Portions of SCO's Expert Reports Stricken 170
rm69990 writes "A day after Judge Dale Kimball reaffirmed Judge Wells' order tossing most of SCO's case, Judge Wells has stricken large portions of SCO's expert reports, stating that SCO was trying to do an end-run around IBM. As IBM put it in its motion papers, SCO will not be allowed to 'litigate by ambush.' This motion was regarding SCO's expert reports, where SCO attempted to insert new evidence after discovery had ended via their expert reports. Wells' ruled directly from the bench, and finished by telling SCO to 'take it up with Judge Kimball' if they had a problem. This really hasn't been a good week for SCO."
Just a theory (Score:5, Interesting)
The copyright will normally be a "thin" copyright, meaning that for someone to be infringing he or she must have produced something nearly identical to whatever is protected. The data does not have to be factual data. A compilation of classical music now in the public domain is an example of something that might also be protected. This avenue is often used to try to protect computer databases where one entity has gone through a lot of trouble to collect a bunch of data and arrange it in a computer database, and someone else comes along and just copies it all.
Courts have held that things like the white pages (and in many cases the yellow pages) do not have sufficient originality to qualify for a compilation copyright.
In my opinion compilation and similar "data arrangement" copyrights are not a very good way to protect data (one reason is that you're attempting to protect "sweat of the brow" work through copyright, which is an idea that was rejected long ago).I feel that works of this type are better protected through tort law under the "unfair business practices" doctrine.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You will if ... (Score:2, Interesting)
For a very nice overview see Pamela Samuelson's Copyright law and electronic compilations of data [ifla.org]
Poor SCO (Score:2, Funny)
Poor SCO, lets see if I can squeeze out a tear of sympathy.
NNNNNHHHH!
Nope.
Even Microsoft dropped SCO (Score:3, Funny)
They already abandoned SCO.
Re:Even Microsoft dropped SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
When a land mine explodes, you don't consider the mine a failure because it was destroyed in the process.
Re:Even Microsoft dropped SCO (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, it's possible that some people were scared away from Linux because of
SCO's posturing, but the increased scrutiny has vetted the Linux source,
improved the development process, educated the community about the pitfalls
of how concepts of intellectual property are applied to software, and
organized the community in beneficial ways that will outlive the SCO lawsuit.
I think that in 20 years we'll look back and see that the whole "SCO incident"
was a catalyst for a lot of good things.
Re: (Score:2)
SCO certainly exploded sucessfuly, but I don't think you can say they damaged their intended target very much.
Re: (Score:2)
When a land mine explodes, you don't consider the mine a failure because it was destroyed in the process. :)
But you do consider it a failure if it launches your enemy, unharmed, over the fence you erected to keep him out.
If the goal was for SCO to damage Linux, the plan has backfired. Sure, a few sales might have been lost or delayed, but the bottom line is that people who were concerned about Linux containing copyright infringements can now rest easy on that score. SCO spend four years and 40 millio
Microsoft dropped SCO a long time ago.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Our general is Eban Moglen -- he's the guy who will lead the fight, and he has more influence over the success or failure of linux than Linus or any other geek.
For me, individually, that's the big realization that's come out of the Novell/MS deal. It's
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he needs to get agressive. Thus far, I'm not impressed. "pretty please" and reasonable arguments don't work in this situation. If Moglen doesn't have what it takes to get nasty, he needs to give up the seat.
"This really hasn't been a good week for SCO." (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft's deal with Novell (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"take it up with Judge Kimball" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a partial answer why SCOX must keep trying (Score:5, Informative)
Part of the Lanham Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act [wikipedia.org]) is often used when a company claims their business been hurt by false or misleading statements. There are 3 things that must be proved by the company that claims the damage: 1) there was a false or misleading statement made, 2) the statement was used in commercial advertising or promotion and 3) and the statement creates a likelihood of harm to the plaintiff.
Now looking at how SCOX has kept shooting it's mouth of in the early phases of the case I'd say that 2) and 3) are pretty self-evident for those who have followed the development of this case. 2) because SCOX made a lot of loud statements during their Road Shows (which they only made to market themselves) that never materialized. 3) can most likely be proved just by reading what market analysts wrote based on SCOX:s statements and the initial soaring of SCOX value.
