Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Caldera Government The Courts News Technology

Grokking SCO's Demise 242

An anonymous reader writes "You have already heard the news that the SCO Group's US$5 billion threat against Linux is effectively finished. It was the Web site that broke the news and posted the complete 102-page ruling; after that, it was picked up by mainstream media and trade press. In fact, it's Groklaw that has covered every aspect of SCO's legal fights with Linux vendors IBM , Novell and Red Hat and Linux users Daimler Chrysler and AutoZone ever since paralegal Pamela Jones started the site as a hobby in 2003. This feature does a great job of chronicling Groklaws' hand in the demise of SCO's case."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Grokking SCO's Demise

Comments Filter:
  • by twitter ( 104583 ) * on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:01PM (#24647371) Homepage Journal

    We just filtered out the partisan crowd noise -- no mistake, this is a pro-Linux crowd -- and dug into that virtual mountain of legal documents. Everything was there, posted, transcribed, organized and searchable. That's why we all picked up the ruling from Groklaw. And that treasure trove of documents is how we know now that SCO is stick-a-fork-in-it done.

    If, after looking at everything carefully, you conclude that the GNU/Linux people were right, how can you call what they say, "partisan crowd noise" ? Perhaps you need to remove that M$ beam from your eye. GNU/Linux people correctly identified the motives, facts and outcome of this trial in days. Then they meticulously documented every bluff, bluster and lie from the SCO/M$ PR people threw out over years in their criminal abuse of the judical system. How can anyone possibly hold the same level of credibility for M$/SCO and GNU/Linux advocates after all of that? This is only something you can do if you are a dedicated MicroSoftologist. It is completely irrational.

    • by Zerth ( 26112 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:26PM (#24647749)

      If, after looking at everything carefully, you conclude that the GNU/Linux people were right, how can you call what they say, "partisan crowd noise" ?

      Well, it is well known that reality has a GNU/Linux bias.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 18, 2008 @03:22PM (#24649335)

        It's not a bias. Reality is open sourced. Anyone can participate in it, modify it and force the changes in the reality to everyone else. In fact, it is so open source that the act of not participating in the reality modifies the reality. And if you believe in multiverse theories, reality has been forked many times too.

    • by hardburn ( 141468 ) <hardburn.wumpus-cave@net> on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:27PM (#24647759)

      Because it's perfectly possible to come to the correct conclusion even while being intellectually dishonest.

    • by LarsG ( 31008 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:40PM (#24647963) Journal

      Oh, please...

      It is perfectly possible to be both correct and partisan noisy at the same time.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        It is perfectly possible to be both correct and partisan noisy at the same time.

        I think the partisan bit may have been to balance out the "LINUX IS A THIEF!!@#OMG!@! YUO OWE US MONEY!!" statements coming out of SCO headquarters.

    • by Jimmy_B ( 129296 ) <slashdot@jimr a n d o m h .org> on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:45PM (#24648045) Homepage

      They have confused reasoned opinion with bias. Our mass media has decided that being unbiased means not favoring one side. This is wrong, of course; if the facts overwhelmingly favor one side, it would be dishonest not to report that fact. Unfortunately, it's easier just to take one press release from each side of a dispute and report both, without making an effort to determine which side is full of liars.

      And anyone who does call a liar a liar is called "partisan". It's pathetic.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

        They have confused reasoned opinion with bias.

        FWIW, there is very little on groklaw that can be called "reasoned opinion." Most of the stuff by PJ that is focused on the core cases is absolutely wonderful, and there are probably twenty or thirty people who bring plenty of insight to the discussion... but as for the rest? "Four legs good, two legs bad!" would not be an unfair description of the mindset, and sadly enough that sometimes applies to PJ herself.

        I say this as someone with a three digit GL uid w

    • by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @02:00PM (#24648325)
      And there was this little gem:

      Did Groklaw really have an impact on those court cases? Naaah.

