy

    (Chorus)

    Unix gave you life
    And in return you gave them hell
    As cold as ice
    I hope you live to tell the tale
    I hope you live to tell the tale

    (Chorus)

    And when you've think you've got it locked
    IBM could wear you down
    We really love to break your heart
    We really love to break your heart

    (Chorus)

    • Never again (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @08:59PM (#12990339) Homepage Journal
      I'm not up to writing it, but that song gave me an idea for another song, about the tragedy of SCO stock never getting high enough to be shorted. It's been fluttering around $4 for a long time now, but it has to get over $5 before before it can be shorted.

      From SCO's perspective, it probably would have been just as well to have been delisted. I'm still not sure if getting delisted wasn't their real plan for this year, but they chickened out for some reason.

  • it's time for a summary judgement (Score:2)

    by swschrad ( 312009 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:53PM (#12989955) Homepage Journal
    from the bench in this one. no evidence + inability to make the same argument twice + inability to do anything with the discovery evidence from the other party = goons without a case.

    SCO has no assets, no case, no future.

    so, I suppose, some pinhead dude from Wail Streak will start pumping SCO stock hard any day now. that is a sure sign, folks...

  • Compare and contrast (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:56PM (#12989970)
    The coverage that SCO got in the media when they claimed that Linux had stolen code in it was enormous. Not only did they get tons of coverage with a resulting boost to their stock price, but dozens of professional opinion expressers signed their NDA and gave statements to the effect that SCO's case was a slam dunk and that Linux was full of stolen code. Years later after yet another clear sign that SCO in fact has NO evidence, the press is almost entirely silent on the issue.

    So either noone cares that SCO basically used the press to execute a brilliant pump and dump scheme against the entire industry (which would be a notable story by itself), or the press has a definite anti-Linux bias. Either way, the press has a lot to answer for in this case.

    • Re:Compare and contrast (Score:2, Interesting)

      by OohAhh ( 745216 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @10:14PM (#12990770)
      There is another possibility. The press know they have been duped and don't dare admit it publically.

    • Re:Compare and contrast (Score:2, Interesting)

      by KwKSilver ( 857599 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @11:01PM (#12990993)
      Maybe the so-called IT "press" was in on it. Most of the alleged IT "press" seems to be nothing more than MS sock puppets, ad-servers, lapdogs, and "yes men" and no more. Care to bet your mortgage payment they're not getting payola?

    • Re:Compare and contrast (Score:2)

      by It doesn't come easy ( 695416 ) * on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @07:47AM (#12992884) Journal
      The press as a whole does not have it in for Linux. What they have is a desire to sell advertizing. To that end many "news stories" are written and published simply to generate traffic. The news that they printed something wrong is not traffic generating, so you never see that story (or, you see it like the old time newspapers used to report -- Monday's headline, page A1: GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INVESTIGATED FOR CORRUPTION......Thursday followup, page G34, Government official cleared by panel.)

      Many (most?) news services are not in the business of reporting fair and balanced news. They are in the business of reporting "news" that boosts advertizement. And by the way, this applies to stories that you may even agree with. Read accordingly.

  • Brief synopsis (Score:5, Interesting)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:59PM (#12989988)
    Groklaw [groklaw.net] has more indepth analysis on what was reported.

    Basically when Santa Cruz and IBM worked on the project known as Monterey in the late 90s, it was understood that both companies would use code developed from the joint venture in their products. SCO claims that IBM used the jointly developed code on Power based machines when the original agreement only specified that IBM could use it on Intel machines. They filed in October 2004 to change the claim to add this to the current suit. They wanted more discovery and time to pursue this new claim.

    In the current lawsuit, the deadline for changing the claim was February 2004. Under certain circumstances, a party can go beyond deadlines but only for "compelling reasons." SCO's compelling reason was (1) they "just discovered" this fact and (2) IBM filed a counterclaim (9th) that requires them to research it.

    IBM's answer to the court was convincing and many fold. They produce documents, emails, presentations, public announcements from Santa Cruz as far back as 1998 that describe how IBM was to use code from the joint project in Power. They also produce IBM public presentations, software documentation, and public announcements about the same thing. Finally they presented industry reports and discussions from tech magazines both online and offline from 2000 that discusses IBM's use of the code. IBM ironically points out that SCO provided some of this source material to IBM in the lawsuit filings.

    IBM's message is simple: (1) Santa Cruz knew. If SCO is the legal and corporate successor to Santa Cruz, then it is SCO's duty to know everything that Santa Cruz did. (2) Since SCO provided some of the material, SCO had to know since 2003 when they filed the lawsuit. (3) Even if SCO was totally clueless about Santa Cruz's materials and it's own filings, a simple search online up to 4 years ago would have uncovered the fact that IBM was going to use the code in Power.

