Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera IBM Government Software The Courts Linux News

SCO Asks Court To Reconsider IBM's Dismissal 139

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the not-so-fast dept.
VE3OGG writes "The SCO Group — the litigation firm currently in dispute with, among many, IBM, over supposed copyright infringing code in Unix — has quietly asked the courts to reconsider IBM's request to toss the case out. SCO argued that the court's November decision was procedurally and substantially flawed and they say 'the rules of procedure do not support such a result under the circumstances of this case.' If allowed to reopen the case, the SCO Group argues, that new evidence would present itself through the deposition of several IBM programmers who had previously been interviewed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Asks Court To Reconsider IBM's Dismissal

Comments Filter:
  • Rats (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pedrito (94783) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @10:43AM (#17348134) Homepage
    When I was in high school, a rat got into the house. My cousin, a neighbor and I had it pinned behind a piece of furniture. I was beating it from above with a broom handle, my neighbor was wacking it from underneath with a shovel and my cousin was hitting it from the side with something else. I thought the damn thing would never die. SCO reminds me of that rat.
    • Re:Rats (Score:5, Funny)

      by numbski (515011) * <numbski@@@hksilver...net> on Saturday December 23, 2006 @10:51AM (#17348180) Homepage Journal
      I've learned something about trapping small animals.

      My wife's cat (ie, she had the cat for the better part of 5 years before we got married) doesn't like me all that much. She would take the cat with us when we'd visit her parents' house, and in her old bedroom she had a queen-sized waterbed, where the headboard is suspended, leaving a little "tunnel" behind the bedframe and underneath the headboard.

      The cat decided that when it was time to leave, it wasn't time to leave, and got under there, dead center out of reach. Now, in having raised cats prior, I taught them early on that I was the parent, and would pick them up by the scruff of the neck to let them know who was boss. This cat didn't know that game. I quickly grabbed her by the back of the neck and pulled her out....only for her to empty her bowel and bladder on me. There have been a few more times since I've had to do this, and the result is the same.

      Point is, you may win in the end, but don't underestimate their ability to claw, scratch, kick, scream, and lastly, crap and pee all over you on the way out. :P
      • by vidarh (309115)
        Next time try something else, like starting a vacuum and move it towards the bed, or if it doesn't have a problem with that, try squirting lemon or oranges towards it. Both assuming the cat has two ways out - if it's cornered doing stuff like that is just plain cruel.
        • by tekiegreg (674773) *
          I'm partial to the can of air trick when my cats try to hide under the bed...dual purpose use in my house here. Venting computer innards and flushing out a cat hidden somewhere I can't get to :-D
          • by pipingguy (566974) *
            Technically speaking, if you are using pressure higher than 14.7 psig it's called purging, not venting.
        • Re:Rats (Score:4, Funny)

          by cmacb (547347) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @03:50PM (#17349570) Homepage Journal
          "Next time try something else, like starting a vacuum and move it towards the bed, or if it doesn't have a problem with that, try squirting lemon or oranges towards it. Both assuming the cat has two ways out - if it's cornered doing stuff like that is just plain cruel."

          I doubt the vacuum cleaner trick will have any effect on the SCO lawyers. But I bet the judge might be desperate enough now to try that lemon in the eye thing. As to cruelty, the only ones who suffer in the end are users who have to pay for it one way or another in higher software costs, slower development cycles and wasted hours reading of the latest antics here and there and everywhere. I guess if cruelty to the lawyers WERE to become an issue the best thing would be to just shoot them.

          It would be a start.
          • instead of using something nasty like citric acid on your pet, try squirting water first. It usually works quite well, and doesn't leave a sticky mess that will start to rot and smell later.
      • ...and lastly, crap and pee all over you on the way out.

        I wouldn't put it past Darl, but I suspect at this point the IBM lawyers are already protected by hip waders from the previous round of SCO BS.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by fyoder (857358)
        I quickly grabbed her by the back of the neck and pulled her out....only for her to empty her bowel and bladder on me. There have been a few more times since I've had to do this, and the result is the same.

