Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Unix Caldera IBM Novell The Courts Your Rights Online Linux

Judge Rejects SCO's Motion For a New Trial 168

Posted by timothy
from the civil-procedure's-too-good-for-'em dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A judge has rejected SCO's motion for a new trial in the company's dispute over UNIX intellectual property ownership. The ruling validates a verdict that was issued in April by a jury who determined that Novell, and not SCO, is the rightful owner of the UNIX SVRX copyrights. This means SCO cannot continue to pursue its litigation against IBM and other Linux users. 'There was substantial evidence that Novell made an intentional decision to retain ownership of the copyrights,' the judge wrote in his decision. 'The Court finds that the verdict is not clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence. Therefore, SCO is not entitled to a new trial.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Rejects SCO's Motion For a New Trial

Comments Filter:
  • Groklaw link (Score:4, Insightful)

    by symbolset (646467) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @05:29PM (#32528560) Journal
    Come on guys. Groklaw [groklaw.net] has been covering this thing since the very beginning. The least you could do is link to the article [groklaw.net] there. Give a little respect to Pam Jones for following this long slog like a trouper.
  • Good. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bi$hop (878253) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @05:31PM (#32528600)
    I really hope this is the last I ever have to hear about SCO.
  • Re:Groklaw link (Score:5, Insightful)

    by homey of my owney (975234) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @05:34PM (#32528656)
    Don't worry. There will almost certainly be another opportunity. This thing just won't die.
  • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @05:45PM (#32528770) Homepage

    That and the dead parrot schene combined:

    Community: "It's not pinin,' it's passed on! SCO is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late company! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed him to the perch he would be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off this mortal coil! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This.... is an EX-COMPANY!"

    SCO: "I'm not dead yet"

    At least IBM, Novell etc. got the pockets to handle it. A smaller company could have been legally torpedoed by this, even if they eventually won some what, 8 years down the road now?

  • Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Low Ranked Craig (1327799) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @05:57PM (#32528916)
    Better shoot it in the head with a shotgun just to be sure.
  • Re:Groklaw link (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LWATCDR (28044) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @05:57PM (#32528922) Homepage Journal

    But does anyone on Slashdot don't know that Groklaw has been covering it from day one?
    I mean really? When you say SCO you might as well say Groklaw for most people on here.
    Of course it is also hard not to use some colorful language before or after those three letters as well.

  • Re:Groklaw link (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tomhudson (43916) <.barbara.hudson. ... bara-hudson.com.> on Thursday June 10, 2010 @06:22PM (#32529210) Journal

    >Fair play (sic) to Ars: they at least did some real reporting while all PJ did was post 5 sentences and copy+paste the decision. Besides, it looks like Ars report was first.

    The Ars Technica article has no real reporting beyond paraphrasing the judgment. There are no "new facts" that aren't in the actual judgment. So why not instead actually go to the site that has the judgment, as well as informed commentary on the judgment (groklaw)? You know, "view the source" ...

  • by Weaselmancer (533834) on Thursday June 10, 2010 @10:03PM (#32531030)

    I would think about changing my line of work if I was assigned SCO versus the World.

    Nah. What you've got there are lawyers who are getting paid. Doesn't matter if what they are doing is wrong and hopeless. Look at a lawyer's paycheck. For that, Sisyphus would probably wake up cheerful and show up for a day's work with a smile.

    This is just lawyers being lawyers for the most part. Sure you get some good ones every so often, like Ray Beckerman. People who actually get into the field because they wish to be superheroes. But 99.9% of the world - regardless of their job - just want to get paid.

    And you and I are probably no different. I've worked on software projects that were doomed. How about you? I worked on a project once for 3 years that I knew 6 months in was going to wind up in a box on a shelf. Did I care? Hell no. I was making a paycheck during the dot bomb. Plenty of my coder friends weren't.

    Once SCO finally runs out of cash these guys will move on. Some of them will wind up working for Save the Puppies, some for the RIAA. Both will sleep well that night. It's just a job.

    Oh, one more thing. The SCO lawyers didn't lose. They did what Microsoft (via BayStar) paid them to do. Defame Linux. I'm sure the instructions went like this. "Make it drag out as long as you can. Sew fear and doubt. Never surrender!" Fifty million bucks buys a lot of moral flexibility. And these are lawyers, which is a profession that isn't overly burdened with saints.

    And on their resume for their next job they can say that they spearheaded an impossible effort. They moved market share towards their customer and away from an open source project that has a nebulous cloud of people working on it. They attacked a ghost, did it for a decade, and did that with a tenacity that would make a pit bull proud.

    There are many places where someone with that kind of determination and moral flexibility would be most welcome. I expect a lot of these resumes to wind up on the desks of BP's HR department sometime in the near future.

  • Re:Not over yet (Score:3, Insightful)

    by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday June 10, 2010 @11:58PM (#32531652)

    SCO also have contract disputes they will try and persue, the whole fallout over Project "Legend". They're not dead yet

    They're not dead bu8t they don't have money. Unless another devil, versus angel, investor gives them more money the bankruptcy court can shutter SCO.

    Falcon

  • Re:Groklaw link (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gdshaw (1015745) on Friday June 11, 2010 @01:26AM (#32532054) Homepage

    Don't worry. There will almost certainly be another opportunity. This thing just won't die.

    I'm not saying that SCO won't try to appeal, but this judgment together with the result of the jury trial leaves them very little to work with. SCO asked that the question of copyright transfer be decided by jury, which it was. They agreed to specific performance being decided by the judge. They were granted so much lassitude before and during the trial that if anyone has the right to complain it is Novell.

    The threshold for overturning a jury verdict is high. Now that Judge Stewart has reached essentially the same conclusion, it will be very difficult to argue that the jury acted unreasonably.

    SCO may not be six feet under yet, but the lid is on the coffin and most of the nails have been hammered in. They may be able to drag out the process for a few more months, perhaps even years, but if we are looking for the point at which any serious hope for SCO was extinguished then I think we just saw it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11, 2010 @05:38AM (#32533112)

    And no trillion-dollar-war either. Obama has a long LONG way to go to beat Bush. 8 years may not be enough...

"Of course power tools and alcohol don't mix. Everyone knows power tools aren't soluble in alcohol..." -- Crazy Nigel

Working...