Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Software News Linux

Judge To SCO — Quit Whining 156

Posted by kdawson
from the and-wipe-your-nose dept.
chiark writes, "Back in June, the magistrate judge presiding over SCO vs IBM gutted SCO's claims, as discussed on Slashdot. SCO cried 'foul,' appealed to the District Judge, and today that judge has ruled against SCO, succinctly and concisely affirming every point of the original damning judgement. Also included in this ruling is the news that the Novell vs. SCO trial will go first: 'After deciding the pending dispositive motions in this case, and after deciding the dispositive motions in Novell, which should be fully briefed in May 2007, the court will set a trial date for any remaining claims in this action.' It's notable that the judge conducted the review using a more exhaustive standard than required out of an 'abundance of caution,' and still found against SCO." As Groklaw asks and answers: "What does it mean? It means SCO is toast."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge To SCO — Quit Whining

Comments Filter:
  • IBM stole our whine in 1992, we have documents to prove it too, right over here, near the othe IBM documents ..... BWHAAAAAAA
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by creimer (824291)
      Looks like you're missing the letter "r" from "othe". Let me guess... you're using an IBM ThinkPad laptop and IBM stole the letter "r"? ;)
  • by bogaboga (793279) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:04PM (#17051062)
    I better act fast! This is the time to sell my remaining SCO stock before the tsunami strikes.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Now is the time to acquire the actual paper stock certificate. In a year or so, when the dust has settled and SCO is history, that certificate will be a collector's item. Or, you can keep it yourself, frame it, and hang it right next to the framed Richard Nixon stamps. Gone, not forgotten, but not missed.
  • that's what he said? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:05PM (#17051074)
    I read the article and I didn't see "quit whining" anywhere.

    I realize that was a crude paraphrasing, but a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.
    • by fotbr (855184) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:07PM (#17051100) Journal
      This is slashdot. Neutral does not exist with respect to linux, microsoft, and sco. Other topics may vary.
    • by kfg (145172) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:12PM (#17052188)
      . . .a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.

      What, and ruin it's reputation? I don't think so.

      KFG
    • by Eric Damron (553630) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:16PM (#17052252)
      Quit whining... :-)
    • by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:29PM (#17052524)
      a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.

      I once tried to explain the SCO case to someone. They thought I was BSing them. The case is simply so screwed up from pretty much any rational (and non-scamming) perspective that even if Slashdot were neutral, it should stand up and say, "HEY! This is messed up". Sometimes I worry we get so caught up in NPOV and neutrality that we forget that there is objective truth, and the objective truth is that SCO is making dozens of claims it can't back up, to the judge's annoyance.
      • The case is simply so screwed up from pretty much any rational (and non-scamming) perspective

        Isn't the CEO's brother the laywer litigating this case? This seems to be a perfectly rational way for one brother to enrich another with shareholders' money, all perfectly legally.

        You said rational, not ethical.
        • I define scam a bit more broadly than you do. That qualifies as a scam to me (assuming Daryl McBride knows the lawsuit is unfounded), since he's wasting shareholder money.
          • I define scam a bit more broadly than you do. That qualifies as a scam to me (assuming Daryl McBride knows the lawsuit is unfounded), since he's wasting shareholder money.

            Well, yeah, you're right, they're scamming the courts, the shareholders, and their threatened victims. But why close up shop and disburse remaining assets to shareholders when you can funnel fifty million dollars from Microsoft to your brother....
    • by Tweekster (949766)
      Why?

      People on here do no want neutral, there are a thousand other places for that. People here share a common opinion and expect coverage based on that.

      News doesnt have to be neutral, it just shouldnt claim it is when it isnt. Slashdot has never claimed to be neutral.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Da_Weasel (458921)
        News that isn't neutral is called editorial.

        News should always be neutral. Editorials can contain any amount of opinion the author wants. Neither of them should knowingly contain factually incorrect information.
        • by Zenaku (821866) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @04:33PM (#17056352)
          News is NOT supposed to be neutral. It is supposed to be objective. Most news outlets today strive to be neutral, which leads to shallow, insipid reporting, in which no outlet has the balls to report anything as fact. Instead they simply report whatever each side of an issue says.

