Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


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

Judge Slams SCO's Lack of Evidence 317

Posted by Zonk from the look-before-you-leap dept.
An anonymous reader writes "News.com has reported that the federal judge overseeing the SCO Group's suit against IBM has voiced loud skepticism about SCO's case. "Viewed against the backdrop of SCO's plethora of public statements concerning IBM's and others' infringement of SCO's purported copyrights to the Unix software, it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities," said U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball." Commentary available on Groklaw as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Slams SCO's Lack of Evidence More

Judge Slams SCO's Lack of Evidence

Comments Filter:

  • it is about time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 53cur!ty ( 588713 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:39AM (#11628821) Homepage
    more judges should do this and perhaps people would think before they sue

    • Re:it is about time (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Karzz1 ( 306015 )
      ....it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities.

      I think that sums it all up.
      • ....it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities.

        This is pretty much beside the point, but I read that statement carefully, and I'm not sure it actually means anything. How do you "create a disputed fact"? How do you create any fact, for that matter?

        I understand and agree with the point, but the wording is weird. Maybe the judge was misquoted.

        • Re:it is about time (Score:5, Informative)

          by arkanes ( 521690 ) <arkanes.gmail@com> on Thursday February 10, 2005 @11:14AM (#11630966) Homepage
          It's a legal concept. In the introductory stages of the trial, which is where the trial is now, the plaintiff has to show that there is a real disupte over the facts of the case. An undisputed fact is one which both sides accept to be true, and for purposes of the case is assumed to be. A disputed fact is one which is to be decided by the trial. The judge is saying that SCO hasn't presented any information or evidence by which they can make a reasonable claim of copyright infringment.

          • Re:it is about time (Score:4, Insightful)

            by davie ( 191 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @12:48PM (#11632379) Journal

            Assertions can be disputed, facts cannot. The contradictory term "disputed facts" is just more silliness from the folks who gave us that little gem we now hear so often on the evening news: "co-conspirator".

            I wager that within ten years the illiterati of the legal profession will manage to push at least one of the following into common usage: co-teammate, co-spouse or co-associate.

    • You want to change the system? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:48AM (#11628902)
      A little verbal smackdown won't do it. Instead if lawyers start getting disbarred for acts of senseless sophistry, lying and embezzeling. That will force a little forethought into the profession.
      • Who is meant to enforce such a thing? The American Bar Association? Do they even check for "sophistry," or is it just an ordinary (read: corrupt) business like the AMA?

        (great word btw.)

      • Re:You want to change the system? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by OldeTimeGeek ( 725417 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:01AM (#11629841)
        What do the lawyers have to do with this? They are doing what SCO hired them to do. If you RTFA (especilly the Groklaw commentary) the judge was commenting on SCO's comments to the press versus what they have provided in court.

        I don't believe that lawyers are always on the same side as the angels, but they're not the ones to blame this time. SCO is the party that brought suit - if there's smackdown to be done, SCO should be first in line...

        • Re:You want to change the system? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by oconnorcjo ( 242077 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @11:31AM (#11631229) Journal
          I don't believe that lawyers are always on the same side as the angels, but they're not the ones to blame this time. SCO is the party that brought suit - if there's smackdown to be done, SCO should be first in line...

          If a competent lawyer said to thier client that they don't have a case, most clients would say ok- forget the whole thing (and either drop the idea or go to a more sleazy lawyer).

          Lawyers who have sleazy clients are probably sleazy lawyers. Sleazy client says I want to sue billion dollar corporation for a billion dollars and sleazy lawyers says it will cost you xyz an hour pluss a percentage and I will do everything in my power to get what you want.

          I won't say all lawyers are sleazy BUT THIER ARE A LOT OF SLEAZY LAWYERS and if they were not sleazy to begin with, many become so with the mantra of "I am getting paid to do this despite how I feel."

          That comment may work for defense lawyers but not for prosecuting civil lawyers.

          I would say most lawyers have earned thier reputation and only a few subdivisions of lawyers I have any respect for which are:

          criminal defense attorneys
          criminal prosecutors
          Contract Attorneys (handle mostly wills/corporate agreements/house buying and selling).

          Most of the rest are worse than useless.

          When Boise was the lead prosecutor against MS, I thought he seemed like a good prosecutor and I thought highly of him.
          When he took the Al Gore election tally to the Supreme court I thought him to be doing what he moraly thought was right.
          When he decided to accept the SCO case, I lost a lot of respect for him.
          Maybe when Boise's firm decided to take the case, SCO assured Boise and boys that there was something legitimate but as this drama unfolds I have a difficult time of thinking of Boise as anything more than a pimp for hire.

