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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Caldera Government Software The Courts Your Rights Online Linux News

SCO Files Suit Against Novell Over System V Ownership 608

Posted by michael from the send-lawyers-guns-and-money dept.
nadamsieee writes "Yahoo! Finance is carrying a press release from SCO that details a new lawsuit against Novell for "Slander of Title". It looks like SCO has finally ditched their failing product line in favor of 24/7 litigation and PR work." To recap: Novell and SCO have a lengthy correspondence over the meaning of the contract between the two companies, Novell registers a claim with the U.S. copyright office over the code in dispute, SCO files this suit in response. Update: 01/20 23:04 GMT by M : SCO has placed their complaint (pdf) online.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Files Suit Against Novell Over System V Ownership More

SCO Files Suit Against Novell Over System V Ownership

Comments Filter:

  • Go Get 'em, Darl! (Score:3, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:35PM (#8036212) Homepage Journal

    Pssst, Darl.. Some 17 year old punk named Mike Rowe [mikerowesoft.com] is running his website on Linux! [netcraft.com] You better file suit against him, too!

  • We don't need no stinkin product! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:36PM (#8036216) Homepage Journal
    Oh yeah. Novell had to be the last company I thought SCO would sue. How can anyone really feel good about working for these guys? Granted, jobs in IT are harder to come by as of late, but I would be absolutely embarrassed to say "I work for SCO"....... They are less and less a tech company every day and more and more a front for litigious action that appears to pump up their stock and dump shares as quickly as possible given the SEC filings over the past little while. Come on now, these guys split off from Novell via Noorda who almost ran Novell into the ground after fightin' it out with Microsoft and tried under the guise of Caldera to sell (rather unsuccessfully) a Linux distro, almost killing another company yet again. Darl McBride then thought "I know what let's do, let's build a business model based upon legal action. Hell, we don't need no stinkin' IT product. We've got lawyers .

    • Re:We don't need no stinkin product! (Score:5, Funny)

      by NatasRevol ( 731260 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:44PM (#8036331) Journal
      Didn't you hear? Only lawyers work for SCO now. And they're only slightly embarrassed to admit it.

    • Re:We don't need no stinkin product! (Score:5, Funny)

      by andman42 ( 721375 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:56PM (#8036503)
      I would be absolutely embarrassed to say "I work for SCO"

      "I work for SCO"

      I just shouted that out loud while sitting at my desk. You were right--I am embarassed.

    • The One Product to Stop SCO FUD (Score:4, Funny)

      by MonkeyGone2Heaven ( 720397 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:57PM (#8036521)

      Lie detector glasses that work on press releases, coming soon from Nemesys-co!

    • Re:We don't need no stinkin product! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by destine ( 109885 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:07PM (#8036648)
      Don't think pump up, think stall. I would bet that in light of the fact that the IP that they claim to own is in fact in dispute, that they file a motion to let them finish this second trial first. It has relevance to the trial and I think it would be hard for the judge to say no to such a request.

      Meanwhile, they will be able to extor...er, persuade others to buy into that phantom ip litigation insurance and continue to pump up prices so that they can all sell their shares and get to the bahamas by next winter.

      Hopefully Novell will file a motion to keep them from selling snake oi...er ip litigation insurance. Best of luck Novell. Make it quick please.

      • Maybe, but the discovery can still go on. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @06:03PM (#8037255)
        SCO should still have to show IBM what, exactly, IBM illegally included in Linux.

        Then, the legal agreements regarding that material can be judged. It might be that SCO doesn't even have a case against IBM, even if SCO did have the patents.

        SCO should get a hold on the IBM case only after SCO has shown what was "stolen" and the contracts have been found to support SCO's case and the "stolen" material is part of the Novell case.

        IANAL so feel free to ignore me.