          "The admistration said today that flatulence is caused by an evil faerie named Mortimer, however some critics disagree!"

          Objective means fact-checking, and reporting what is true. Neutral means echoing every opinion and statement that is fed to you, regardless of the source, in order to treat all standpoints and arguments as equally valid. Neutral is a horrible thing for news to be.

          That being said, slashdot can't be called an prime example of neutrality or objectivity.
        • by Tweekster (949766)
          Call it whatever you want, this is slashdot, it has never aimed to be neutral, objective or whatever.
    • by badasscat (563442) <[basscadet75] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @02:23PM (#17053626)
      I read the article and I didn't see "quit whining" anywhere.

      The court finds that SCO failed to comply with the court's previous discovery-related Orders and Rule 26(e), that SCO acted willfully, that SCO's conduct has resulted in prejudice to IBM, and that this resultthe (sic) inability of SCO to use the evidence at issue to prove its claims should come as no surprise to SCO.

      I would paraphrase that last part as "quit whining". SCO has repeatedly claimed that the court has not provided them with either a) enough time, b) enough leeway in deposition, and c) enough clarity in its orders. That was basically SCO's defense in this motion; that they did all they could given the information that they had from the court. The court has now told them that their defense in this motion doesn't hold water and worse, that they should know it. How else would you paraphrase that?

      I realize that was a crude paraphrasing, but a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.

      What is neutral about this? SCO just got their butts whipped by the court, again, as they should have. News itself is rarely objective, and Slashdot has never pretended to be an objective news source. This isn't about providing balanced reporting on the SCO case. This is about SCO being in the wrong, and the court - for the second time - bitch-slapping them for being in the wrong and for knowing they were in the wrong and wasting everybody's time and energy on this case.
    • by Da_Weasel (458921)
      You've been watching Pretty Woman again havn't you?

      You can take the hooker out of the streets but you can't take the street out of the hooker.
    • Quit your whi ^h^h^h, wait... yeh, cool by me.... SCO is SC(O)toast...

      SCO, go get your butter knife and scrape off you over-tan and reinvent yourselves and ply, umm, play NICE next time. But, if you play nasty again, I imagine what you'll have learned is to pay your lawyers based on PERFORMANCE, not expectation...
  • What net for SCO? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mudetroit (855132) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:06PM (#17051090) Journal
    The chief qestion here as the litigation begins to play ut is when do the investors in SCO begin ulling out of what appears ever more strongly to be a losing battle? Or do they continue to just throw good money after bad and accept the loss on what maybe no better then a lottery's chance of winning anything?
    • by plover (150551) *
      Wouldn't it be best for SCO to simply drop the suit and try to get back into the technology business? Or would that just firmly seat the hook for the expected counter-suit from IBM to reclaim damages from the frivolous lawsuit?

      I'm not understanding why SCO would continue to pump any of their few remaining pennies into a lawsuit, when the judge's actions are clearly saying "DROP THIS NOW, YOU DAMN IDIOTS."

      It seems to me that this entire suit is nothing now but a personal battle for Darl and his cohorts.

      • Counterclaims... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mengel (13619)
        The problem is, now that the case has been going on forever, IBM has numerous counterclaims in the suit. Even if SCO tries to back out now, IBM still has numerous counterclaims to settle at trial. Groklaw has lots of details if you want them, but basically IBM is claiming that SCO has:
        • lied publicly about IBM's behaviour
        • violated the GPL, including for IBM's GPL-ed code
        • violated the Lanham act
        etc.
      • by rm69990 (885744)
        "Wouldn't it be best for SCO to simply drop the suit and try to get back into the technology business? Or would that just firmly seat the hook for the expected counter-suit from IBM to reclaim damages from the frivolous lawsuit?"

        IBM has already filed numerous counterclaims.

        "I'm not understanding why SCO would continue to pump any of their few remaining pennies into a lawsuit, when the judge's actions are clearly saying "DROP THIS NOW, YOU DAMN IDIOTS.""

        Due to IBM's counterclaims, SCO has no choice but to co
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The chief qestion here as the litigation begins to play ut is when do the investors in SCO begin ulling out of what appears ever more strongly to be a losing battle? Or do they continue to just throw good money after bad and accept the loss on what maybe no better then a lottery's chance of winning anything?