So the only way to weaken the Lanham Act accusations from IBM is to weaken 1). If something, just any little thing, does survive into the trial itself it might give SCOX the chance to argue that the other statements were made in some kind of good faith. So they try to wriggle anything in sideways, under or over that can help them to do that. Because if they don't then it will look very bleak for them when Lanham Act part of trial starts.
Re:Maybe a partial answer why SCOX must keep tryin (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO's strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
An example of something that could be decided as a matter of law would be whether Novell transferred any copyrights to Santa Cruz and whether they then passed on to SCO. The judge could simply read the contracts and rule that the ownership of the copyrights had not changed hands; no need for a jury.
SCO's only hope is to get their case in front of a jury and that hope is based on being able to confuse the jury and get a verdict that they don't deserve.
When discovery closed, SCO had not dredged up anything that could serve as a disputed fact. What they did put before the court was mostly pitched out by Judge Wells because it was not nearly specific enough. It was like: Shop keeper "He stole something from my store."
Cop "What did he steal?"
Shop keeper "Something; it was in the catalog."
Cop "How do you know he stole it?"
Shop keeper "He was in the same city."
If you haven't been following this sorry mess, you'll think the above scenario is exaggerated. It isn't.
In order to get something past the judges and before the jury SCO tried to sneak some stuff in via the expert reports. Unlike the rest of us (who have to stick to facts), experts are allowed to give opinions to the court. SCO was hoping that they could sneak in some opinions that would make it look like there were some disputed facts. Then they would get their jury trial.
Notice also the judges' strategy. They aren't allowed to tell SCO that they are full of crap. They have to assume that SCO is acting in good faith. Thus, when judge Wells threw out most of SCO's evidence, she did it on the basis that they willfully withheld evidence. They said they had evidence and they didn't present it so they must have withheld it. Of course, we all know that SCO never had any evidence. Similarly, we know that the expert reports were just embarassingly bad. I feel sorry for the experts.
Re: (Score:2)
This rarely works in real life. Confusion usually works against a plaintiff, and when the defense can show that facts not in evidence contributed to the jury verdict, it's instant appeal-bait. If SCO tries to use any of its evidence that was thrown out, or even hint it it, you can be pretty sure that their entire case will be thrown out.
Come to thi
This week isn't good? (Score:3, Interesting)
No. Shit. Sherlock.
From the looks of it, SCO's last good week was back in 2000:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=my [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, but SCOX is still traiding at $2 a share, even with this bad news. In the past year, the lowest it got was $1.52 a share and it climbed up after that. That is exactly why I said yesterday that I expect SCO to survive until the trial starts in September.
Re: (Score:2)
From the looks of it, SCO's last good week was back in 2000:
You're right, but SCOX is still traiding at $2 a share, even with this bad news. In the past year, the lowest it got was $1.52 a share and it climbed up after that. That is exactly why I said yesterday that I expect SCO to survive until the trial starts in September.
That's only because SCO's stock doesn't really trade. Nearly all of it is owned by insiders who seem quite willing to continue buying it to keep the price up. So little of it trades that it's not hard to keep the price up.
As for SCO's survival... the stock price is irrelevant to that question. SCO is running out of money, quickly. Another company would have the option of issuing and selling more shares to raise capital, but who would buy it? The insiders who hold the price up can't afford to raise
Re: (Score:2)
you can follow them here: http://finance.google.com/finance?q=SCOX [google.com]
Fry them All (Score:2)
Win Or Lose... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Of course, IBM isn't going to just stand there after letting SCO dig a hole for the past 3 years either. They're going to open a can of whoop ass and in a matter of days from the time they do it I'm sure there will be plenty of whoop ass to go around. I don't think they'll be satisfied simply to destroy SCO -- I think they're going to go out of their way to see to it that lives are destroyed. I w
I hope not. (Score:2)
If the people in SCO broke the law then I have no problem with them receiving the consequences of their actions, but trying to "ruin" peoples lives is just wrong and sick.
Let's put this in perspective the the people that run SCO have not killed anybody. They have not tortured anybody. They have not raped anybody. They have molested anybody.