        Perhaps she's flashing back to early kittenhood when the mother licks up the kitten's waste.

        Bon Appétit.

    • When I got dogs, I started getting rats (because the dogs wouldn't finish their dry kibbles).

      The first rat I caught and released in the woods.

      The second rat I killed in a very excited adrenaline rushed state with the dogs barking and the rat making incredible leaps to escape but ultimately we were in a closed room.

      The next couple I quickly dispatched.

      Finally, I just started putting out poison up out of reach of the dogs (who really wanted to eat it- my dog looked like a drug addict smelling rat poison).

      They
  • by kitzilla (266382) <paperfrog AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday December 23, 2006 @10:44AM (#17348140) Homepage Journal
    SCO is also asking Santa for a big red wagon and a puppy dog.
    • And a pony. Don't forget they want a pony, too.

      If Santa brings them that, they'll own the Kentucky Derby, and will get to charge everyone a $499 "SCOSource Off Track Betting License".
      • by numbski (515011) *
        I couldn't help it. As I was scrolling up the screen I saw this thread of comments and saw slashdot inviting me to drink for it's firehouse, and though to myself that SCO is asking the Judge to drink from their firehose. :\ ....
    • by DimGeo (694000)
      Dammit, I misread you as "SCO is also asking Sparta"...
    • by rdean400 (322321)
      ...and for users that will pay their Linux license fee.
  • by fotang (606654) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @10:46AM (#17348148)
    as news for nerds that is one week old [groklaw.net] is still news...
  • by iamsure (66666) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @10:49AM (#17348168) Homepage
    Kimball Quoted as saying "You'll shoot your case out kid!"
  • by YouHaveSnail (202852) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @10:54AM (#17348196)
    According to both the article and Groklaw, it's not so much that Judge Kimball threw out SCO's case as it is that he affirmed Magistrate Judge Wells' order that threw out the claims that SCO couldn't or wouldn't substantiate. That does indeed include most of SCO's claims, but it's not true that the whole case was dismissed. SCO does have a few claims remaining, and IBM has multiple counterclaims. Nevertheless, SCO's goose is completely cooked, and we're now just waiting for IBM to finish them off.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by fotang (606654)
      ...he affirmed Magistrate Judge Wells' order that threw out the claims that SCO couldn't or wouldn't substantiate.

      This is quite confusing, but I understand that evidence, not claims, was thrown out. (?)

      • They presented these items as evidence, but when the items were rightly challenged (basically, SCOG didn't supply file, version and line information that the judge ordered of code/methods they accused IBM of misusing), they changed their story (as they are accustomed to) and told the judge the items were claims.

        If you take a good look at SCOG's filings, you can see that they cherry-pick those parts of the evidence and declarations that seem to support their claim, often quoting incomplete paragraphs of cont
      • by Samari711 (521187) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @11:21AM (#17348328)
        That is correct. SCO's argument is that because that's the only evidence that they have to support those claims, the court is effectively throwing out the claims because they're throwing out the evidence. They ignore the fact that the "millions of lines of infringing" code never materialized, that the evidence they did disclose by the deadline was incomplete by the standards they were holding IBM to and the standards the court specified, and that they later tried to slip evidence in expert reports after fact discovery was closed so IBM couldn't do anything about that evidence.

        Since /. is so slow on this, it should be noted that Judge Kimball rejected the request on a technicality that they filed as a request what should be a motion. Armchair analysis seems to indicate that the rejection might be his way of saying "You really don't want to do this" to SCO. This request basically calls the judge a liar or too incompetent to understand what a de novo review is. It's like SCO is trying to get found in contempt...

    • Not only did he affirm Magistrate Judge Wells' order, he did a de novo review* of that decision as SCO requested and still ruled against them.

      *de novo - Anew. afresh. Considering the matter anew, the same as if it had not been heard before and as if no decision previously had been rendered.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      According to both the article and Groklaw, it's not so much that Judge Kimball threw out SCO's case as it is that he affirmed Magistrate Judge Wells' order that threw out the claims that SCO couldn't or wouldn't substantiate.