    • Re:it is about time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mwood ( 25379 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @09:22AM (#11629207)
      Unfortunately that whooshing sound you hear is SCO jumping on this statement as evidence of bias so they can get the case moved or restarted or somehow stave off their inevitable failure a bit longer.

      Much though I agree with the judge's sentiment, I wish he had saved it for his memoirs.
      • You know, judges, when making legal rulings, are _supposed_ to have bias on the side that is right. :)

      • Re:it is about time (Score:5, Interesting)

        by utlemming ( 654269 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @09:49AM (#11629647) Homepage
        Sure they can try. But that would be an in the form of an appeal to the Federal Appeals Court. Which, btw, is not an easy task. You kinda of get an idea of Judge Kimball's attitudes when you read his legal briefs. And from the way he writes and thinks, he is a pretty tough judge. I would be intriqued to find out how many of his cases have been reversed on the appeals level. Also, when their is so much evidence to support the censor, I wouldn't worry. If there was a whole bunch of evidence, then unfair bias could be alleged, but not when SCO keeps saying there is a mountain when there isn't. Besides, this could actually be seen as an attempt to over SCO the chance to recover their case. By "warning" SCO to come up with something substantial on which the basis of their claims lie, the Court is allowing SCO the chance to actually get it "day in court." If SCO had been playing fair the entire time, SCO provided sufficient evidence and the evidence supported the claims, then I could see the case being moved or getting started up in another venue. But you have to remember, Utah is home to SCO. So finding a better home might be a little difficult.

        • Re:it is about time (Score:5, Interesting)

          by plover ( 150551 ) * on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:10AM (#11629942) Homepage Journal
          I have been wondering why Kimball hasn't granted summary judgement against SCO months ago. I think your comments give a good insight as to why he hasn't. If SCO is given every chance to present evidence and fails, there's not an appellate court in the federal system that would touch this one. He's giving them all the rope they need to hang themselves good and dead, and they're taking every inch.

          By allowing this case to proceed to a final conclusion he's making sure it will be SCO's final resting place; the coffin will be nailed, screwed, glued and welded shut. IBM's countersuit for expenses will be swift and merciless.

  • What? (Score:5, Funny)

    by WorldEnder ( 857782 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:40AM (#11628826)
    What is this word "evidence" you speak of?

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:40AM (#11628834)
      I'm not sure, but I hear you can licence it from SCO for $699...

      • Re:What? (Score:2, Informative)

        by Eradicator2k3 ( 670371 )
        $1399 after 13 October 2003.

        • Re:What? (Score:3, Funny)

          by tomhudson ( 43916 )
          Or they'll try to slip one in for free if you buy anything else from them ...

          • Re:What? (Score:3, Funny)

            by sepluv ( 641107 )
            So, basically, as they don't sell any other (e.g.: real) products, they now have a 2 for 1 offer...but they're double the price. Oohhh...I've got to buy one now.

            • Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)

              by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara@hudson.barbara-hudson@com> on Thursday February 10, 2005 @09:49AM (#11629653) Journal
              Actually, they did slip a free license to Computer Associates, who protested when they found out they were listed as one of SCO's linux licensees. [osdir.com]
              InfoWorld: "Computer Associates Inc. on Thursday blasted The SCO Group Inc. for harassing Linux users and misrepresenting the terms of a software licensing arrangement between the two companies that protected CA from a potential SCO lawsuit.

              SCO Chief Financial Officer Bob Bench on Wednesday confirmed that CA was one of four publicly named companies to sign up for SCO's Intellectual Property (IP) License for Linux -- a $699 license that SCO says that Linux users must purchase in order to avoid violating SCO's copyrights.

              On Thursday, however, a CA executive said that his company had purchased no such license, but had instead acquired a large number of licenses for SCO's UnixWare operating system as part of a $40 million breach of contract lawsuit settlement in August 2003 with SCO investor The Canopy Group Inc.

              Around the time of the settlement, SCO announced that it had signed up the first customer for its Linux license. Though SCO did not reveal the identity of this customer industry speculation centered around it being CA."
    • creative commons license [slashdot.org] written by yours truly. (see last verse)

    • Obligatory "Princess Bride" Quote (Score:5, Funny)

      by MooseByte ( 751829 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @09:20AM (#11629178)

      "What is this word "evidence" you speak of?"

