Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera The Courts Unix Linux Your Rights Online

SCO Asks Judge To Give Them the Unix Copyright 286

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the we-promise-to-walk-it-every-day dept.
Raul654 writes "In March, the jury in the Novell/SCO case found that Novell owns the copyright to Unix. Now, SCO's lawyers have asked judge Ted Stewart to order Novell to turn over the Unix copyright to them. 'SCO contends the jury did not answer the specific issue before Stewart that involves a legal principle called "specific performance," under which a party can ask a court to order another party to fulfill an aspect of an agreement.'" Over at Groklaw, PJ is deep into a community project to annotate SCO's filing. It's for the benefit of future historians, but it makes amusing reading now.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Asks Judge To Give Them the Unix Copyright

Comments Filter:
  • sco still alive? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nonewmsgs (1249950) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @09:38AM (#32013486)
    isn't sco dead yet?
  • by Dystopian Rebel (714995) * on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @09:41AM (#32013548) Journal

    "Mommy! Make Timmy give me the toy!"

  • nah, SCO is dead.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by miataninja (980534) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @09:42AM (#32013552)
    but the lawyers are still alive (and feeding on the corpse)
  • Damn! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Third Position (1725934) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @09:44AM (#32013600)

    I beginning to think SCO is trying for the Guinness Book of World Records under "Worlds Longest Running Soap Opera". How much longer do they have to go to get the title?

    • by dingen (958134) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @09:51AM (#32013676)

      The longest running soap opera is The Guiding Light, which started in 1937 on the radio and moved to television (while keeping the same cast and storyline) in 1952. The show was cancelled in 2009 due to low ratings, which makes the total running time about 72 years.

      The SCO lawsuits against Linux and other Unices started in 2002 when Darl McBride become CEO of the company. If they can keep it up for another 65 years, they can claim the title of longest running soap opera rightfully theirs.

      • by inamorty (1227366) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @10:03AM (#32013882)
        Does that mean that 2075 will be the year of the Linux Desktop?
      • I thought The Guiding Light was picked up by a cable network for new episodes (much like CBS picked up Medium).

        • by dingen (958134)

          According to Wikipedia, TGL was already on CBS when they started to make TV episodes in 1952, while at the same time still continuing the radio shows as well.

          In 1956 the radio shows were discontinued, which concluded the shows' transfer from radio to television.

          • Obviously you read only half of what I said.

            I said,

            Didn't The Guiding Light get picked up by a cable network (much like CBS picked up Medium)?

            Perhaps that clarifies it for you?

            But that's ok, I'll just go look for myself.

            And the answer to my question is a resounding: No. not that I care.

            • by dingen (958134)

              I'm sorry, I didn't understand you meant after the cancellation in 2009.

              Why did you emphesize "cable network" though. Isn't CBS a cable network?

              • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

                by machine321 (458769)

                Isn't CBS a cable network?

                No. CBS is a television network. Ethernet, Arcnet, Token Ring and Localtalk are cable networks.

                • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

                  by chill (34294)

                  Uhhh...with a show called "The Guiding Light", wouldn't you figure maybe SONET/SDH instead?

              • by pavon (30274)

                No. CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and UPN/CW are all broadcast stations. The cable companies simply retransmit them from the broadcast (required by law, and does not require the cable company paying the broadcasters).

      • If they can keep it up for another 65 years, they can claim the title of longest running soap opera rightfully theirs.

        Regrettably, the nature of the ongoing case is both funny and sad.

        I'd encourage anyone who insists on weighing in on complex[1] legal issues by offering up naively simplistic interpretations, or worse, blathering on about "We used to have the Rule of Law. Now we have the Rule of Men.", to read through the annotated filing, while making note of the title[2].

        As a side note, I think PJ deserves

  • hmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nomadic (141991)
    It's for the benefit of future historians

    Good grief, let's not overstate the importance of this case.
    • by jedidiah (1196)

      They are arguing about the ownership of Unix.

      That is no trivial matter by itself.

      • by nomadic (141991)
        That is no trivial matter by itself.

        To future HISTORIANS? Yes it is.
        • by Rennt (582550)

          That will be up to future historians won't it? UNIX isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Much of the history of UNIX has already been lost, or only recorded after being passed on via oral tradition.

          This case is and will remain a pivotal moment in the future history of UNIX. Imagine what the software/systems landscape would like if SCO had won? It is reasonable to want to preserve this history, as other documentation projects have done with other parts of the hacker tradition.

    • by s-whs (959229)

      It's for the benefit of future historians

      Good grief, let's not overstate the importance of this case.

      Are you kidding? This is monumental in showing clearly how stupid courts/court cases can be. This case went on for years without any shred of evidence ever!

      There is generally very little respect for lawyers, and at uni (math/physics) we all think/thought such studies were basically worthless. These cases confirm we were/are right ;-)

      And what about that comment I read in another story here on slas

      • by Rogerborg (306625)

        at uni (math/physics) we all think/thought [legal] studies were basically worthless

        It depends how you count "worth". If it's the improvement of mankind, then sure, scientists For The Win. If it's the way that 99.9% of people count it though - yachts, hookers and champaign - then I'm afraid I'm going to have to call it for the lawyers.