      This lawsuit is nothing more than a proxy pr campaign on behalf of Microsoft [com.com] against Linux. For the bargain price of 16.6 million and another $50 million investment that Microsoft help arrange [com.com], Microsof
  • Groklaw rules (Score:5, Interesting)

    by robyannetta (820243) * on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:07PM (#17051104) Homepage
    I like this line from the Groklaw article:

    What's worse for SCO is, Kimball did a de novo review, out of an "abundance of caution," so they can't even appeal that issue.

    Yep, SCO is toast. Please move on, nothing to see here.
    • Re:Groklaw rules (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:18PM (#17051268) Journal
      I wish they had talked about Novell vs IBM going first

      IBM & Novell have both been saying: No, you go first.

      IIRC, IBM wants Novell to go first to settle the copyright issues, which would make large portions of SCO's case against IBM moot.

      And now that I think about it, I don't remember why Novell wanted IBM to go first. I know SCO wanted the IBM case to go first, just to delay things even more.
      • Re:Groklaw rules (Score:5, Informative)

        by Daniel_Staal (609844) <DStaal@usa.net> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:22PM (#17051344)
        The primary reason Novell wanted IBM to go first was probably because it meant that IBM's lawyers would have to be paid, and not Novell's.
        • by sunwukong (412560)
          Just a bit of paranoia -- any chance that pressure from a certain new partner on Novell can upset IBMs case?
          • Unlikely. It doesn't truly matter to IBM who owns the copyright on the original code: They just have to prove they didn't use any of it in Linux. (Though if SCO doesn't own it then their claim can be thrown out based on the fact that they have no cause for complaint.)
      • IBM & Novell have both been saying: No, you go first.

        Actually, Novell hasn't expressed an opinion on this. It's SCO who has been saying IBM should go first. Novell can't help them in the IBM case, but it could hurt them badly. If the judge finds that SCO owns all (or some) of the UNIX copyrights, it still doesn't prove IBM misused them. But if he finds that SCO doesn't even own the copyrights, even the most brain-dead jury on the planet couldn't be bamboozled into taking SCO's side. The last thin

  • by s20451 (410424) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:08PM (#17051108) Journal
    What is this, 2003? I'm looking forward to the latest press release from the the Iraqi information minister.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Chicane-UK (455253)
      "We made them drink poison last night and Darl McBride's lawyers and his great employees gave IBM a lesson which will not be forgotten by history. Truly." ;)
  • Sco v Novell - I bet Steve Ballmers getting a phone call from Ron - 'what do i do Stevie ???'.
  • by cacepi (100373) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:13PM (#17051174)
    And the Downward Spiral begins; SCO stock down 10%; rated 'HOLD - Dangerous Risk/Reward Rating.' [yahoo.com]

    Your goose is downright cooked, SCO.
    • Check this long-term view of SCO's stock. [yahoo.com]

      Wanna guess when they first started pursuing this litigation?


      And why hasn't there been some kind of investigation as to whether SCO did this specifically to manipulate the price of it's shares? Sure seems interesting when you look at this chart. We all know and feel it. But I don't know if you could PROVE manipulation so nothing will probably come of it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SEE (7681)
        The problem with a charge of manipulation is that you have to prove that SCO management knew that its lawsuit was baseless and that it filed it anyway to try to make a fraudulent profit off the increased share price. The mere fact that the lawsuit increased the stock price is not nearly sufficient. A lawsuit with plausible grounding would produce the same effect, and it would have been not merely legal but arguably the fiduciary duty of SCO's management to its shareholders to sue to recover lost revenue i
        • by ccp (127147)
          Unless and until the judge in the SCO-IBM case says the case was not merely insufficient, but utterly without merit, it's unlikely SCO can be hit for manipulation.

          Does "astonishing lack of evidence" ring a bell?

          Cheers,
          CC
      • It's significantly more fun to look at when you view it as linear and not a log plot. It really makes it clear how far they've fallen.