    • SCO Law Firm (Score:3, Funny)

      by mj2k ( 726937 )
      SCO (SCOX) has recently announced a change in the mission of the company. Citing failures to produce revenue growth chairman Darl McBride has decided to initiate a corporate injury law firm. "We already have several important clients (SCO v. IBM,SCO v. Novell, Redhat v. Novell) and this is proof that we can draw out lawsuits for many years, producing extraordinary increases in stock value." In other news the recently bankrupt Redback Networks has filed with SCO to sue Cisco for alleged patent infringemen

  • So If You're Keeping a List.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by abcxyz ( 142455 ) * on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:36PM (#8036219) Homepage
    I think we are at a point where it is easier to list the companies that SCO has _not_ sued. I'm waiting on them to bite the hand that feeds them by taking a shot at Microsoft and Sun. Hell, they may even end up suing themselves!

  • last ditch effort before their plan blows up (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dougnaka ( 631080 ) * on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:36PM (#8036221) Homepage Journal
    Isn't it the 24th of this month the judge here in Utah wants to have discovery finished?

    Could this be a last ditch effort to bump their stock so they can sell the last few shares...

  • My nomination (Score:5, Funny)

    by GnrlFajita ( 732246 ) <brad@thePOLLOCKwillards.us minus painter> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:36PM (#8036223) Homepage

    This press release contains forward-looking statements regarding SCO's lawsuit against Novell.. . . These forward- looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties including, without limitation, the risk that SCO may not be successful in its claims against Novell and that the pursuit of protections for SCO's copyrights will require the expenditure of resources and may result in further litigation.


    They have my nomination for understatement of the year (& it's only January). Second, anyone?

    It's a bad sign when you start putting disclaimers in your press releases.

    • Re:My nomination (Score:5, Funny)

      by Roofus ( 15591 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:45PM (#8036343) Homepage
      Alright, then I nominate the next paragraph for OVERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR

      The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com

      • Re:My nomination (Score:5, Informative)

        by teeker ( 623861 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:21PM (#8036767)
        SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers

        You know I believe that...it's just that none of them sell anything. I just had some consultant buy me lunch and she was telling me about how they are resellers for a whole bunch of companies including SCO. I asked her what the deal was with SCO to see what they are telling their resellers...she said they are not really talking much to anybody about anything, and her company (one of the bigger independent IT outsourcing companies in the midwest) hasn't sold a single SCO product in over a year. She said from her chair, she wouldn't notice if they fell off the face of the earth.

        I thought that was kind of funny....and kind of telling.

    • They're required to put disclaimers (Score:5, Informative)

      by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:53PM (#8036452)
      They have my nomination for understatement of the year (& it's only January). Second, anyone? It's a bad sign when you start putting disclaimers in your press releases.

      I realize you may be joking but in the interest of being sufficiently pedantic, SCO actually is legally required to put disclaimers like this in. Whenever a company releases information about the managament's expectations for future events they have to identify "forward looking" information with a disclaimer like this. If they do not put this sort of disclaimer in the press release, the could be subject to discipline by the SEC or shareholder lawsuits. (I know, I know, that would be a good thing here...) SCO is just following the law and giving investors a disclosure of risks.

      In other words nothing to see here. Move along...

  • funding (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mrjive ( 169376 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:38PM (#8036239) Homepage Journal
    I don't know how SCO possibly hopes to sustain another lawsuit, with the IBM one and all the counter-suits against them still pending. They have basically no cash flow (and their SEC filings confirm) that they probably won't see any additional revenue this quarter.

    Looks like another publicity ploy to divert attention from the amended S3 filings they made last week that announced all the risks they "forgot about" in the original filing.

    • Re:funding (Score:5, Informative)

      by igrp ( 732252 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:26PM (#8036808)
      SCO - providing entertainment for first year law students, day after day.

      Funny thing is, a friend of mine actually does use some of the documents SCO filed to point out common, silly mistakes to his class, which in fact consists mostly of first year law students.

      Ah, what would we be doing all day long without Darl the Bride and his litigation clown department..?

  • Lie detector glasses (Score:5, Funny)

    by Delirium Tremens ( 214596 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:38PM (#8036243) Journal
    Now, finally, a good test case for the Lie Detector Glasses for sceptical Slashdot readers!