    As far IBM's 9th Counterclaim, IBM chose to reduce/clarify the scope so that it was not as broad and SCO's new claim would have no relevance.

    On a side note, one of IBM's statements is interesting:

    Tellingly, in support of its contention that the addition of this new copyright infringement claim would not require extensive additional discovery, SCO purports in its current motion (and in its proposed complaint) to have already analyzed its own UnixWare/SVR4 code and IBM's AIX code and identified 245,026 specific lines of "copied and derived code" from UnixWare/SVR4 in IBM's AIX for Power Version 5.1.0 and 260,785 specific lines of "copied and derived code" from UnixWare/SVR4 in IBM's AIX for Power Version 5.2.0. At the same time, of course, SCO continues to maintain -- both in opposition to IBM's pending motion for summary judgment on IBM's Tenth Counterclaim and in support of SCO's discovery motions pending before Magistrate Judge Wells -- that SCO is unable, without significant additional discovery from IBM and potentially thousands of additional man-years of expert work, to identify the specific lines of "copied and derived code" from UNIX that it claims is present in Linux. Indeed, SCO argued before this Court and Judge Wells that it could not capably perform any code comparisons between UNIX and Linux in a reasonable time frame without access to more discovery from IBM (concerning AIX no less).

    SCO wanted to convince the judge that no more discovery would be necessary to add this new claim saying that they had already done a lot of work. But IBM asks the question: If they have compared our closed source AIX with their Unix, why do they claim they couldn't compare open source Linux with their Unix without our AIX source code?

    • Re:Brief synopsis (Score:2, Informative)

      by rm69990 ( 885744 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @05:07AM (#12992391)

      IBM didn't choose to limit their 9th counterclaim as you say, SCO took the counterclaim out of context.

      When the lawsuit first started, SCO attempted to terminate IBM's Unix license which allowed IBM to distribute AIX. Novell stepped in and gave IBM the go-ahead to continue to distribute AIX, which they were specifically allowed to do, regardless of whether or not they own the copyrights, by the Asset Purchase Agreement between Novell and Santa Cruz Operation (not the same as The SCO Group, 2 different companies in-case someone here doesn't know that).

      After SCO completed attempting to terminate the license, IBM continued to distribute AIX. SCO ammended their complaint to add a claim for copyright infringement because IBM was distributing AIX without a license (or so they claimed). They then notified IBM customers that they could be liable for using AIX.

      IBM then filed a counter-suit against SCO (their 9th claim) that IBM wasn't infringing SCO's alledged copyrights by continuing to distribute AIX.

      SCO, when trying to ammed this complaint now, argued that it should be allowed to because IBM's counter-claim dealt with whether IBM ever had a license to use Unix SVR4 code on the Power Arch. in AIX.

      This WAS NOT IBM's intention when filing the counter-claim. They were merely trying to prove that SCO hadn't legally terminated their AIX license, not that they had a right to Unix SVR4 code. SCO purposefully took this out of context to try to slide their new amended complaint through.

      So, in-fact, IBM's request to limit its 9th counterclaim wasn't actually changing the claim, but to just clarify its scope and to show that SCO was taking it out of context.

      And this is why the judge ordered that the counter-claim had to be viewed in the context of when it was filed, not the circumstances now. It makes sense, cause the court can't really force IBM to prosecute a claim they never intended to file

  • {sigh} (Score:2)

    by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @10:22PM (#12990820)
    I will be soooo glad when this is over.

  • You Know It's A Slow News Day... (Score:2)

    by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @11:01PM (#12990994) Journal
    When people bring up some "new" SCO "development".

  • The Don King Business Model (Score:2)

    by DynaSoar ( 714234 ) * on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @04:16AM (#12992233) Journal
    Knowing they're going under, SCO has launched an effort to gather capital from people willing to bet on a long shot by starting this ridiculous action. They had good reason to suspect it'd work. Not that they'd win; chances were always slim for that. But the slim chances attracts the long shot bettors/investors. And with the influx of cash, the price goes up. And when the shit comes down, they'll be able to sell out at a higher price. Even the loser takes home a purse.

    I bet they're real nervous now. They probably expected to be bought out by now by IBM or someone just to stop the irritation.

    In my happy place I dream of the judge taking SCO away from Darel and company (after sentencing them to an ethics treatment center and changing their names to include 'Bonehead'), and appointing EFF to administrate it on behalf of its new owners, OSDL.

  • Chinese solution: change group name (Score:3, Funny)

    by panurge ( 573432 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:58AM (#12992725)
    It's clear that the name of the holding group (Can o' pee) is unlucky and affecting the court case. To change the bad luck they need to change it to something with better resonances. The Can o' worms Group?

Slashdot Top Deals

"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect "Hungry." -- a Larson cartoon

Close