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 338362
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
so many other losses
by pixel8r on Wed 26th Nov 2008 03:40 UTC
pixel8r
Member since:
2007-08-11

I do feel a little sorry for all the companies/individuals that paid SCO for licenses for Linux.

I also question Microsoft's motives for giving SCO a LOT of cash near the beginning of this case...and now that the whole thing is over - whether there will be any backlash on them. Will they get away with this?

It is a clear win for Linux and for companies who survive on Linux. Despite the software itself being free, Linux is big business and now represents a growing industry so this is great news.

Most of us knew all along but a lot of businesses became very reluctant to touch linux when SCO first made their claims public. Hopefully these businesses will have new confidence to try it out now.

Reply Score: 1

RE: so many other losses
by sbergman27 on Wed 26th Nov 2008 03:56 in reply to "so many other losses"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I do feel a little sorry for all the companies/individuals that paid SCO for licenses for Linux.

Take solace in the fact that there weren't many. MS paid their $15 million, but it wasn't really for any Unix/Linux licenses. Sun paid. But they made a special deal that allowed them to open Solaris. It may have been a bogus deal, being with SCOG, but Novell later supported it, so its effectively a go. EV1 did pay up... and later said they wouldn't do it again, if they had it to do over. And then I remember there was an $11,000 mystery payment that I'm not sure we ever found out who had made. It's remarkable how phenomenally unsuccessful SCOSource was. I'd have expected more gullibility than that.

My memory may not be completely accurate on all this. SCOs shenanigans don't even merit my going back and reviewing them at this point.

Edit: And oh, yeah. Baystar got shafted. But they didn't buy licenses. They invested unwisely, possibly based upon Microsoft's advice. And no, it is very unlikely that MS will ever be called to account.

Edited 2008-11-26 03:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: so many other losses
by lemur2 on Wed 26th Nov 2008 04:39 in reply to "RE: so many other losses"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I do feel a little sorry for all the companies/individuals that paid SCO for licenses for Linux.
Take solace in the fact that there weren't many. MS paid their $15 million, but it wasn't really for any Unix/Linux licenses. Sun paid. But they made a special deal that allowed them to open Solaris. It may have been a bogus deal, being with SCOG, ... "

It wasn't surprising to me that very few companies fell for the SCOG scam.

Microsoft and Sun ... both of whom produce their own OS and who therefore presumably don't use linux themselves ... pipe up immediately after SCOG launches the scam and they both pay miniscule licennse fees to SCOG ... and all three companies seem utterly unable to tell us what it was all about ... and we were supposed to believe from that that there was substance in SCOSource?

I mean come on ... how stupid did SCOG think everyone was? Pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.

It's remarkable how phenomenally unsuccessful SCOSource was. I'd have expected more gullibility than that.


What was surprising to me was that one company, EV1, actually did seem to buy it. Dupes. It did absolutely nothing but make EV1 look silly, perhaps even complicit, and it drove EV1 customers who were using Linux away in numbers to seek other providers.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Edited 2008-11-26 04:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2