        I mean -- they once traded at over $100 a share.
    • by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:40PM (#17051620)
      And the Downward Spiral begins; SCO stock down 10%; rated 'HOLD - Dangerous Risk/Reward Rating.'

      Your goose is downright cooked, SCO.


      I'd truly love to believe this about their goose being cooked (and props to cacepi for correctly using "your" and not "you're"), but experience tells me otherwise. Why? Neither investors nor stock brokers/analysts understand technology or the law. SCOX will most likely hang on until the September 2007 trial. I'd love to be wrong, but until SCOX starts trading at under a dollar a share and facing potential delisting action, I see the stock surviving through next year. You have to love broker talk where despite the "dangerous risk/reward rating" they are advising people to neither buy more of the stock nor to sell what they have. That's what "hold" means.

      SCOX has lost 25 cents at the time of writing. Unless it plummets today or tomorrow, I think unfortunately it's going to be around for a while. It's still trading at over $2 a share.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by jeschust (910560) *
        Stock analysts traditionally never give "Sell" recommendations. Therefore, a rating of "Hold" is the lowest an analyst is willing to rate any given stock.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by cacepi (100373)

        Neither investors nor stock brokers/analysts understand technology or the law.

        No, but they do know financials, and the numbers ain't good: a negative EBITDA, negative returns on investment and equity, negative cash flow and very little free cash - how are they going to pay for one trial, let alone two? - means a hell of a lot of bad writing on the wall for SCO.

        I honestly don't see what SCO can do to turn things around even if it didn't have these trials over their heads. Short of another infusion of quick cash - which ain't happening now that Microsoft has moved to different fronts

      • by cfulmer (3166)
        There is a theory in economics, the "Efficient Market Hypothesis" that effectively says that everything that's publicly known about a company is reflected in that company's market price. Suppose that you *knew for a fact* that SCO's stock would be shooting through the floor -- you would short that stock, which would, if you and several other equally smart people did the same, drive the price through the floor. But, there's a reason that you're not doing that -- you do not know for a fact. After all, ther
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by statusbar (314703)
      <conspiracy type="crazy">
      MAYBE this court case is why microsoft gave Novell the money...to subvert Novell's testimony, giving SCO a win...
      </onspiracy> --jeffk++
      • Microsoft gave Novell money because, in the words of Darth Maul, "At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi."

        Microsoft got tired of waiting for their puppet SCO to spread FUD, so they just went ahead and did it themselves, telling the Linux community recently that everyone had better pay protection money, because Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents.
    • Looking at the 2-year graph, the stock was around $4.00 to $4.50 for a *long* time. Then back in July 2006, it suddenly took a dive to $3.00 with a long, slow slide to $2.00.

      What was the big event back in July 2006 that pushed the stock down so fast?

      It's been holding around $2.50 the past few months, but is currently down to $2.00.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:15PM (#17051232)
    My favorite part of the judgement is: "After deciding the pending dispositive motions in this case, and after deciding the dispositive motions in Novell, which should be fully briefed in May 2007, the court will set a trial date for any remaining claims in this action."

    A trial date for any remaining claims ... I have a feeling that Judge K. thinks there may be no remaining claims after the dispositive motions. What are the dispositive motions you ask? Those are things that can be decided as a matter of law because the facts of the case are not in dispute. The judge can rule on those without going to a jury. There is a possibility that the judge's decisions will completely gut all of SCO's case. It is also possible that the judge will decide that all of SCO's money has to go into a constructive trust because SCO has basically stolen tens of millions of dollars from Novell. That would bankrupt SCO. All the remaining issues would then be settled by SCO's bankruptcy trustee. The bankruptcy trustee (completely independent from SCO's current management) will see no point in continuing the litigation and will settle on whatever terms the creditors (IBM and Novell mostly) dictate.

    There is also the distinct possibility that SCO and BSF (their lawyers) will be punished for bringing a case before the court that has zero merit. It is a frivolous case and lawyers can be debarred for that kind of conduct.
    • by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:27PM (#17051404)
      IBM wants this to go to trial. They've had many opportunities to make this case go away, and they haven't even tried. They don't want SCO to surrender, they want to crush SCO.
      • by Shadow Wrought (586631) * <shadow.wroughtNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:51PM (#17051826) Homepage Journal
        IBM wants this to go to trial. They've had many opportunities to make this case go away, and they haven't even tried. They don't want SCO to surrender, they want to crush SCO.