      Judge (in the voice of Inigo Montoya): "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

  • Well, I wish Judge Jackson the best of health, of course. But this judge is making the same mistake that Jackson did in the Microsoft trial.

    Do not blast the litigants until the trial is over.

    This one instance of him opening his big mouth will forever haunt him if he is ever in the position to assume a higher judicial office (which he won't be in now).
    • My thoughts exactly. This is the stuff that retrials are made of.

      And all the while, we'll have to listen to all these ridiculous claims.

    • Judges _can_ judge (Score:5, Insightful)

      by redelm ( 54142 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:47AM (#11628895) Homepage
      Judges MUST start out a case totally unbiased.

      But they don't need to end up that way. In many cases, they should end up pretty negative towards one party. That's the basis for judgement.

      All dislike is not prejudice. Some is well founded.

      • Re:Judges _can_ judge (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Speare ( 84249 )

        Judges MUST start out a case totally unbiased. But they don't need to end up that way. In many cases, they should end up pretty negative towards one party. That's the basis for judgement.

        That's not correct thinking. A case is about a disputed issue, not about the parties involved in the dispute. The Judge should rightfully decide the issue, but remain unbiased about the parties themselves. Good companies do bad things, and bad people are not invariably in the wrong.

        The reason a Judge in the USA leg

        • Re:Judges _can_ judge (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Eivind ( 15695 )
          But there's a difference between stating reasons for your decisions in actual official court-documents and blathering off to reporters.

          The judge can very well be unbiased about SCO and still state -- about the issue at hand -- that SCO has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever.

      • Re:Judges _can_ judge (Score:3, Informative)

        by sootman ( 158191 )
        "Judges MUST start out a case totally unbiased. But they don't need to end up that way. In many cases, they should end up pretty negative towards one party. That's the basis for judgement. All dislike is not prejudice. Some is well founded."

        Exactly. For those who still doubt, the word "prejudice" comes from (wait for it...) "pre" and "judge". If you make a JUDGEment before hearing the facts (PRE-fact, you might say), that's "prejudice [answers.com]." Get it?

        (And when did Google start using answers.com? I like dictionar

    • Re:Judge Jackson, back from the grave (Score:5, Informative)

      by cyxs ( 242710 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:49AM (#11628910)
      The Judge is not doing what Jackson did. He is not talking to the media, he is writing this in his order. Where as Judge Jackson was having meetings with media people. So this is completely different.
    • Sounds like a 'next time it will be you head' warning to SCO to actually produce some evidence to back up it's claims, and also give IBM something to clean out SCO with after the trial.

    • Re:Judge Jackson, back from the grave (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ValentineMSmith ( 670074 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:55AM (#11628950)
      ...But this judge is making the same mistake that Jackson did in the Microsoft trial.

      Do not blast the litigants until the trial is over.

      This isn't quite the same thing. The thing that Judge Jackson got in trouble for was "blasting" Microsoft in an interview outside the courtroom. He was provoked, but the things he said in that interview crossed the line. Judge Kimball is simply doing his job at this point: he's ruling on motions and actually doing SCO a favor by saying that, if they don't produce more evidence, they'll soon be finished. While this was a "blasting" of SCO, the blasting was done where it should be done: not behind the litigant's back where they couldn't reply. It was done in a ruling based on the evidence presented.

      I suppose you could say that it is showing bias, but it's bias towards the truth.

    • But this judge is making the same mistake that Jackson did in the Microsoft trial.

      The problem was that Judge Jackson made his comments to a reporter in an interview outside his duties as a judge.

      Judge Kimball is making his comments as part of his rationale of why he is denying SCO's motion. This is more of an objective observation than subjective comment.

    • but this comment is part of the trial, not outside of the trial.

      It is his duty to do this, as far as I can tell.

    • Well, I wish Judge Jackson the best of health, of course. But this judge is making the same mistake that Jackson did in the Microsoft trial. Do not blast the litigants until the trial is over.

      This is completely different from Jackson the Jackass. It is a court opinion delivered from the bench after the judge has analysed the evidence. Jackson was giving private interviews to a journalist. He tried to appoint Larry Lessig as a special master a second time after the appeals court had told him not to. Given

  • SCOX pre-trading down (Score:5, Informative)

    by rylin ( 688457 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:42AM (#11628856)
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=SCOX [yahoo.com]
    pre-trading says it's down 5%

  • Still no reaction... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Vo0k ( 760020 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:42AM (#11628858) Journal
    Let's wait till tomorrow... [yahoo.com] seems the stockmarket hasn't caught up yet :)

  • wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:43AM (#11628862)
    I'm almost beginning to think that SCO is making this whole thing up.

