Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Software Linux

SCO Files To Amend Claims To IBM Case, Again 157

Posted by kdawson
from the give-it-up dept.
UnknowingFool writes "SCO filed a motion to allow it to change its claims against IBM. Again. A brief recap: In December 2005, SCO was supposed to finally list all claims against IBM. This was the Final Disclosure. In May 2006, SCO filed its experts reports to the court which discussed subjects beyond those in the Final Disclosure. Naturally, IBM objected and wanted to remove certain allegations. Judge Wells ruled from the bench and granted IBM's motion: SCO's experts cannot discuss subjects that were not in the Final Disclosure. Now, SCO wants to amend the December 2005 Final Disclosure to include other allegations."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Files To Amend Claims To IBM Case, Again

Comments Filter:
  • This is ridiculous. I don't know why some company doesn't just put up a few Million dollars (or 10s of millions) to buy SCO and put all these stupid legal battles behind us. They'll never win any of them, but they'll continue to be a nuisance. Ugghhh.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by databank (165049)
      That may be what Sco wants...to be so aggravating that you give them money....

      Besides who would want to buy a sinking ship with a huge hole in the bottom?
    • by Vengeance (46019) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @09:55AM (#17556316)
      No.

      The SCO Group (NOT the Santa Cruz Operation, by the way, they're now called Tarantella) must be crushed into an unrecognizable mess of lies and hopelessness. There is no other way. Their attorneys should be disbarred, their officers should all spend a few decades in Federal prison, and anyone who bought stock in them because they saw the hope of a payout from this extortion scheme should rot in hell.
      • by WindBourne (631190) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @10:28AM (#17556728) Journal
        I wonder. if a quick buy out of the company would enable the buyer to see all paper work? It may be useful for IBM and Novell to have the goods on MS and Sun for damages as well as perhaps put those at the top who perpertraited this crime in prison. I wonder how Gates (or Balmer) and McNealy would do in a federal prison?
        • Gates is too rich to go to prison. He could easily buy the prison, it's staff, the island it's on, the airspace over it, and make it his own personal pleasure palace.

          Turn a disadvantage into an advantage.
      • by Kierthos (225954)
        Bah, Federal prison is too good for them. Send them to a Turkish prison, or Gitmo.
        • by glsunder (241984)
          Nah, just buy sco and move the offices to Baghdad (outside the green zone of course) and transfer everyone there.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11, 2007 @10:56AM (#17557126)
        The SCO Group ... must be crushed into an unrecognizable mess of lies and hopelessness. There is no other way. Their attorneys should be disbarred, their officers should all spend a few decades in Federal prison, and anyone who bought stock in them because they saw the hope of a payout from this extortion scheme should rot in hell.


        Don't forget the bit about "the lamentation of their women", that really needs to be worked in there somewhere.
        • by Vengeance (46019)
          Aside from perhaps Maureen O'Gara, I doubt that any women will be lamenting.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by NormalVisual (565491)
          Don't forget the bit about "the lamentation of their women", that really needs to be worked in there somewhere.

          But that can't come until after IBM sees SCO driven before them, which has to happen after the aforementioned crushing. You gotta keep to the schedule that was given, y'know.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by bored_lurker (788136)
        Just for what it's worth old SCO did become Tarantella, but they are not called that any more. Sun bought them about a year and a half ago. So Tarantella, aka old SCO does not exist anymore. They were completely assimilated into Sun.
      • by theonetruekeebler (60888) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @02:07PM (#17560568) Homepage Journal
        Why does somebody always say the attorneys should be disbarred? As far as I can tell they are working strenuously and entirely within the law to represent a client who has an extremely weak case.

        There's no rule, nor should there be, that attorneys should be punished for representing jerks. Chances are, SCO engaged their services without telling them everything they needed to know, things like "we don't actually own Unix." Now the lawyers are stuck riding this out, because if they walk away, or even slack off, that could get them disbarred, censured, or on the wrong end of a malpractice suit.

        These big-dog lawyers are no fools. Undoubtedly they have a pretty good idea of where their case is going. But if they don't go down swinging, they'll never get another client.

