SCO Zombie Creaks Into Motion Again 208
phands writes "SCO has moved to partially reopen their 10 year old lawsuit against IBM. Unbelievable! Details at Groklaw."
From the article, quoting SCO's filing: "SCO respectfully requests that the Court rule on IBM’s Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO’s Unfair Competition Claim (SCO’s Sixth Cause of Action), dated September 25, 2006 (Docket No. 782), which motion is directed at the Project Monterey Claim, and IBM’s Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO’s Interference Claims (SCO’s Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action), dated September 25, 2006 (Docket No. 783), which motion is directed at the Tortious Interference Claims."
License fee (Score:4, Funny)
Don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fees you cock-smoking teabaggers!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have sworn that Abbott and Costello are dead. Then SCO surprises me.
I tried, scox would not let me (Score:3)
I called scox two times, a few months apart, and asked to be sent an invoice. Scox refused to do so.
The first time I called, scox seemed bewildered that anybody would even call about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell that is still up is bewildering.
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't use the msfonts download? Opensuse fonts are ugly even with it (try zooming the screen while running YaST2) ... considering how bad it looks even with msfonts, I'd hate to see how your system renders/mangles text.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SCO = Herpes (Score:2)
Re:SCO = Herpes (Score:5, Informative)
How is it that they can continue to pay lawyers
The company is nothing but lawyers. They stopped being a tech company a long time ago. As long as a lawyer has not been beheaded/disbarred it will keep finding ways to troll. "It" being the only non-vulgar way I can think of to describe a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
My vote is for "beheaded" in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're being hasty. I say we bury him alive and see if he rises from the dead. Worst case scenario you then have to behead him.
Re: (Score:2)
Hasty? I'm one who dislikes doing a job two or three times. Let's get it done right the first time. Shoot it through the heart with a silver bullet, drive a wooden stake through it's heart - following the path of the bullet, if you like, behead it, then leave it lying in the sun for most of a day, then bury it with a bouquet of garlic and other fragrant herbs. The head we removed earlier should be burned - I'm not sure if there's a prescribed formula for the fire, or if we can just kick the head into an
Re:SCO = Herpes (Score:5, Funny)
drive a wooden stake through it's heart
That part would be a problem... we're talking about a lawyer here...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SCO = Herpes (Score:4, Funny)
a "woosh" sound is made by a stake as it tries to find a heart in a lawyer...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SCO = Herpes (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't what happening in the US right now similar to situations where some animals kills their own offspring in order to survive themselves?
But when that happens it can also be damaging to the future survival since what's culled may actually have a better opportunity and be better adapted to survival in the long run.
Being a patent troll is not that different from being a cannibal.
Re:SCO = Herpes (Score:5, Insightful)
As a person living in Utah, I can attest that there is an inordinate number of out of work lawyers here. Not only that, we have a lot of lawyers here that are very entrepreneurial. That is a very bad combination, and there are lots of silly legal things happening here. So, if your choices are to take on a potentially hopeless law suit or collect up shopping carts at Walmart, stupid law suits don't look to bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until Walmart realizes that they can get the customers to do the shopping cart work too - like we have here. Deposit coin, get cart, return cart get coin back.
But maybe that won't happen until there's a $1 coin.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, every other profession adds value to society.
Your posts proves that they only harm and when they are out of work they figure out ways to harm people entrepreneurial and all of course. Other people start businesses that serve society.
Seriously it would serve society better if they got paid for life not to work
I wouldn't go so far as to say that lawyers only harm. I would certainly agree that they need to be leashed NOW and not in a particularly polite way. Society must take control of itself again, not let itself be led around by the nose.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously it would serve society better if they got paid for life not to work
No. Absolutely not.
Use lawyers for animal testing instead of fluffy bunnies. This not only shuts PETA up, but also does something about the excess lawyer population.
Re: (Score:2)
>> 4,143,077 Texans live in poverty. 1,655,085 of them are children. http://www.census.gov/
The other some odd 2,487,922 are paying Texas traffic ticket SURCHARGES.