  • SCO states that... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by canfirman ( 697952 ) <[ac.oohay] [ta] [52ivadp]> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:38PM (#8036246)
    Novell has made false statements with the intent to cause customers and potential customers to not do business with SCO.

    Now, that's the pot calling the kettle "black".

  • Intellectual Property = Document Not Found (Score:5, Funny)

    by kisrael ( 134664 ) * on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:39PM (#8036247) Homepage
    Heh. I followed that "failing product line" link for a lark. Then on the side bar I clicked the "Intellectual Property" link...

    Document Not Found
    To find the document you're looking for, please see our company sitemap

    Figures.

  • BSA? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by onyxruby ( 118189 ) <onyxruby AT comcast DOT net> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:39PM (#8036257)
    How long until the BSA starts conducting raids on businesses without SCO "liceneses"? By the BSA's standards, unlicensed software will get you audited, and they like to bring in their pet cops to do these raids. Novell lawsuit is probably good though as it will help force closure on the great IP landgrab on the century.

    • Re:BSA? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Misch ( 158807 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:47PM (#8036375) Homepage
      Unlikeley, as SCO is not a Business Software Alliance [bsa.org] member

    • Re:BSA? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by minkeyboodle ( 217651 )
      What do the Boy Scouts of America have to do with this? I guess they could roast SCO over an open fire. Or even better, they could tie them up with a bunch of cool knots.

    • Re:BSA? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @06:48PM (#8037736) Journal
      Shit!

      Do not give SCO any idea's. Darl McBride reads /. himself regularly. Seriously.

      If anything would kill Linux raids surely would. Non techie VP's would not care what the outcome of the case is. All they know is the IT director who installed Linux needs to be fired.

      Microsoft is funding SCO and they are a member of teh BSA. They could easily arrange something. It would not supprise me.

  • GPL Issues (this is /., we're all lawyers here :) (Score:4, Interesting)

    by com_64_dejour ( 741320 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:39PM (#8036259)
    The FSF and the kernel hackers could have a field day with SCO right now. This, along with the aborted attempt to sell binary run-time licences that restrict rights in a similar fashion, may be exactly the mistakes the GNU/Linux copyright owners have been waiting for. I'm pretty sure SCO's public statements about the invalidity of the GPL, combined with the GPL's own statements that any disagreement over the terms of GPL-code distribution kicks the whole package back to standard copyright and thus makes SCO's own continued distribution illegal as hell, will make this case a laugher. For all of SCO's claims that the GPL is anti-copyright and unconstitutional, the licence itself makes clear that if the conditions can't be fulfilled or the licence is found to be unenforceable, standard copyright law applies--which means, unfortunately for SCO, the code they're trying to distribute is not automatically public domain, and thus they have no right to distribute any code they can't claim direct ownership for. It just means the authors would have to come up with another way to licence their code, either collectively or individually--and SCO would be in no position to make demands. Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.

  • Get real ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:40PM (#8036262)

    SCO to IBM: "Hold on a sec while I go and steal something from this guy so I can say you stole it from me."

    I bet that will fly.

  • The article calls SCO... (Score:4, Funny)

    by rhetoric ( 735114 ) <rhetoric@co[ ]bus.rr.com ['lum' in gap]> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:40PM (#8036263)
    ..."a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions"

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Funny one PR... funny..

  • SCO will last a long long time. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Saven Marek ( 739395 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:40PM (#8036267)
    I think SCO is in this for a long time, and they won't go away. Judging by 2003 and the last month's efforts, they will stick about and sue anyone and everything vaguely related to them.

    And when their stock finally takes a plummet back under a dollar... they'll sue their investors and anyone who ever traded on them!

    I guess it's a smart move by them to get in first before Novell acted. If Novell had acted in suing SCO for claiming to own Novell's UNIX when they didn't, it would give the worldwide impression that SCO is using IP illegally. As SCO has taken the first step of taking legal action against Novell, it now looks all the more (even if only to the clown troup of DiDio and Deutschebank) like SCO is the one working to protect THEIR ip.