      Boy, does this guy do Groklaw and all its contributors an injustice.
      • by someone1234 ( 830754 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @04:49PM (#24650469)

        Then the court system is rotten to the core.
        Luckily it isn't :)
        How do you think a paralegal site should (and could) influence a court case significantly?
        The courts must (and i bet they would) have decided the same way without Groklaw.
        Of course Groklaw was sorely needed to dispel the fud and to keep concerned people informed.
        It balanced SCO quite well, even with its 'partisan noise' :)

        • by Lost Race ( 681080 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @05:01PM (#24650615)

          How do you think a paralegal site should (and could) influence a court case significantly?

          Maybe by giving the defense lots of good ideas and research to work from.

          However great the IBM lawyers are, they're not as good at reviewing code as thousands of independent programmers.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            Reviewing code really had nothing to do with the case, except for closed-door stuff with AIX/Monterrey.

            Admittedly when it first started, some felt there might be some meat to SCO's claims and sought to prove that "Unix concepts" were outlined in various published material, ancient Unix versions, and so on. However that entire pursuit turned out to be an intellectual dead-end.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by geschild ( 43455 )

        Worse. He is verifiably 'mistaken'. At one point, SCO entered something on into evidence, which allowed the judge to look at the site. Unfortunately I can't seem to find the relevant entry.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by laejoh ( 648921 )

      how can you call what they say, "partisan crowd noise" ?

      You're absolutely right, it should be GNU/partisan crowd noise!

    • If, after looking at everything carefully, you conclude that the GNU/Linux people were right, how can you call what they say, "partisan crowd noise" ?

      Ain't nothing sacred about being right. People become partisan because we believe that there's something 'right' about that partisan attitude. Sometimes we're right. Sometimes we're wrong.

      PJ is, in this case, both clearly pro-Linux and clearly right. She claims and I believe) that if things were coming out tha would have been clearly bad for the linux side, she would have documented it just as clearly (unhappily but clearly).

      As somebody else intimated, pretending to be unbiased is one of the prime inauthenticities. Journalists (unfortunately) get taught to write like they're dispassionate (no matter how biased they are -- or are told to be -- about what's going on). It really messes up the people who buy that line.

      That's part of the reason why I like (pseudo) amateur rags.... they'll actually say things like "We hate so and so. we think you should to, and here's why (no matter how sucky the reasons why may be). That way, you at least know their bias, and can read around it.

      PJ is about the best I think we can hope for: She's open about her bias and attempting to produce the most clean record possible inside of that bias. Sge states her bias and her opinions, and then gathers together as much of the documentation a spossible so that you can check her opinions against reality.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        PJ is, in this case, both clearly pro-Linux and clearly right. She claims and I believe) that if things were coming out tha would have been clearly bad for the linux side, she would have documented it just as clearly (unhappily but clearly).

        PJ also editorialized quite a bit about general IT and OSS stuff that had almost nothing to do with the SCO case. Furthermore, Groklaw's comments sections were full of slashbot-style "M$-Turd corrupted my DOC file in 1996. waaaaa!" stuff.

        Anyone who doesn't see that Groklaw was full of "partisan noise" is addition to the legal analysis is either off the deep-end or has never really read the site.

  • by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) * on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:02PM (#24647399)
    SCO is dead!? I just bought a new SCO Source license yesterday for $699! Why wasn't I told about this sooner? Thanks a lot, guys.

    Anyway, I'm still glad I have the peace of mind of fully licensing all of SCO's Unix intellectual property within my installation of Ubuntu. If you'd like this peace of mind, buy today at: []

    Now does anyone know where I can purchase a rock that wards off tigers?
    • Honest mistake. You simply failed to ask the right questions before making your purchase. If anybody else has questions about the SCO Source licensing program - any questions at all - you can simply use this handy online form [] to ask.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by dreamchaser ( 49529 )

      Yes, it is dead. Netcraft confirms it.

  • Gambling problem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by suck_burners_rice ( 1258684 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:04PM (#24647429)
    Perhaps instead of expending all that time, effort, money, and resources on suing the whole world (and causing the whole world to expend a similar amount of time, effort, money, and resources to defend itself), SCO should have concentrated on making technically superior products, marketing them effectively, and earning the rewards that come from making good business decisions. But no, they had to go play the lawsuit lottery. Well, playing that lottery is gambling and is no different than going to a casino and throwing millions on a Poker table. Maybe you'll win, but probably you won't.
    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:10PM (#24647519) Journal

      I don't think that was what this was all about at all. There's enough peculiar connections to Microsoft, plus shades of pump and dump, to make me suspicious that this whole thing was orchestrated as FUD against Linux. Sure SCO must have been upset that it was being relegated to a few legacy POS applications. We'll probably never know the whole truth, but this has all the hallmarks of a deliberate attempt to destroy Linux's legitimacy.

