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

 


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

Hearing Date Set for SCO vs. Novell 110

Posted by CowboyNeal from the at-last-it's-time dept.
duh P3rf3ss3r writes "According to Groklaw, a hearing into seven summary judgement motions in the SCO vs. Novell case has been set for 31 May at 9 am before Judge Dale Kimball. Groklaw's PJ speculates that David Boies may have to show up for SCO just to keep their case alive."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hearing Date Set for SCO vs. Novell More

Hearing Date Set for SCO vs. Novell

Comments Filter:

  • Oh boy (Score:5, Funny)

    by Killjoy_NL ( 719667 ) <slashdot@@@remco...palli...nl> on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:24AM (#19267757)
    Enough time to get popcorn and coke then :D

  • Aw man... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:39AM (#19267829) Homepage Journal
    ...that really bites. Where will we get our schadenfreude after the SCO thing has been laughed out of court?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Pensacola Tiger ( 538962 )
      Where else but from Microsoft? Mr Ballmer is positioning himself to take up where Darl McBride left off regarding baseless allegations against Linux - as a matter of fact, he's begun already.

      Stay tuned, the Chair-Throwing FUD Special is just warming up.

      • Also, in the shorter term, there's Jack Thompson's recent letter [slashdot.org] to Bill Gates. That should provide some entertainment for a bit.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Mateo_LeFou ( 859634 )
        Yeah, but a big problem with getting schadenfreude from MS is that they're *very likely to keep making money hand over fist for quite awhile. A big part of the fun of watching SCO implode was seeing them burn through their "investors" cash while sales plummeted and their stock got delisted.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by cyphercell ( 843398 )

          Dear god,
          I know I've talked bad about creationism, fundamentalists, and the rest of the neo-con prayer comittee, heck I've even called you a spaghetti monster, but if I was wrong, then I am sorry. I just realized that even though I am a young man, I may not long enough to see something very, very beautiful. If I have ever done anything right then puuuhhhlleeaase let me live long enough to watch Microsoft burn out and die in exactly the same way SCO has. I will always do the "right" thing in your eyes if o

    • Where will we get our schadenfreude after the SCO thing has been laughed out of court?
      Novell - when they start the same thing all over again six months later ...
    • > Where will we get our schadenfreude after the SCO thing has been laughed out of court?

          By watching the efforts of MS to get respect for Vista, of course!

      Schadenfreude [wikipedia.org]is the least noble of human emotions. And one of the most enjoyable.

  • This could be dramatic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:42AM (#19267847)
    It is possible that Judge K. will rule on Novell's request (from four months ago iirc) that all the money in SCO's possession be put in a trust account. That would bankrupt SCO and SCO's management would be replaced by a bankruptcy trustee. All the court cases would be negotiated by the trustee and this whole mess would come to a screaming halt.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by FredDC ( 1048502 )
      this whole mess would come to a screaming halt
       
      But, where would we go for a good laugh then?

    • Re:This could be dramatic (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CmdrGravy ( 645153 ) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:47AM (#19267877) Homepage
      I hope that doesn't happen, I want to see SCO lose in court on everything they have claimed.

      • Re:This could be dramatic (Score:5, Informative)

        by Ash Vince ( 602485 ) on Friday May 25, 2007 @07:06AM (#19268003) Journal
        I think you mean the SCO v IBM case. This is the one where Novell end up owning SCO (literally).

        My understanding is that all money that Microsoft gave SCO to get involved in a legal battle with IBM was in the form of some sort of Unix license. Novell reckon they are legally entitled to a cut of this money as they sold the Unix licenses to SCO in the first place.

        The problem is that SCO have spent the money fighting IBM and RedHat. If SCO lose the will go belly up as the amounts involved far exceed the worth of the company. If that happens SCO will probably be in administration before the end of the day.

        Please someone correct me if I do not understand this correctly.