    • Re:SCO will last a long long time. (Score:5, Informative)

      by red floyd ( 220712 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:44PM (#8036318)
      Except that this Friday is Judgement Day #1. If IBM isn't happy with SCO's discovery replies (and based on what I've seen -- see Declaration of Ryan Tibbets -- they won't be), SCO will be in very hot water, because it could be seen as a violation of a court order.

      Disclaimer: IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.

      • Re:SCO will last a long long time. (Score:4, Funny)

        by Lispy ( 136512 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:47PM (#8036372) Homepage
        Hey, but..but...it was Christmas! How could they possibly deliver? ;-)

      • Re:SCO will last a long long time. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Saven Marek ( 739395 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:04PM (#8036617)
        > SCO will be in very hot water, because it could be seen as
        > a violation of a court order.

        But is there anything that can be done to SCO directly when it comes to violating a court order? What's the worst? a fine? the case is kicked out? They'll still keep suing and litigating and making press releases until there's no more money to do so, or they're forced to shut up about their claims by whatever part of the legal system can do so. So far they've played very close to the edge with respect to real legal action, and it's all been "we are going to sue" and "we have a licence ready to sell" and "you will need indemnification", but they haven't done more than that. So far, that's all press release, but it's a very effective way of spreading FUD, and they can keep that up for a long time.

        The cynic in me believes that when January 23 comes around and SCO haven't fully complied with the court order, the judge will nevertheless grant them some leeway, and it'll be another few months until SCO has to again cough anything up. They'll keep up the press releases in the meantime, for sure.
    • they might be around a while. which is why I plan on starting a company called SCOware, which will sell tupperware like containers with penguins embossed in their lids. I will market them as the best containers to hold vapor. Then when SCO comes by to sue me for copyright infringement or anything else, i'll countersue for making the public think I have something to do with SCO the "software company". surely it's libel, defamation of character, or something! I mean, sheesh, if the lawsuit brought upon me by

  • Plain Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fernd1 ( 582087 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:40PM (#8036269)
    Can a company sue another company for being plain stupid? I mean, SCO thought they were getting all of System V because they failed to grasp all of the ramifications of the contract they had with Novell. The only argument that they might have is the claim that Novell tricked them into a contract that they thought was more inclusive. From reading the correspondence, I don't think this is the case. It was just a matter of shear stupidity on SCO's part to agree to a contract under their assumption that it was more inclusive than it is.

  • Overrulling power of Novel (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Delirium Tremens ( 214596 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:40PM (#8036271) Journal
    Now, can't Novell simply ask SCO to stop annoying them, and if they don't stop, just proclaim on behalf of SCO that this one lawsuit is over?

  • rant (Score:5, Funny)

    by H8X55 ( 650339 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {samoht.r.nosaj}> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:41PM (#8036287) Homepage Journal
    Question
    What do you have the best chances of seeing this year?

    A) - The Easter Bunny
    B) - Cupid
    C) - SCO's compelling evidence against Linux.
    D) - Another John Woo movie, including his signature cinematic touches such as; crossed guns, the boot, the villain's outer garment whipping in the wind, and, oh yeah.....those fucking birds !!!

    Answer D - BECAUSE THE REST ARE FUCKING FIGMANTS OF YOUR IMAGINATION.

  • yeah, that's it (Score:5, Funny)

    by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:42PM (#8036300)
    Novell's false and misleading representations that it owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights has caused SCO irreparable harm to its copyrights, its business, and its reputation.

    aaahahhahahahahaha. *breath* aahehehehahahehe

    yeah sure, Novell was the cause of the irreparable harm! ahahahhahahahe!