        • by Todd Knarr (15451) * on Thursday January 11, 2007 @06:06PM (#17565342) Homepage

          Actually there is a law. Or rather, a rule of the legal profession and the courts: lawyers are officers of the court first, advocates for their client second. When BSF realized SCO had no basis for their case, if SCO wouldn't listen to reason they should have asked the court to permission to withdraw. Failure to do so is a violation of professional ethics, and I believe a gross violation of both Bar Association and judicial rules. The defendant in a criminal case has a right to representation, the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit does not.

        • by seifried (12921)

          Actually in this case the sco attornies are taking sco stock as payment:

          http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/18/17 2233 [slashdot.org]

          I don't know legally what this all means (IANAL) but it seems to me it could present a conflict of interest, and depending on how much stock they have (i.e. is it a significant percentage) it could potentially open them up to liability. Ultimately I suspect the SCO lawyers have knowingly done some very naughty things, but proving this in a court of law is another matter. Thus

      • "anyone who bought stock in them because they saw the hope of a payout from this extortion scheme should rot in hell"

        Does it aply if I "shorted" them? ;)

      • by Danathar (267989)
        Oh I don't know about the Attorneys. They've managed a rather spectacular jujitsu delaying tactic that will probably be used in law schools for years as instruction on how to "delay until the glaciers melt".

        Just because the whole case was evil does not mean you can't appreciate the work they've done. It's impressive...most impressive!
    • by LWATCDR (28044) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @10:05AM (#17556428) Homepage Journal
      "I don't know why some company doesn't just put up a few Million dollars (or 10s of millions) to buy SCO and put all these stupid legal battles behind us."
      Why would they do that?
      What benefit would they get?
      SCO hasn't stopped Linux so Linux companies would gain very little. IBM would gain nothing since it is getting all the good will it would ever want by standing up to SCO.
      The one really big possible PR left in all this is one for Novell.
      IF Novell gets to foreclose on SCO for none payment and gets back all the rights for Unix they could turn the Unix code base over too the FOSS community.
      Of course if they did that then they would miss some of the nice checks from Sun and IBM.
      • What check from IBM? IBM has a fully paid, non-revocable, perpetual license.
      • by init100 (915886)

        IF Novell gets to foreclose on SCO for none payment and gets back all the rights for Unix they could turn the Unix code base over too the FOSS community.

        Novell? Who is in bed with Microsoft? They'd probably turn it over to them instead.

      • IF Novell gets to foreclose on SCO for none payment and gets back all the rights for Unix they could turn the Unix code base over too the FOSS community.

        Microsoft purchased Novell's soul to prevent this from happening.

    • by rkhalloran (136467) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @10:06AM (#17556444) Homepage
      This has been one big nuisance suit by SCOX *HOPING* IBM would pay them off or buy them out to silence them. IBM's attitude has been "millions for defense, not one cent for tribute". They know paying SCOX off would prompt a flood of copycat suits from other busted vendors.

      At this point it's pretty well proven (a) there's no infringing UNIX code in Linux (b) SCOX likely doesn't hold the copyrights, Novell does (c) SCOX' reading of the contract they inherited from AT&T & Novell is in conflict with their predecessors', and both have said so in depositions and (d) this has been a last-ditch attempt to keep their company afloat.

      SCOX DELENDA EST!!

      • This has been one big nuisance suit by SCOX *HOPING* IBM would pay them off or buy them out to silence them. IBM's attitude has been "millions for defense, not one cent for tribute". They know paying SCOX off would prompt a flood of copycat suits from other busted vendors.
        Or, to put it another way (and to quote Rudyard Kipling):

        "That if once you have paid him the Danegeld,
        You never get rid of the Dane."
        • by Oriumpor (446718) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @02:10PM (#17560648) Homepage Journal
          Danegeld [newcastle.edu.au]
          IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
                  To call upon a neighbour and to say:--
          "We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
                  Unless you pay us cash to go away."

          And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
                  And the people who ask it explain
          That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
                  And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

          It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
                  To puff and look important and to say:--
          "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
                  We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

          And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
                  But we've proved it again and again,
          That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
                  You never get rid of the Dane.