        • Re:This could be dramatic (Score:5, Informative)

          by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Friday May 25, 2007 @08:36AM (#19268915)

          Novell reckon they are legally entitled to a cut of this money as they sold the Unix licenses to SCO in the first place.

          Technically not correct. Novell is arguing that they sold SCO the right to license Unix on their behalf (i.e distributor). As Novell's distributor, SCO must give them 100% of any Unix license revenue which Novell will refund them 5% as part of their licensing agreement.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) *

          If that happens SCO will probably be in administration before the end of the day.

          Right, which means that IBM wouldn't get the chance to triumph over SCO, because the trust administrator would settle. IMO, this is a bad thing, because I want SCO vs. IBM to set precedent.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bytesex ( 112972 )
        SCO losing would make quite a few unknown things an established fact. If MS were smart, they'd buy up SCO for a few pennies in the near future and drop the case; not only would it produce a big 'huh?' from our side; the outcome of any litigation might not be in their favour because it would settle things like ownership of UNIX, whether or not Linux has any code in it that's owned by others, etc. If they were to leave it at this uncertain point, they'd have a lot more ammo in the upcoming FUD-wars. It wou

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Pensacola Tiger ( 538962 )
          The only problem with your suggestion is the liability of IBM's counterclaims that any buyer of SCO would inherit. As it stands now, IBM will collect next to nothing, as SCO has almost no value, especially after Novell gets the $25 million owed to it by SCO. If Microsoft was foolish enough to buy SCO, the damages could be in the "billions and billions" as Carl Sagan might have said.
        • If Microsoft bought SCO, they would be buying SCO's liabilities.

          Microsoft/SCO might drop their own claims, but they cannot just drop all the other parties' claims against them.

          Red Hat is suing SCO for damages SCO caused Ret Hat with all their FUD, including FUD specifically mentioning Red Hat, back in 2003. Darl's big mouth strikes again.

          Novell is countersuing SCO. SCO has to defend against those claims or lose without a fight.

          IBM is countersuing SCO with numerous counterclaims, including copy

        • If MS were smart, they'd buy up SCO for a few pennies in the near future and drop the case...

          ...Or make a deal with Novell to gut SCO before IBM has a chance to get at 'em.

          Incidentally, you know that "unrelated" patent-indemnification deal MS and Novell made? Novell's motion to have its complaint with SCO heard before IBM's came shortly after it. Coincidence?

      • Either way, this is one legal case that will never (*should never*) end up as a made-for-TV movie!

      • I hope that doesn't happen, I want to see SCO lose in court on everything they have claimed.

        If SCO put took up a collection to keep their lawsuits alive, they would probably receive a lot of donations from open-source advocates. SCO's public service has been greatly under-appreciated.

    • Re:This could be dramatic, but probably not. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jaywalk ( 94910 ) on Friday May 25, 2007 @07:44AM (#19268325) Homepage

      It is possible that Judge K. will rule on Novell's request (from four months ago iirc) that all the money in SCO's possession be put in a trust account.
      While it's possible that Kimball will rule from the bench, it has not been his style to do so with anything major. He tends to assemble rulings that cover every point raised in the hearing, including some he claims weren't really worth listening to in the first place. For example, in the IBM case, SCO argued that a ruling had to be reviewed from the starting point ("de novo"). Kimball said SCO was wrong and that a de novo review wasn't required, but that he did one anyway "out of an abundance of caution" and still found against SCO. Best guess is that he's doing it so the outcome of the case is bulletproofed against appeals; probably a good idea because SCO fights every detail tooth and nail, regardless of how hopeless the situation.

      I do expect the hearing to at least generate some humor, especially item 180 [groklaw.net]. This is where SCO tells the court (apparently with a straight face) that "the parties' intent under the APA and Amendments thereto is undisputed in SCO's favor." In English, they are saying there is no way the contract did not transfer copyrights in spite of the fact that the contract explicitly includes the copyrights in the list of things not transferred. I'm really looking forward to hearing their explanation of that one.