      There is a still a problem with the terminology in the above. Judge Wells did not throw out claims (a legal term). She did not throw out evidence. She threw out allegations of IBM wrongdoing that were inadequately substantiated. Judge Kimball affirmed the ruling.

      Contrary to SCO'

    • by multisync (218450)
      You've got that right. The summary also says the case is "over supposed copyright infringing code in Unix."
    • This is still misleading. NONE of Scalderas claims have been dismissed yet. NONE.

      The magistrate judge threw out a number of their *evidentiary* entries, for failure to be specific. That was appealed, reviewed, and affirmed.
  • by richg74 (650636) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @10:57AM (#17348204) Homepage
    Groklaw now has up a redacted version [groklaw.net] of IBM's reply memo to SCO's motion, which lays out numerous reasons why SCO is yet again full of what my grandfather called "condensed canal water".
    • The article you linked to is a text version of IBM's reply to a previous SCO motion for partial summary judgment.

      SCO's memorandum in support, which this belated Slashdot article is about, was filed on Dec 14th so we shouldn't expect IBM's reply to it until sometime next week.

  • by crossmr (957846) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @10:58AM (#17348218) Journal
    If they had some evidence they probably should have used it the first time. What were they waiting for? Christmas?
    • Re:New evidence? (Score:5, Informative)

      by rsmith (90057) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @11:21AM (#17348332) Homepage
      Their plan (as admitted in interviews) was to withhold "evidence" to the last moment to prevent IBM from preparing a good defence. This is unfair and not allowed of course, which is part of the reason some of their "evidence" was thrown out.
      • Their plan (as admitted in interviews) was to withhold "evidence" to the last moment

        In this interview were their lips moving? If they were then there is no reason to believe anything quoted from the interview.

        Considering that one of the documents that was uncovered by IBM was an internal tSCOG e-mail to the CEO, Darl McBride, explaining how there was no evidence, its obvious they were not withholding evidence, they were withholding the truth.

        Its a pretty safe bet to assume that their plan was not to withhol

      • by Kjella (173770)
        Let's try Occam's razor:
        They wait until the last minute, "miss" crucial evidence and then cry foul.

        1. This is a good legal strategy
        2. They have no evidence, and this a convienient coverup of why it never "appeared".
  • Errr... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tom (822) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @11:03AM (#17348244) Homepage Journal
    Wait, didn't the court just tell them that no, you can not introduce new evidence into a case years after discovery is over? And then tossed their case out saying they have no leg to stand on? And now they say "if only we were allowed to add this new evidence, there would be a case" ???

    Are they trying to pull a Microsoft here - annoying the judge until he says something stupid and they can get him replaced? Or are they simply dumb and hard of hearing?
    • Re:Errr... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by twiddlingbits (707452) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @11:26AM (#17348356)
      New evidence can be entered after discovery is closed but it's got to be something that would cause a great injustice if not considered. The ruling SCO is protesting was Judge Wells ruling that SCO did NOT comply with Kimball's earlier ruling that the parts of Linux that infringe be defined in DETAIL, with filename, line #, actual code, relation to code SCO "owns" must also be shown. IIRC, SCO tried to skate around this requirement for about a year with various motions and delays. When discovery closed after SCO being allowed a look at the IBM code archives for Dynix, AIX and IBM's Linux contibutions (such as JFS) and taking dozens of depositions from IBM the BEST SCO could come up with was about 25-30 items that meet the burden of proof. Of those 25-30 most were things like .h files, the ELF binary format (which is public), and some Error Codes.