      • Re:Gambling problem (Score:5, Interesting)

        by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @02:16PM (#24648551)

        It does look suspicious. But the situation could certainly have come around without Microsoft directing it. Though - Microsoft definitely played a strong role.

        Ransom Love has commented several times that Caldera had been working with a way to leverage their new SCO acquisition to better their Linux business. There had been some talk of using the Unix code to provide a better Linux (possibly including indemnity). But some time after Darl McBride takes the helm, Ransom Love is out (who then cashes out on news of the IBM suit). New leadership - new strategy time.

        Around the same time, Microsoft has been talking about Linux and IP issues. It's labled as typical FUD. But what if it wasn't simply FUD but a public suggestion? An offered business strategy from Microsoft's tactical play book.

        The SCO Group (formally Caldera) has been keen for a new play. Their old strategies have lost their charm. They were jilted by IBM. Their fortunes were tied to industries that have felt the sting of a sluggish economy. They hear Microsoft's words and something strikes a chord - "indemnity."

        Suddenly things are going in very different directions. Microsoft even ponies up for a license. Exactly why is something of a mystery. Maybe it's insurance - Microsoft has toyed with enough Unix and GPL code that there could be easier to buy protection than wonder if something unexpected is coming their way. Maybe Microsoft is really pleased SOMEONE has finally picked up their suggestion and is keen to either support it with cash or lend an air of legitimacy - or both.

        I'm pretty sure Microsoft wasn't unhappy about any aspect of this whole case. But I would expect more evidence to support the idea that they outright orchestrated it. Even if I wouldn't be shocked that such evidence is available to be uncovered.

        • There's never been any mystery in why Microsoft took out a license (the same reason Sun did), they both made use of SCO owned IP. Microsoft has it's Services for Unix that includes a fully licensed System V implementation running on Windows. I don't think there's anyone questioning whether or not SCO had the right to sell System V licenses.

          Only people trying to make some kind of deeper conspiracy use words like "why is something of a mystery". The fact of the matter is, Microsoft has it's fingers in virt

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 )

            There's never been any mystery in why Microsoft took out a license (the same reason Sun did), they both made use of SCO owned IP. Microsoft has it's Services for Unix that includes a fully licensed System V implementation running on Windows. I don't think there's anyone questioning whether or not SCO had the right to sell System V licenses.

            Its not as simple as you make it sound. Microsoft bought a license (directly from AT&T) in the 1970's for Unix to develop Xenix. Or, more interestingly, Xenix is what Microsoft licensed to various other entities to port to their own platforms - one of which was SCO. It's possible the license Microsoft had at the time was transferred to SCO in the late 80s when MS sold Xenix to SCO. It's also possible Microsoft retained their license. The entity who can best answer this won't. Microsoft has avoide

  • Groklaw (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jhines ( 82154 ) <> on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:05PM (#24647439) Homepage

    Groklaw is the best thing to come out of SCO's mess. Thanks PJ.

    • Re:Groklaw (Score:5, Informative)

      by hyperz69 ( 1226464 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:11PM (#24647545)
      Second best thing... SCO's demise is the first ;)
      • Re:Groklaw (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LehiNephi ( 695428 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:38PM (#24647947) Journal
        While SCO's demise brings a smile to the faces of nearly all of us, I would argue that the impact of Groklaw will far outlive the SCO vs. Linux cases. Groklaw has also brought to light (and made easily accessible and searchable) the flaws in the OOXML comedy, the testing of open source licenses, and some of the intricacies of the piracy and DRM debates. SCO is done, but Groklaw will continue to provide a valuable service, hopefully for years to come. Yes, Thanks, PJ.
    • Re:Groklaw (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:13PM (#24647569) Journal

      Which is why so much energy was spent by SCO and its allies in trying to out PJ whilst simultaneously claiming that she was nothing more than a front for IBM's legal team. That she had the fortitude to withstand constant attack from SCO and its various Wall Street shills, including that lying little piece of shit Daniel Lyons.