Re: (Score:2)
>> 4,143,077 Texans live in poverty. 1,655,085 of them are children. http://www.census.gov/ [census.gov]
The other some odd 2,487,922 are paying Texas traffic ticket SURCHARGES.
I hadn't heard of this, so I googled "texas ticket surcharge."
If you go to Texas, you'll pay for it the rest of your life [state.tx.us].
Unreal. I don't even have it in me to make a jab at Republicans over this. I mean... holy shit, Texas. Holy fucking shit. I'm not mad, or angry, or even disappointed. I'm stunned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm struggling to see the bad in that. It just looks like your run-of-the-mill speeding fine to me.
What's the difference in this case?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm struggling to see the bad in that. It just looks like your run-of-the-mill speeding fine to me.
What's the difference in this case?
In most states, (Ohio and Arizona are the two I'm most familiar with. Don't ask...), money collected from traffic tickets goes to the community. These surcharges go directly to the State of Texas. And it doesn't matter if you're an out of state resident who has points on his license, if convicted in Texas, you get to pay on all the points for 3 years. To Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
It's doom for sure. The only way to kill a zombie is to shoot it in its brain. But Zombie SCO has no brain!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How is it that they can continue to pay lawyers (or find fools greedy enough) to fund their 'Hail Marry' legal crap?
The general belief is a certain company whose popular acronym starts with an "M" and ends with an "S"...
Re: (Score:2)
I hope they turn this saga into a horror movie. This is like the corpse still banging on the cofffin cask door, even when sprinkled with holy water, surrounded by crucifixes, shot with silver bullets, packed in with garlic and exorcised by an entire busload of priests working shifts 24/7.
Re: (Score:2)
Because when this whole fiaSCO started, they paid a lump sump to their attorneys to cover the ENTIRE suit through all appeals.
They're NOT paying their attorneys, they've already been paid.
Reminds me of the old Russian bonds (Score:3)
They are still traded, believe it or not. The bonds issued by the old Czarist regime from almost a century ago. Every time it seems like Russia might ponder thinking about picking them up and honoring them, their value goes up. Mind you, from zero to near zero, but still.
I guess SCO is aiming for the same gambit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But at least in Soviet Russia, Bond James Bond redeem *you*.
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, James Bonds James.
It's very kinky.
The Monks: James Bondage (Score:2)
http://spotibot.com/track/3Be6KHyD9kmAaLVoW3itWV [spotibot.com]
After your comment, its kinda obligatory. Couldn't find it on Youtube, what is the world coming to?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes - my grandmother's family invested heavily in the Trans Siberian Railrway - evidently most of their life savings. When the Bolsheviks repudiated those bonds, it changed my ancestor's lives, not for the better.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't be "zero to near zero", because the last guy will have been thinking the same as you. What you'd be hoping for is "near zero" moving to "slightly less near zero".
Re: (Score:2)
I would buy any quantity of bonds at 0 if I had even the remotest chance of them picking up to near-zero
Don't forget transaction costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Just look at how many idiots continued to buy GM stock after it was officially bankrupt and they were told that the stock was worth zero, "just in case."
Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO (Score:3)
In 100 years when Linux rules all, the name SCO will be uttered in hushed tones like an unmentionably profane word, told to naughty children by mothers to warn them against Bad Things, and the generic name for products that burned into a black hole of public hatred... "did you see that BeegleSearch did a SCO?".
Time for the cricket bat to put this zombie down for good.
Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO (Score:5, Funny)
In 100 years when Linux rules all,
Dude I don't normally say this, but today I have a real bad back-ache and I'm in a lot of pain. So could you give me some of what you're smoking?
Re: (Score:2)
A hundred years is a very long time. In many ways the computer industry is still young, things keep changing all the time at least on the hardware and interface level. Right now it's mobile devices, multipoint touchscreens and so on but there's been plenty others over the last decade, people are still finding reasons to upgrade from XP and OS X 10.0 that was state of the art 10 years ago. Is operating in 2021 going to look that much different from 2011? 2031 to 2021? ...and so on. I'm not going to pretend I
Re: (Score:2)
In 100 years when Linux rules all,
Dude I don't normally say this, but today I have a real bad back-ache and I'm in a lot of pain. So could you give me some of what you're smoking?
