Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
The Courts Government Software News Linux

Judge To SCO — Quit Whining 156

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This discussion has been archived.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

Judge To SCO — Quit Whining

Comments Filter:
  • What net for SCO? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mudetroit ( 855132 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:06PM (#17051090) Journal
    The chief qestion here as the litigation begins to play ut is when do the investors in SCO begin ulling out of what appears ever more strongly to be a losing battle? Or do they continue to just throw good money after bad and accept the loss on what maybe no better then a lottery's chance of winning anything?
  • by Software ( 179033 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:19PM (#17051296) Homepage Journal
    Now that Novell is all kissy-kissy with Microsoft, having Novell go first in the lawsuit vs. SCO might not be so good. As we all know, Microsoft basically funded SCO's Unix IP fishing expedition with a $50 million "licensing" deal. I'd much rather have IBM be the one to grind SCO to a pulp. Hopefully, Novell will not pull any punches, and IBM can continue the beating after Novell's had their fill.
  • by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:27PM (#17051404)
    IBM wants this to go to trial. They've had many opportunities to make this case go away, and they haven't even tried. They don't want SCO to surrender, they want to crush SCO.
  • by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:40PM (#17051620)
    And the Downward Spiral begins; SCO stock down 10%; rated 'HOLD - Dangerous Risk/Reward Rating.'

    Your goose is downright cooked, SCO.

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

    SCOX has lost 25 cents at the time of writing. Unless it plummets today or tomorrow, I think unfortunately it's going to be around for a while. It's still trading at over $2 a share.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:48PM (#17051766)
    well, PJ and the Groklaw camp did take a lot of shit from SCO and crew while this was going on. some of it was down right insulting. i even saw some astroturfing here on /. to try to discredit Groklaw's knowledge and expertise on law and technology. what it all amounted to, essentially, was a bunch of ad hominem attacks and personal insults. i'd say, if anything, that Groklaw is being restrained in it's gloating.

    no, i'm not going to post a link; you can do the searching yourself. in fact, i'll post this anonymously, just so people can't say i'm karma whoring.
  • by ZachPruckowski ( 918562 ) <> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @02:29PM (#17052524)
    a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.

    I once tried to explain the SCO case to someone. They thought I was BSing them. The case is simply so screwed up from pretty much any rational (and non-scamming) perspective that even if Slashdot were neutral, it should stand up and say, "HEY! This is messed up". Sometimes I worry we get so caught up in NPOV and neutrality that we forget that there is objective truth, and the objective truth is that SCO is making dozens of claims it can't back up, to the judge's annoyance.
  • by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@yahF ... m minus language> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:23PM (#17053626)
    I read the article and I didn't see "quit whining" anywhere.

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

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

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

    What is neutral about this? SCO just got their butts whipped by the court, again, as they should have. News itself is rarely objective, and Slashdot has never pretended to be an objective news source. This isn't about providing balanced reporting on the SCO case. This is about SCO being in the wrong, and the court - for the second time - bitch-slapping them for being in the wrong and for knowing they were in the wrong and wasting everybody's time and energy on this case.
  • by mysticgoat ( 582871 ) * on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:52PM (#17054222) Homepage Journal

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

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

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

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


  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30, 2006 @04:10PM (#17054636)
    The chief qestion here as the litigation begins to play ut is when do the investors in SCO begin ulling out of what appears ever more strongly to be a losing battle? Or do they continue to just throw good money after bad and accept the loss on what maybe no better then a lottery's chance of winning anything?

    This lawsuit is nothing more than a proxy pr campaign on behalf of Microsoft [] against Linux. For the bargain price of 16.6 million and another $50 million investment that Microsoft help arrange [], Microsoft has allowed SCO to be a PR thorn in Linux's side for several years now.

    The investors have gotten exactly what they wanted in the first place, not by winning, not by securing SCO's corporate future as a legitamite business. Just by fighting the battle for this long and keeping IBM wrapped up in court and keeping Linux in the news with the allegation that is is a potential intellectual property infringer and a risk to business, SCO's real investor has gotten exactly what they wanted without exposing Microsoft directly.

    Now that SCO has nearly run out of steam, you hear rumblings from Microsoft itself about the Intellectual property allegations against Linux. It is clearly their strategy to sow fear uncertainty and doubt (FUD) as much as possible in advance of Windows Vista coming out.

    It is hardly a conspiracy theory when the money changing hands and the strategy have been made so clear. SCO is a shell of a company, being used in a shell game.

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

    by mengel ( 13619 ) <mengel.users@sourceforge@net> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @04:15PM (#17054734) Homepage Journal
    The problem is, now that the case has been going on forever, IBM has numerous counterclaims in the suit. Even if SCO tries to back out now, IBM still has numerous counterclaims to settle at trial. Groklaw has lots of details if you want them, but basically IBM is claiming that SCO has:
    • lied publicly about IBM's behaviour
    • violated the GPL, including for IBM's GPL-ed code
    • violated the Lanham act
  • by SEE ( 7681 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @04:42PM (#17055298) Homepage
    The problem with a charge of manipulation is that you have to prove that SCO management knew that its lawsuit was baseless and that it filed it anyway to try to make a fraudulent profit off the increased share price. The mere fact that the lawsuit increased the stock price is not nearly sufficient. A lawsuit with plausible grounding would produce the same effect, and it would have been not merely legal but arguably the fiduciary duty of SCO's management to its shareholders to sue to recover lost revenue if they believed they had a reasonable chance of making a recovery. And as long as the case is still before the courts, that is probably sufficient evidence that they had a reasonable chance of recovery. Unless and until the judge in the SCO-IBM case says the case was not merely insufficient, but utterly without merit, it's unlikely SCO can be hit for manipulation.

    (I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet!)
  • by Da_Weasel ( 458921 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:13PM (#17055958)
    News that isn't neutral is called editorial.

    News should always be neutral. Editorials can contain any amount of opinion the author wants. Neither of them should knowingly contain factually incorrect information.
  • by Zenaku ( 821866 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:33PM (#17056352)
    News is NOT supposed to be neutral. It is supposed to be objective. Most news outlets today strive to be neutral, which leads to shallow, insipid reporting, in which no outlet has the balls to report anything as fact. Instead they simply report whatever each side of an issue says.

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

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

    That being said, slashdot can't be called an prime example of neutrality or objectivity.

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.