      Critical to the case, even more so than showing infringement, is the issue of IF SCO even OWNS the copyrights on said System V UNIX code found in Linux, and IF they did (big IF) IBM has a contract with Novell (orginal owner or current owner depending on if you are SCO or IBM) that allows IBM an irrevokable right to use the System V UNIX code as they pleased since they paid for that sort of license. SCO is cooked about six different ways but whether they are roasted, boiled, BarBQ'd, broiled, fried, etc. will have to wait until after the close of discovery in the SCO vs Novell case. If the court (same judge by the way) decides in that instance SCO does NOT own the copyrights on UNIX code the case against IBM is over and IBM wins. The only issue to settle would be IBM's counterclaims, which wouldn't be worth much as SCO would be bankrupt without a win (or another infusion of cash in exchange for "IP" from the Microsoft fairy).
      • twiddlingbits opined:

        Critical to the case, even more so than showing infringement, is the issue of IF SCO even OWNS the copyrights on said System V UNIX code found in Linux, ...

        There ain't no System V code in Linux. All of the gaping holes in SCO's case that you have outlined do exist. But the fact that there is no System V code in Linux is yet another big hole. SCO is not claiming that IBM contributed System V code to Linux. They are complaining that IBM contributed homegrown AIX/Dynix code to Li

        • Thats true, it's another hole IBM pointed out in request for Summary Judgement. Don't forget the wild-ass claim that even IF System V code isn't in Linux (we KNOW it's not) and even if it was OK for IBM to contribute own code to Linux (it is) SCO still "owns" the "methods and concepts" pertaining to the way Linux operates because the way it operates is "smiliar to System V and we own everything to do with System V". Linus has debunked that idea time and again as have other kernal developers. But SCO still p
          • And I suspect, as several others have said previously, that part of the actions of both the judges and IBM's lawyers is to make sure that all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed legally, and that SCO has had time to not only shoot out their foot but to track the gun all the way up to their hips so that whey they do try to whine later about how unfair it was... they won't have a leg to stand on.
      • (or another infusion of cash in exchange for "IP" from the Microsoft fairy).

        Keep in mind that the large infusion was Microsoft AND Sun. Blame were blame is due. OTH, that appeared to be a Scott McNeally deal. I doubt that Sun will really get behind this considering that they finally appear to be going OSS rather than trying to sit on the fence, trying to burn both sides.

        • Having worked for Sun I know more of the story. The money paid to SCO was a sort of "insurance" for Solaris so Sun could say they (like IBM) were able to indemnify thier customers. It was a move to keep Sun alive until the new servers and Solaris 10 came along. I still think it was a deal with the devil but Scott thought he couldn't NOT do it. Since Jonothan has taken the reins things are quite different.
          • Sun had bought total rights to Unix from ATT back in the 80's. There was nothing that SCO could have come after Sun for except a pure harassment suit, which would then make this extortion money( If true, then the all the officers would do prison time if McNeally will testify against them and I bet that he will not do that). So what exactly was McNealy afraid of? I would guess that McNealy coached it that way to the employees rather than admit what he was doing. As it was, he took the stock and then sold it
            • Maybe it was blackmail, but at that time Sun HAD to do it as IBM was Idemnifying customers who wanted to use Linux on IBM servers as was HP. If Sun didn't idemnify the lost market share they couldn't afford to lose. I suspect McNeally thought the cost of the "license" from SCO was pretty cheap comprted to lost market share and the stock might could be sold for a profit too. I have no idea what Sun's legal department said about the deal, but Scott was going to do what Scott was going to do everyone else be d
              • Twenty years from now Sun will be remembered for inventing Java not the SCO fiasco, in fact most people have already forgotten it!

                Actually, only the hard core OSS guys will remember it. But of course, we will remember such things as RPC, NFS, DNS, etc. There have been lots of good things that came from Sun. While I am an old IBM/HP employee, I have nothing but respect for Sun.

                What I do find funny is the shear number of people here who have claimed that Sun did not partake in all this.It is good to see tho

            • by XO (250276)
              Actually, had SCO gone and sued -everyone- using Linux, and headed on the path of suing other vendors, and/or other vendors users, as it seemed like they were going to do (see also, suing AutoZone and Chrysler), there would be quite a huge value in being able to guarantee that your customers were not going to be a target.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mysticgoat (582871)

      Are they trying to pull a Microsoft here - annoying the judge until he says something stupid and they can get him replaced? Or are they simply dumb and hard of hearing?