It's probably just Mike & Ike.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I have a desktop that boots debian, ubuntu and windows 7. For some reason I always use Windows 7, except when I do my online banking. Why? Because you simply cannot argue with 90-odd percent market share. All the new drivers come out for Windows 7 first. All the new software is supported for Windows 7 first. I don't have to fiddle with the command line. I don't have to download packages. I don't have to be insulted on random websites when I ask what apparently are extremely stupid questions because
Re: (Score:2)
Funnily enough, I have the exact opposite experience...
I was given a windows-only mp3 player and have never been able to sync it with Windows. I plug it in, windows then tells me I need to install drivers so I install them. It then tells me to reboot, so I reboot. I launch WMP, then after clicking all over the place I finally find the device to try and sync it with some playlists. At the end of the sync, WMP tells me "there was an error please try again later". I check the player, nothing on it... the damne
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about the smartphone that I have to pull the battery out of every day or so because it hung while getting a text message and email at the same time? And the Windows PC that I'm currently playing Battlefield 3 on, that I haven't had to restart in a week? 'Cause if that's the comparison, you just sold me against Linux. Which is weird, because I dual boot.
Re: (Score:2)
In 100 years when Linux rules all, the name SCO will be uttered in hushed tones like an unmentionably profane word, told to naughty children by mothers to warn them against Bad Things, and the generic name for products that burned into a black hole of public hatred... "did you see that BeegleSearch did a SCO?".
Time for the cricket bat to put this zombie down for good.
"You mean Valdemort?"
"Shhh!"
No doubt your right. Sort of a negative take on "Doing an Apple."
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure saying SCOX at school can get you that reaction right now.
SCOldemort? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You sir, need to learn what a crumpet is. After that, you might understand cricket.
Linus's view on the scox-scam (Score:5, Interesting)
In a recent interview, Linus expresses his opinions on patents and copyrights and made the following remark about SCO and the US justice system
"SCO was a classic example of that. Where they tried to use copyrights, which turned out to be completely bogus in so many ways, and made it into a nasty legal battle. They lost badly. What was irritating about the whole thing, as an insider knowing about what they claimed was completely bogus, was that it took them 10 years to lose. It is scary. 10 years! I don't know how many hundreds and millions of dollars IBM and Novell spent on fighting completely bogus crap stuff; fighting lawsuits that made no sense. Literally it made no sense what so ever. To the point that it ended up turning out that they did not even own the copyrights that they were claiming, never mind the copyrights they were claiming weren't actually true. Christ what a chaos!"
http://www.muktware.com/news/2866
Re: (Score:3)
AFAICT "not having a case" is absolutely no barrier to using the US legal system to its fullest extent.
Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they can't tell them to jump off a cliff. They have to tell the judge to tell them to jump off a cliff. And for that to happen, you have to persuade the judge that you're right. And the SCO lawyers are trying to persuade him that they're right instead. And the judge doesn't know the technicalities that well, and is forced to address every single point, one at a time, letting both sides have a fair crack at persuading him in intricate technical and legal detail for every one of 100s and 100s of points. And then even when he's made his mind up on any given batch of points, an appeal might be called and another judge will need to do the exact same thing.
That's what takes 10 torturous, expensive years.
Re: (Score:2)
If the legal teams that IBM & Novell hired were any good (IANAL), why didn't they just look up the copyrights, see SCO had no grounds, and then tell the guys to go jump off a cliff?
They did, that was his point. It costs 10 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to say STFU using the US legal system! And he's right, it's crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
What SCO thought they were buying wasn't what Novell thought they were selling.
A not so minor quibble:
What Caldera thought SCO bought from Novell wasn't what Novell thought they sold to SCO.
SCO then sold whatever it was to Caldera and renamed themselves Tarentella (and got bought by Sun who got bought by Oracle).
Then Caldera (you know, Mickey Mouse's ear) renamed themselves to "The SCO Group".
TSCOG never bought anything from Novell.
SCO Zombie ... (Score:2)
... No problem, L4D taught us how to deal with this: AIM FOR THE HEAD.
