Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Hearing Date Set for SCO vs. Novell

Posted by CowboyNeal on Fri May 25, 2007 07:21 AM
from the at-last-it's-time dept.
Government The Courts Caldera Software News Linux
duh P3rf3ss3r writes "According to Groklaw, a hearing into seven summary judgement motions in the SCO vs. Novell case has been set for 31 May at 9 am before Judge Dale Kimball. Groklaw's PJ speculates that David Boies may have to show up for SCO just to keep their case alive."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Hearing Date Set for SCO vs. Novell 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Oh boy (Score:5, Funny)

    by Killjoy_NL (719667) <palli.stc-r@nl> on Friday May 25 2007, @07:24AM (#19267757)
    Enough time to get popcorn and coke then :D

  • Aw man... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Robotech_Master (14247) on Friday May 25 2007, @07:39AM (#19267829) Homepage Journal
    ...that really bites. Where will we get our schadenfreude after the SCO thing has been laughed out of court?
      • Yeah, but a big problem with getting schadenfreude from MS is that they're *very likely to keep making money hand over fist for quite awhile. A big part of the fun of watching SCO implode was seeing them burn through their "investors" cash while sales plummeted and their stock got delisted.

  • This could be dramatic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2007, @07:42AM (#19267847)
    It is possible that Judge K. will rule on Novell's request (from four months ago iirc) that all the money in SCO's possession be put in a trust account. That would bankrupt SCO and SCO's management would be replaced by a bankruptcy trustee. All the court cases would be negotiated by the trustee and this whole mess would come to a screaming halt.

    • Re:This could be dramatic (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CmdrGravy (645153) on Friday May 25 2007, @07:47AM (#19267877) Homepage
      I hope that doesn't happen, I want to see SCO lose in court on everything they have claimed.

      • Re:This could be dramatic (Score:5, Informative)

        by Ash Vince (602485) on Friday May 25 2007, @08:06AM (#19268003) Journal
        I think you mean the SCO v IBM case. This is the one where Novell end up owning SCO (literally).

        My understanding is that all money that Microsoft gave SCO to get involved in a legal battle with IBM was in the form of some sort of Unix license. Novell reckon they are legally entitled to a cut of this money as they sold the Unix licenses to SCO in the first place.

        The problem is that SCO have spent the money fighting IBM and RedHat. If SCO lose the will go belly up as the amounts involved far exceed the worth of the company. If that happens SCO will probably be in administration before the end of the day.

        Please someone correct me if I do not understand this correctly.

        • Re:This could be dramatic (Score:5, Informative)

          by UnknowingFool (672806) on Friday May 25 2007, @09:36AM (#19268915)

          Novell reckon they are legally entitled to a cut of this money as they sold the Unix licenses to SCO in the first place.

          Technically not correct. Novell is arguing that they sold SCO the right to license Unix on their behalf (i.e distributor). As Novell's distributor, SCO must give them 100% of any Unix license revenue which Novell will refund them 5% as part of their licensing agreement.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bytesex (112972)
        SCO losing would make quite a few unknown things an established fact. If MS were smart, they'd buy up SCO for a few pennies in the near future and drop the case; not only would it produce a big 'huh?' from our side; the outcome of any litigation might not be in their favour because it would settle things like ownership of UNIX, whether or not Linux has any code in it that's owned by others, etc. If they were to leave it at this uncertain point, they'd have a lot more ammo in the upcoming FUD-wars. It wou
        • The only problem with your suggestion is the liability of IBM's counterclaims that any buyer of SCO would inherit. As it stands now, IBM will collect next to nothing, as SCO has almost no value, especially after Novell gets the $25 million owed to it by SCO. If Microsoft was foolish enough to buy SCO, the damages could be in the "billions and billions" as Carl Sagan might have said.

    • Re:This could be dramatic, but probably not. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jaywalk (94910) on Friday May 25 2007, @08:44AM (#19268325) Homepage

      It is possible that Judge K. will rule on Novell's request (from four months ago iirc) that all the money in SCO's possession be put in a trust account.
      While it's possible that Kimball will rule from the bench, it has not been his style to do so with anything major. He tends to assemble rulings that cover every point raised in the hearing, including some he claims weren't really worth listening to in the first place. For example, in the IBM case, SCO argued that a ruling had to be reviewed from the starting point ("de novo"). Kimball said SCO was wrong and that a de novo review wasn't required, but that he did one anyway "out of an abundance of caution" and still found against SCO. Best guess is that he's doing it so the outcome of the case is bulletproofed against appeals; probably a good idea because SCO fights every detail tooth and nail, regardless of how hopeless the situation.