      It seems that way, doesn't it?

      SCO's legal team seems to be way out on a limb on this one. I can't help but wonder why any of them keep at it, when at this point it is going to be a highly publicized loss that will follow each of them for the rest of their careers. The usual behavior for lawyers in this situation is to tell the client tha

      • SCO's legal team seems to be way out on a limb on this one. I can't help but wonder why any of them keep at it, when at this point it is going to be a highly publicized loss that will follow each of them for the rest of their careers.

        David Boies already lost a headline case (the 2000 challenge of the presidential vote in Florida), and it hasn't seemed to affect his career. Actually, for a certain type of client, the handling of the case by BS&F is a positive factor. I'll leave it up to you to figur
  • Except that they're not the defendants in this case. Which is too bad since their twisted and distorted delusional logic would certainly support such an argument.
    • by pla (258480) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @11:37AM (#17348394) Journal
      Except that they're not the defendants in this case.

      I don't know - What about the counterclaims? SCO may have bankrupted itself fighting this battle, but IBM still plans to rape the corpse.


      Which is too bad since their twisted and distorted delusional logic would certainly support such an argument.

      Fortunately, I don't think corporations can plead insanity.

      I say "fortunately", because by their very raison d'etre, corporations very much exhibit antisocial PD (what people normally mean by the phrase "criminally insane"), as defined by the DSM-IV (having three or more of the following traits):
      1. Failure to conform to social norms (have no meaning to a corporation)
      2. Deceitfulness, manipulativeness (if they can get away with something...)
      3. Impulsivity, failure to plan ahead (beyond the next quarter's earnings)
      4. Irritability, aggressiveness (if threatened, sue)
      5. Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others (OSHA exists for a reason...)
      6. Consistent irresponsibility (...so does Sarbanes-Oxley)
      7. Lack of remorse after having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person (pay 'em off and call it a day)


      Letting corporations plead insanity would amount to giving them carte blanche to rape, pillage, murder, and burn the planet.
      • by _Shad0w_ (127912)

        Except pleading insanity doesn't get you off; it gets you locked up in mental hospital for the rest of your life, or at least until they decide you're no longer crazy and a danger to others.

        I'm not sure what the corporate equivalent of locking you up in a loonie bin would be.

        • by Teresita (982888) <badinage1@netzero do t net> on Saturday December 23, 2006 @12:37PM (#17348632) Homepage
          I'm not sure what the corporate equivalent of locking you up in a loonie bin would be.

          800 hours of community service chained to Steve Balmer in the Pentagon putting together cheap office chairs from China that are missing parts.
        • by mpe (36238)
          Except pleading insanity doesn't get you off; it gets you locked up in mental hospital for the rest of your life, or at least until they decide you're no longer crazy and a danger to others.

          Which may be a longer sentence than regular imprisonment... There's also an argument that a verdict of "guilty, but insane" might be more appropriate in some cases.

          I'm not sure what the corporate equivalent of locking you up in a loonie bin would be.

          There probably isn't one, given that there isn't an equivalent of
          • I'm not sure what the corporate equivalent of locking you up in a loonie bin would be.

            There probably isn't one, given that there isn't an equivalent of "the slammer"..

            But there is one remedy however faulted. It is possible to have a corporate charter revoked. What many don't understand, or know today, is that corporations are were originally granted charters by government for the good of society, and if a corporation didn't help the public good they could have their charter rescended. In SCO's cas

            • It's the corporate death penalty! but the problem is that corporations are allowed to loot the corpse of other dying corporations without picking up the liabilities. it's something dead people can't do, we have lots of laws specifically so that debtors get fair estate rights if individuals, but not nearly so for corporations. Much of SCO's "property" is IP.. technically NOT property.. but instead of dying with the owner like yours or mine would for anybody to find our old diary and use, corporate IP persi
            • by mpe (36238)
              But there is one remedy however faulted. It is possible to have a corporate charter revoked.

              This is closer to capital punishment than a castodial sentence.