Those things are happening right now in the Sudan and other pl
Knock, knock: here is reality (Score:4, Insightful)
- most likely, there will be NO people going to jail. Just because YOU have a vested interest does not make this case any different from 1 megacorp suing another
- lawyers are NEVER punished for trying a case on someone else's behalf (as long as they don't do anything actually illegal). this case is not anywhere near as emotionally charged as the trial of Ted bundy, Timothy McVeigh, or that hijacker that did not -factually- hijack a plane.
- lawyers like SCO's generally have more than enough work offers, and they charge more per hour than I per day, and I am an expensive consultant. The fact that they represented SCO does not hurt them in the least.
- the fact that SCO gets beaten at every turn is NO a fault of their lawyers. SCO has a shitty case, and the lawyers have to work with what they got. they do the best they can, and they should. you'd expect the same from your lawyer, no?
In a far more realistic scenario
- IBM takes this all the way and SCO loses big.
- IBM's counter claims will maybe turn out in their advantage, but maybe not.
- SCO will try to appeal, but this will most likely not have a result because -unlike you- the judges involved kept their cool and did everything by the book, no matter how trivial and dull the issue at hand.
- SCO will dwindle away and die. Not because they are evil, but simpy because they alienated their remaining customers, did not invest in developing new technology, and have a gigantic lawyer bill to pay. The latter largely because the SCO lawyers had sense enough to demand payment, instead of a large percentage of a possible settlement.
Re: (Score:2)
Not criminally anyway, but BSF is certainly trashing its reputation. Filing 11th-hour depositions
Others see success, I only see failure (Score:2, Insightful)
Strike Zillion, They're Out (Score:2)
And disbar SCO's lawyers for their outrageously frivolous lawsuit.
Instead, those experts and lawyers will make the only money anyone will see in this endless travesty.
And American taxpayers will subsidize it, with all the time and resources consumed by the public courts which have a lot better things to do.
Re: (Score:2)
That goes a little too far. It's not the lawyers fault their client has a weak case. Unless they have done anything illegal they really can't be blamed. You can't disbar them because you're made at SCO.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not just that I'm mad at SCO. I'm fed up with subsidizing these cases and these lawyers which have a chance to succeed only by extorting from the plaintiffs, or getting lucky. The only way
Could sco use this to set an appeal. (Score:2)
Sco may just claim the judge is biased since they wont let their experts testistfy on their behalf and now we will all need to wait for 2 or 3 more years as the case starts over.
Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)
Note, I'm not a lawyer. This is all the reading I get from Groklaw [groklaw.net], which has been following the case since the beginning. If you don't frequent Groklaw, you might want to, if you are interested in the SCO case at all.
Boycott Dr. Thomas Cargill paid SCO "expert" (Score:2)
I will never buy his books (e.g., his C++ book). If he speaks at the local university I will boycott his appearances. If given the opportunity I will protest any attempt by any company I have influence over to use him as a consultant.
SCO may become future world order structure (Score:2)
SCO and Confusion (Score:2, Insightful)
Each day that this drags out is one more day for them to confuse their stories, forget facts, change facts entirely, build up judge resentment, and basically undermine their case. Here is hoping that IBM does leave them a smoking crater, and then provides the blueprint for success to others who might be targets for such lawsuits. (Novell-MS vs Red Hat comes to mind.)
Slightly offtopic.. (Score:2)
Symbol SCOX
Re: (Score:2)
1.18 as of 12:42pm and the drop seems to be slowing down slightly.
Re: (Score:2)
I did, but to see a steep curve, the 38% in a few hours is more impressive than the 50% over 2 days. The fact a white water river drops 1,000 feet in 30 miles is not as impressive as the 50 foot drop in a quarter mile.
And down the stock goes.... (Score:2)
Re:This has been going on for years (Score:5, Informative)
Well, they've just about decided what evidence there is; now they're going to decide which issues can be decided immediately (because there's no disputes on factual matters on them), and which issues need to go to court. That's for the next few months. It's likely that all of SCO's claims will be thrown out before then, but there will be IBM counter claims that probably will go to trial.