          It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
                  For fear they should succumb and go astray,
          So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
                  You will find it better policy to say:--

          "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
                  No matter how trifling the cost;
          For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
                  And the nation that plays it is lost!"
      • Let us also not forget that they were shipping their own version of Linux on into late 2006 under the GPL license. Even if their claims were true, they're moot.

    • Stupidity 101 (Score:1, Redundant)

      by eddy (18759)
      Yeah, let's give Darl and Sontag more money for their extortion scam. That'll fucking teach them!
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Their legal liability thanks to their idiocy is enormous.

      Whoever bought them could never survive the judgements that'll come down against SCO.

      I think what's more interesting than SCO is what'll happen to SCO's backers that put them up to this (like microsoft who raised $86 million for SCO's lawsuit)

    • by CmdrGravy (645153)
      Who would want to buy SCO ?

      IBM want to make an example of them to discourage anyone else launching frivolous lawsuits against them and to turn around now and buy them would negate the point of the entire excercise.

      Novell want money from SCO for the licence fees they are selling which Novell should have got the lions share of. They are hardly like to buy SCO when they could easily get all their assets anyway when SCO has to pay up.

      I can't see anyone else being interested since the dreadful health SCO is curr
    • I don't know why some company doesn't just put up a few Million dollars (or 10s of millions) to buy SCO .

      This comes up every time....

      NO. For the same reason you shouldn't give money to hostage takers. You will only encourage them, and copycats, to do more of the same.

    • And how would this rid us of problems? You cannot simply withdrawl a lawsuit like this. Well they could try, but IBM's counterclaims would still stand. No, its better to let this run its course and let justice be served (though by the time it is served itwill be stone cold, much like revenge at its best).
    • by ciw42 (820892) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @10:22AM (#17556674)
      I read a quote from Darl somewhere a good while ago saying that in all honesty, when they started their legal endeavours, they fully expected IBM to just buy them out. Guess IBM decided that it'd be more fun to bury them. Big time. And in the long-run of course, the case has actually done a good deal to strengthen the GNU/Linux community.

      Even without a buyout, those involved in this nonsense have actually made a good deal of money - the lawyers, Darl and the other execs (who are on hefty salaries) who have done rather well from all this, thank you very much. The people I feel sorry for the actual engineers at SCO, as there can be no doubt the company won't come out the other end of this in any fit state to carry on. It used to be a damn good little company, providing a good product at sensible prices. Now look at them. They're just a bad joke.
      • by wrook (134116) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @11:54AM (#17558052) Homepage
        All of the money made by the insiders is public knowledge. I quickly looked through the records last week (you can just do a google search for "insider trades SCO" and you will find a service that will list them all). From what I can tell, Baystar dumped about a million shares or so at between $3.50 and $4.00 at the end of 2004 (They were making 5 or 6 sell trades a day for months). I'm not sure if this ended up being a profit or a loss though (I forget the details... and the whole Bank of Montreal involvement made everything kind of complicated anyway).

        The executives exercised stock options all the way up until the end of 2004. It seems they were mostly granted at between $1 and $2 and excercised for between $10 and $20, but there are some exceptions. I didn't add up all the money, but it was definitely in the multi-millions of dollars.

        There are huge stock grants to a law firm (about 10 million shares), which I think is the law firm representing them (I assume for services rendered). So the absolute big winners seem to be the lawers, but the executives and Baystar seem to have made millions as well. The losers are the people who invested at anything over $4 (or the morons who sold short, not understanding that it takes *time* for a stock to fall).

        As a disclaimer, I only quickly reviewed this material, so there may be errors in my summary. If you care about this stuff, I suggest you compile it properly yourself.
      • by emurphy42 (631808)
        It used to be a damn good little company, providing a good product at sensible prices.
        Are you referring to OldSCO (now Tarantella) or NewSCO (previously Caldera)?
        • by ciw42 (820892)
          Oh, that was OldSCO. Back in the days when they had a fine x86 Unix distribution that I used to install on half a dozen servers a week.
      • by rbanffy (584143)

        Even without a buyout, those involved in this nonsense have actually made a good deal of money - the lawyers, Darl and the other execs (who are on hefty salaries) who have done rather well from all this, thank you very much.