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:43PM (#8036305)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)

      by e6003 ( 552415 )
      SCO pretty much had to do this. If they didn't, an end user or anyone else they sued could just ask for their case to be postponed whilst SCO and Novell sort out the copyright issue between them. Only, SCO can't win this one because Novell's interpretation of the Asset Purchase Agreement is pretty obviously the correct one. Novell didn't need to sue SCO as the issue of whether the contract gives SCO the copyrights would doubtless be sorted out in the IBM case, but SCO does need to try to get their interp

      • Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rgmoore ( 133276 ) * <glandauer@charter.net> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:15PM (#8036708) Homepage
        SCO pretty much had to do this. If they didn't, an end user or anyone else they sued could just ask for their case to be postponed whilst SCO and Novell sort out the copyright issue between them.

        But filing suit against Novell actually makes the situation worse, rather than better. Before the suit, a Linux user could only point to the possiblility of SCO's ownership being contested as an argument. Now they can point to an actual suit on the issue. There's no way that SCO can possibly sue anyone else until their suit against Novell is concluded.

        The only possible legal benefit I can see for SCO from this is a source of potential delay in their suit against IBM. If they can somehow argue that their suit against IBM should be continued eventually but that the ownership issue with Novell has to be cleared up first, they can get another indefinite delay. Since the IBM suit seems likely to run into trouble otherwise, and delay seems to be the name of SCO's game these days, that seems like the only short-term upside.

    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)

      by Mr. Sketch ( 111112 ) * <mister...sketch@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:53PM (#8036456)
      working on their next frivolous lawsuit

      I believe you mean 'expanding their core business'.

  • Whirlpool business tactics (Score:5, Informative)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:43PM (#8036310) Journal
    Round and round they go... being sucked inexorably to the bottom of the funnel, at which point they die.

    SCO's updated SEC documents found it necessary to state that they can't afford to pay their lawyers in cash, so they're using stock instead. So it makes a lot of sense to take on a new lawsuit... Oh, except they have to, to defend their other lawsuits.... And they don't seem to be noticing anything *wrong* here. Either they or us are missing something.

    Simon

  • Next: IBM lawsuit on hold while this plays out (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HighOrbit ( 631451 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:44PM (#8036330)
    Since this goes to the heart of SCO's claims against IBM and also of Redhat's suit against SCO, I predict that both sides in both lawsuits (SCO vs IBM and Redhat vs SCO) will ask for the respective lawsuits to be suspended (on-hold) until this is resolved. Bottom line: several more years of drawn out FUD with no resolution in sight.

    • Re:Next: IBM lawsuit on hold while this plays out (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:34PM (#8036897)
      Nonsense.

      Redhat's claims have nothing to do with who owns the property rights to UNIX, and IBM's case is nearly at a close, and doesn't really hinge on whether or not SCO owns UNIX - they've gotten this far, they're surely not going to suspend the case until the Novell/SCO case builds up for a matter of months, etc.

      As soon as one case concludes against SCO, SCO is pretty much done for. It doesn't really matter which one, and IBM's is the one that is closest to closure at the moment. Why not let it finish, instead of shutting it down?

  • SCO stock goes up? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SmilingBoy ( 686281 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:45PM (#8036336)
    Interestingly, SCO's share price went up and Novell's down as soon as the press release was released at 3.25PM ET:

    http://ichart.yimg.com/y?s=NOVL&z=b&t=1d&c=SCO X [yimg.com]

    A couple of minutes later, however, prices were back at the level as they were before.

  • Last gasp (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rkhalloran ( 136467 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:45PM (#8036340) Homepage
    SCO is expecting to have their collective ass handed to them Friday in the IBM suit, and need something to keep the stock propped up while they unwind.

    Looking at the correspondence Novell's put up, and given that SCO has acknowledged paying Novell royalties for SysV recently, it's hard to see how they can be serious. We can only hope that the judge here doesn't allow McBride & Co. to drag out the disclosure process as they have in the IBM case.

    SCO delenda est!

  • countersuit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:45PM (#8036342)
    No doubt Novell will file a countersuit. In fact, from Novell's correspondence [groklaw.net] it looks like Novell was preparing to file a suit over non-compliance with the purchase agreement. Maybe SCO saw it coming, and decided it would be better publicity to file first. Not that such a tactic will do SCO any good in the long run.
  • Novell has made false statements with the intent to cause customers and potential customers to not do business with SCO.