How do you kill a zombie? (Score:2)
Shotgun blast to the head, right? But what kind of shotgun do you use for a corporation?
It's not really scox, it's Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
Microsoft financed the entire scam. And doesn't it fit the MS MO perfectly? MS is always abusing the legal system to hurt it's competition.
It also fit's the MS MO to pull these legal system scams by proxie. A US federal judge once accused MS of using "Tonya Harding" tactics. At least somebody in the US justice system gets it.
Actually MS legitimized slapping lic. fee on Linux (Score:2)
With all the license fees MS are collecting for Android, MS was able to do directly what they were unable to do via SCO. This is about the SCO henchmen getting their cut after MS finally found an M.O. that worked.
More like this (Score:2)
Of course there's also stock manipulation, resume building (I'm the guy that took on IBM and would have won too if not for those meddling kids and their penguin!), relatively small amount of money coming in from Microsoft who saw they could get a b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because Sun was schizophrenia. Sun loved linux, then sun hated linux, then sun claimed to own linux. At one point McNealy said something like: "of course we are pleased to own the only legal version of linux." Soon afterwards, Novell made the same claim about SuSe. The scammers want to say that only their version of linux is legal because it has been blessed by Microsoft.
Classic extortion: pay us not to sue you, or your customers; then you can say you have the only legal version. MS is still pulling the s
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents
Re: (Score:2)
See the Halloween documents indicated in another post above as well as this [cnet.com] and this. [eweek.com]
Re: (Score:3)
BayStar took money from Microsoft, BayStar did a PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity) in SCO.
http://slashdot.org/story/04/03/11/158214/baystar-confirms-microsoft-behind-sco-investment [slashdot.org]
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies#SCO_and_BayStar_Capital [wikipedia.org]
also see below at that page under "Microsoft funding of SCO controversy".
Which leads to:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween10.html [catb.org]
So that's pretty much as much evidence as I can imagine needing.
Re: (Score:2)
You are posting as A/C, Ballmer is that you ?
Rule #2 (Score:4, Insightful)
Double tap.
For exactly this reason
Oh goodie a car analogy (Score:2)
Siblings are using their mom's old car. She doesn't care what any of them do with it. The youngest used it to sell and deliver pizza. His older brother let his friends use it to deliver free pizza in return for free pizza and free recipes. The youngest complained to dad. Dad tells him to GFY. So he complains again, and again, and again. If we are lucky we will get to watch dad beating the shit out of him on youtube.
What it really means ... (Score:3)
Not that anyone else even cares any more. Even if SCO were to somehow win everything they ask for in some parallel universe, it wouldn't affect anyone outside the USofA, and there's enough connectivity now that all the data centers running linux could just move north and south of the borders.
So who would that leave? Pretty much nobody.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He would have done better spending it on booze and hookers, and returning the empties for a refund.
Re: (Score:2)
Not when the estate is responsible for all other costs of pursuing litigation, such as transcripts, witnesses, etc. Look at the bills over the last couple of years - millions blown even after the supposed fee cap.
He would have done better spending it on booze and hookers, and returning the empties for a refund.
Even given that blowing all that cash on booze & hookers and returning the empties would have brought in more cash than continuing the pursuit of the suit, it wouldn't have been legal under the bankruptcy laws for him to do this. By law, the trustee(s) is/are obligated to continue pursuit until a final judge drops the final hammer for good or evil.
Re: (Score:2)
SCO resulted in some good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd mod this comment up. Though I might nitpick the spelling. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Way more bad than good, IMO. Now, Microsoft used their lessons from the scox-scam to file bogus IP lawsuits all over the place. It's practically all MS does anymore. Bogus lawsuits work, they work like all hell.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it did a lot damage for over a year or two during a crucial period of time when companies were seriously about possibly switching it created legal doubt as to Linux's standing. The legal issues were 2nd to the failure (with a few exceptions) of all but Unix shops transitioning in having killed corporate desktop Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
It has resulted in some pretty important stuff like auditing the Linux code for copyrighted stuff, keeping developers and contributors honest to the code
Meanwhile, it's proprietary competition has no such scrutiny required, and is even more likely to be able to hide such instances, as their source is not publicly available.