  • Loser should pay (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:45AM (#11628880)
    Until the U.S. adopts a "loser pays" court system similar to the UK, these types of exploratory frivolous lawsuits will continue.

    Imagine if on the other hand SCO had to pay for IBMs entire legal defense to their frivolous lawsuit after they lost. This lawsuit never would have seen the light of day.

    • Re:Loser should pay (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:54AM (#11628941)
      If "the U.S. adopts a 'loser pays' court system similar to the UK" small parties can be bullied into submission even easier : [company to the suing private person] "I've got more money than you, and you will be paying my expenses too, so who do you think will win, and who will be left with a debth he will not be able to pay of for the rest of his life ?"

      Actually, both systems have their ups and downs :-)

      • Re:Loser should pay (Score:5, Informative)

        by farnz ( 625056 ) <slashdot@@@farnz...org...uk> on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:13AM (#11629983) Homepage Journal
        You've never looked at the UK system, as it doesn't work like that at all.

        Firstly, the judge can refuse to award costs, or can award them such that the winner pays all; if a big company tries a trick like you're suggesting, a judge will probably use this flexibility. Note that under a loser pays system, the judge has to explain why they didn't award costs, or awarded them in a "winner pays" fashion.

        Secondly, if you've got a strong case, you can get a good lawyer to work for you for minimal expense; typically, they demand an up-front payment of £500-£1000 (maybe as much as $2500) to touch the case, but then works in the hope of winning the case and getting a big costs award (courts normally award your standard fee schedule, plus credit-card rate interest).

        The result is that anyone faced with a case they are likely to lose is going to settle. Where it's genuinely unclear, the courts revert to pay your own costs, and where you have an abusive but technically victorious litigant, they still pay everyone's costs.

    • Re:Loser should pay (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ForestGrump ( 644805 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:55AM (#11628951) Homepage Journal
      In a loser pay system, wouldn't it be possible for SCO to spend all they have, lose the case and simply close shop?

      They're dead anyway. Might as well go out with a bang so they will be remembered in Econ text books on what a last ditch effort for funding should be.

      Grump
      • "In a loser pay system, wouldn't it be possible for SCO to spend all they have, lose the case and simply close shop?"

        That would be considered a win for the defendant in this case, I think. IBM doesn't need the money; they need to display SCO's head on a pike as a warning to others.

    • "Loser pays" would not deter SCO (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dcavanaugh ( 248349 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @09:01AM (#11628997) Homepage
      Considering main benefits of the lawsuit from a SCO point of view:
      • Cash from MSFT & SUNW
      • Postpone bankruptcy
      • Pump the stock so as to create an escape path for investors
      • Hopes and dreams of a buyout

      In this case, losing the lawsuit will bankrupt the company, no matter who pays the cost. If you accept bankruptcy as inevitable, and you get all of these benefits with a frivolous lawsuit, where is the deterrent? Unless the SCO gets the royal smackdown from the SEC and a whopper shareholder lawsuit, Darl and his buddies will parachute to safety.

      • Re:"Loser pays" would not deter SCO (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bradkittenbrink ( 608877 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:43AM (#11630426) Homepage Journal
        While I agree SCO needs to be "smacked down", I don't think that will solve the problem of frivolous lawsuits. SCO's lawyers need to be disbarred. They're the real criminals here. They've known for some time that they had no evidence, yet they continue to drag things out. I don't know what the requirements on getting someone disbarred are, but this should be one of them. Making an example of these lawyers is the real way to prevent it from happening again. Failing companies will always want to roll the dice with lawsuits like this, it's their lawyers' responsibility to tell them they have no case.

    • Re:Loser should pay (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @09:12AM (#11629093) Homepage
      The US legal system does have recourse for someone who is wrongfully dragged into a lawsuit and wins. There are several related torts; malicious prosecution and abuse of process are two of the major ones.

      Depending on state law, you can sue the original plaintiff and attorney if there was no reasonable basis for the original claims, and be awarded your costs for both actions. It is not automatic, and therefore encourages reasonable actions rather than conservative actions. A bigger part of the problem is the gullibility and emotion of juries.