      • Re:Groklaw (Score:5, Informative)

        by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:48PM (#24648109)
        It's a well known tactic. When losing a debate on actual arguments, smear the other side. It reminds me of the old Saturday Night skits with Jane Curtain and Dan Aykroyd where he would start off his counterpoint with "Jane, you ignorant slut." While PJ always had some commentary to the information, it was hard to refute the well-researched and reasoned points in her analysis. So the opposition had to dig dirt on her to make her look bad. Maureen O'Gara tried to post an expose on her and invade her privacy after PJ dismantled O'Gara's arguments and analysis. That move cost O'Gara her jobs as many would argue that breached professional ethics. Both SCO and an MS blogger have tried to allege that she works for IBM directly and indirectly by using a Kevin-Bacon type connection that since IBM belongs to a group that funds the hosting server which Groklaw appears, she worked for IBM.
  • This is a year late (Score:5, Informative)

    by mapsjanhere ( 1130359 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:10PM (#24647515)
    The way TFA starts about the August 10th ruling, you could think it was a recent event. The author refers to the summary judgment decision of 8/10/2007.
    Since then there was a trial, and currently the bankrupt SCO is waiting for the final judgment to be entered to appeal - mainly that year old decision.
  • by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:10PM (#24647517)

    Some folks are still willing to see SCO as the 'comeback kids' [] (Found from a Groklaw link from today

    And, of course, McBride is still harping about how misguided all the 'naysayers' are. Ah, corporate message control - so consistent, no matter the insanity of what is said.

    I guess that's the point of freedom - for every choice that can be used to help build something greater, there is also choice to harm others. It's too bad that so much freedom ends up being used to crush the freedom of others for minimal short-term benefit, like those of SCO (which in turn was at least partly on behalf of Microsoft's FUD campaign).

    Ryan Fenton
    Ryan Fenton

  • by Phase Shifter ( 70817 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:12PM (#24647555) Homepage
    Umm, has anyone else noticed TFA is claiming the judge's ruling from over a year ago was made last week?
    • by capnkr ( 1153623 )
      Actually, your error is even worse than theirs. :) PJ's story was just a month ago:

      Judge Kimball Rules at Last! - Updated: The Order as text []
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by sconeu ( 64226 )

        It's actually understandable confusion.

        The August 10, 2007 ruling was that SCOX didn't own the copyrights. On the eve of the trial to determine how much SCOX owed Novell in royalties collected, SCOX filed for bankruptcy, suspending the litigation.

        Novell asked the BK court to lift the stay, and the July ruling referenced in the parent post was on how much SCOX owes.

  • by scribblej ( 195445 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:12PM (#24647563)

    From the article:

    Did Groklaw really have an impact on those court cases? Naaah.

    I love Groklaw as much as the next guy, but this article is truly worthless; it just reads as worthless praise for groklaw without even so much as a particular.

    • No, you misunderstand. The article does indeed cover Groklaw's hand in SCO's demise: namely, the fact that its influence was nonexistent.
    • "The SCO Group 's US$5 billion threat against Linux is effectively finished. On Friday, Aug. 10, U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball ruled that SCO doesn't actually own the copyrights that it was using to threaten -- and in some cases, sue -- Linux users"

      "It's Groklaw that has published every scrap of legal and technical information available on the cases -- every brief, deposition and ruling, along with press releases, technical documentation and historical information"

      "All that has made it easy for rep
  • by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:18PM (#24647627) Homepage

    And SCO is a nice pelt to hang on the fence for anyone getting similar ideas. The SCO case was a stereotype of every piece of misinformation MS had ever put out about Linux and they got crushed. It's also a good example for companies thinking about getting in bed with Microsoft, which financed this whole charade. I wonder if Sun will ever live it down that they were part of the clown posse?

    IBM showed a lot of foresight and got to dish out a little payback to MS over the OS2 incident. You can't buy that kind of advertising and then using it to tweak Redmond was priceless.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Exactly how is this the power of open source? Looks to me more like the power of high priced corporate attorneys.