    No, Darl. It's all of the false statements that YOU have made that is causing customers and potential customers to not do business with SCO.

  • Proposal to add new word to the english lexicon (Score:5, Funny)

    by Camel Pilot ( 78781 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:46PM (#8036362) Homepage Journal
    The word SCO is in danger of becoming a synonym for sue. Some thing like "Oh yeah, well I am going to SCO your ass off, buddy" Sorta like google became a standardized verb.

  • Business Development? (Score:3, Funny)

    by tonyr60 ( 32153 ) * on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:46PM (#8036365)
    From the Press Release...

    "About SCO
    The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday"

    And of course it must be true, many (but not sure if it is millions) of lawyers grow their business with help from SCO. Not to mention news services and /. bandwidth providers.

  • SCO is (Score:5, Funny)

    by linuxci ( 3530 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:48PM (#8036389)
    The title of the page will display whatever you put in the path name [sco.com]

    • Re:SCO is (Score:5, Funny)

      by Milo Fungus ( 232863 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @06:15PM (#8037388)

      Use "&nbsp;" instead of "/" to get unbroken phrases. This method doesn't seem to be working from inside a Slashdot comment, however. You'll have to copy and paste:

      http://www.sco.com/We&nbsp;smoke&nbsp;crack/

      Be creative and have fun!

  • SCO's next target for lawsuit (Score:5, Funny)

    by Phoenix ( 2762 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:49PM (#8036409)
    Jesus Christ! Is there anyone SCO won't sue? I can just imagine the next ./ article

    SCO's next lawsuit target CmdrTaco's Aunt Tilly for her recipe for Scones since the first three letters in it are SCO. Aunt Tilly gives SCO the finger and states "Come near me and my recipe book and I'll let you have it with a rolling pin you bastards"

    Phoenix

  • Just wanted to remind people.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by herrvinny ( 698679 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:51PM (#8036437)
    At SCO Countdown [scocountdown.com], I have a countdown to SCO's self imposed deadline for suing a Linux end user (I doubt that a Novell lawsuit can be counted as a end user suit), so remember, SCO has to file another lawsuit in 28 days or it misses it's deadline. In addition, after that litigious bastards [sco.com] campaign that was started on /. a few days ago, I acquired that domain [litigiousbastards.com] and threw up a quick page.

    Remember, link link link!

  • A Better Version of the Asset Purchase Agreement (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ami Ganguli ( 921 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:53PM (#8036454) Homepage

    The asset purchase agreement in a much more readable form than the scrambled PDF on SCO's site:at Groklaw [groklaw.net]

    I don't think I've seen attachment E before, but it appears to be a list of documentation, not software. I wonder if SCO thinks that owning the documentation for the ABI gives them ownership of the ABI itself?

  • SCO running on PR fumes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BookRead ( 610258 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:59PM (#8036555)
    Let's see Friday is court day on IBM's case. I smell a pretty bad debacle for SCO there.

    Novell's been doing a pretty good job harrying SCO's flanks to the point where SCO is probably getting nowhere selling "licenses". They HAD to sue Novell to keep the pretense up.

    I've noticed that their PR releases don't list a PR agency anymore. I used to work for a PR firm and usually they'll handle or coordinate media queries. Being done in house now. Hmmmm.... Maybe they can't find a flack who'll touch them.

    My guess is that it's all about the stock price now but... The PR machine is losing steam. Like a junkie they need more drugs/PR to keep going.

    Don't worry about the stock price, that's trailing news. There's so little stock being traded relative to amount outstanding that it doesn't take much to support it and the press releases are getting less effective. It'll crash rather spectacularly when there's a completely adverse opinion in one of the cases.

    Friday will be fun to watch!

  • heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ixitar ( 153040 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:02PM (#8036590) Homepage
    In viewing SCO Group's actions, a quote from Babylon 5 comes to mind.

