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."
SCO to Judge (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The rothe hits! The rothe hits! You die...
Re: (Score:2)
This is the time... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
that's what he said? (Score:4, Interesting)
I realize that was a crude paraphrasing, but a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.
Re:that's what he said? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:that's what he said? (Score:4, Funny)
What, and ruin it's reputation? I don't think so.
KFG
Re:that's what he said? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:that's what he said? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Keep it in the Family (Score:2)
Isn't the CEO's brother the laywer litigating this case? This seems to be a perfectly rational way for one brother to enrich another with shareholders' money, all perfectly legally.
You said rational, not ethical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, you're right, they're scamming the courts, the shareholders, and their threatened victims. But why close up shop and disburse remaining assets to shareholders when you can funnel fifty million dollars from Microsoft to your brother....
Re: (Score:2)
People on here do no want neutral, there are a thousand other places for that. People here share a common opinion and expect coverage based on that.
News doesnt have to be neutral, it just shouldnt claim it is when it isnt. Slashdot has never claimed to be neutral.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
News should always be neutral. Editorials can contain any amount of opinion the author wants. Neither of them should knowingly contain factually incorrect information.
Re:that's what he said? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:that's what he said? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You can take the hooker out of the streets but you can't take the street out of the hooker.
Re:that's what he said? OH... (Score:2)
SCO, go get your butter knife and scrape off you over-tan and reinvent yourselves and ply, umm, play NICE next time. But, if you play nasty again, I imagine what you'll have learned is to pay your lawyers based on PERFORMANCE, not expectation...
Re: (Score:2)
What net for SCO? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not understanding why SCO would continue to pump any of their few remaining pennies into a lawsuit, when the judge's actions are clearly saying "DROP THIS NOW, YOU DAMN IDIOTS."
It seems to me that this entire suit is nothing now but a personal battle for Darl and his cohorts.
Counterclaims... (Score:3, Insightful)
- lied publicly about IBM's behaviour
- violated the GPL, including for IBM's GPL-ed code
- violated the Lanham act
etc.Re: (Score:2)
IBM has already filed numerous counterclaims.
"I'm not understanding why SCO would continue to pump any of their few remaining pennies into a lawsuit, when the judge's actions are clearly saying "DROP THIS NOW, YOU DAMN IDIOTS.""
Due to IBM's counterclaims, SCO has no choice but to co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This lawsuit is nothing more than a proxy pr campaign on behalf of Microsoft [com.com] against Linux. For the bargain price of 16.6 million and another $50 million investment that Microsoft help arrange [com.com], Microsof
Re: (Score:2)
Groklaw rules (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Groklaw rules (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Groklaw rules (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scheduling: Novell goes first, then IBM. (Score:2)
Actually, Novell hasn't expressed an opinion on this. It's SCO who has been saying IBM should go first. Novell can't help them in the IBM case, but it could hurt them badly. If the judge finds that SCO owns all (or some) of the UNIX copyrights, it still doesn't prove IBM misused them. But if he finds that SCO doesn't even own the copyrights, even the most brain-dead jury on the planet couldn't be bamboozled into taking SCO's side. The last thin
Jon Katz and SCO in the same week? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
friends suing friends oh my I like that judge (Score:2, Funny)
Re:friends suing friends oh my I like that judge (Score:4, Funny)
And the Downward Spiral Begins (Score:5, Informative)
Your goose is downright cooked, SCO.
Wow....look at that stock chart (Score:2)
Wanna guess when they first started pursuing this litigation?
And why hasn't there been some kind of investigation as to whether SCO did this specifically to manipulate the price of it's shares? Sure seems interesting when you look at this chart. We all know and feel it. But I don't know if you could PROVE manipulation so nothing will probably come of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Does "astonishing lack of evidence" ring a bell?
Cheers,
CC
Linear plot tells an even better story. (Score:2)
I mean -- they once traded at over $100 a share.
Re:And the Downward Spiral Begins (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Neither investors nor stock brokers/analysts understand technology or the law.
No, but they do know financials, and the numbers ain't good: a negative EBITDA, negative returns on investment and equity, negative cash flow and very little free cash - how are they going to pay for one trial, let alone two? - means a hell of a lot of bad writing on the wall for SCO.
I honestly don't see what SCO can do to turn things around even if it didn't have these trials over their heads. Short of another infusion of quick cash - which ain't happening now that Microsoft has moved to different fronts
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
MAYBE this court case is why microsoft gave Novell the money...to subvert Novell's testimony, giving SCO a win...
</onspiracy> --jeffk++
At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi (Score:2)
Microsoft got tired of waiting for their puppet SCO to spread FUD, so they just went ahead and did it themselves, telling the Linux community recently that everyone had better pay protection money, because Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents.
Re: (Score:2)
What was the big event back in July 2006 that pushed the stock down so fast?
It's been holding around $2.50 the past few months, but is currently down to $2.00.
There may not be a trial (Score:5, Interesting)
A trial date for any remaining claims
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.
Re:There may not be a trial (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There may not be a trial (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Right. The important point here is that IBM didn't settle. SCO will never see a dime. IBM does not "negotiate with terrorists." And now every pissant company trying the same will know that.