Grasping at straws and nitpicking at details (Score:5, Informative)
The new round of SCO claims is more laughable than the original claims. These new claims deal with the ill-fated Project Monterrey.
Way back in the late 1990s, Project Monterrey was an effort to bring a single Unix that ran on 32-bit and 64-bit. It was supposed to run on POWER, PowerPC, x86 and Itanium. IBM would work on the PowerPC part, Sequent was supposed to bring in multi-processor support, and Santa Cruz would work on IA-32. Intel would help develop Itanium support. The project became large and unwieldy at the same time Linux started gaining traction. IBM bought Sequent in 1999. IBM seeing that the future was Linux and not Project Monterrey declared the project dead in 2000 but not before making all the contributions they felt necessary to complete their end. Itanium was delayed and thus never got much traction. Santa Cruz was bought out by Caldera in 2000 and renamed themselves SCO.
As part of the agreement, all the partners would share in any development efforts. According to SCO, IBM took the Project Monterrey parts and put it in Linux. I think they may even allege they took the Santa Cruz parts. They also accuse IBM of interfering with their efforts in Project Monterrey.
Unfortunately for SCO, there isn't much evidence to support them. Project Monterrey failed because Linux was a far more attractive project with more support and more partners. Project Monterrey would at best be a niche platform especially since Itanium never took off. IBM only sold a few dozen licenses from the project where they normally sell hundreds of thousands of licenses.
Also there is no evidence that IBM took any part of PM and contributed to Linux much less Santa Cruz parts. Again SCO is vague about what parts but SMP, NUMA, and JFS are possible candidates. However all these predate PM with SMP and NUMA coming from Sequent and JFS coming from IBM's OS/2 efforts. The disagreement if the parts don't involve these revolve whether the PM license allowed IBM to take. SCO first has to identify the parts and then place them as originating from their part of PM.
To show how misguided SCO's claims are they have this bit.
The fact that Novell waived those contract claims years after the disclosures started does not diminish the impropriety of the disclosures or the damage they caused to SCO.
In laymen's terms, SCO says just because Novell waived any IBM transgression in 2003, that doesn't SCO wasn't hurt when IBM transgressed on Novell's rights. So SCO is forgetting again the fact that SCO never owned the copyrights so they absolutely no complaint in the matter between IBM and Novell. Only Novell does and they waived it. It doesn't matter when as SCO is not a party to it.
Indeed, insofar as IBM requires the waiver to avoid liability for breach of contract, Novell's waiver only highlights the wrongfulness of IBM's conduct. In addition, the Tortious Interference Claims are also based on IBM's disclosure of confidential UnixWare technologies that SCO developed after 1995 and that are unrelated to IBM's AT&T licensing agreements for UNIX.
SCO tries to imply that IBM may have transgressed on Novell thus they are likely to transgress on their claims. The problem is that SCO never had any proof that IBM transgressed on Novell at all. Novell never considered what IBM did to be a transgression. Also any transgression IBM did to SCO must be proved. They keep forgetting the "proof" part.
Scox-scam continues to be a great success for MS (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea of the scox-scam was never to win a jury verdict. Nor was the idea to collect fees for Linux (I called twice, and asked to be invoiced, scox refused to do so).
The idea behind the scox-scam was to smear linux, and intimidate some people away from using linux, and to scare some companies away from contributing to linux.
Think about it: why did scox (really Microsoft) sue IBM? Why not redhat? IBM is not even have a linux distribution. The reason is: IBM had just contributed a file system to Linux. And Microsoft wants other companies to know that if they contribute to Linux, they better be ready to spend $100 million defending that decision. I would bet this tactic actually worked.
Follow the money. Who stands to benefit from smearing Linux? Caldera/Scox was a linux company. But scox made a lot more $$ accepting MS loot, than from trying to sell Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree. The only people who benefit from this in any substantial way is Microsoft, and the legion of lawyers their money paid for to run this lawsuit for 10 years. The purpose was to tarnish Linux and Open Source in general. Now someone at MS has ponied up some more cash to run a second scam, ^H^H^H lawsuit and they will likely try to drag it out as long as possible.