    • by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:31PM (#24647817) Journal

      Thing is, I believe that SCO knew it was doomed from the start, but did it anyway.

      McBride still made millions of bucks off of the deal, as did most of SCO's principals. Unless/Until there's criminal proceedings for SEC violations, they probably don't care, and are only making noises for long enough to provide plausible deniability. In short - they got their dough, and they probably don't care what happens to SCO from this point on.

      SCO lasted five years longer than it probably would have if it had simply died quietly as Yet Another Dot-Bust Carcass.

      Finally, most corps know nowadays that getting into bed with MSFT is a sure recipe for disaster. PlaysForSure, HD-DVD, Windows Defender, OS/2, and numerous other smaller examples are proof-positive of just how badly you get burned in any partnership with MSFT... unless of course you're Microsoft. I think only NBC has managed to not get raped in a MSFT partnership (and even then, only because of NBC's vastly different market segments).

      As for Sun? I think they simply got caught in the crossfire. They were looking to license SVR permanently so that they could protect (and eventually open-source) Solaris. Otherwise, they were (and are) hating life anyway, as market dynamics dictate that buying pricey Sparc-based servers is kinda stupid for most applications.


      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Teancum ( 67324 )

        Oh, I don't think the SEC has even started yet. Those things take time, and the SEC is waiting for the legal fallout to happen first. This is a typical pattern for the SEC as well, where they wait for all of the normal legal evidence to come out in the various lawsuits, and then add the final insult to injury in the end.

        Too bad the SEC couldn't have saved the shareholders (*cough*) some grief by more closely investigating the pump and dump accusations. From what I've seen, besides the compensation on the

    • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:32PM (#24647831)
      In fairness to Sun, Sun actually got something from their SCO agreement. They paid SCO for the right to essentially open source Solaris as some parts of Solaris were covered by their Unix agreements. The problem was SCO didn't have the right to grant Sun this ability. Only Novell has this right. MS on the other hand, paid tens of millions of dollars for things they haven't used yet. Maybe future versions of Windows will use parts of legacy Unix and the newer Unixware, but I doubt it.
      • Didn't Microsoft make "Services for Unix" a free download after paying SCO off? At least that was their cover story.

        • "Services for Unix" goes back to 1999 before the SCO saga began, and MS had a Unix OS way back in the day called Xenix which they started developing in the 1970s. The latest variant of Services for Unix includes many modules like GNU and NFS that having nothing to do the legacy Unix that they acquired from SCO. Really if you wanted to develop Unix like compatibility you would develop from BSD which is more flexible and feature rich and no licensing required. Also Novell questioned in the lawsuit that if
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by man_of_mr_e ( 217855 )

            SFU is a licensed port os System Vr4 running on Windows. It's not BSD based and never was. Also, remember that Xenix was sold to The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) and Microsoft made agreements with them about what they could and couldn't do. SCO later sold all their Unix intersts to Caldera, and changed their name to Tarantella, and Caldera became the "new" SCO.

      • Well said, friend. I wish I had points to give.
  • by Tolvor ( 579446 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:19PM (#24647637)

    Groklaw was certainly informative, and it is nice to see major media give a nod of thanks to an internet site that had done their research. What I wonder is where is Groklaw to grok next?

    I'd vote for Groking RIAA, big time.

    Grok IP law and squelch that mess once and for all.

    And since it the season, groking certain political parties (or all of them) would be nice.

    • "I'd vote for Groking RIAA, big time."

      Well, I'd vote for wokking the RIAA.

      I'd prefer them with noodles and a sweet-sour sauce too. Please leave the tauge, I don't like tauge.

    • I'd vote for Groking RIAA, big time.

      Ray Beckerman's blog already does a pretty good job of Grokking the RIAA. Still, the more transparency the better.

  • Props to Groklaw... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:21PM (#24647665) Journal

    Pamela has taught us (well, at least myself) quite a few things about tech and the law:

    * Legal matters may be messy, disgusting things, but in a perverse way, being a lawyer or judge often requires as much (if not more) logical and mental discipline than programming ever did.