        That's why there _must_ be a way to put those people behind bars. Their sole intent in all this has been to benefit themselves and the interests behind the Canopy Group at the expense of the company itself, its shareholders and the Linux ecosystem. Since day #1 there was no hope of winning.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by KokorHekkus (986906)

      ...I don't know why some company doesn't just put up a few Million dollars (or 10s of millions) to buy SCO and put all these stupid legal battles behind us...

      Besides all the other reasons mentioned before you will not be able to buy SCOX for what it's worth on the stock exchange because the SCOX board has adopted a poision pill to deter hostile takeovers. Basically they say "We (the major insiders) determine what we should get paid - not the market!" (About 45% of the company is held by insiders... who wa

    • by SEE (7681)
      The reason nobody but IBM would buy SCO is the IBM counterclaims, which don't go away even if SCO drops its claims. Buying SCO means you inherit their legal liabilities, which means giving IBM a chance to rip your company a new one.

      Now, Darl McBride, in an interview, has said that he doesn't understand why IBM didn't just buy The SCO Group to make the lawsuit go away.

      The reason IBM hasn't is because IBM doesn't want every pissant little company with a failing business to go, "Hey, I know how we can get out
    • This is ridiculous. I don't know why some company doesn't just put up a few Million dollars (or 10s of millions) to buy SCO and put all these stupid legal battles behind us. They'll never win any of them, but they'll continue to be a nuisance. Ugghhh

      What SCO is doing is ridiculous. It would also be ridiculous for someone who works with or has a Linux distro to buy them out. All it would do is show that you can make a lot of money if you release enough hot air. Someone buying out SCO would invite other

  • That big bad judge wouldn't let us tattle MORE on that big bad IBM.
  • by swschrad (312009) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @09:53AM (#17556298) Homepage Journal
    "oh, your Honor, we are but mere idiots drooling on our papers, we just want money. grant us our relief and give us lots of everybody else's money. also, your wallet and watch, hand 'em over."
    • The one where they open the book to Chapter 7. [uscourts.gov]
      • any time three creditors have had enough, they can flip your crackling dry carcass over the edge into chapter 7.
    • Well actually this is the only thing that SCO can do. I don't think their goal is to win. But to not get killed by IBM. If SCO can prove there case well enough to not get thrown out then they may be able to get off loosing the case and their own legal fees. Otherwise IBM can sue them back (and IBM has been asking some of its customers to keep track of any time loss due to this lawsuit including meeting discussing the matter) Asking for full compensation for there losses. IBM Legal Fees, Their customers t
    • "oh, your Honor, we are but mere idiots drooling on our papers, we just want money. grant us our relief and give us lots of everybody else's money. also, your wallet and watch, hand 'em over."

      "Your Honor, I am but a simple caveman: One day while gathering some food I was caught up in an icy river and frozen in a glacier for ten thousand years. I do not understand your complex world. But I do understand this: my client, the IBM corporation, requested and received final disclosure of the complaints to be brought against it by the plaintiff, SCO Group, and these complaints were not a part of that disclosure. Surely, your honor, if a simple caveman can understand this it must be equally evident

    • by Kjella (173770)
      I think they're playing the only card they've got left - the latest antics seem so silly and provocative (like trying to overturn the 'de novo' ruling) that I think they're hoping for one thing - that the judges will get (too) pissed off and make a mistake. Something that can make them turn back and say "We haven't been getting a fair trial, let's start over". It won't help their case but it's the only way they'll get the FUD started again.
      • by idontgno (624372)

        I think they're hoping for one thing - that the judges will get (too) pissed off and make a mistake.

        Or, quoting from SCO's litigation strategy documents [mwscomp.com]:

        ARTHUR:
        ... And we'd better not risk another frontal assault. That rabbit's dynamite.

        ROBIN:
        Would it help to confuse it if we run away more?

