Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

SCO Loses

Posted by Zonk on Fri Aug 10, 2007 05:47 PM
from the finish-him dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The one summary judgement that puts a stick into SCO's spokes has just come down. The judge in the epic SCO case has ruled that SCO doesn't own the Unix copyrights. With that one decision, a whole bunch of other decisions will fall like dominoes. As PJ says, 'That's Aaaaall, Folks! ... All right, all you Doubting Thomases. I double dog dare you to complain about the US court system now. I told you if you would just be patient, I had confidence in the system's ability to sort this out in the end. But we must say thank you to Novell and especially to its legal team for the incredible work they have done. I know it's not technically over and there will be more to slog through, but they won what matters most, and it's been a plum pleasin' pleasure watching you work. The entire FOSS community thanks you for your skill and all the hard work and thanks go to Novell for being willing to see this through."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Firehose:SCO loses - finally by Anonymous Coward
[+] SCO Fiasco Over For Linux, Starting For Solaris? 264 comments
kripkenstein writes "We have just heard that the SCO fiasco is finally going to end for Linux. But Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols at DesktopLinux.com points out that the favorable result for Linux may cause unpleasant consequences for rival open-source operating system OpenSolaris: 'At one time, Sun was an SCO supporter ... Sun's Jonathan Schwartz — then Sun VP of software and today Sun's president and CEO — said in 2003 that Sun had bought "rights equivalent to ownership" to Unix. SCO agreed. In 2005, SCO CEO Darl McBride said that SCO had no problem with Sun open-sourcing Unix code in what would become OpenSolaris. "We have seen what Sun plans to do with OpenSolaris and we have no problem with it," McBride said. "What they're doing protects our Unix intellectual property rights." Sun now has a little problem, which might become a giant one: SCO never had any Unix IP to sell. Therefore, it seems likely that Solaris and OpenSolaris contains Novell's Unix IP.'"
[+] Technology: Investors Bailing On SCO Stock, SCOX Plummets 368 comments
HailDorothy writes "SCO's stock price is plummeting in the aftermath of Judge Kimball's ruling that Novell owns the UNIX copyrights, as we discussed earlier. '[W]e will continue to explore our options with respect to how we move forward from here,' SCO said in a public statement issued in a futile attempt to calm investors. SCO's stock price has fallen 70 percent during trading today, reaching a 52-week low. It looks like the end is near for SCO, which still owes Novell 95 percent of the SVRX UNIX royalties it collected from Microsoft and Sun through the SCOsource program. As Judge Kimbell noted in his ruling, it's unlikely that Novell will ever be able to collect on those royalties."
[+] Increased Linux Use With SCO's Defeat Predicted 280 comments
twitter writes "The defeat of SCO's infamous copyright attack has Forbes wondering if a GNU/Linux boom is upon us. They discuss how this will benefit Novel, IBM, Chrysler, AutoZone and Red Hat. 'The SCO Group frightened potential business users away from Linux with lawsuits demanding billions in royalties. But the litigious company's claims were shot down in a ruling that will likely boost uptake of the operating system.'"
[+] Your Rights Online: Novell to SCO - Pay Up 151 comments
gosherm writes with word that, now that the dust is beginning to settle on the long-running SCO case, Novell wants to get paid. Now. They're requesting that the customary stay on SCO's finances (as a result of their bankruptcy) be lifted so that Novell can begin recouping some of its losses from the protracted legal battle. "'We need to adjudicate if this is money owed to Novell or if it is Novell's property,' said Bruce Lowry, spokesman for Novell. That could determine how quickly Novell can recover those funds. And time is of the essence since there's a possibility SCO 'may run low or even completely out of cash during the process of trying to reorganize,' Novell said in court documents filed Thursday. Novell is also trying to protect royalties SCO collects from Unix and Unixware software licensees and remits annually to the software developer. SCO is required to continue to remit between $500,000 and $800,000 annually to Novell -- the next payment is due Nov. 14. SCO remitted $696,413 to Novell between the third quarter of 2006 and the second quarter of this year."
[+] Linux Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Red Hat/Novell 473 comments
walterbyrd writes "Just months after the last nail in SCO's case, and on the same day as Red Hat's brave words about patent intimidation, a company filed the first patent suit against the Linux operating system. IP Innovation LLC filed the claim against Red Hat and Novell over U.S. Patent No. 5,072,412. PJ points out there is prior art here: 'You might recall the patent was used in litigation against Apple in April 2007, and Beta News reported at the time that it's a 1991 Xerox PARC patent. But Ars Technica provided the detail that it references earlier patents going back to 1984.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • And yet... (Score:5, Informative)

