Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 18:35 UTC, submitted by deanlinkous
Legal "A federal judge on Thursday gutted SCO Group's USD 5 billion, Linux-related lawsuit against IBM - renewing debate about the Utah company's future. Concluding a six-week review, US District Judge Dale Kimball upheld federal Magistrate Brooke Wells' June decision to strike down two-thirds of SCO's allegations. The Lindon-based software company contends IBM violated its contract and copyrights when it allegedly leaked SCO-owned Unix code into the freely-distributed Linux operating system.
Order by: Score:
v 2007 ...
by NotParker on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 19:28 UTC
RE: 2007 ...
by b3timmons on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 19:47 UTC in reply to "2007 ... "
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

""Intellectual property cases such as this are inherently complex," he added. "My concern with this case is that there seems to a great deal of passion from the anti-SCO side." ""

"Understatement of the year?"

You misspelt "irony"; after all, isn't the motto of SCO's conniving supporter, "your potential, our passion"?

Full version of the Microsoft motto: "your potential to bend over, our passion to screw you."

Edited 2006-12-02 20:00

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: 2007 ...
by NotParker on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE: 2007 ... "
RE[3]: 2007 ...
by PLan on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 2007 ... "
PLan Member since:
2006-01-10

What is it about "passion" that so infuriates the cult (sorry ... anti-SCO side)?

It's probably wrong to pick on a lone troll ...

The "anti-SCO side" had much, much, more than passion, they had an encyclopedic knowledge of Linux and *nix in general (and the smarts to go with it). Just following Groklaw would have given even the dimmest SCO enthusiast more than a hint that they were going to lose the case, although no doubt it wouldn't have convinced you.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: 2007 ...
by hal2k1 on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 01:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 2007 ... "
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//The "anti-SCO side" had much, much, more than passion, they had an encyclopedic knowledge of Linux and *nix in general (and the smarts to go with it).//

Agreed, that helped.

What was more of a help, however, is the fact that there simply is no infringement in Linux of anyone else's "IP".

Linux is open source. Everyone in the world can look at the source code that is submitted. One would have to be insane to plagiarise any proprietary code & submit it as open source as your own work.

Besides, that goes against the whole intent. The very acronym "GNU" means "GNU's Not Unix". If you are trying to write a body of work that specifically is "Not Unix", then why would you put any Unix code in it?

SCO accused the open source crowd of going against their very intent from the outset, and that accusation is what inspired the passionate response.

SCO's case and SCO's allegations made no sense whatsoever from the outset.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: 2007 ...
by hal2k1 on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 2007 ... "
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//I wonder if part of the deal between Microsoft and Novell is for Novell to admit that SCO owns Unix? //

I doubt it.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061202010723780

Hmmmm. Doesn't look like it, does it?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: 2007 ...
by rm6990 on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 06:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 2007 ... "
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

Don't use logic against the conspiracy theorists, they seem incapable of grasping it anyways... You're wasting your time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: 2007 ...
by Gone fishing on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 06:13 UTC in reply to "RE: 2007 ... "
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Quote

[isn't the motto of SCO's conniving supporter, "your potential, our passion"?

Full version of the Microsoft motto: "your potential to bend over, our passion to screw you."]

Perhaps that should be "Your potential our IP"

Reply Score: 3

yes
by deanlinkous on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 19:38 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

That is a article from the Salt Lake Tribune which I consider cool that a newspaper is carrying the coverage!

But yea, that was about the final blow to SCO. A nice big roundhouse kick to the head right there.

links from groklaw about the subject also...
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061130201113626

Edited 2006-12-02 19:39

Reply Score: 3

To MS hacks
by chemical_scum on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 21:14 UTC
chemical_scum
Member since:
2005-11-02

To MS hacks and brown nosers like NotParker:

We told you so.

Reply Score: 5

RE: To MS hacks
by twenex on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 11:50 UTC in reply to "To MS hacks"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Says it all.

Reply Score: 1

SCO employees
by acobar on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 21:37 UTC
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

I had no doubt SCO was going to loose this battle.

The only thing I would like to put in perspective is about the "other" guys that use to work for SCO, developers, call center people and the like. Hey guys, good luck.

Lets not forget that what makes a good company are the humans beings that work there, even though bad management, pursuing unspoken self goals, can destruct it.

Sure, the top managers that brought this imbroglio probably will have a very confortable life independent of the outcome. I suspect they ever knew what was going to happen, but as they saw the possibility to cash they stepped in, result of some obscure arrangement they did, independent of what it could cause to the other employee.

I hope also that the law gets more tough against this kind of behavior, not only in USA but also in my own country.