        ARTHUR:
        Oh, shut up and go and change your armour

        GALAHAD:
        Let us taunt it! It may become so cross that it will make a mistake.

        ARTHUR:
        Like what?

        GALAHAD:
        Well... ooh.

  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @09:55AM (#17556322) Homepage Journal
    Maybe we're just seeing what kind of lawyers you get when all you can pay them with is stock in a company whose assets consist solely of a huge scam lawsuit against IBM.

    One of the precedents that IBM should produce by seeing this travesty trial to its just conclusion is penalties for the SCO lawyers who have been wasting court time with this obviously frivolous lawsuit. Why should taxpayers subsidize those lawyers with free access to the courts for their stockmarket scam? The SEC should look at their brokers, too, to see whether they are in on the deal - almost certainly they are.

    This case shouldn't end with only strong precedents clearing Linux developers and distributors from the FUD SCO has pumped into the market for years now. It should end with disbarred lawyers and delicensed brokers, and probably punitive damages (paid to the court, compensating taxpayers) exceeding the profit those professional crooks have made from the stock transactions their work has been the smoke and mirrors to produce.
    • I agree, but good luck getting the US government to.

      I love the following quote from Syriana:

      "Some trust fund prosecutor, got off-message at Yale, thinks he's gonna run this up the flagpole, make a name for himself, maybe get elected some two-bit, congressman from nowhere, with the result that Russia or China can suddenly start having, at our expense, all the advantages we enjoy here. No, I tell you. No, sir. Corruption charges! Corruption? Corruption is government intrusion into market efficiencies in the f
      • by Doc Ruby (173196)
        Gee, my favorite line from Syriana is "BOOM!!!" ;).

        One of my favorite lines from living in New Orleans was "In Louisiana, people don't expect corruption. They demand it."
    • by RichMan (8097) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @10:16AM (#17556592)
      SCO paid cold hard cash for their lawyers. Cash from Microsoft and Sun that Novell is claiming should have been forwarded to Novell. But it was cash. There was an early move to make BS&F get paid in shares and a percentage of an SCO buyout. BS&F dropped that very quickly, either because they got a good look at SCO's case or because it would put them in co-conspirator type position with respect to Lanham act and racketering charges for being a direct benefit from the false valuation.

      SCO paid a "fixed fee" to BS&F to manage all cases through appeals, I believe it was $29M. There is also a refillable misc-costs bucket of $5M that has already been topped up twice. The misc-cost bucket sort of puts a lie to the "fixed fee" handling of the lawsuit.

      In any case SCO is now facing Novell asking for a lot of cash that SCO no longer has.
      • by Doc Ruby (173196)
        Hmm, hadn't noticed the lawyers trading their stock compensation for "costs++" accounting.

        How does the Lanham act make SCO liable for anything? Is this the "Unix" copyright argument with Novell?
        • by Doc Ruby (173196)
          Is this the "Unix" copyright argument with Novell?


          Er, not "copyright", trademark, which the Lanham Act covers.
      • There was an early move to make BS&F get paid in shares and a percentage of an SCO buyout.

        No, that's not right. The buyout part is correct, but not the shares. There was an early claim made by both TSCOG and BS&F that BS&F were taking the case on contingency. That was true as far as it went, but I didn't go very far. The reality was that BS&F were taking the case on contingency or flat rate, whichever was greater. However, both groups publicly touted the contingency and were completel

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by elrond2003 (675701)
          Technically, there was a time when the payment was to be some large block of stock, complete with anouncements form Blake Stowell that now BSF were partners in the company and lawsuit. Then the stock tanked and BSF decided that cash was better. The so-called "contingency" payments were not the usual kind of contingency payments in a lawsuit, I.E. the lawyer gets paid a part of WHAT you win IF you win. They were, BSF gets 20% of any money that TSG got from certain transaction types that were related to the
    • Moderation +3
          80% Insightful
          20% Flamebait

      SCO still has the money to pay asTrollMod'ers to anonymously flame Slashdot posts.
  • by Frequency Domain (601421) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @09:59AM (#17556364)
    The hero keeps firing his gun at the oncoming zombie, shouting "Why... wont... you... DIE!"
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by grub (11606)

      The hero keeps firing his gun at the oncoming zombie, shouting "Why... wont... you... DIE!"