    by LinuxGeek (6139) * <linuxgeek@djan[ ]om ['d.c' in gap]> on Friday August 10 2007, @05:52PM (#20189339)
    SCOX is up 6 cents at the end of the trading day. I t boggles the mind how their stock has performed during all this bad news..
  • More (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Phroggy (441) <slashdot3@phroCO ... m minus language> on Friday August 10 2007, @05:52PM (#20189345) Homepage

    I know it's not technically over and there will be more to slog through,
    When will it be technically over, and when will there be no more to slog through?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2007, @05:52PM (#20189347)
    A million Redmond developers cried out in pain!
  • by jez9999 (618189) on Friday August 10 2007, @05:53PM (#20189359) Homepage Journal
    All right, all you Doubting Thomases. I double dog dare you to complain about the US court system now. I told you if you would just be patient, I had confidence in the system's ability to sort this out in the end.

    Uhm, the reason they lost is because they picked a fight with players who had billions of dollars, and a very well-established team of expensive lawyers, ready to fight.

    They were Germany picking a fight with Russia.

    Most people who get sued unfairly don't have that luxury.
    • by bmo (77928) on Friday August 10 2007, @05:57PM (#20189423)
      "Uhm, the reason they lost is because they picked a fight with players who had billions of dollars"

      No. They lost because they were _wrong_.

      They had funding from Microsoft and Sun to go through with this (the "licenses" SCO sold them in 2003).

      What we're all waiting for now is when Yarro, Anderer and McBride go to jail.

      --
      BMO
  • by Denial93 (773403) on Friday August 10 2007, @05:53PM (#20189361)
    ...furniture stores report chair shortages all over Washington State.
  • by pla (258480) on Friday August 10 2007, @05:55PM (#20189393) Journal
    I told you if you would just be patient, I had confidence in the system's ability to sort this out in the end.

    How many BILLIONS of dollars in lawyers fees, thousands of hours of (taxpayer-funded) court costs, and millions of manpower hours has this farce wasted all to come up with the "right" outcome, that SCO has absolutely no basis for this fiaSCO?

    Sorry, I can't call this "sort[ed] out in the end" unless Glen gets to personally pull the trigger with Darl standing against the wall. And every stockholder in SCO, IBM, Novell, Redhat, and every open source developer, and several others, get to piss on the corpse.
    • by tmk (712144) on Friday August 10 2007, @06:05PM (#20189545)
      You forgot the billions of hours slashdot posters used to create countless amout of SCO rants and flames.
    • by LWATCDR (28044) on Friday August 10 2007, @06:08PM (#20189599) Homepage Journal
      "Sorry, I can't call this "sort[ed] out in the end" unless Glen gets to personally pull the trigger with Darl standing against the wall. And every stockholder in SCO, IBM, Novell, Redhat, and every open source developer, and several others, get to piss on the corpse."

      Dude have some perspective please. Darl didn't rape or murder anyone. Heck he might have actually believed that Linux was ripping off SCO's IP. I am glad they lost maybe even overjoyed. Wishing that level of physical harm over what is just a business deal is just wrong.
      • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Friday August 10 2007, @06:22PM (#20189789) Journal
        Heck [Darl] might have actually believed that Linux was ripping off SCO's IP.

        I figure he probably did believe that.

        And by the time the discovery rammed home to him that his yes-men should have said no and he didn't have a leg to stand on, it was too late for him to back out. To say "oops" and throw in the towel would have collapsed what was left of SCO - and brought the investors down on him for "breach of fiduciary duty".

        This way he can say "I tried!".
  • by KiloByte (825081) on Friday August 10 2007, @05:55PM (#20189397)
    Can we finally get the criminal case against Darl McBride and the rest of the execs rolling?
    Otherwise, they'll just move on to another company, to do mostly the same.
  • by realmolo (574068) on Friday August 10 2007, @05:57PM (#20189425)
    Turns out that SCO owns the copyright on the "Duke Nukem Forever" code.