      Even if the malicious plaintiff goes bankrupt, their attorney(s) may be on the hook for your costs -- the attorney is supposed to know all the facts that support the plaintiff's case, and provide proper counsel as to the likelihood the plaintiff would have prevailed.

    • Re:Loser should pay (Score:3, Interesting)

      by plague3106 ( 71849 )
      Wrong. It will punish those who may actually have a ligit case, but could not win because of a technicality or some other reason. If the suit is found frivolous, there's nothing right now to stop IBM from suing SCO to recover legal fees. Lawyers don't typicially take a case they are pretty sure they will lose.

      Not all cases lost are frivolous, and that's the major flaw in your arguement. (Lets also remember that this would apply to the state as well...so it might chill cases against criminals.)
    • Until the U.S. adopts a "loser pays" court system similar to the UK, these types of exploratory frivolous lawsuits will continue.

      Imagine if on the other hand SCO had to pay for IBMs entire legal defense to their frivolous lawsuit after they lost. This lawsuit never would have seen the light of day.

      I'm not sure. SCO has spent many millions (I forget the actual value) in legal expenses.

      However, there is nothing stopping IBM from suing SCO for a frivolous lawsuit.

    • Re:Loser should pay (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sootman ( 158191 )
      How does the UK system keep me from going broke when $GIANT_CORP sues me for no reason and I lose because, despite being right, I can't afford to mount a good defense against their team of lawyers? I get to pay for their lawyers in addition to my own fees, even though I did nothing wrong?* I think it should be more like "if you sue someone _and lose_, then you pay" kind of thing, with some kind of limit for david-and-goliath cases.

      * don't know how it is in the UK, but here, being right does not guarantee a

      • Re:Loser should pay (Score:3, Informative)

        by radish ( 98371 )
        The judge can award costs to whoever he wants. The usual case is loser pays, but in some cases he will award no costs, in some cases (e.g. where $BIG_CORP wins, but is being an obvious bully) he will force the winner to pay all.

        How it pans out is that in the UK we have _far_ fewer of these insane cases (including medical liability, accident liability etc cases) and lawyers are not as rich. Seems to work out OK.

  • I'd love to hear the judge say (Score:5, Funny)

    by EvilNutSack ( 700432 ) <juhapearsonNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:48AM (#11628906)
    "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"
    • I'd love to hear the judge say "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"

      I wouldn't. Much as I hate SCO, I would rather the judge not be (or even appear to be) biased against them, as this would mean restarting the lawsuit from scratch.

  • How will SCO spin this? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by veldstra ( 107520 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:50AM (#11628916)
    One can only wonder what kind of good news SCO can/will make out of this... So far they've been very able to turn bad news into good news with lame excuses.

  • Prep remarks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by redelm ( 54142 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:51AM (#11628928) Homepage
    I see these remarks as preparatory to a final demand for precise complaint and evidence (lines of code) under threat of summary judgement.

    I think a judge has to make these sorts of remarks to withstand appeal of summary judgement. First IBM asked, and received naught. Now the Court is asking. If it receives not, then summary judgement or dismissal with prejudice becomes warrented. IANAL

    • Re:Prep remarks (Score:5, Informative)

      by ari_j ( 90255 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @09:26AM (#11629276)
      YANAL, but YACS (you are correct, sir). In order for a question to get to the jury, there must be a disputed, material fact. If your complaint (as in the motion starting the lawsuit) states no claim, it can be dismissed right off, but it's safe to say that SCO has crafted a valid complaint. So now the danger to SCO is summary judgment, which is a process where one side (here, defendant IBM) makes a motion for summary judgment and the court decides whether to grant it.

      Summary judgment works like this: on the basis of all the pleadings and evidence the court has so far, is there a dispute to a material fact? If not, then the undisputed material facts will form the basis for the court's ruling as a matter of law, sans jury. SCO has to create a dispute as to a material fact, and then it can get to the jury.

      It sounds to me like the judge is getting impatient with SCO.