      Because this zombie has the head stuck up its ass. Hero will have to aim at the lower torso for the Win.
    • Never use Worcester Sauce to embalm a dead company. Do NOT use chainsaws to dismember it.
  • Jesus. Which part of "Final" are these clowns having trouble understanding?
  • Final? (Score:5, Funny)

    by techpawn (969834) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @10:04AM (#17556414) Journal
    They're using Square's definition of "Final" arn't they...
  • IANAL (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee (775178) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @10:04AM (#17556426) Homepage
    I don't have detailed knowledge of the US legal system, but isn't SCO stretching it beyond it's limits in a way rarely seen before. And certainly with such high profile cases with companies of these sizes?
    • Re:IANAL (Score:4, Informative)

      by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworld@NOSpam.gmail.com> on Thursday January 11, 2007 @10:08AM (#17556460) Homepage
      You can alway ask the court for leave to amend your claims against the other party, but the other side gets to argue against it. I doubt SCO will win on this front.
      • by mwvdlee (775178)
        The thing is that SCO has already changed their claims a number of times, to the point that the case has changed from being about copyright to being about breach of contract. Ofcourse there is no breach of contract if there is no copyright infringement, but for some odd reason this seems to be what happened.
    • I don't have detailed knowledge of the US legal system, but isn't SCO stretching it beyond it's limits in a way rarely seen before. And certainly with such high profile cases with companies of these sizes?

      Neither am I a lawyer, but it seems to me that SCOX has gone long past the point of no return. They have to do everything and anything to drag it out as long as is possible. But, your insight is correct, I'm unaware of any situation where things have gone the way the SCOX suits have gone. The complex nature of software code, Patents, and Copyright has allowed it, but the one redeeming factor here is that we may actually fix parts of the system as a result, but perhaps that is wishful thinking.

      What I'd re

      • But...

        It seems to me that criminal prosecutions of SCO's legal team would (even if something that the law allows) set a precedent that would make it easier for large/rich corporations to seriously threaten smaller corporations or individuals who want to challenge them in court. Perhaps there could be Iis?) some kind of middle ground that would allow any party to a lawsuit to file a complaint that would result in fines, censure or some other less severe punishment for the legal team.

        Similarly, putting

    • What's the textbook illustration of a "vexatious litigant"?

      Is SCO better or worse than that textbook example?

      Is there a strategic advantage to IBM in not filing a motion for sanctions? If so, what is it?

      What are some possible reasons why a judge might act as though SCO were a legitimate plaintiff?

      Do SCO's lawyers have grounds for walking away from the case? Aren't attorneys entitled to "fire" their clients if the clients have materially misled them?
    • It's time for SCO's lawyers to start facing some contempt-of-court charges for their shenanigans.
  • by teh_chrizzle (963897) <kill-9NO@SPAMhobbiton.org> on Thursday January 11, 2007 @10:15AM (#17556574) Homepage

    on what grounds?

    on the grounds that it's disasterous to my case.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11, 2007 @10:24AM (#17556688)
    ... then I realised I was just flogging a dead horse
  • FINAL disclosure as IANAL disclosure.... seems apt, if you ask me.
  • by MojoRilla (591502) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @10:48AM (#17556990)
    Yet more delay from SCO.

    SCO is essentially saying the following:
    Your honor, since the trial date has been postponed to after Novell (September 2007), let us amend our "final" disclosure. IBM has lots of time to respond to this, so it causes no harm.

    SCO obviously doesn't understand the word final. They also say (this is a quote):
    There also is a public interest in disputes being resolved on their merits, which granting of the requested relief would advance.

    The public interest is in having this matter resolved in a reasonable time frame. SCO had 3.8 years (from when they filed in March of 2003 until when final disclosure happened in December of 2006) to assemble their evidence. The longer this charade goes on, and that Linux is under SCO's cloud of FUD, the more damage SCO is doing.