    • Unlikely (Score:3, Insightful)

      by swillden ( 191260 ) *

      It is possible that Judge K. will rule on Novell's request (from four months ago iirc) that all the money in SCO's possession be put in a trust account. That would bankrupt SCO and SCO's management would be replaced by a bankruptcy trustee. All the court cases would be negotiated by the trustee and this whole mess would come to a screaming halt.

      Throughout this process we've seen that neither judge often issues rulings from the bench, and the more important the ruling the more careful they are to thoroughly research and clearly lay out their written ruling. The hearing will probably be very interesting (I plan to attend), but it's nearly certain that Judge Kimball will take the motions under advisement and issue his rulings in a few weeks.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) *

      All the court cases would be negotiated by the trustee and this whole mess would come to a screaming halt.

      That would be unfortunate because the trustee would settle, which would fail to set precedent. I would much rather SCO fight to the bigger end and then unequivocally lose so that nobody else can buy up the remains and try this bullshit again.

      In fact, considering that Novell made that motion after its deal with Microsoft, I wonder if MS put them up to it in order to deprive IBM of its decisive victory.

  • David Boies? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:45AM (#19267859)
    For a second there I thought it said David Bowie. I suppose if he showed up it would help too.

  • Now is the time... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:50AM (#19267901)
    ...to invest heavily into Put-options of SCO. Then again, with them already listing in the penny-stock area, maybe rather invest in the spam companies that send out the pump'n'dump mails...

    • Re:Now is the time... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ptbarnett ( 159784 ) on Friday May 25, 2007 @07:17AM (#19268059)
      ...to invest heavily into Put-options of SCO.

      No one is writing options on SCOX, and never has.

      The best you could do is short shares of SCOX, but you will have to find a brokerage that has SCOX shares that you can short.

      About 17% of the "floating" shares (i.e. ones that are being traded and aren't held by insiders or institutions) are already shorted. And at average daily trading volumes, the shorted shares represent about 38 days worth of trading.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Thing 1 ( 178996 )

      ...to invest heavily into Put-options of SCO. Then again, with them already listing in the penny-stock area, maybe rather invest in the spam companies that send out the pump'n'dump mails...

      Good recovery. You do of course realize that being OTC means that investors can neither short, nor trade options on the underlying security. So, good joke. ;-)

      • Gah. For the n-th time (ok, 2nd time), yes, it is a joke. Meant to be funny. NOT a supersecret inside investment tip.

        Heck, what did I do wrong that people start taking me serious?

  • Blink-blink (Score:5, Funny)

    by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:54AM (#19267927) Homepage
    Judge Dread and David Bowie must appear? Wait, I think the coffee has brewed. (SCO stories are always at least a two-cup problem and I'm down a cup this morning. Fill'er up, premium!)

  • Unhealthy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spungo ( 729241 ) on Friday May 25, 2007 @07:04AM (#19267979)
    Thank you /. for my (almost) daily '2-minute hate'... although am I the only one who thinks we are in danger of making an Orwellian Emmanuel Goldstein-type character out of McBride? I mean, it's all just business litigation, right?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by lanswitch ( 705539 )
      Defending Darl McB.? You must be new here...

    • Re:Unhealthy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday May 25, 2007 @07:34AM (#19268213)
      McBride shares few traits with the Goldstein of 1984.

      Basically he's trying to keep a company afloat on a pice of driftwood, and he is about to lose that plank. It's not that we hate him, hey, I don't even know him. Privately he may even be a quite cool guy, dunno.

      We hate FUD. It's got nothing to do with McBride himself, that could be anyone from the list of FUDders. We hate it when people come out with nebulous, dubious threats the only goal of which is to create an air of wariness towards the technologies they try to antagonize. You can have the same with people claiming WiFi APs are dangerous to their health. If this was 1907 instead of 2007, we'd probably go after the guys claiming that riding by train or car is unhealthy because it's too fast.