  • From TFA... (Score:2, Funny)

    by md81544 ( 619625 )
    "...when you're talking about the danger of having summary judgment or even partial summary judgment granted against you, it's pretty difficult to think of a reason [SCO] would withhold all of [their] evidence," Levy said."
    ...er, perhaps because they haven't got any??? :-)

  • I think IBM appeals the discovery now (Score:4, Interesting)

    by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:54AM (#11628944)
    I think IBM can make a good case for a appeal on discovery to the 10th Circuit based on this ruling. They can even use the judgement to strengthen the case against this fishing expedition.
    • Why would IBM need to appeal? Basically
      all the judge said is "Your reqest for complete victory before trial is premature, but if SCO doesnt show something more and soon you might get it"
      • IBM would appeal the discovery order, as he said. That's the order that requires IBM to come up with every change ever made to AIX code during development.
        • If I'm not mistaken they don't even have to appeal the discovery order to the 10th circuit-- just to Judge Kimball. The way I understood it the discovery order against IBM was issued by Judge Wells, the magistrate (amusingly, with a justification of "to appease the rote objection by SCO"). IBM has the ability to appeal this order to Judge Kimball, the judge, and probably will at least for the purposes of receiving clarification (the order was a little vague). I believe they have not done this yet.

  • I liked this one... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @08:56AM (#11628962)
    [...] "There's very little that can be more disastrous to your case than an angry federal judge."[...]

    It seems the judge is very angry with SCO at this point but is also trying to remain impartial. It is suprising that in recent days, SCO stock has seen a rally. Why is this?

    • Angry or not, the Judge refused to make an early ruling. This means SCO still has a chance. Slashdot just chose to word the story in the most negative light possible for SCO; the headline on my news ticker says "Judge Rejects IBM Request for Early Ruling in SCO Case".

      The short interest (number of borrowed shares being sold in the expectation of buying back at a lower price) is now almost half the total float now, so I'd say Slashdotters aren't the only ones that doubt the merits of SCO's case.

    • Manipulation (Score:4, Informative)

      by rkhalloran ( 136467 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:40AM (#11630381) Homepage
      This stock is very narrowly held, for the most part by funds playing the "lawsuit lottery". If you track the trades, they're "laddering" small-lot trades among themselves to make it look like somebody's actually interested in this pile of steaming sewage. There's been a consistent work-up early in the trading day, followed by a slideoff and then flatline in the afternoon.

      It fell to $4.00 in pre-open trading, then promptly jumped up to around 4.60 at the opening bell, expect a close around 4.25 today. It's been consistently following this pattern the last coupla weeks.
  • The judge isn't in danger of doing a MS - his summary statement was well within predefined limits of case judgements. He is a judge, and this is the tail end of the hearings.

    I just cannot wait for SCO victory news post about this:

    "We can confirm that out lack of evidence and badly planned strategy has given our investors even more oppourtunity to spend thier cash, buy buy buy!"

    SCOX? They SuckCOX!!!
  • After this is over, and if IBM wins, will it sue SCO for wasting its time and money? (I'm sure there is some more important sounding legal term for suing someone for wasting my time and money in court)

    • Re:IBM counter sue (Score:2, Insightful)

      by iainl ( 136759 )
      If IBM wins, there won't be much of a SCO to counter-sue, frankly.
    • Er, they already have and thats one of the claims the judge said 'not now, maybe later' to in this judgement! CC10 is Counterclaim 10.

      IBM have also been sending out subpeonas to lots of folk latley giving rise to speculaiton that they are going to go after Canopy as well as SCO during the 'peirce the corporate veil' burn the villages and salt the earth stage after SCO lose this bit.

    • Re:IBM counter sue (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )
      It is pretty standard for both complaints and cross-complaints to include a prayer to award costs. SCO's complaint and IBM's response both did that. Even if IBM had no cross-claims, after winning on the merits of the current suit, they could use a malicious prosecution suit to recover their costs.

  • This has been dragged out too long (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OwlWhacker ( 758974 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @09:00AM (#11628989) Journal
    I'm surprised that SCO has been allowed to get this far without any evidence.

    Anybody could claim similar things about any company, negatively affecting that company for months on end. If the claims are finally dismissed as false, damage has still been done to the defending company.

    Is this justice?
  • This question has probably been asked before, but: Why is SCO doing all this? If they know they can't win (and let's assume that that's the case for a moment), what can they gain with these lawsuits? I simply don't get it.

    • Re:What's in this all for SCO? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think that this whole SCO case is just FUD backed by Microsoft. I don't have references at hand, but I think it has been shown before that M$ has given financial help to SCO. It is just an attempt to get PHB's to not buy Linux versions since they might get sued by SCO. Even if SCO looses in court, the idea that buying open source products might lead to law suits will still be in the public's mind.