              In SCO's case what this woud mean is that all of SCO's assets would be auctioned off then the procedes would be used to settle outstanding debts, much like in bankrupcy.

              Presumably with the same "pecking order" of creditors.
      • by prandal (87280)

        Letting corporations plead insanity would amount to giving them carte blanche torape, pillage, murder, and burn the planet.
         
        Hey, they are doing this on a grand scale already without ever having to plead anything.

      • by jonbryce (703250)
        Corporations don't do mad things. People do mad things. The people doing the mad things here are Darl McBride, the other members of the board of directors and their lawyers.

        I guess they could plead insanity and get the medical treatment they require.
        • Corporations are an artificial construct designed for a purpouse. The mechanisms and engineering built into this artificial creation are so that, assumed it was a person (and since it is for all practical purpouses a "legal person" the premise is acceptable) it manifests the behaviour of a psycotic sociopath.

          There's a documentary film, "The Corporation", that neatly expounds this idea. Of course anyone unwilling to argue reasonably will dismiss it as commie drivel and move along... too bad.
          • by jonbryce (703250)
            This is true, but in England anyway, there is something called "lifting the veil of incorporation", which makes the people behind the corporation responsible in certain circumstances.
            • That term's thrown around a lot on Groklaw, but in the US, I believe the term is "piercing the corporate veil".
            • I'm wary of the certain circumstances you mention. It's easy for a lobby to reduce these to wrist slaps; I'd rather see the corporation be held responsible itself it's misdeeds. The legal pressure could translate to measurable (economically) sanctions graphable on a damn presentation. Short of a reform in corp statute I believe there's little chance for correcting such behaviour as a personally responsible CxO can always be treated as a replaceable consumable from the corp's perspective. The legal entity h
        • by mpe (36238)
          Corporations don't do mad things. People do mad things. The people doing the mad things here are Darl McBride, the other members of the board of directors and their lawyers.

          IIRC it is very much the case that "corporate people", especially with the laws which currently exist surrounding their behaviour would definitly qualify as "mad people".
      • SCO may have bankrupted itself fighting this battle, but IBM still plans to rape the corpse.

        IBM was accused by SCO of breach of contract. IBM does a metric assload of consulting to loads of companies, all under contract. IBM won't stop until it is proven without a doubt that they did not breach contract in the slightest. Its all for clearing their name.
      • Blaming the victim for crimes that the perpretrator knows were committed, letting slip out a little about the commission, because s/he committed them.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Dilaudid (574715)
        Hey you took all of that from that film "The Corporation". To quote their website [thecorporation.com]: the film puts the corporation on the psychiatrist's couch to ask "What kind of person is it?.

        I always found it particularly ironic that the film was made by Big Picture Media Corporation, according to their website - a subsidiary company of British Columbia Film. I think BC's Annual Report [bcfilm.bc.ca] speaks volumes:

        Economic Impact: Film and television production has emerged as a global industry with a worth of approximately $50 billion

      • by XO (250276)
        SCO has certainly treated IBM like they -want- to be raped after dead.
    • Perhaps they should be allowed to try an insanity offense? At least that would be new and exciting!
  • by hey! (33014) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @11:54AM (#17348462) Homepage Journal
    This is an example of the Casablanca Dilemma, which works like this.

    You're in Casablanca. If you are not out of Casablanca on tommorow's flight, you're a dead man. You have your tickets, but you need Captain Renault to provide you with papers. Louis charges a thousand francs for this "service",and you can only raise five hundred.

    The only way to double your money overnight is to win big a Rick's roullette tables, which would be very unlikely at an honest table -- which Rick's decidedly are not. Sometimes Rick has been known to take pity on a hard luck case, but there's no special reason for him to help you out of all the other desperate folks. You beg Rick for help, but it's no use. He's already helped one hard luck case tonight, and for some reason he is too distracted to pay attention to anything you have to say.