However, there's also a case Novell-SCO, and since in it Novell claims that it still holds the copyright over some things (like, say, SysV Unix) that SCO claims copyright of in the IBM case, that case will go first.
That trial is at the moment expected to start about September 2007-ish.
Re:This has been going on for years (Score:5, Insightful)
You're rigth, SCO is *still* after several years trying to add more evidence and more claims. By having expert-testimony (which is supposed to *explain* the claims and the evidence) contain claims that aren't there in the final disposition.
So, ok, SCO still, after being ordered repeatedly to put all the evidence on the table for literally *years* don't have all the evidence they claim to posess on the table.
But worse: They also *still* don't want to commit to exactly what it is that they are even *claiming* that IBM did.
In effect, several years after the trial started, SCO is still at: "You did something wrong, but we refuse to state in specific terms *what* you did wrong, we also refuse to provide any evidence that you *did* infact do the things we claim."
It's impossible to defend oneself if one doesn't even know precisely what the accusations are. "Structure and organization" ain't specific. No more than "breaking some law" would be.
It's beyond ridicolous. They've been given enough rope at this point. It's nice to see the judges are starting to tigthen up -- this particular attempt at redefinind the claims was turned down flat.
Re:This has been going on for years (Score:5, Informative)
So far, SCO has shown 326 lines of code after over three years of discovery, and those are questionable at best (coming from standards that SCO participated in writing like ELF, or coming from IBM home-grown code like JFS). In June, the judge gave one of my favorite quotes from the case.
Now, after discovery is over, when they were told that ALL of their claims had to be stated by the end of discovery, SCO claims in their expert reports that virtually the whole of Linux is at issue. Since discovery is over, that would mean that IBM could not gather any new evidence to refute the claims. This is NOT how the system works. Normally, you state your claims, both sides have a chance through discovery to determine the evidence, that evidence is presented, experts review the evidence and report on it, then you go to trial.
In this case, SCO claimed they didn't KNOW what their claims were and they wouldn't know until after discovery. That in itself seems to put IBM at a disadvantage. At the end of discovery, they had 326 lines and some nebulous claims with no evidence (which were thrown out in the ruling in June). Now, in the "expert reports" which are supposed to examine the evidence on the table, SCO adds a raft of claims for which they still present no evidence.
Given that over three years ago, they claimed to have a suitcase stuffed with "millions of lines" of "stolen" code, it's rather surprising that they didn't present it as part of their case, even after repeated admonishments from the judges to show some evidence. You'd almost think they didn't actually have a case.
Re: (Score:2)
>Except at Guantanamo Bay
No, it is exactly the same there.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Darl isn't looking so good these days. (Score:4, Funny)
His conscience, maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The trial _WAS_ scheduled to start in Feb of '07.
Due to Novell being allowed to 'go first', the trial has been unscheduled and is currently not scheduled at all. Judge Kimball has hinted that perhaps the next trial date could be in september '07.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This has been going on for years (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But it has to be a criminal case for IBM to be guilty of a crime, doesn't it?
Re:This has been going on for years (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM's goal is probably either to get SCO to drop, get the judge to drop,
or failing that to settle for as little as possible while retaining the
right to continue to do business as usual.
IBM doesn't want to settle - they want to leave a smoking crator to be an example for the next idiot that tries to scam them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like I keep telling people: it's stupid e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
** cackle ** Fly my pretties!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's IBM's policy not to settle (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM is a big rich target, and there are entirely too many people whose sole business plan is frivolous litigation. And anyone with lots of money is a natural target. It's like putting a sign on your porch saying "I have a big pile of gold in my basement". Someone will take it as a personal challenge to take it from you. And if you give in to the first guy who comes over and says "I'll sue you if you don't give me some of that gold", tomorrow you'll find a big queue of people at your door who want some too. It's not a precedent you want to set.
So settling frivolous claims is _not_ what IBM wants, and it's never been what it wanted. What it wants is the equivalent of a bunch of skulls on spikes, with a sign saying "these are the last guys who tried to extort us."
And I have to wonder what have Darl and the gang been thinking. It's been common knowledge for ages, complete with such mental images like "IBM's lawyers are like the Nazgul" or "IBM can darken the sky with its lawyers". So I can't really imagine someone genuinely thinking, "I know! surely one more try is all it takes! They'll certainly do the stupid thing _this_ time!"