    * This crap takes time. Five years... five years! Just to throw out what folks who knew better (read: those of us who lived/worked/breathed Linux) saw instantly as an obvious cock-and-bull scam by a dying dot-bust corporation.

    * There's a lot going on behind the curtain. Without Groklaw, Microsoft could have credibly denied being any part of the proceedings, and would've been almost perfectly insulated from the whole SCO mess. Now, they're painted with 98 shades of evil, and the tech community at large** has even more reason to reject them unless absolutely necessary.

    * Most folks think that IT/Tech is pretty insulated and isolated from the usual crap that infects most businesses. Groklaw proves otherwise. As much as we'd like to be otherwise, we're just as mired and smothered in politics and legal crap as any other commercial endeavor.

    I highly recommend Groklaw as a solid starting point for any CS student, perhaps as a semester or two of curricula... just to get the students to realize just what the hell kind of crazy world they're signing on to.


    ** I mean real techs who use multiple platforms, not "Em-See-Ess-Aaay's" who happily swallow Redmond's Kool-Aid (among other fluids) on a near daily basis.

  • Great job? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PinkPanther ( 42194 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:23PM (#24647693)

    ... a great job of chronicling Groklaws' hand in the demise of SCO's case

    What is this article doing that is great? At best it is a 100,000 foot view of the past 5 years...but there is no "chronicling" going on.

    The information in this article is barely worthwhile to someone who knows nothing about the SCO case (and that type of person wouldn't care about Groklaw anyways), and has ZERO information in it for everyone else.

  • by i_want_you_to_throw_ ( 559379 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:24PM (#24647711) Journal
    Like donating to the site. It's a massive amount of work that PJ has put into the site. So if you got a few bucks, donate. Sorry, but it has to be said and PJ won't say it.
  • Although many of us pointed out the question of Novell's
    ownership of the actual copyrights at the outset, why isn't the
    law structured to eliminate much sturm and drang by hoisting
    this test out of the loop as an initial cutoff? Or were
    the parallel lawsuits invoked without common sense
    serialization just done for fun? I suspect the real reason
    is that the motion practice follies made for good
    billable hours...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by man_of_mr_e ( 217855 )

      Even Novell didn't know they still owned the copyrights, so anyone "pointing out the question" was simply grasping at straws. You caught one ;)

      Novell, for years, had lost the paperwork and had no idea that it still had any interest in Unixware. All the people that had done the deal were gone, and the current regime spent a lot of time digging up the paperwork to figure out what was going on.

  • Maybe the work Grokking can be now referred to the lambasting of frivolous software patent lawsuits by SCO-like troll companies. We all hate SCO like trolls that all they do is make money by suing others with patents they own, but don't actually use because all the do is think stuff up on how things could work and then take advantage of the Patent Office's own weaknesses in approving 'my-dog-can-fart' processes. A big hi-five to my fellow Grokkers!
  • And just how much did this little adventure cost all of us through these years? And who pays in the end for all the lawyers, disruptions, changed and shelved plans, and the rest of the collateral damage caused by this SCO debacle?
  • by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:42PM (#24648009)

    I have always wondered who Pamela Jones is. This lady is very meticulous in what she does and I congratulate her. I have done an image search on Google and got some images.

    But I am not sure the images I get in the search actually represent Pamela Jones. Googling my own name returns images other than mine!

    Request: I am looking for a kind slashdotter to help me put a face on the name "Pamela Jones" of


  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:49PM (#24648131) Homepage

    The real turning point in the case was when IBM decided to fight SCO's claims and put Cravath, Swaine, and Moore LLP on the job. Cravath is very good; they say of themselves "Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP is known as the premier American law firm.", and nobody laughs. They're very organized and thorough. Cravath was the first firm to use litigation support systems (developed by IBM for an IBM case). They can't be snowed with documents; they'll put enough people and hardware on the job to deal with truckloads of materials when necessary. At times, the staff for a single case has filled a sizable office building. This is expensive, but it works.

    It works especially well when the other side has voluminous but bogus claims. That's what happened with SCO. All SCO's claims were analyzed by that huge staff, checked, and countered. In the end, SCO had nothing left.

    Groklaw reported on all this, but Cravath really did the work.