    SCO has tried to delay at every turn during this trial, so this comes as no surprise. It now seems obvious that this whole lawsuit was an attempt to delay Linux adoption by destroying Linux credibility in the marketplace. This whole thing was about delay.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bstone (145356) *
      They have already been able to delay until, magically, Vista got released. Now that Vista is having a bit of a problem with traction in the marketplace, perhaps it's time for some more "emergency" delay. Not that anyone is really concerned any more that there is anything wrong with Linux, but that seems to have been the original idea, and perhaps some of the principles still think they can generate some more FUD out of it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by kfg (145172)
      It now seems obvious that this whole lawsuit was an attempt to delay Linux adoption by destroying Linux credibility in the marketplace.

      Unfortunately I did not bookmark the page and cannot find it now, but back in the day Darl had a moment of candor during an interview and when asked why he filed the suit said (paraphrasing}:

      "We were approached by outside parties who asked us to use the power of our license to help monitize Linux."

      In his attempt to deflect bad feelings away from SCO he . . .told the truth.
    • SCO is essentially saying the following: Your honor, since the trial date has been postponed to after Novell (September 2007), let us amend our "final" disclosure. IBM has lots of time to respond to this, so it causes no harm.

      Yes, I can't wait for IBM's response. It'll be something along the lines of: What is the point of deadlines and procedures if they can keep changing things? Also, it's been 3 #@%%!% years.

    • by sacremon (244448)
      From the filing:

      "SCO submits that in light of the removal of this case from the trial calendar, there is no bona fide reason to reject an amendment to the December Submission to include that information - especially where the information was disclosed to IBM through expert reports served in May, 2006."

      So not only are they claiming that IBM has plenty of time to respond, but that they are already familiar with some of it, given that they tried to add it back in May 2006. That was the amendment that the judg
    • by asuffield (111848)

      The public interest is in having this matter resolved in a reasonable time frame.

      That's not the primary reason why this attempt is likely to fail. Judges have basically four priorities when deciding what they think about something, in order of decreasing priority:

      1. Lawyers screwing with them
      2. Their caseload and schedule
      3. Justice and the law
      4. Public interest

      Delaying tactics fall squarely under #2. Judges loathe delay. A delayed case is a case that they're going to have to keep working on, and cases always get more

  • 1. Draw out court case as long as possible to make SCO waste more cash.
    2. Crush SCO completely in court to the point even the Judge laughers at SCO.
    3. Buy SCO out after they are about to declare they are bankrupt for 1$.
    4. Have a big camp fire using the SCO buildings and transfer all SCO remaining staff to the "Whipping Boy" Department.

    and just for kicks and giggles
    5 . Profit

  • by Qubit (100461) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @10:57AM (#17557142) Homepage Journal
    At least IBM has big pants with deep pockets. I mean, how long has this farce been going on? ...And what, pray tell, will IBM see (in terms of monetary relief) when it's over?

    I mean, SCO is floundering like a stuck pig on the end of a deep-sea fishing line. They're bleeding all over the friggin' ocean and their lawyers are sucking up the blood as fast as it's pouring out.

    How soon before McBride and the boys finally run dry and succumb to their fate? Will there be any money to pay Novell for the licensing fees they are due? Will there be any money to pay IBM's legal team for this long, drawn-out court case?

    Something doesn't sit right in my mind when a company can use its dying breath to unfairly inconvenience other companies. If SCO doesn't have any money left to pay its debts when the "curtain is coming down" on this case, can the judge haul off and McGwire the money from the SCO gang like candy from a pinata?

    I hope so.
    • by DrXym (126579)
      At least IBM has big pants with deep pockets. I mean, how long has this farce been going on? ...And what, pray tell, will IBM see (in terms of monetary relief) when it's over?

      Just guessing, but I expect IBM doesn't want to be raped over a barrel by some cowboy outfit that has some tenuous claim on IBM's business. I'm sure they could have paid up, or bought them out, and perhaps with hindsight they may even have done it. But at this point they just want to see SCO die in a fire and send out a message to an

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Gulik (179693)
        But at this point they just want to see SCO die in a fire and send out a message to any other SCO wannabe.