The only tragedy is that SCO insiders seem to have made out very well executing a seemingly legal pump-n-dump scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
Where there is only left a question of law, a judge may make a ruling on that law without entering into a fact-finding portion of a trial (via a judge or jury determination of fact).
There is great precedent value in seeing this case through, as a matter of jurisprudence, certainty, and predictability with respect to open source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What is best in life?
Re: (Score:2)
Based on TFA's news, it appears they got what they wished.
It's clear that IBM saw the SCO suit as a dangerous precedent, and wanted to use the opportunity to make a precedent of their own. Their dependence on Linux for their business required it.
This has always been part of the ongoing IBM vs. Microsoft battle, which began back in the days of the OS/2 split.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There may not be a trial (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
</rant>
Don't butter your toast just yet... (Score:1)
-Loyal
Re: (Score:2)
She didn't even take it under advisement, she ruled from the bench.
What Wells said in June... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Well then, I hope IBM is on a diet. Maybe the chef will be extra generous with the parsley garnish.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite correct. They have shown some code; however they haven't given enough information to properly identify the code. What IBM asked for was operating system, file, line, and version. In all cases, SCO gave only three or two of the four things required despite being ordered three times and then warned by IBM that their disclosure was insufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
They showed some code in Dynix, correct? Which they don't own, correct?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's almost correct. I'm just waiting for the "In the view of the [SEC] it is almost like SCO sought to hide [that it has no] case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining a [stock price] advantage despite being repeatedly told to put 'all evidence . . . on the table'"
More like Crispy Critters ... (Score:4, Informative)
The District Judge has now affirmed the order originally given by the Magistrate Judge, which tossed out most of SCO's claims, basically for a more or less complete lack of evidence. However, IBM's counter-claims, including tortious interference, violation of NY business law, and violation of the Lanham Act are still alive and well. As PJ at Groklaw points out, [groklaw.net] IBM seems determined to present these claims in front of a jury. If they do, the likely outcome is a large, smoking crater in Lindon, Utah. As PJ puts it: "In short, IBM intends to skin SCO alive at trial."
From the judge's order:
The judge reviewed the material under appeal de novo, to be extra careful, even though he was not required to do so. This is consistent with a feeling I've had for some time: he's decided SCO's case is a complete crock, and is working on creating a trial record that will be bullet-proof on appeal.the court finds that, even under a de novo standard of review, the Magistrate Judge's June 28, 2006 Order is correct.
Re:More like Crispy Critters ... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually Magistrate Wells threw out none of SCO's claims. Every claim they made remains in the case, which is why her motion is non-dispositive. What she did was throw out the evidence SCO was trying to introduce to support their claims, on the grounds that they were ordered to produce it by a certain deadline, they had it in hand and could have easily produced it (according to their own statements), and they willfully refused to produce it. Having so failed to produce it in a timely manner, they're not allowed to use it now that it's too late for IBM to respond to it without prejudice. This leaves their claims with nothing to support them, which means they'll fall to a summary judgement motion by IBM (which is already in progress).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Generally speaking, questions of fact are reviewed under a higher standard of deference than questions of
SJVN says it's over, too (Score:2)
I'm happy to see things finally start to kill off SCO's FUD machine. This, friends, is the beginning of the end for IBM v SCO.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Novell going first not a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of Dungeons And Denizens (Score:2)
Somehow I'm reminded of this comic strip: http://www.dungeond.com/d/20061120.html [dungeond.com]
With the gnolls being SCO and the heavily armoured guards being IBM's lawyers.
Re:Novell going first not a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the whipped cream topping on the Pumpkin Pie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of:
"The BEATINGS shall continue until morale IMPROVES."
Captcha: "minimal"
Did he also say (Score:2)
"Stop groveling! I hate it when people grovel!"
Last chance offer! (Score:5, Funny)
The system works! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
and what would this mean? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm...now this looks familiar... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Buy a license. (Score:3, Funny)
SCO stock on eBay (Score:3, Funny)
Good and bad news (Score:2)
The good news is that SCO has been limited in its claims. The bad news is that the IBM-SCO trial was set for February and now will wait until after SCO-Novell which is Sept. 2007. The good news of that is that Novell most likely will win which makes most of SCO's claims useless if they don't even own the IP. The bad news is that the GPL may be fully tested in court if that happens. Of course, IBM would win their counterclaims which includes claims based on the GPL.
Confusing? Remember: Never go up aga
Re:Groklaw's Being Just A Bit Immature (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Groklaw's Being Just A Bit Immature (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Just To Clarify... (Score:2)
In truth, I agree. I'd have been less restrained, actually. I pointed it out because it amuses me to see the equivalent of "HAH! SO THERE!" on a site filled with legal jargon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Last week, in More IBM Filings and a Nice Memento for Us to Share [groklaw.net], PJ was also proud to note that the Letter to SCO [theinquirer.net] that Groklaw wrote back in 2003 was actually submitted as evidence by IBM now, to show that "SCO rebuffed requests by the open source community for evidence of the alleged infringement, which would have permitted a potential work-around."
And rightfully proud, of course. More power to PJ!
Something like this . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)