      I do expect the hearing to at least generate some humor, especially item 180 [groklaw.net]. This is where SCO tells the court (apparently with a straight face) that "the parties' intent under the APA and Amendments thereto is undisputed in SCO's favor." In English, they are saying there is no way the contract did not transfer copyrights in spite of the fact that the contract explicitly includes the copyrights in the list of things not transferred. I'm really looking forward to hearing their explanation of that one.

      • Re:This could be dramatic (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Opportunist (166417) on Friday May 25 2007, @08:36AM (#19268247)
        You think we'll run out of FUD spreading companies any time soon? We still have MS and the mafiaa, and I doubt they'll vanish any time soon, as much as I'd enjoy it.

        Last week alone was good for a few laughs with MSs list of 235 communists in the IT department ... no wait, that was something else...

  • David Boies? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2007, @07:45AM (#19267859)
    For a second there I thought it said David Bowie. I suppose if he showed up it would help too.

  • Now is the time... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Friday May 25 2007, @07:50AM (#19267901)
    ...to invest heavily into Put-options of SCO. Then again, with them already listing in the penny-stock area, maybe rather invest in the spam companies that send out the pump'n'dump mails...

    • Re:Now is the time... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ptbarnett (159784) on Friday May 25 2007, @08:17AM (#19268059)
      ...to invest heavily into Put-options of SCO.

      No one is writing options on SCOX, and never has.

      The best you could do is short shares of SCOX, but you will have to find a brokerage that has SCOX shares that you can short.

      About 17% of the "floating" shares (i.e. ones that are being traded and aren't held by insiders or institutions) are already shorted. And at average daily trading volumes, the shorted shares represent about 38 days worth of trading.

  • Blink-blink (Score:5, Funny)

    by AndroidCat (229562) on Friday May 25 2007, @07:54AM (#19267927) Homepage
    Judge Dread and David Bowie must appear? Wait, I think the coffee has brewed. (SCO stories are always at least a two-cup problem and I'm down a cup this morning. Fill'er up, premium!)

  • Unhealthy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spungo (729241) on Friday May 25 2007, @08:04AM (#19267979)
    Thank you /. for my (almost) daily '2-minute hate'... although am I the only one who thinks we are in danger of making an Orwellian Emmanuel Goldstein-type character out of McBride? I mean, it's all just business litigation, right?

    • Re:Unhealthy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417) on Friday May 25 2007, @08:34AM (#19268213)
      McBride shares few traits with the Goldstein of 1984.

      Basically he's trying to keep a company afloat on a pice of driftwood, and he is about to lose that plank. It's not that we hate him, hey, I don't even know him. Privately he may even be a quite cool guy, dunno.

      We hate FUD. It's got nothing to do with McBride himself, that could be anyone from the list of FUDders. We hate it when people come out with nebulous, dubious threats the only goal of which is to create an air of wariness towards the technologies they try to antagonize. You can have the same with people claiming WiFi APs are dangerous to their health. If this was 1907 instead of 2007, we'd probably go after the guys claiming that riding by train or car is unhealthy because it's too fast.

      I don't hate McBride. Not even Steve or Bill. I hate people who see their business model crumble and try to keep it up by instilling FUD in their customers, so they stay with them out of fear, not because they have the better product. I hate people who hamper progress and development for their personal gains. I hate people who want to keep their customers shackled by threats rather than offering them the better product.

      I hate people who kill the market economy.

  • Your out of order he's out of order (Score:5, Funny)

    by packetmon (977047) on Friday May 25 2007, @08:39AM (#19268285) Homepage
    SCO Attorney: Your honor, we'd like to rectify the use of our patents but since they are propietary information we cannot disclose them publicly.
    Novell Attorney: Your honor there are no infringements. If SCO could present the infringments they would. Their use of the word "propietary" is solely FUD based manipulations
    Prosecutor Attorney: Did you say Fud?
    Juror Attorney: *whispers to another juror* I didn't even know they infringed on Warner Bros, patented Looney Tune character Elmer Fudd"
    Judge Attorney: *Watching Judge Judy in the background*

  • Msft, scox , and bsf, are winning (Score:5, Insightful)

    by walterbyrd (182728) on Friday May 25 2007, @09:40AM (#19268959)
    IMO: those who think otherwise don't understand the case.

    This scam is now in it's 5th year, and that is the point of the scam. The idea is not win in a final judgement, the point is to keep the scam alive. As long as these cases continue: scox, msft, and bsf, keep winning.

    Before the scam, scox had a market cap under $10, about half what it is now. The mcbride boys, darl and kevin, are each taking in about $250K - $300K a year, which is not bad for small-time Utah scammers. BSF has raked in, at least, $30M. For msft, the cost of this fud doesn't amount to pocket change.

    The scam was yet another smart move by msft. Msft may not be fooling anybody here, but it's the PHBs that matter. The PHBs must believe that Linux is a legal mine-field.

    So gloat all you want, but the bad guys are laughing up their sleeves.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.