        While IBM very much wants to crush SCo they would prefer the crushing happens before trial. Anything can happen with a jury. But they have filed Motions for Summary Judgement which is the core of the dispositive motions the GP talked about. (AC or not- he knows the law.)

        To elaborate further, in Summary Judgement the side argues that even if all the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the opposition, they would still lose the case. Given the lack of evidence forthsoming from SCO, it would not surprise me in the least if most of the SJ motions were granted in IBM's favor. Indeed, a not unlikely scenario would see the trial proceeding only on IBM's Counterclaims!

        • Right. The important point here is that IBM didn't settle. SCO will never see a dime. IBM does not "negotiate with terrorists." And now every pissant company trying the same will know that.

          The only tragedy is that SCO insiders seem to have made out very well executing a seemingly legal pump-n-dump scheme.

        • by debrain (29228)
          Yes, quite right. In general: A summary judgement happens when there is no question of fact, as facts can be decided by a jury.

          Where there is only left a question of law, a judge may make a ruling on that law without entering into a fact-finding portion of a trial (via a judge or jury determination of fact).

          There is great precedent value in seeing this case through, as a matter of jurisprudence, certainty, and predictability with respect to open source.
        • by davidsyes (765062)
          Hell, with all ARMY of lawyers IBM has, IBM can make one helluva "call to arms": OK, boys, THROW ALL THOSE CHAIRS back at SCO" Then, pick em up and crush'em twen chair and floor." So, "ron", you better not heed stevie's advice to "buy more chairs". They'll come back to haunt you..
      • What is best in life?

      • by Rimbo (139781)
        Absolutely correct. They just want it to go to trial on their counterclaims, and not on SCO's initial claims.

        Based on TFA's news, it appears they got what they wished.

        It's clear that IBM saw the SCO suit as a dangerous precedent, and wanted to use the opportunity to make a precedent of their own. Their dependence on Linux for their business required it.

        This has always been part of the ongoing IBM vs. Microsoft battle, which began back in the days of the OS/2 split.
    • by Scarblac (122480)
      Oh, I think there will be remaining claims, from reading Groklaw a lot. It's just that they'll all be counter-claims.
    • by mysticgoat (582871) * on Thursday November 30, 2006 @02:52PM (#17054222) Homepage Journal

      There is also the distinct possibility that SCO and BSF (their lawyers) will be punished for bringing a case before the court that has zero merit. It is a frivolous case and lawyers can be debarred for that kind of conduct.

      That is an outcome I would very much like to see (disbarrment of the lawyers). The lawyers involved should be disbarred and they should be charged and found guilty of felony conspiracy (as well as the corporate officers of SCO). They should never again be allowed to hold any position of public trust, not in the law, not as bank tellers, not even as a call center customer service representatives. The law firm should be broken up, its offices razed, and the rubble should be sown with salt.

      If lawyers in this country were required to live up to their responsibilities as Officers of the Court, we would all be better off. This case is proving to be such an egregious abuse of the legal system that action must be taken against the lawyers involved, since to allow them to walk away would shatter the foundation of the rule of law beyond this society's ability to repair it. That would mean it would become necessary for many of America's people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with others and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them. Thank you Mr Jefferson. No one in two hundred thirty years has said that better than you did.

      The law was never intended to be a club that you can use in an attempt to extort money from IBM or any other company or person. The law is intended to be a set of rules that is supposed to provide some measure of fairness in the dealings we have with one another. Officers of the Court have a responsibility to uphold that concept of law; those that attempt to make a mockery of the law by participating in a sham like this one should never again be trusted in any measure. Let them earn a living as day laborers for the rest of their miserable years.

      </rant>

  • SCO isn't toast yet, quite. There are still ninety-some-odd items of evidence that IBM are trying to get dismissed as they don't implicate IBM in any wrongdoing, and seven-or-so expert testimonies IBM are trying to get trimmed as they include new evidence past the closing of discovery.