      I don't hate McBride. Not even Steve or Bill. I hate people who see their business model crumble and try to keep it up by instilling FUD in their customers, so they stay with them out of fear, not because they have the better product. I hate people who hamper progress and development for their personal gains. I hate people who want to keep their customers shackled by threats rather than offering them the better product.

      I hate people who kill the market economy.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by trawg ( 308495 )

        I don't hate McBride. Not even Steve or Bill. I hate people who see their business model crumble and try to keep it up by instilling FUD in their customers, so they stay with them out of fear, not because they have the better product. I hate people who hamper progress and development for their personal gains. I hate people who want to keep their customers shackled by threats rather than offering them the better product.

        What a great summary of most of the stories that we get to read these days.

        Instead of great new product announcements or enhancements to existing product ranges (hi Google), we simply see nebulous legal threats (SCO's bizarre attempts, Microsoft's recent patent-portfolio assault on Linux and open source), people getting taken to court (as the RIAA/MPAA attempt to criminalise copyright infringement), laws getting changed by media companies to protect their golden egg-laying goose, the copyright cashcow (yo

      • What does FUD mean? Seriously... I've never seen the acronym spelled out (though I've seen it probably 100 times in the last day).
      • If this was 1907 instead of 2007, we'd probably go after the guys claiming that riding by train or car is unhealthy because it's too fast.

        Judging by the number of readkills each year, I'd say they are right after all.

        • Oh please, I said riding, not being run over by. Being run over by a horse cart ain't much better for your health.

    • Trying to misappropriate the hard (sometimes unpaid) work of others for your own monetary gain can't be good for his Karma. People should act ethically in all aspects of their lives. Being in charge of a business is no excuse for unethical conduct. SCO sought $5 billion in damages from one licensee, IBM, when they only spent $7 million dollars to acquire the technology. That should tell you right there that something wasn't on the up-and-up. They claimed three teams of experts (including a team from M

      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        > I think he should be most ashamed of his claim that "contracts are what you use against people you have a relationship with" (paraphrased).

        Despite every other bit of twisting, weaselling, and outright mendacity that SCO and McBride is guilty of, I still think this quote may have been taken out of context. It's sort of a tautology after all -- if you don't have a contract, you don't really have a relationship in the first place.

        > If Darl was smart, he would have simply sued IBM for contract violatio
    • It may not be healthy to take an attitude of hate towards him, however, the whole idea of 'Its not personal, its just business.' is rubbish. As long as it deals with people, its personal, and must be taken as such.

  • Your out of order he's out of order (Score:5, Funny)

    by packetmon ( 977047 ) on Friday May 25, 2007 @07:39AM (#19268285) Homepage
    SCO Attorney: Your honor, we'd like to rectify the use of our patents but since they are propietary information we cannot disclose them publicly.
    Novell Attorney: Your honor there are no infringements. If SCO could present the infringments they would. Their use of the word "propietary" is solely FUD based manipulations
    Prosecutor Attorney: Did you say Fud?
    Juror Attorney: *whispers to another juror* I didn't even know they infringed on Warner Bros, patented Looney Tune character Elmer Fudd"
    Judge Attorney: *Watching Judge Judy in the background*

    • Elmer FUD? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Be vewy, vewy quiet. I'm hunting patents. Hehehehehe.
  • They have dug themselfs so deap that their only option is to keep digging and hope to reach Australlia.
    If they continue their case they will loose. If the stop their case they will loose. The only option they have is streach things out and continue their case with a slim chance of winning.
  • I mean, SCO's evil. . . no, wait, Novell's evil! No, SCO! Novell!

    AAAAA!!! I don't know who to hate anymore! ;-)

  • Msft, scox , and bsf, are winning (Score:5, Insightful)

    by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Friday May 25, 2007 @08:40AM (#19268959)
    IMO: those who think otherwise don't understand the case.