    • Re:What's in this all for SCO? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TrueJim ( 107565 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @09:22AM (#11629205) Homepage
      I don't know why they're doing this, but I've tended to agree with others and wonder if:

      (a) SCO started this because they thought they could get IBM to buy them, making all of the SCO executives rich, but then

      (b) when IBM clearly signalled it wasn't going to fall for that old trick, SCO had to keep making a strong public appearance of a credible case in order to avoid getting sued -- or worse, SCO executives jailed by the SEC for some form of stock fraud. I.e., if they lose to IBM in a fair trial the executives can claim they honestly thought they had a case. If they simply give up and admit they never had a case, then what kind of legal attacks from shareholders or the SEC might they they open themselves up to? At this point, mayby Darl is just trying to avoid personal liability and an assault on his own personal assets.
    • IMO, SCO was convinced to start these lawsuits by some other entities. It wouldn't surprise me if said entities even produced SCO's original "evidence" that they were showing off at their trade show.

      SCO would have been an easy target for manipulation, since they were still pissed about the whole Monteray project falling apart.

      The motive: Looking back 15+ years to the, AT&T v. Berkeley case, which ultimately had the effect of slowing (almost killing) the adoption of *BSD and helping SysV. The entities
    • SCO stockholders (like Darl) win by propping up the stock prices so they can make money from speculators - there is a very large upside if SCO were to "win the lottery" and get a judgement against IBM.

      But the real winners - no matter what the outcome of the case - are Microsoft and SUN, who stand to gain whenever they can spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about Linux.

      Microsoft surely didn't expect SCO to win. But MS supported the lawsuit with money anyway, since it hurts Linux in the business world.
  • This is SCO! Long time, no talk! I'm afraid we don't have much of a case. Well, I'll call you again when we're in bankruptcy court.

    *hangs up*

  • I'd say it except . . . . (Score:4, Insightful)

    by theparanoidcynic ( 705438 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @09:08AM (#11629052)
    The SCO case has been "doomed" and "just about done" for like a year now. How long does it take to bury a frivolous case in the federal courts anyway?

  • For a bunch of slashdot nerds.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by big-giant-head ( 148077 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @09:09AM (#11629068)
    Our assesment of SCO's case is amazingly similar to the Judges. Maybe we're not such a bunch of losers after all.

    Besides we know that M$ is bankrolling all of this, so it was never about making money.

  • Get the champaign out (Score:5, Insightful)

    by greppling ( 601175 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @09:11AM (#11629087)
    I think the paragraph just after the one quoted in the /. summary is even better:

    ...despite the vast disparity between SCO's public accusations and its actual evidence -- or complete lack thereof -- and the resulting temptation to grant IBM's motion, the court has determined that it would be premature to grant summary judgment [in favour of IBM].

    I am not even a paralegal, but these seem pretty strong words to make by a judge before he has decided a motion. Sounds like starting to count down the K.O.

    • ...despite the vast disparity between SCO's public accusations and its actual evidence -- or complete lack thereof -- and the resulting temptation to grant IBM's motion, the court has determined that it would be premature to grant summary judgment [in favour of IBM].

      Even more interesting is what this says about Darl's repeated assertions that there's compelling evidence before the court that the public just can't see. He and other SCOX execs have repeatedly told the press that their case only looks bad

  • Why is David Boies famous? (Score:5, Informative)

    by mithras the prophet ( 579978 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @09:23AM (#11629231) Homepage Journal
    I'm sure Boies is in fact a very competent and well-accomplished lawyer. But these are the famous cases I know he's been involved in:
    • for IBM, defending against the US Govt: lost
    • for the US Govt, against Microsoft: lost
    • for Al Gore, against George Bush: lost
    • for SCO, against IBM: on the way to losing
    So it seems like he's lost both for and against IBM, and for and against the Government. That's pretty good!

    • Re:Why is David Boies famous? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Largely true, except for #2 - he won the US Govt vs Microsoft case. The case was then taken over by different lawyers (with the incoming Bush administration), and the new lawyers lost some of the appeals, although the core of the case was upheld.

      I don't know about #1. What case are you refering to? The original anti-trust case against IBM was dropped by the Reagan administration, so I"m guessing that's not the one you're talking about.