    The case is expected to be settled just before the universe dies a heat-death.
  • by WindBourne (631190) on Friday August 10 2007, @05:59PM (#20189459) Journal
    Since this was backed by MS and SUN (who has since sold the stocks that they got for their 20 million investment; the 1 million dollar investment was for the USB work; and now, SUN disavows this), it was never really intended to be won. I think that it was meant to slow down linux and to see what paths were possible for MS. Now MS has a path and they are on it.
      • by Dadoo (899435) on Friday August 10 2007, @06:22PM (#20189779) Journal
        explain to me how Linux was "slowed down" by this?

        I used to work for a VAR, and our customers were allowed to choose between several OSes: Windows, AIX, or Linux. Several of our potential customers refused to buy Linux systems and specifically mentioned the lawsuit as the reason. I'd call that slowing it down, a little.
  • $699 (Score:5, Funny)

    by GillBates0 (664202) on Friday August 10 2007, @06:03PM (#20189511) Homepage Journal
    Who do I make this check for $699 out to now?
  • IBM counterclaims (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GreatDrok (684119) on Friday August 10 2007, @06:05PM (#20189555) Journal
    Since SCO doesn't own UNIX there is still some fun to come as IBM tears them to pieces. What would be really interesting is if IBM could somehow drag MS into this mess but we all know that isn't likely.

    Still, a good day!
  • by Greyfox (87712) on Friday August 10 2007, @06:08PM (#20189597) Homepage Journal
    Now the entire house of cards will come down like a stack of dominoes! Checkmate...
  • by Kazoo the Clown (644526) on Friday August 10 2007, @06:22PM (#20189781)
    Don't F*** with the PENGUIN!
  • SCO sued IBM in Mar 2003. It hoped to win $5 Billion and then charge Linux users $699 per cpu.

    What this decision in this SCO vs. Novell case does is show that SCO does not own Unix copyrights. Therefore, SCO does not have standing to sue.

    Standing?

    Example: Jane cannot sue Bill for sealing John's tires. Jane does not have standing. (although John has standing to sue Bill for stealing his tires.)

    Likewise, SCO does not have standing to sue IBM re: Linux. Novell may have standing. But in any event, Novell waived SCO's right for this suit against IBM.

    I'm sure IBM wants to win on the merits. Not just a technicality that SCO does not have standing to sue. But the standing issue is enough to dismiss the SCO vs. IBM (and the world) suit.

    On the other hand, IBM has counterclaims against SCO. Including Lanham Act claims. These have teeth. I hope to see SCO get their asses handed to them soon.

    Once this fiaSCO is over, I don't know what I'll do. I now read Groklaw as much as I once used to read Slashdot. I hope it is over soon.
    • Re:Hurrah! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Amiga Lover (708890) on Friday August 10 2007, @06:08PM (#20189595)
      I think we need to mass mail to them and let them know this page of theirs [sco.com] is a lie.

      SCO owns the core UNIX operating system, originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs and is the exclusive licensor to Unix-based system software providers.

      • Re:Hurrah! (Score:5, Funny)

        by cp.tar (871488) <cp.tar.bz2@gmail.com> on Friday August 10 2007, @06:25PM (#20189825) Journal

        You can send them feedback from here [sco.com].

        I wrote this:
        Subject: You have an error on your website...
        Message: It says, "SCO owns the core UNIX operating system, originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs and is the exclusive licensor to Unix-based system software providers."
        NO, YOU DON'T! HA! HA!
        Now get those lies off your website.
        Cheers!

        And then I got the message: Thank you for your feedback.
        And in smaller print: You will be hearing from us soon.

        Do you think that was a threat?

    • Re:Hurrah! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2007, @06:25PM (#20189829)
      "What more be said?"

      Um, I don't owe $699 and I get to throw stones at McBride like he said we could if SCO was wrong?

      And does anybody remember Seth? A poster here on /. when all this started that went on and on how SCO was so right? Seth, were are you now? Got anything to say?
    • Re:Hurrah! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2007, @06:31PM (#20189895)
      What more be said?

      "needs to"?