Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 07:02 UTC, submitted by SEJeff
SCO, Caldera, Unixware On April 29, SCO will finally have its day in court, but not exactly in the way the Unix and Linux litigation company had planned. If things had gone the way SCO wanted, it would be facing IBM to see how much money it would get for IBM using Unix code in Linux. Instead of that fantasy coming true, SCO will be trying to hang on to what's left of its assets from Novell.
Thread beginning with comment 297350
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Faulty business model
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 09:53 UTC in reply to "Faulty business model"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm really happy to see one patent troll get what they all deserve.


As has been pointed out in previous posts, the SCOG case was about copyrights, not patents. SCOG claimed that there was literal copying of UNIX source code into Linux ... as there would have to be if SCOG had a legiimate case.

SCOG effectively claimed that (a) Linux was a derivative work of UNIX, and that (b) SCOG were the copyright holders of UNIX.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

It turned out in the end that neither claim had even the slightest element of truth about it. SCOG turned up not one line of infringing code, and SCOG had no "transfer of title" writing which showed they owned the UNIX copyrights anyway. In fact, the only thing that SCOG did have was a contract between old SCO and Novell that said that the UNIX copyrights were excluded assets, to be retained by Novell.

That is why Novell are now owed all that money that SCOG raised to bring the case in the first place.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Faulty business model
by yahya on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 10:15 in reply to "RE: Faulty business model"
yahya Member since:
2007-03-29

What remains a complete mystery to me is: Did they really think they could win a case without having the slightest bit of evidence (except for that funny Las Vegas slideshow
http://perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html ).

Or is this how the US legal system usually works? But if so, then probably not against the force of IBM's lawyers.

Or could the motivation behind SCO's efforts be that this case helped some people to make a fortune, even though they would eventually run the company into the ground?

Edited 2008-01-23 10:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Faulty business model
by Cutterman on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 11:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Faulty business model"
Cutterman Member since:
2006-04-10

Darl McBride is a silly, greedy, amoral man, well acquainted with lawsuits and threats of lawsuits. Someone from A Large Company Who Would Benefit From Linux FUD (ALCWWBFLFUD) whispered in his ear that there were millions just ripe for the picking.

Despite evidence that his case was shaky to say the least, Darl pressed on in the belief that folks would just pay him to go away and that IBM would too. ALCWWBFLFUD knew that in the end he hadn't a prayer but that wasn't the point, the whole brouhaha made a (disappointingly small) number of people hesitate before dumping MS. More importantly these shenanigans motivated GPL3 which split the codebase and polarised the FOSS camp - a perhaps unforeseen but welcome side effect.

ALCWWBFLFUD told RBC and BayStar that they reckoned SCO was a good place to put money and greed did the rest. A number of folks burned their fingers but that was of no concern to ALCWWBFLFUD.

Now SCO is going down the toilet and Darl and others face some serious charges but ALCWWBFLFUD doesn't care. For the expenditure of a few million they've caused serious aggravation to their main rival and have plausible deniability.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Faulty business model
by searly on Thu 24th Jan 2008 12:48 in reply to "RE[2]: Faulty business model"
searly Member since:
2006-02-27

.... Hmmm I guess some people did very well out of it actually ... remember back when the whole thing started, share prices rocketed from sth like 0.5 $ to about 12 $ (can't remember the exact figures).

Reply Parent Score: 1