    -Loyal
    • Today Judge Wells kicked out the experts that introduced evidence beyond the Final Disclosures.

      She didn't even take it under advisement, she ruled from the bench.
  • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:17PM (#17051246) Homepage Journal
    ...was basically that SCO has had 3+ years to show any evidence that they could come up with that IBM violated SCO's copyrights or patents by contributing code the Linux kernel. In that time, they haven't shown one single of code. They've whined and complained that IBM was being unfair and not giving them what they asked for, when in fact IBM did put up everything that was asked for. As Wells put it: "In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put 'all evidence . . . on the table'"

    So Magistrate Wells threw out half the case. Then SCO whined to Kimball, the judge of record in the case saying "Magistrate Wells is being unfair and thew out most of our case! Wha!" This is Kimball coming back saying, "Sorry, Wells was right. You don't have a leg to stand on."

    After the Novell case, which seeks to prove, among other things, the disposition of the UNIX System V copyrights (which Novell claims to still own), there isn't likely to be hardly anything left of SCO v. IBM. Kimball was right to put Novell first the case might throw out SCO's intellectual property claims in regard to Unix altogether.

    In the end, I fully expect IBM to eat SCO for lunch on the counterclaims, even after they dropped most of them except for the Lanham Act violations.

    • by hey! (33014)
      In the end, I fully expect IBM to eat SCO for lunch on the counterclaims,

      Well then, I hope IBM is on a diet. Maybe the chef will be extra generous with the parsley garnish.
    • In that time, they haven't shown one single of code.

      Not quite correct. They have shown some code; however they haven't given enough information to properly identify the code. What IBM asked for was operating system, file, line, and version. In all cases, SCO gave only three or two of the four things required despite being ordered three times and then warned by IBM that their disclosure was insufficient.

      • Not quite correct. They have shown some code;

        They showed some code in Dynix, correct? Which they don't own, correct?

        • I'm not sure what they gave. Judge Wells noted that SCO claimed "450,000 lines of source code and hundreds of confidential methods and concepts." I think that some of it might have been Dynix. It may have been that they listed Dynix code that infringed but without any reference as how it infringed with SysV or Linux.
    • by Kjella (173770)
      As Wells put it: "In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put 'all evidence . . . on the table'"

      Well it's almost correct. I'm just waiting for the "In the view of the [SEC] it is almost like SCO sought to hide [that it has no] case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining a [stock price] advantage despite being repeatedly told to put 'all evidence . . . on the table'"
  • by richg74 (650636) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:17PM (#17051248) Homepage
    "What does it mean? It means SCO is toast."

    The District Judge has now affirmed the order originally given by the Magistrate Judge, which tossed out most of SCO's claims, basically for a more or less complete lack of evidence. However, IBM's counter-claims, including tortious interference, violation of NY business law, and violation of the Lanham Act are still alive and well. As PJ at Groklaw points out, [groklaw.net] IBM seems determined to present these claims in front of a jury. If they do, the likely outcome is a large, smoking crater in Lindon, Utah. As PJ puts it: "In short, IBM intends to skin SCO alive at trial."

    From the judge's order:
    the court finds that, even under a de novo standard of review, the Magistrate Judge's June 28, 2006 Order is correct.

    The judge reviewed the material under appeal de novo, to be extra careful, even though he was not required to do so. This is consistent with a feeling I've had for some time: he's decided SCO's case is a complete crock, and is working on creating a trial record that will be bullet-proof on appeal.
    • by Todd Knarr (15451) * on Thursday November 30, 2006 @02:12PM (#17053396) Homepage

      Actually Magistrate Wells threw out none of SCO's claims. Every claim they made remains in the case, which is why her motion is non-dispositive. What she did was throw out the evidence SCO was trying to introduce to support their claims, on the grounds that they were ordered to produce it by a certain deadline, they had it in hand and could have easily produced it (according to their own statements), and they willfully refused to produce it. Having so failed to produce it in a timely manner, they're not allowed to use it now that it's too late for IBM to respond to it without prejudice. This leaves their claims with nothing to support them, which means they'll fall to a summary judgement motion by IBM (which is already in progress).