Even assuming that Darl were actually _that_ stupid and disconnected from reality, you have to wonder about everyone else involved. Like the investors that funded this stupid charge of the light brigade. What were _those_ thinking?
Cue conspiracy theories about MS paying off Darl to create FUD even if SCO loses the lawsuit.
Then again, maybe Hanlon's Razor does apply, after all: Never attribute to malice, that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it became a bit personal for him which is why he took the case in the first place. Trying to prove something possibly??
Re:It's IBM's policy not to settle (Score:4, Funny)
I doubt McBride really cared if he won or lost... (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure he knew SCO was going toes-up in 2003, and didn't like what he saw. OTOH, making a monster and --to any stock investor with lots of money and tech-ignorance combined-- adventure against a big fat (and rich!) company would surely boost the stocks high enough to dump a few (but not enough to arouse suspicion!) and retire off the results.
As it is, McBride and most of his board are now a multi-millionaires becau
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Total hypo, but what if you were SCO? (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, that deadline was about three and a half years into the case, it's not exactly been fast. And they're the plaintiffs, not the defendants - aren't they supposed to know what their actual claims are _before_ sueing somebody?
Eventually there has to be a deadline. SCO decides to sneak in some extra, really vague claims after that in hopes that IBM didn't have time to organize a proper defence, but well, they've had far too many deadline extensions already. Final means final.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Total hypo, but what if you were SCO? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Total hypo, but what if you were SCO? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Total hypo, but what if you were SCO? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fairness problem is that if the plaintiff can add new claims at anytime he pleases, he can move the goal posts at will whenver the defendant gets close to them, at little cost to himself and great cost to the defendant. Successful defense would become impossible; either you'd lose outright, or be forced to settle on terms favorable to the plaintiff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That wasn't an analogy. That was an argument.
You haven't been paying attention. SCO has spent the past few years jiggering the deadlines and what they file when with regards to them. They aren't the victim here; here too they are the villian and both IBM and the judge are just getting plenty sick and tired of their overt; and abusive, legal gam
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't been paying attention. SCO has spent the past few years jiggering the deadlines and what they file when with regards to them. They aren't the victim here; here too they are the villian and both IBM and the judge are just getting plenty sick and tired of their overt; and abusive, legal gaming.
But the legal process requires that all evidence be "discovered" and then considered in due course. SCO has been trying to get around that with such tactics. Frankly, the judges have handed SCO plenty of rope, but they are playing cat's cradle with it instead of just hanging themselves. Ultimately they will be hoist upon their own petard, it's just a question of when. The one thing they've overlooked is that they are taking on companies with deep pockets, and eventually that will prove the most telling bl
Re:Total hypo, but what if you were SCO? (Score:4, Interesting)
And this was actually what happend (except the bowing out part). SCOs lawyers have full access to IBMs CMVC (their version control system) and in a hearing Judge Wells asks SCOX lawyer "Does SCO have, can they provide, additional specificity?... I mean, basically, is this all you've got?" (source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=200
And, oh, I wouldn't go around saying "We will bring this much of that type of evidence into court before I actually did it. That will land you big fat Lanham accusations you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Total hypo, but what if you were SCO? (Score:5, Informative)
Are you being serious? SCO initiated this lawsuit and several other lawsuits. From the beginning, IBM (and others) have tried to work with SCO to avoid a suit. Lawsuits are expensive and most companies try to avoid them as much as possible. SCO has refused. In this case, IBM has asked from the beginning the details of SCO's grievances against them. SCO has been as evasive as they possibly can be. But there is a limit to this and the judges have called them on it
From the beginning SCO has stated it had a mountain of evidence. But they wanted everything IBM had. When it came time for them to produce what IBM wanted, they has refused to produce any of it until after three orders. When it did produce it, it was inadequate as IBM warned them. Then they go to the judge trying to explain their vagueness. The judge didn't buy it.
Three years is quite a long time for discovery. SCO asked and received extensions to the original deadline. Plus discovery is not then time when you should start your case. Discovery should be used to cement your case. SCO was hoping to find any hint of wrong doing basically because it had nothing in the beginning. If you go up against IBM, you better be prepared with evidence before you file a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IIRC they could also have requested the Dynix and AIX sources and source history.