    • by onkelonkel ( 560274 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @02:11PM (#24648477)
      Must have been an amazing sight, each morning as the lawyers from CS&M landed their fell beasts on the courthouse steps, Armani suits so dark they seem to drink the light, Morghul briefcases clutched in their skeletal hands, eyes glowing with lambent red flame as they gleefully contemplated slicing off and devouring tiny slivers of Darl's withered soul.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Cravath is impressive. I remember one argument where they gave the judge five reasons they were right. If any of the five were accepted, then they won their argument. They always addressed SCO's every point while SCO at times failed to address IBM's points. There was a few episodes where IBM pointed out the SCO didn't address their points at all but used a maze of circular cross references that led nowhere. [] (See Arg 233 -> See Arg 228 -> See Arg 27 -> See Arg 187 -> See Arg 27 -> infinit
  • Daryl has of late said they will reap the benefits of the software they have recently put "10's" of millions of dollars into".

    Instead, I believe they will reap what they have sown, but not to his vision.

  • Vampires and monster movie lore has the creatures ever rising once the hero's attention has been shifted.

    We need to keep after SCO. There was an article about how SCO is partnering with another company that they "trust."

    We need to boycott EVERY company that does business with SCO.

    SCO is a corporate cancer that must not be allowed to survive.

  • If SCO's lawsuit failed because Novell rather than SCO owns UNIX, does that mean Linux is now infringing on Novell IP rather than SCO IP?

    • Besides, just as SCO has been proven to have done, Novell has distributed Linux under the GPL so they would have no claim anyway.
    • by mea37 ( 1201159 )

      It's not that SCO would've won if they'd owned the copyrights; it's that of the many reasons they could lose, the first one brought to fruition is that (ridiculously) they didn't even own the copyrights in the first place.

      Had they owned the copyrights, then eventually they'd have had to prove infringement -- something they repeatedly refused to do, using excuses that were both frivolous and probably detrimental to their own rights (if they had any such rights to begin with). I think most people at this poi

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by miffo.swe ( 547642 )

      "If SCO's lawsuit failed because Novell rather than SCO owns UNIX, does that mean Linux is now infringing on Novell IP rather than SCO IP?"

      I would say give a resounding nope! to that question. First of all the lawsuit failed because SCO couldn't find any evidence that Linux infringes any of their/Novells IP at all. The APA was just the final nail in the coffin. SCO couldn't find anything even remotely tangible in Linux when compared to the AT&T/Novell code base. If they had found anything they wouldn't

  • by macraig ( 621737 ) <> on Monday August 18, 2008 @03:18PM (#24649295)

    What is most incredible to me is that Darl McBride and company will be able to walk away from this... humbled and humiliated publicly, but nonetheless able to walk away and try to do the same all over again. Everyone knows what they did was socially and economically unethical, and yet the corporate Old Boys' Network simply views what they did with a knowing wink and a nod. In the back social rooms, McBride will laugh and joke and reminisce with other CEOs about his stunt, and perhaps even be offered a few sage tips how he can improve his chances the next time. For people like this, there's always a next time because they never pay the full consequences of their actions.

  • by merc ( 115854 ) <> on Monday August 18, 2008 @04:52PM (#24650513) Homepage

    Let the names of the "expert testimony" scumbags that aided and abetted the SCO scam; selling themselves for a few dollars at the expense of their good names. Two come to the top of the list: Marc Rochkind and Thomas Cargill.

    May their names be soiled with SCO for all time.

  • by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @09:22PM (#24653385) Homepage
    I seemed to have missed the part about the judge reading Groklaw. What Groklaw did was useful and interesting, but to say they had a hand in the demise of SCO seems a bit over the top.
  • One trick pony? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @09:28PM (#24653447) Homepage

    I wonder if Groklaw can find something useful to do after SCO? So far, when it is ventured into other areas, its record has been spotty. There was a lot of inaccuracies in its coverage of OOXML standardization, for instance--I'd often read things there, and then follow the references to the original sources, and find out that the Groklaw reporting was just plain wrong.

    I hope Groklaw can turn into an accurate site for legal issues beyond SCO, and not just degenerate into another anti-MS site where accuracy is not important as long as the story is anti-MS.

Nothing is finished until the paperwork is done.