    In the words of Londo Mollari: "only an idiot fights a war on two fronts; only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

    I think that we have found the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots. I have lost track on how many entities they are really going after and how many they are threatening to go after.

  • What does this have to do with Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:03PM (#8036608)
    said Mark Heise, partner, Boies, Schiller and Flexner, LLP. "We encourage the public and commercial Linux users to read the Asset Purchase Agreement from 1995 (including Attachment E found at www.sco.com/novell) and Amendment 2 so they can see for themselves that SCO owns the copyrights to UNIX and UnixWare."

    What does a copyright violation case between Novell and SCO have to do with Linux? ...Besides the fact that Novell just bought into the Linux sector with it's purchase of SuSE. This debate apparently stems from something well before Novells involvement with Linux.

    Save it for the judge pall, I know we slashdotten have uber legal skills, but thank your lucky stars that it won't be up to us.

    Seriously though, why point out Linux users specifically? Why not just leave it at "public" instead of "public and... "

    SCO and lawyerfriends are now just perpetuating a flame war.

  • Wait a sec... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by metrazol ( 142037 ) <jwm33@cornell.eDEBIANdu minus distro> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:04PM (#8036619)
    Maybe I'm confused, but shouldn't SCO have sued Novell first? If they go to trial with IBM before the Novell suit is worked out, then the Big Blue Bulldozer can ride right over them with the ol' "SCO is tied up in court to prove they own the rights to the code that they say they own, but Novell says differently, and it's still up in the air, so they can't touch us" argument. Therefore, SCO better pray that Novell loses (yeah, that'll happen) quickly (Oh wow I can't stop laughing) before IBM gets in front of a judge to have SCO's claims dismissed while Big Blue can continue with its counterclaims. Put simply, SCO just found out, or realized, that they put the cart in front of the horse...not that they own any such horse, cart, or are even on a road anybody recognizes...

    Everybody who thinks IBM's lawyer's bust out a Big Blue Grin when this came out, raise your hand.

  • Who Settles First? IBM or Novell? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jcaveman ( 729608 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:04PM (#8036620)
    This is all a little strange. It seems to me that the IBM case would have to be set on hold until after the Novell case is settled. I mean how can you finish suing IBM for misuse/misappropration of IP until you've settled who the actual owner of the copyrighted material is? (That of course assumes any of said copyrighted material can be proven to belong to anyone in particular or that it has actually been misappropriated into other software ;-)

  • If only Novell could have pulled the plug.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by inf0mike ( 676125 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:07PM (#8036651) Journal
    .. on SCO before now. From my reading of the asset purchase agreement(s), Novell retained certain rights over SCO, including the right to "undo" certain things that SCO might do to their licensees, e.g. SCO revokes IBM's license, Novell un-revokes it. I find it surprising that they have not been able to just pull the plug on SCO for all of their recent behaviour. It's a shame, but I'm sure that if they could have done, they would have.

  • yeah right (Score:3, Funny)

    by mAIsE ( 548 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:11PM (#8036682) Homepage
    "Novell's false and misleading representations that it owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights has caused SCO irreparable harm to its copyrights, its business, and its reputation. "

    like SCO has a reputation to uphold at this point...

  • The Technical Term Is... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Steve B ( 42864 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:33PM (#8036893)
    Novell has made false statements with the intent to cause customers and potential customers to not do business with SCO.

    projection (pr&-JEK-sh&n): The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

  • From The Law Firm Of Carly Simon (Score:5, Funny)

    by tds67 ( 670584 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:41PM (#8037001)
    You're SCO vain, you probably think System V is about you
    You're so vain, I'll bet you think that OS is about you
    Don't you? Don't You? Don't You?

    SCO had some dreams they were flushed down the toilet, flushed down the toilet, and...

  • Now I KNOW Linus was right (Score:5, Funny)

    by div_2n ( 525075 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:47PM (#8037073)
    If IBM is an 800lb gorilla, and their lawsuit was their weapon, then they essentially are asking the gorilla for a stick to hit them with.