If you have the suspicion someone wronged you, you can usually point to what they did, how and when.
The fact that they couldn't do it in a couple years is proof enough they have no case at all. The fact that they repeatedly stated they had s
Gods I hope some federal prosecutor thinks so (Score:2)
The fact that they couldn't do it in a couple years is proof enough they have no case at all. The fact that they repeatedly stated they had such evidence while they knew they had nothing is libel. Since it is reasonable to assume they did it with the purpose of manipulating the market is far worse.
Perfect description. Simple and easy to follow. I just hope some fed picks up that particular ball and runs with it.
It's a simple trail to follow.
Re:Total hypo, but what if you were SCO? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hi, Darl.
And your point is?
Are you trying to claim that AT&T wrote the IRIX driver and gave it to SGI under the Unix contracts? Or that SGI's implementation of that driver is somehow a derivative work of some other driver from AT&T?
Of course there's Unix code in the Linux kernel. But is there any that shouldn't be there? SCO hasn't been able to find any. Keep in mind that all of the BSD code is fair game, as is any original code written for Unix by companies other than AT&T and placed in Linux by the copyright holder.
Yes, SCO has this bizarre theory that any code that once rubbed against AT&T code belongs to them (or at least should be under their control), but not even SCO believes that's going to hold up.
Re:Total hypo, but what if you were SCO? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak to their assertion that they hold the copyright to UNIX.
They clearly don't hold the copyright to "UNIX". They may, perhaps, if you squint, hold copyrights on AT&T SVR4 Unix. That doesn't mean they own AIX, or IRIX, or HP/UX, or Solaris, or any of the other SVR4 derivatives. They may hold copyrights on the portions of those codebases that are from AT&T, and portions that are arguably derived from AT&T code, but they don't own code that is wholly original work from the AT&T
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps both drivers are based on the same sample implementation provided by the Ethernet board maker?
Or from the same specification document file? It's rare to see a device driver written completely from scratch. More often than
I would stab myself in the face. (Score:2, Funny)
If I were SCO I would hypothetically stab myself in the face.
The I would stab Darl McBride in the face, then I would stab my lawyer, Lionel Hutz or whatever he is called, in the face.
The I would take my pitiful penny-stocks and wail and gnash and think about the old days when I used to make products instead of just making people sick.
Re: (Score:2)
You should consider using Dick Cheney's technique.
It's easier and gets less blood on your hands.
What the hell does that have to do with SCOX? (Score:2)
What if you were being taken advantage of by a large company and all you had at your disposal was the courts to protect yourself with.
"What if you had destroyed your business through your own incompetance, and decided to try extort money from a company who had done nothing wrong?"
Re: (Score:2)
I think the current management bought SCO after it had been destroyed. Some incompetence was involved in the destruction, but it was inevitable since the core product -- proprietary Unix -- is a market dinosaur. What we have is pure opportunistic exploitation of the legal system to bilk money from investors.
Re: (Score:2)
But I don't like the idea that the wheels of justice need to roll so fast that any and all evidence may be thrown out because it doesn't meet some arbitrary deadline.
All deadlines are arbitrary, and if there isn't a deadline then a baseless case could be drawn out for decades which just isn't reasonable or fair. The problem is that IBM didn't dump a bunch of stuff on SCO at the last minute. SCO got everything they asked for 2 to 3 years ago. They've had literally years to search the material to find evid
Re:UnixWare and OpenServer: the real victims here. (Score:5, Insightful)
We recently moved our main transaction processing server to Suse Linux from Unixware. (yeah, I know, evil deal with M$ doesn't mean anything in this company) The difference is astounding! They actually found bottlenecks that were undetectable before, due to the inefficiency of Unixware, and many of the memory leaks vanished. As well, the same hardware that would have have only lasted maybe 6 month to a year under Unixware, will now serve us for a few more years yet.
I'd say that Unixware needs to be burned, pissed on, and burned again, then pissed on again for the piece of shit that it really is. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that Linux, in anyway, would be benefited by copying code from any SCO product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)