    So you put down your bet at Rick's crooked table, knowing that you are almost certainly a walking dead man. But it's better to keep playing than to stop, and remove all doubt.
    • The only way to double your money overnight is to win big a Rick's roullette tables, which would be very unlikely at an honest table -- which Rick's decidedly are not. Sometimes Rick has been known to take pity on a hard luck case, but there's no special reason for him to help you out of all the other desperate folks. You beg Rick for help, but it's no use. He's already helped one hard luck case tonight, and for some reason he is too distracted to pay attention to anything you have to say.

      Excellent movie

      • But he does tell Sam to "Play it".

        "If she can stand it, I can! Play it!"
        • But he does tell Sam to "Play it".

          "If she can stand it, I can! Play it!"

          I don't recall that. But thanks, I've got the movie on tape so you've given me a reason to watch it today.

          Falcon
          • More great lines:

            Ugarte: You despise me, don't you, Rick?

            --

            Capt. Renault: I'm shocked! SHOCKED! To find that gambling has been going on in this establishment!
            Sasha? : Your winnings, Capt. Renault.
    • by Vexler (127353)
      Your point is taken. However, Casablanca ends on an upbeat note for Rick and Ilsa. For SCO, the "service" costs millions of francs, the dealer has singled them out and determined to take every last penny they have, and their "discovery" process has not yielded a winning hand for FOUR YEARS.
    • You have your tickets, but you need Captain Renault to provide you with papers. Louis charges a thousand francs for this "service",and you can only raise five hundred.
      OK, so don't use Louis. Get your papers from Captain Renault.
      • Er, that's Captain Louis Renault. Same person.

        Chris Mattern
        • You didn't say that in your original post. It's probably best to stick to one name or skip names altogether in analogies.
          • a) wasn't my original post...somebody else wrote it.

            b) Capt. Louis Renault is a major character in the extrememly famous movie Casablanca...which is what the OP was drawing the entire analogy from (Capt. Renault, Rick, Rick's crooked gambling tables, the need to get a pass out of Casablanca or you're dead--all are taken directly from the movie). Which is why I knew Capt. Renault and Louis were the same person, and why the OP assumed other people would know that too.

            CHris Mattern
  • Wrong (Score:4, Informative)

    by John Hasler (414242) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @12:15PM (#17348538) Homepage
    > ...the litigation firm currently in dispute with, among many, IBM, over
    > supposed copyright infringing code in Unix...

    Incorrect. It's a contract case. The only copyright infringement claim The SCO Group is making has to do with IBM continuing to distribute AIX after TSG supposedly terminated IBM's irrevocable, perpetual, fully paid up SysV license.

    > -- has quietly asked the courts to reconsider IBM's request to toss the case
    > out.

    Incorrect again. They have asked the court to reconsider its decision to toss most of TSG's evidence.
    • Re:Wrong (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 23, 2006 @12:51PM (#17348696)
      > Incorrect. It's a contract case. The only copyright infringement claim
      > The SCO Group is making has to do with IBM continuing to distribute AIX
      > after TSG supposedly terminated IBM's irrevocable, perpetual, fully paid
      > up SysV license.

      Sorry, but it's you that's wrong Mr Hasler.
      Here's a breakdown of those Items that remain:

      1 (JFS in Linux): Contract claim
      2 (RCU in Linux): Contract claim
      23 (Dynix EES in Linux): Contract claim, negative know-how
      43 (Dynix TCP in Linux): Contract claim, negative know-how
      90 (Dynix EES in Linux): Contract claim, negative know-how
      94 (NUMA/SMP in Linux): Contract claim
      113-142 (SPIE test suite in Linux): Contract claim
      150-164 (STREAMS in Linux): Copyright claim
      183-184 (Single Unix Specification ABI header files in Linux): Copyright claim
      185 (atemalloc in Linux): Copyright claim
      186-192 (misc Dynix stuff in Linux): Contract claim
      194-203 (Monterey in AIX for Power): Copyright claim
      204 (SysV in Dynix): Copyright claim
      205-231 (Single Unix Specification material in Linux): Copyright claim
      272-278 (ELF in Linux): Copyright claim

      Total remaining items 106
      Contract items 43, copyright items 63
      Linux items 95, Dynix items 1, AIX items 10

      Source: http://www.zen77087.zen.co.uk/nug/alleg/viols.shtm l [zen.co.uk]

      For informed discussion, forget Groklaw's red dress worshipping zombie horde.
      Go to the SCOX forum at Investor Village
      http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&p t=m&clear=1 [investorvillage.com]
      • Or is it another paralegal, only now with Boies, Schiller & Flexner / Flower?