I would love to see some company buy up SCO then opensource all their code, and publicly display all their documents, all their bankre
Re: (Score:2)
Time to execure SCO (Score:2)
Surely a corporation that is literally not able to do anything but dredge up old lawsuits that have already been adjudicated to death cannot be seen as being for the public good. Just revoke the charter and be done with it.
Besides that, shouldn't they have already put everything including old business cards and leftover trade show swag up on ebay to pay their existing debts? Where/how does SCO have any money to pay someone to oversee this crap? Surely at most they should have one person (working from a home
Kill 'em already.... (Score:2)
Will some IBM lawyer kindly put a shotgun shell through this zombie's head once and for all?
Buy SCO's client list, disband SCO's board, take away their DNS entries and set Derle's tomb on fire so we can be done with this crap.
Re: (Score:3)
Our legal system is truly broken.
Broken? I don't know: we give everyone a chance to have their day in court ... multiple chances even. You don't want justice (or whatever passes for it nowadays) to be too swift. But you're right: SCO had their chance, they blew it (because they were wrong) and they should just go away. Fact is, had they been left to themselves, they'd have been cremated years ago. The problem is, there are too many powerful entities (Gates, Ballmer, Hell & Co, for one) who see a strategic advantage in continually resur
Re: (Score:2)
For me it demonstrates a serious problem, in that a complainant who has no evidence to back up their claims is permitted literally years to gobble up time. There should be a mandatory one week preliminary hearing in such a case where both sides have to provide a reasonably large body of their evidence, and if they cannot, the case is dismissed. If you have evidence, you should be able to summarize it in the space of a week.
Re: (Score:2)
For me it demonstrates a serious problem, in that a complainant who has no evidence to back up their claims is permitted literally years to gobble up time. There should be a mandatory one week preliminary hearing in such a case where both sides have to provide a reasonably large body of their evidence, and if they cannot, the case is dismissed. If you have evidence, you should be able to summarize it in the space of a week.
Depends. One week simply might not be enough time to determine the merits of a case that involves thousands of pages of contracts and involves multiple facts of the law. If SCO had happened to be in the right, we'd would have wanted them to have every chance of success.
Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that the legal system doesn't have any real defense against large-scale corporate abusers. The can bury their opponents and the court in paperwork. At a certain point, though, I agree. Enough is enough
Re: (Score:2)
multiple facts of the law.
Facets, dammit. Facets.. Where's the damn "edit" button when you need it.
Re: (Score:2)
SCO has never had trouble providing evidence. Every time they file, they provide reams and reams of evidence. All of their evidence is garbage, but it requires the court to *read* and *understand* all that garbage in order to rule it so.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The McBride of Frankenstein? :)
Re: (Score:2)
The McBride of Frankenstein? :)
Well, if you consider Microsoft to be an unstoppable abomination that stumbles around crushing everything in its path, all the while moaning, "Linux ... baaad!" then yeah. Pretty much.
Re: (Score:3)
You believe that our legal system is broken, based on what? Reading even just the introductory paragraphs of SCO's brief on its motion to reopen the case, you will see that the judge ruled in closing the case that "When the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its decision in the Novell litigation (No. 10-4122), either party may move the court to re-open the case." SCO is doing exactly what the judge ordered it to do. Groklaw and Slashdot may sensationalize this all they want, but don't let two sens
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. Lawyers do that all the time because they get caught up in technicalities, and it's why they are so despised. Back away from the case, look at it objectively, and you can see that the legal frameworks surrounding patent and copyright are fundamentally broken. Laws are supposed to come into existence because of a fundamental need to protect. When they become subverted and abused, like the entire "intellectual property" industry has done, they start damaging far more than protect
Re: (Score:3)
There was a period early on where the lawsuits certainly spooked people, but after it became quite clear that SCO actually had nothing, it became more a mix of incredulity and frustration, in large part that a legal system would actually allow a complainant who had no evidence or basis for their claims could actually keep a case going in the courts for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who would that be? Everyone currently running for the whitehouse has a political agenda, including Cain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)