    If Novell is the 400lb cousin of the 800lb gorilla, then SCO just shot it with a BB gun and is expecting it to drop.

    If you locked John Grisham in a room blaring Rage Against the Machine and hooked him up to an IV drip with LSD filled in the bag and gave him some Nicotine gum to chew and no sleep for 10 days, he wouldn't come up with this mess in a million years.

  • What goes around comes around. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @06:31PM (#8037532) Journal
    They've shown themselves to be:
    Copyright violators suing for copyright violation.
    Contract violators suing for breach of contract.
    Royalty stiffs (withheld payments from Novell) sending fraudulent invoices for royalties.
    And now they're slanderers suing for slander. Though technically it's libel.

  • SCO claims Novell is ruining their reputation?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by borgheron ( 172546 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @06:53PM (#8037804) Homepage Journal
    * Novell's false and misleading representations that it owns the UNIX
    and UnixWare copyrights has caused SCO irreparable harm to its
    copyrights, its business, and its reputation.

    I thought they were doing a fine job of ruining it all by themselves.

    GJC

  • SCO sues Novell, but won't disclose its copyrights (Score:5, Informative)

    by Thomas Frayne ( 699207 ) <TomF@sjpc.org> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @07:27PM (#8038128)


    SCO sues Novell, but won't disclose its copyrights in Linux, even though it has to defy a court order.

    In its press releases and letters to its customers, SCO claims that violations of its copyrights are in the Linux kernel. On December 5,SCO's lawyer, Keven McBride, said in court that SCO would be filing copyright claims against IBM. He also objected to the requirement to specify copyrights, but, after the judge insisted, said that SCO would comply. SCO was compelled by court order to answer ALL IBM questions with specificity by January 12. One of those questions was:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify, with specificity (by file and line of code), (a) all source code and other material in Linux (including but not limited to the Linux kernel, any Linux operating system and any Linux distribution) to which plaintiff has rights; and (b) the nature of plaintiff's rights, including but not limited to whether and how the code or other material derives from UNIX.

    On 1/12/04, SCO responded with an affidavit, a 60 page supplemental response, and some documents. Like everyone else, except IBM, I am still waiting to see the 60 page supplemental response, but I have additional information from public statements by SCO.

    On 1/13/04, in the interview "SCO shows IBM the code", SCO spokesman Bruce Stowell said: "Monday's response included no examples of copyright violations. We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue."

    SCO could have made arguments like this before it was ordered to respond to IBM's questions without further discussion. Now it's too late.

    The order said to identify all rights that SCO claimed. It was not limited to rights that SCO was currently claiming as part of its suit against IBM, and, in my opinion, even includes the code contributed by SCO to Linux.

    If, as Stowell said, SCO did not specify any copyrights that it owns in Linux, then either it is not claiming to own any such copyrights, or it has not complied with the court order.

    If SCO now officially declines to claim ownership of any such copyrights, then it is hard to see how they could claim them in any later suit against a Linux user or distributor.

    If SCO does claim ownership of any copyrights in Linux, it has blatantly defied the court order, and the judge can order sanctions. My guess is that part of the sanctions would be to bar SCO from suing anyone on any claims that it failed to specify in its 1/12 response to the compel order. The judge might also order SCO to show cause why it should not be held in contempt, and why it should not suffer sanctions for failing to comply with the order.

    I wonder if SCO will now claim that it does not own any code in Linux, but it owns the copyrights that Novell claims. It would be typical of the way SCO has been making and revising claims.

  • Aust firm tells SCO to detail evidence (Score:4, Informative)

    by Camel Pilot ( 78781 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @09:58PM (#8039433) Homepage Journal
    or else [smh.com.au]

    I really think Linus should file a similar suit. He has been slandered and the proof is in the public domain. If SCO fails to deliver the goods on the 23rd - case closed. If nothing else he could donate the judgement to some worthy cause like groklaw, OSDL or FSF.

Slashdot Top Deals

An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.

Close