Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th Nov 2008 01:50 UTC, submitted by judgen
Legal "Federal district judge Dale A. Kimball has handed down the final judgment in the SCO case. The decision dismisses SCO's latest claims, grants declaratory relief to Novell, and sustains the court's previous judgment that SCO owes Novell over $2.54 million (plus interest) for unjust enrichment."
Thread beginning with comment 338241
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: serves them right
by sbergman27 on Tue 25th Nov 2008 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: serves them right"
Member since:

I'd imagine that those SCOG employess had been offered shares to stay on ... a ticket in SCOGs litigation lottery if you will ...

Now you're making stuff up to vilify them? Well, if those are the rules... I'd imagine that The Linux Foundation is paying you to vilify them any way you can. Certainly Darl, Chris and others were given plenty of financial incentive to play out the charade. But folks who came over from the Santa Cruz Operation and continued to work on the Unixware (and now OpenServer) kernel were most likely there to do just that. As to your assertion that no self-respecting technical person would have stayed... this may come as a shock to you, but not everyone embraces Linux as their personal political platform and/or purpose in life as you seem to think they should. Some people have real lives.

Edited 2008-11-25 07:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[6]: serves them right
by Valhalla on Tue 25th Nov 2008 09:02 in reply to "RE[5]: serves them right"
Valhalla Member since:

Well, I agree with sbergman that it's a damn shame that the individuals who started this circus are left practically unharmed. Maybe they were able to initially fool themselves that they actually had a case, but obviously they must have realized they didn't when they couldn't offer any shred of evidence to support their case or when they realized they DIDN'T EVEN OWN the Unix copyrights, which was the whole base of all their litigations. Yet they continued to make pretense in the media of having a winning case. Can anyone say stock scam?

Atleast 'analysts' like Enderle, Lyons suffered big dents to their credibility due to their non-fact based statements regarding the SCO case (O'Gara didn't have any credibility to begin with so nothing lost there) and how they were going to win. Lyons atleast later admitted having been a fool for believing in SCO despite the lack of any evidence whatsoever. Enderle on the other hand tried to put the blame on the litigators lack of experience, ignoring the fact that there was no case whatsoever to begin with.

Reply Parent Score: 4