    This scam is now in it's 5th year, and that is the point of the scam. The idea is not win in a final judgement, the point is to keep the scam alive. As long as these cases continue: scox, msft, and bsf, keep winning.

    Before the scam, scox had a market cap under $10, about half what it is now. The mcbride boys, darl and kevin, are each taking in about $250K - $300K a year, which is not bad for small-time Utah scammers. BSF has raked in, at least, $30M. For msft, the cost of this fud doesn't amount to pocket change.

    The scam was yet another smart move by msft. Msft may not be fooling anybody here, but it's the PHBs that matter. The PHBs must believe that Linux is a legal mine-field.

    So gloat all you want, but the bad guys are laughing up their sleeves.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by oGMo ( 379 )

      This scam is now in it's 5th year, and that is the point of the scam. The idea is not win in a final judgement, the point is to keep the scam alive. As long as these cases continue: scox, msft, and bsf, keep winning.

      This isn't precisely the case. My guess is that if MSFT and SCOX could make this just silently disappear and be forgotten, they would have awhile back. Having the scam continue was only good when they were winning, and not having IBM drill all their teeth out slowly, meticulously, and of co

      • SCOX shares have become a bizarre game. The company has expended a quarter billion dollars in paid-in capital to achieve a market cap of $20M. Nobody is playing this game on the business merits of the company any more. Current speculation is that today's stock price has to do with mutual fund rating periods.

        It's sad that the patent trolls won't go away because the lawyers can always sell it as a good gamble.

        IMHO this smear campaign against linux fails for two reasons:

        • Vista bombs - It was a holding ac
    • I have seen no Linux deployment at all stopped for this FUD.

      And here I am talking about blue chips companies I am familiar with in several industries.

      The FUD did not work, that is the part of the scam the did not pan out as expected.
  • SCOX Market Cap is about $20 million. That might rise to 40 million in a hostile takeover. Surely the slashdot crowd has $40 million among them to finance a buyout of SCOX. We could put and end to all of this silliness for $10 a piece. We could release every patent SCOX owns into the public domain for good.

    Now, with this suggestion I know I am just cuing the "that would only let them win" chorus, but think of how much money could be put into, say, developing a linux desktop that was actually NOT maddening t
    • No way do we want to do this. A buyout is exactly what Darl & Co. have been hoping for from Day One.
      • I don't you you can say that authoritatively. This is what the /. chorus has been speculating, but it is equally likely that they just wanted a quick settlement from IBM for an infusion of cash, and ended up with a whole lot more than they bargained for.
        • Either way, we don't want to pay them, because then how many other packs of assholes would try the same stunt?

          "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
    • Scox is not only suing, scox is being sued. Unlike scox's BS suit, the lawsuits against scox are very real, and very substantial. If we buy scox, we inherent the lawsuits.

      Scox's exit strategy is to go bankrupt, and go out of business. Then the scox execs move on to the next scam. And msft finds a new bitch - like novell.
  • Integral Capital Management > Drugstore.com > Microsoft > SCO > Melinda French Gates > Silver Lake Partners > Bill Gates ..

    A href ="http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=27 4">SCO and MS Have a Mutual Friend
  • For years SCOX has been tanking...around $4 for a long time, but starting at like $30 or more. But now, around the time of this announcement, there are actually people BUYING SCO STOCK!

    Put "SCOX" in the firefox google-search; it's hilarious!

    Barnham was right: a sucker born every minute.
  • If I have read the docket and materials correctly then there won't be a decision that day. Judge Kimball will be hearing oral arguments but that is probably all that will happen that day. I expect he will then sit down with the transcripts and all the motions, briefs, reports, memorandums, etc ad nauseum for a while before he issues any decisions. In fact I'll be surprised if we have a decision on any of this before July at the earliest. Judge Kimball doesn't seem to be one who is willing to rush an

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close