I know (or I hope) that top managers like what SCO got are not the majority. Clink and bank account cleanup should be the perfect measure for suck behavior.

Edited 2006-12-02 21:44

Reply Score: 2

Mistakes
by acobar on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 22:00 UTC
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

I mean "SCO employee" as title and "such behavior". at the end.

Reply Score: 1

It's a good day.
by case on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 22:02 UTC
case
Member since:
2005-06-29

I noticed yesterday that their stock value dropped to a low of $1.16 from a high of $22.29 on Oct 2003. I spent most of the day telling myself I should wipe that stupid grin off my face. No luck, it's still there.

Reply Score: 5

Linux now mostly in the clear
by Priest on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 00:17 UTC
Priest
Member since:
2006-05-12

The INQ had some info on the case also here: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36096

In that article Nick Farrell stated that there was no infringing code found in Linux and that is the portion of the case that has now been tossed.

The case will be on hold mostly pending the results of Novell vs. SCO which will decide if SCO rightfuly owns UNIX in the first place.

As for the remaining claims, even if SCO wins against Novell I don't see IBM losing much sleep.

The next major portion of SCO's case is that they told IBM to stop distributing AIX because of the infringing Linux code. IBM told SCO to shove it and continued distributing AIX because the claim against Linux was groundless which they have now proven (and SCO has no option to appeal)

So with their argument about revoking IBM's UNIX license for AIX shot full of holes, any remaining claims that might actually be upheld will be fairly minor fees/fines that will have little or no impact on IBM or Linux.

*disclaimer: IANAL

Edited 2006-12-03 00:23

Reply Score: 2

RE: Linux now mostly in the clear
by hal2k1 on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 01:14 UTC in reply to "Linux now mostly in the clear"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//The next major portion of SCO's case is that they told IBM to stop distributing AIX because of the infringing Linux code. IBM told SCO to shove it and continued distributing AIX because the claim against Linux was groundless//

There is a little more to it than that.

IBM had an "irrevokable" license for Unix that SCO tried to revoke. Novell gets to (attempt to) do things like that, not SCO. Refer here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061202010723780

IBM had a waiver from Novell.

Reply Score: 2

2fargone
Member since:
2006-02-20

Another demonstration how the desire to get back at someone or something can destroy ones life. Had Monterey succeeded, this would have never happened. But Yarro's anger at IBM for denying him is chance at being the second Bill Gates, IMO, motivated him into turning Caldera into a missile aimed right at IBM's wallet.

I think in the beginning SCO knew their case was shaky. But I think they thought they had just enough to pressure IBM into buying them to make it all go away nice and clean. To SCO's misfortune, IBM decided to stand their ground and here we are.

I wish it wouldn't have happened, but at least there is a silver lining. Linux was validated. The process was validated. The GPL held up and SCO did more to promote Linux than could have been hoped.

Reply Score: 3

walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

I'm not so sure it was about revenge. And the lawsuit has not hurt scox one bit.

Scox was on the brink on delisting, bankruptcy, and going out of business. If not for the lawsuit, scox would have been out of business two years ago, maybe three years ago. That msft money was just what the doctor ordered.

The day that darl took over, just a few months before the lawsuit was officially launched, scox hit $0.56/share, and that was on half as many shares as scox has now.

That means that scox's market cap went from under to $6MM to over $25MM. Darl, and other scox execs, made out like bandits. Which is fitting.

So it's not as if scox was a healthy company, that got angry, and stupidly sought revenge. It's more like a desperate "hail Mary" pass from a failing scam company.

Reply Score: 2

Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

Nothing to do with revenge. What this case has been is an example of a company trying desperately to get something for nothing. SCO seems to have thought that by spreading FUD they could pressure businesses to give in to their pressure tactics and pay large sums of money for something SCO doesn't own. Problem for SCO started when companies such as IBM and Novell with large resources were willing to stand up and fight for what is right. It's sad though that a company or even one individual could actually tie up the legal system for this long. I'm surprised a judge hasn't just come out and said to SCO "Put up or shut up." since they've been unable to provide any factual evidence to back up their claims.

Reply Score: 1

Spontaneous haiku
by Sphinx on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 02:59 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

scos lawsuit ending
last resources running out
joyous a bird sings

Reply Score: 2

SCO.........bye bye:-)
by hitest on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 03:15 UTC
hitest
Member since:
2006-10-28

SCO made a tactical error in taking on the 800 lb gorilla that is IBM. I'm very pleased that this is coming to a close, very soon SCO will be put down......that's what you do with rabid dogs:-)
The penguin triumphs!!