        Boo.
      • by XO (250276)
        Let's see here, what can I put a damper on with just a reasonably decent knowledge of Unix stuff... certainly not a pro level.

        JFS is from OS/2
        Dynix TCP ? Isn't that a vaguely modified version of BSD TCP? Like all other TCP stacks on earth? including Sys V, which probably also uses BSD TCP?

        Streams? Is suing Kernighan & Ritchie (sp) next?

        Isn't the Single Unix Specification owned by Austin Group, formerly owned by IEEE and Open Group ?

        atemalloc came from IRIX, so to go on that, they would have to prove thi
  • by cwsulliv (522390) * <cwsulliv@triad.rr.com> on Saturday December 23, 2006 @12:45PM (#17348668)
    that SCO _ever_ thought they had a chance of winning this case; that their intention from the very beginning was just to draw it out as long as possible.

    As long as they do, the 800-pound puppetmaster behind the curtain can continue to get mileage out of charges that Linux is tainted by IP infringement and that Linux users may be liable for stiff damages.
  • If a person keeps filing lawsuits demanding that the CIA and the Pope turn off the mind control beams focused on his apartment, a judge will eventually tell him "Go away and NEVER COME BACK with this nonsense".

    If corporations are "legal persons", why aren't they bound by the same standard?
    • by mpe (36238)
      If a person keeps filing lawsuits demanding that the CIA and the Pope turn off the mind control beams focused on his apartment, a judge will eventually tell him "Go away and NEVER COME BACK with this nonsense".

      Assuming said person did not wind up in a "nut house".

      If corporations are "legal persons", why aren't they bound by the same standard?

      When it comes to the law "corporate people" are rarely treated the same as real people. Especially when it comes to criminal law. There are no jails for "corporat
  • after he's spent all this money and lost it all at the justice crap table, rather than going out with the same amount of money, like a normal U.S. entrepeneur and...

    CREATE SOMETHING PEOPLE WILL KNOCK YOUR DOOR DOW TO GET AT.
    • The sorry thing is that he probably will (if he goes relativly free from this court process). He will not be usable for anything that comes close to normal producing company... but I'm guessing that some really ruthless "IP investment and monetization firm" (read "patent-blackmailing") could actually hire him. To me that kind of firms seems to be essentially a gambling setup financed by backers who doesn't risk anything and don't care if the firm folds.
    • by rbanffy (584143)
      Sure he will, most probably at Microsoft or a company connected to it, just like Rick Belluzzo did after ruining HP-UX and SGI.

      They know how to show gratitude.

      Watching the future of Darl McBride's career will prove interesting, as well as the rest of SCO's top executives.

      Maybe Novell had a way to connecto SCO to Microsoft and that is part of the deal they signed (for about 350 million).
  • Ambiguity (Score:2, Informative)

    by glas_gow (961896)
    Sco

    has quietly asked the courts to reconsider IBM's request to toss the case out.

    This reads like SCO want the court to throw the case out, or that the court has thrown the case out, and SCO wants the court to reconsider. When, in fact, all that has happened is a sizeable portion of their case has been thrown out, not the case in it's entirety.

  • When the potential proceeds from this lawsuit are really the only asset SCO has left? They have a duty to their shareholders to protect the companies assets until the bankruptcy court auctions off all the office equipment and padlocks the doors.
  • Hey, SCO! You're supposed to submit your evidence during discovery, not several years into the case! Stop wasting our time and give up already.
  • They had over 3 years to present their evidence. In that time they presented nothing.

As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there is always a future in Computer Maintenance. -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"

Working...