    • ehh? (Score:5, Informative)

      by RelliK ( 4466 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @12:15PM (#11631887)
      for IBM, defending against the US Govt: lost

      He successfully dragged out the case for decades until it became irrelevant and DoJ gave up.

      for the US Govt, against Microsoft: lost

      He won the case. He was not involved in the appeal, which was still won, despite Bush administration's best efforts. But that didn't stop DoJ from settling with MS on really ridiculous terms.

      for Al Gore, against George Bush: lost

      Yeah, he lost when 5 republican-appointed supreme court judges outnumbered 4 democrat-appointed judges. What exactly can a lawyer do about that?

      for SCO, against IBM: on the way to losing

      You're kidding, right? He (or his associates) have managed to drag the case out for two years without a shred of evidence. Think about it, he is handling a case in which there is no chance of winning on merits, even the judge is saying that SCO has no evidence, and yet the case drags on. To SCO delay = win, so in that sense, he is winning.

      Make no mistake, SCO has some of the best lawyers.

      • Re:ehh? (Score:3, Informative)

        by angle_slam ( 623817 )
        Yeah, he lost when 5 republican-appointed supreme court judges outnumbered 4 democrat-appointed judges. What exactly can a lawyer do about that?

        Actually, 7 of the current justices were appointed by Republicans. Souter and Stevens are usually considered among the "liberals" on the bench, but both were appointed by Republicans (Stevens by Pres. Ford and Souter by Pres. Bush I).

  • David Boies (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hrieke ( 126185 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @09:50AM (#11629654) Homepage
    won.

    $50 million in the bank (from SCO) and they don't even have to go to court to defend what they had to have known as being undefendable. Lovely.

  • SCO's bluff is called (Score:5, Insightful)

    by saddino ( 183491 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @09:57AM (#11629788)
    I have always believed that SCO was well aware that the merits of their case, in terms or real evidence (not just a handful of "similar" header files), was not sufficient to win in court.

    Darl McBride and his minions decided to go for the gambling "long-shot" that so many litigants see as an ample victory: getting the defendant to, in a cost-benefit analysis, decide its better to settle out of court.

    In SCO's case, their gamble had a nice silver lining: not only could IBM decide to settle, but in doing so (or if others believed they would do so), SCO could then easily extract miliions upon millions in licensing fees from Linux installations during and perhaps after the suit. Clearly, they tried to do this and from the numbers, failed miserably.

    So, SCO put all it's money on black to get in the black, and their number is increasingly looking red which of course will put them in the red, and effectively out of business.

    That's what happens when you gamble without a whit of common sense.

  • The real story here... (Score:4, Informative)

    by frieked ( 187664 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:01AM (#11629833) Homepage Journal
    ...is that there is still going to be a case. The judges statement was in response to IBM's request for a summary judgement which would have put an end to all this. The simple fact that the judge denied IBM's request means that this case is far from over.

    TheRegister gives a more newsworthy story here:
    http://www.theregister.com/2005/02/10/sco_d odges_b ullte/

  • Action without cause? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by C_Kode ( 102755 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @10:21AM (#11630103) Journal
    Kimball also took issue with SCO's varying position on exactly how it believes IBM violated SCO's copyrights. Initially, the company said it would argue that IBM infringed SCO copyrights by moving Unix code to Linux. But when SCO filed its main claim, it argued merely that IBM infringed only by continuing to ship a version of Unix, called AIX, after SCO said it had revoked IBM's license to do so.

    They claim one thing, revoke the license then take them to court saying they are selling without a license and discarded the claim that the license was revoked for? You cannot revoke a license without cause then sue because they are still selling that license.

  • Next up: sue the legal system (Score:3, Interesting)

    by panurge ( 573432 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @11:24AM (#11631124)
    There's only one way for SCO to go. SCO has to sue the United States government for allowing the creation of a corrupt judicial system that doesn't immediately recognise the validity of their case, denying their access to justice.

    Unfortunately the US doesn't recognise the ICC, let alone an international civil court. But there is a simple answer! They can sue in the courts of the sort of country that really appreciates the kind of thing that SCO and co. bring to the table, and has the kind of lawyers and officials that really understand the problems of people like McBride. North Korea, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Iran - I'm sure they'd love to host SCO vs United States of America.

  • after all is said and done (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Thursday February 10, 2005 @11:47AM (#11631438) Journal
    I would like to see IBM (and other companies) sue SCO for slander & liabel acts as well as for some kind of compensation for the law suits.

    I can understand if SCO had a valid claim - but there should be something in place for frivolous lawsuits...many companies spent a lot of money defending themselves in court and in the media due to SCO.

    Now just to clarify - i am not saying, that in every case - if a plaintiff loses they should have to compensate for the legal fees...but if a judge determines that a case was frivolous, then the plaintiff should have to pay. People will think twice before suing...they might actually ask "is my case valid?"

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close