Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • that's what he said? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:05PM (#17051074)
    I read the article and I didn't see "quit whining" anywhere.

    I realize that was a crude paraphrasing, but a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.
  • Groklaw rules (Score:5, Interesting)

    by robyannetta ( 820243 ) * on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:07PM (#17051104) Homepage
    I like this line from the Groklaw article:

    What's worse for SCO is, Kimball did a de novo review, out of an "abundance of caution," so they can't even appeal that issue.

    Yep, SCO is toast. Please move on, nothing to see here.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:15PM (#17051232)
    My favorite part of the judgement is: "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."

    A trial date for any remaining claims ... I have a feeling that Judge K. thinks there may be no remaining claims after the dispositive motions. What are the dispositive motions you ask? Those are things that can be decided as a matter of law because the facts of the case are not in dispute. The judge can rule on those without going to a jury. There is a possibility that the judge's decisions will completely gut all of SCO's case. It is also possible that the judge will decide that all of SCO's money has to go into a constructive trust because SCO has basically stolen tens of millions of dollars from Novell. That would bankrupt SCO. All the remaining issues would then be settled by SCO's bankruptcy trustee. The bankruptcy trustee (completely independent from SCO's current management) will see no point in continuing the litigation and will settle on whatever terms the creditors (IBM and Novell mostly) dictate.

    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.
  • by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:17PM (#17051246) Homepage Journal
    ...was basically that SCO has had 3+ years to show any evidence that they could come up with that IBM violated SCO's copyrights or patents by contributing code the Linux kernel. In that time, they haven't shown one single of code. They've whined and complained that IBM was being unfair and not giving them what they asked for, when in fact IBM did put up everything that was asked for. As Wells put it: "In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put 'all evidence . . . on the table'"

    So Magistrate Wells threw out half the case. Then SCO whined to Kimball, the judge of record in the case saying "Magistrate Wells is being unfair and thew out most of our case! Wha!" This is Kimball coming back saying, "Sorry, Wells was right. You don't have a leg to stand on."

    After the Novell case, which seeks to prove, among other things, the disposition of the UNIX System V copyrights (which Novell claims to still own), there isn't likely to be hardly anything left of SCO v. IBM. Kimball was right to put Novell first the case might throw out SCO's intellectual property claims in regard to Unix altogether.

    In the end, I fully expect IBM to eat SCO for lunch on the counterclaims, even after they dropped most of them except for the Lanham Act violations.

  • Re:Groklaw rules (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:18PM (#17051268) Journal
    I wish they had talked about Novell vs IBM going first

    IBM & Novell have both been saying: No, you go first.

    IIRC, IBM wants Novell to go first to settle the copyright issues, which would make large portions of SCO's case against IBM moot.

    And now that I think about it, I don't remember why Novell wanted IBM to go first. I know SCO wanted the IBM case to go first, just to delay things even more.
  • by robyannetta ( 820243 ) * on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:42PM (#17051662) Homepage
    As a side note, I _hope_ that when SCO is buried and Novell and IBM walk away from this with a satisfied grin on their faces (ala Captain Morgan), IBM should make a bid to buy Novell then GPL the Unix Sys V source code.

    It's the whipped cream topping on the Pumpkin Pie.
  • The system works! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by straponego ( 521991 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:44PM (#17051682)
    All you need in order to beat a frivolous lawsuit is unlimited time and money, a few competent judges, and a little luck :)

    Seriously, this is great news and Groklaw, as usual, does a nice job of presenting it in human-readable form. One hopes that the impending THUD of SCO will act as a deterrent to shell corporations who might want to try the same tactics. And real corporations would have something to lose in countersuits, so... Hmm, I'm feeling awfully optimistic today. I'd better have that checked.

  • by statusbar ( 314703 ) <jeffk@statusbar.com> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:44PM (#17051690) Homepage Journal
    <conspiracy type="crazy">
    MAYBE this court case is why microsoft gave Novell the money...to subvert Novell's testimony, giving SCO a win...
    </onspiracy> --jeffk++
  • by adaminnj ( 712407 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:49PM (#17051770)
    "Also included in this ruling is the news that the Novell vs. SCO trial will go first"

    I wonder how the Novell-Microsoft deal will effect this case?

    or do you think that MS has come to turms with Linux as long as they can control it with FUD and money.
  • by Shadow Wrought ( 586631 ) * <shadow,wrought&gmail,com> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @01:51PM (#17051826) Homepage Journal
    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.

    While IBM very much wants to crush SCo they would prefer the crushing happens before trial. Anything can happen with a jury. But they have filed Motions for Summary Judgement which is the core of the dispositive motions the GP talked about. (AC or not- he knows the law.)

    To elaborate further, in Summary Judgement the side argues that even if all the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the opposition, they would still lose the case. Given the lack of evidence forthsoming from SCO, it would not surprise me in the least if most of the SJ motions were granted in IBM's favor. Indeed, a not unlikely scenario would see the trial proceeding only on IBM's Counterclaims!

  • by mmell ( 832646 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @02:05PM (#17052068)
    Prologue: Microsoft pumped money into SCO for whatever reason, SCO used Microsoft's support to prolong this debacle in the courts. Now Microsoft is pumping money into Novell. Novell certainly used some of that money in their defense against SCO.

    Am I the only one who sees this as reminiscent the scene in Star Wars III where Anakin kills Dooku? Cast M$ as Palpatine, SCO as Dooku and Novell as Anakin.

    M$: "Good. Now . . . kill him"

    Novell: "I shouldn't do it. It's not our way. They're a LINUX distributor too."

    M$ "Do it!"

    (SCO's head flies off in appelate court)

    "Always two there are - a master and an apprentice." Too bad, I really like SuSE.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30, 2006 @02:16PM (#17052254)
    Note that if you bought the stock before SCO sued Linux, you'd still be making a profit if you sold today [yahoo.com].

    Seems in retrospect this lawsuit was one of the best things that the execs there could have done (for themselves, considering their bonuses and stock over the past few years); as well as being the best $86 million Microsoft ever spent [linuxelectrons.com] for keeping Linux away from many companies with this FUD until they got a chance to launch Longhorn.

  • by NoWhereMan ( 3539 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @04:06PM (#17054498) Homepage Journal
    you'll remember that PJ has been the target of considerable mud-slinging from SCO: she was just a paid shill for IBM, that sort of thing.

    That is a pretty mild way to put it. I would say they attacked PJ and even went to the point of hiring investigators to look for dirt. While the paid analysts like dIDIOT lost all their credibility on this case, PJ has been an honest kindred soul who used her background and understanding of the legal system to explain what was really going on. At one point, they even questioned whether she existed. Having exchanged email with her, I can state that I found her to be a wonderful person who is living out her life and just trying to make a difference.

Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich, German theologian and historian