Reply Score: 2

RE: SCO.........bye bye:-)
by walterbyrd on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 05:26 UTC in reply to "SCO.........bye bye:-)"
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>SCO made a tactical error in taking on the 800 lb gorilla that is IBM.<<

Scox did make a tactical error. As I explained in a previous post, this scam lawsuit has been a great success for both scox, and msft.

IMO: anybody who doesn't understand that, does not know what is really going on. Scox never expected to beat IBM in the court room: that is why scox kept engineering delays.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: SCO.........bye bye:-)
by elsewhere on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 05:59 UTC in reply to "RE: SCO.........bye bye:-)"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

IMO: anybody who doesn't understand that, does not know what is really going on. Scox never expected to beat IBM in the court room: that is why scox kept engineering delays.

I suspect SCOX fully expected IBM to buy them out and make the case go away, they were never prepared for IBM to put up a defense which is why their case has been so weak. They chose the biggest target for linux and figured they'd pay out rather than risk controversy over linux. They were wrong, and compounding that they never saw Novell's countersuit coming.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: SCO.........bye bye:-)
by walterbyrd on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SCO.........bye bye:-)"
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>I suspect SCOX fully expected IBM to buy them out and make the case go away, they were never prepared for IBM to put up a defense which is why their case has been so weak.<<

When ibm made it very apparent that ibm would not settle, scox showed no interest in dropping the lawsuit, far from it.

Scox got money from ibm and sunw, and that drove the share price way up. The share price is still way up.

Reply Score: 1

To me silverlining
by Earl Colby pottinger on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 05:17 UTC
Earl Colby pottinger
Member since:
2005-07-06

Is that if there are any more future lawsuits against open source code the lawyers for the open source side can deliver copies of the entire SCO-IBM case to the judge, point out all the wasted time/effort/money without a single line of code being shown on SCO's part.

I hope that a judge looking at such a past case load would demand the suing party provide examples of what is being sued for and avoid SCO's fishing methods that dragged out the case for so long.

Reply Score: 1

All the cheering makes little sense
by h3rman on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 09:25 UTC
h3rman
Member since:
2006-08-09

This case has been irrelevant for quite some time, from a lawyer's point of view. MSFT has already taken its "embrace" move.

In the end this is, essentially, still about a software gorilla that got obese, and refuses to lose weight. It has little to do with Linux/free software or any other specific competition(/enemy).

Reply Score: 1

crazybob Member since:
2006-11-25

"In the end this is, essentially, still about a software gorilla that got obese, and refuses to lose weight. It has little to do with Linux/free software or any other specific competition(/enemy)."

Would you please elaborate on this? It's an angle I've never heard before.

Reply Score: 1

h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

>> "In the end this is, essentially, still about a software gorilla that got obese, and refuses to lose weight. It has little to do with Linux/free software or any other specific competition(/enemy)."

> Would you please elaborate on this? It's an angle I've never heard before.


Assuming the obvious, i.e. that Microsoft is to SCO what the US/the CIA was to the Afghani Mujahedin in the 1980s, this is about MS having tried to deal with a dangerous, non-corporate competitor.

It's not really a secret that MS is afraid it will someday lose marketshare on the (corporate and consumer) desktop. Given the simple fact that MS' desktop marketshare size and revenue is already dangerously big (inhibiting innovation and competitive pricing), the only way for MS is down. In the long run, that's good for Microsoft, but hey, it hurts.

Reply Score: 2

That's ok.....
by Phloptical on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 15:11 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

Microsoft has a lot more cash, and a lot more lawyers to take up where SCO left off. Linux may have won the battle, but the war is far from over.

MS isn't going to let this stop them.

Reply Score: 3

RE: That's ok.....
by walterbyrd on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 18:52 UTC in reply to "That's ok....."
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>Microsoft has a lot more cash, and a lot more lawyers to take up where SCO left off. Linux may have won the battle, but the war is far from over. <<

Absolutely. Msft considers it essential that one company have excluse rights to linux. First caldera claimed such, rights, then sun, now novell. All those companies did so at the same time that they were given big $$$ by msft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: That's ok.....
by hal2k1 on Sun 3rd Dec 2006 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE: That's ok....."
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Msft considers it essential that one company have excluse rights to linux. First caldera claimed such, rights, then sun, now novell. //

That is a losing strategy for Microsoft.

Caldera don't own rights to Linux, nor do Sun, nor do Novell.

None of those parties wrote the code.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: That's ok.....
by Phloptical on Tue 5th Dec 2006 02:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's ok....."
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

I suppose the intent, then, is to try to put a face to the name and either go after it in court, or get them to play ball with you.....i.e, come up with something that's "mutually beneficial".

MS will still have that little problem called "proof" to provide, if and when they release the legions of lawyers.

Reply Score: 1