        (With apologies to JMS and Vir Cotto)

        "What do you want, IBM?"
        "I'd like to live just long enough to be there when the judge cuts off your head and sticks it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations of law school graduates that some cash grabs come with too high a price. I would look up at your penniless eyes and wave, like this." [waves, smiling]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11, 2007 @11:17AM (#17557438)
    I'm from Europe and have witnessed this case being mentioned every once in a while. It seems like some kind of virus; the thing which you cannot kill and it just pops up every once in a while.

    What I fail to understand is that the American justice department is allowing all this to continue. To which I'd like to immediatly add that this whole ordeal is more damaging than people might realize. For me its also portraying the whole justice system as something which you really can't take too seriously. Jury courts? Sure, try to work on their emotion. Trials with no end because no evidence is being produced what so ever? Sure; only in America so it seems.

    What makes me look upon this with a little disdain for this, arrogant if you will, IMO display of incompetence is the sheer fact that SCO has also tried this in Europe just once. The only thing they ended up with was a threat for some major fines (due to plain out slander) if they pulled a stunt like that again.

    What is it with these people? If they need to apply the law and it allows for grand mockeries like this wouldn't it make sense to get something in motion to actually /change/ those laws or is this something people weren't hired to do or set in motion, resulting in nothing ever changing?

    Guys, this isn't only hurting business. Its hurting your credibility too!
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by gtall (79522)
      OF course the case has been going on too long. It is not the U.S. Justice Department though. They have no control over the courts which are in a separate branch of government (branches: legislative, judicial, and executive --- Justice Dept. in this last).

      The reason for the delay, outside of shady lawyers, is that the justices involved are bending over backwards to prevent any successful appeal of their future rulings. A successful appeal would make them look bad and hand SCO a victory it ill-deserves.

      The sh
    • We're a fledgling corporate oligarchy. Lobbyists and corporate interests have seen to that.

      Most of the laws being passed these days concern business interests. I won't get too heavily into it but a good example is to study our DMCA and see how our original ideas of freedom of speech and expression have been "curtailed" to benefit a few businesses. Or how eminent domain was recently expanded to cover business interests, not just civic ones. Plenty of examples, and this is Slashdot so I shouldn't have t

    • This suit is backwards. SCO brought this suit, yet they want to stall. Usually, the plaintiff wants to push the case forward, and the defense wants to stall. The system is set up so that the plaintiff pushes the case forward, which is why this is dragging on.

      Bear in mind that SCO's stalling isn't a problem for IBM. Is IBM losing customers over this? No. Is it costing IBM significant amounts of money? No. (IBM total revenue for 1995: $91 billion. Gross profit: $37 billion). Can SCO afford to kee

    • seems to me IMHO that the judge should have whacked his gavel and dismissed with prejudice (meaning never able to file again) three and a half years ago.

      it is customary in filing lawsuits to have information supporting your case, even here.
      • seems to me IMHO that the judge should have whacked his gavel and dismissed with prejudice (meaning never able to file again) three and a half years ago.

        SCO would of been able to go to the appeals court and asked to have the case reinstated, then if it was it would look bad for the judge. Though it's a real hassle, with both judges letting SCO run with this case they are giving SCO a lot of rope to hang themself with.

        Falcon
    • by SEE (7681)
      Eh. Neither IBM nor SCO have been making any effort to get it over with quickly. As long as neither party cares that it's taking forever to argue dozens of claims and counter-claims before the actual trial begins, why not take forever?

      Anyway, that's the way things were until the last set of judgments. The judge agreed with IBM that the SCO-Novell case has to be resolved first, because if Novell never sold certain rights to SCO, SCO didn't have standing to file a whole bunch of its claims in the first pla
  • Final (Score:3, Funny)

    by mrhandstand (233183) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @11:48AM (#17557958) Journal
    I do not think that word means what you think it means...

    --Inigo Montoya
  • by wardk (3037) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @11:57AM (#17558116) Journal
    OJ Simpson is hot on IBM's trail, won't be long till they find the smoking gun.

    SCO is paying him in stock

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Working...