  • Here's [linux-watch.com] his opinion on the whole sordid mess, but in brief, he says that SCO no longer matters, and that he probably won't report further on it until final resolution.

    I'm happy to see things finally start to kill off SCO's FUD machine. This, friends, is the beginning of the end for IBM v SCO.
  • by Software (179033) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:19PM (#17051296) Homepage Journal
    Now that Novell is all kissy-kissy with Microsoft, having Novell go first in the lawsuit vs. SCO might not be so good. As we all know, Microsoft basically funded SCO's Unix IP fishing expedition with a $50 million "licensing" deal. I'd much rather have IBM be the one to grind SCO to a pulp. Hopefully, Novell will not pull any punches, and IBM can continue the beating after Novell's had their fill.
    • Hopefully, Novell will not pull any punches, and IBM can continue the beating after Novell's had their fill.


      Somehow I'm reminded of this comic strip: http://www.dungeond.com/d/20061120.html [dungeond.com]
      With the gnolls being SCO and the heavily armoured guards being IBM's lawyers.
    • by robyannetta (820243) * on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:42PM (#17051662) Homepage
      As a side note, I _hope_ that when SCO is buried and Novell and IBM walk away from this with a satisfied grin on their faces (ala Captain Morgan), IBM should make a bid to buy Novell then GPL the Unix Sys V source code.

      It's the whipped cream topping on the Pumpkin Pie.
    • The deal between MS and Novell won't change the case; Let's say Novell wins. They wont even be tempted to go after IBM because SCO was able to show no evidence, even if they owned the copyright. And if Novell wins it will be a terminal blow to SCO; IBM will just put a bullet in SCO's brain to finish the deal.
    • by davidsyes (765062)
      "Hopefully, Novell will not pull any punches, and IBM can continue the beating after Novell's had their fill."

      Reminds me of:

      "The BEATINGS shall continue until morale IMPROVES."

      Captcha: "minimal"
  • Clouds above bench part...

    "Stop groveling! I hate it when people grovel!"

  • by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:38PM (#17051584)
    This is your last chance to take advantage of SCO's special licensing offer of only $699 per computer. Better get those orders in before it's too late!
  • The system works! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by straponego (521991) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @12:44PM (#17051682)
    All you need in order to beat a frivolous lawsuit is unlimited time and money, a few competent judges, and a little luck :)

    Seriously, this is great news and Groklaw, as usual, does a nice job of presenting it in human-readable form. One hopes that the impending THUD of SCO will act as a deterrent to shell corporations who might want to try the same tactics. And real corporations would have something to lose in countersuits, so... Hmm, I'm feeling awfully optimistic today. I'd better have that checked.

  • "Also included in this ruling is the news that the Novell vs. SCO trial will go first"

    I wonder how the Novell-Microsoft deal will effect this case?

    or do you think that MS has come to turms with Linux as long as they can control it with FUD and money.
  • Prologue: Microsoft pumped money into SCO for whatever reason, SCO used Microsoft's support to prolong this debacle in the courts. Now Microsoft is pumping money into Novell. Novell certainly used some of that money in their defense against SCO.

    Am I the only one who sees this as reminiscent the scene in Star Wars III where Anakin kills Dooku? Cast M$ as Palpatine, SCO as Dooku and Novell as Anakin.

    M$: "Good. Now . . . kill him"

    Novell: "I shouldn't do it. It's not our way. They're a LINUX distribu

  • by faraway (174370) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:12PM (#17052186)
    Let's all email SCO and inquire about a license. "We heard you're going out of business and were wondering if you could spare us some licenses."
  • by MatrixCubed (583402) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:24PM (#17052428) Homepage
    I wonder if this foreshadows the time where SCO stock portfolios are worth more on eBay than on NYSE?
  • The good news is that SCO has been limited in its claims. The bad news is that the IBM-SCO trial was set for February and now will wait until after SCO-Novell which is Sept. 2007. The good news of that is that Novell most likely will win which makes most of SCO's claims useless if they don't even own the IP. The bad news is that the GPL may be fully tested in court if that happens. Of course, IBM would win their counterclaims which includes claims based on the GPL.

    Confusing? Remember: Never go up aga

Nothing happens.

Working...