        • If it's the way that 99.9% of people count it though - yachts, hookers and champaign - then I'm afraid I'm going to have to call it for the lawyers.

          Oh, come now! You mean you haven't heard of Mme Curie's private pleasure island, or Hawking's luxury catamaran? Rumour has it that, before the Hindenburg disaster prompted him to change his mind, Einstein had placed an order with Luftschiffbau Zeppelin [wikipedia.org] for what was to be the world's largest private dirigible, the Graf Zeppelin III. Oh, and that was no publ
      • by nomadic (141991)
        Are you kidding? This is monumental in showing clearly how stupid courts/court cases can be. This case went on for years without any shred of evidence ever!

        There was evidence; you might not have found it convincing, but it existed.

        Yes, traditional math/physics major narcissism, etc., but if you are extrapolating the value everyone knows about the narcissism of many math/physics majors, but if you're extrapolating legal systems Furthermore, while cops can use anything you say AGAINST you in a court o
        • by nomadic (141991)
          Accidentally hit post; should have read: Yes, traditional math/physics major narcissism, etc., but if you are extrapolating the legal systems' value or integrity from one case, then that is poor science. Plus, with all due respect, I don't think you understand all of the issues involved, it wasn't just about ownership of copyrights.
        • by h00manist (800926)
          Stick to a strict definition, and important parts of democracy and freedom are largely an illusion, too, because of the implementation. A few fundamental key parts are missing, or don't work. But that doesn't mean people don't strongly believe in it. In fact, they often get mighty angry if you talk about it or try to make these freedoms actually work. Just try to actually do something about unfair situations, instead of complaining about it, and you'll start finding limitations.
      • by Jaysyn (203771)

        And what about that comment I read in another story here on slashdot (about the Apple phone prototype):

        Furthermore, while cops can use anything you say AGAINST you in a court of law, if you ask them to repeat something you said that would help your case, that would be heresay, and therefore can not help you.

        That's just fooking unbelievable. If that sort of nonsense persists in law and/or the way it's practiced, I have no respect for it nor the people involved in it.

        This is 100% true. Cops in the US are not your friends & are not looking out for you in any fashion.

        More info here:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik [youtube.com]

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE [youtube.com]

  • CLANG! (Score:5, Funny)

    by zepo1a (958353) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @09:47AM (#32013626)

    [clang]
    CORPSE COLLECTOR: Bring out your dead!
    NOVELL: Here's one.
    CORPSE COLLECTOR: Nine pence.
    SCO: I'm not dead!
    CORPSE COLLECTOR: What?
    NOVELL: Nothing. Here's your nine pence.
    SCO: I'm not dead!

  • I wonder just what would change if SCO did get it. Does Linux run UNIX? I guess the answer to that is "sort of"... And outside the US?
    • by JiffyPop (318506) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @09:57AM (#32013790)

      There has been no examples exposed by SCO or anyone else that would indicated that Linux has anything to fear from the holder of UNIX copyrights, whoever that may be. If there were any code that infringes on a copyright then that functionality can be re-coded from the specifications, eliminating any infringement.

      • by SharpFang (651121) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @11:11AM (#32015190) Homepage Journal

        SCO: Linux violates our copyrights on UNIX!
        IBM: No, it does not. Not a single line infringes on UNIX
        Novell: Wait, what? We own copyright on UNIX.
        SCO: Your honor, we are unable to pursue the lawsuit against Linux infringing upon our rights to UNIX because we don't have them, Novell does. Could you force them to hand these rights over to us so that we could continue suing Linux?

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by schon (31600)

          No, actually read:

          SCO: Linux violates our copyrights on UNIX!
          IBM: No, it does not. Not a single line infringes on UNIX
          Novell: Wait, what? We own copyright on UNIX.

          SCO: Your honor, Novell is *LYING*, which is causing people to not believe that we own the copyright - make them stop lying.
          Judge: Show me a document that says you own the copyrights.
          SCO: Umm, we can't.
          Judge: Why do you think you own the copyrights?
          SCO: Well, Darl's best friend's brother's second-cousin heard that we own them!
          Judge: Not good enough. You don't own them.
          SCO: Well, we *should* own them - make them give them to us!

    • it'd mean that SCO's case against IBM would have _some_ (and i say _some_) merit.

      now, if the court decision sticks, means their case against IBM have no basis. and since novell own the copyright, novel can simply put everything in public domain, something that AT&T already did with some ancient versions, reducing even more their chances against the blue suits from armonk.

      • by Xtifr (1323) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @10:43AM (#32014616) Homepage

        it'd mean that SCO's case against IBM would have _some_ (and i say _some_) merit.

        Getting the copyrights now shouldn't help them. All the code in Linux has been already distributed by the current Unix copyright holders under the terms of the GPL. Even if SCO gets the copyrights, they can't revoke the perfectly valid license that has already been granted to any Unix code that might happen to be in Linux.

        Oh, and it was SCO (Caldera) that put Ancient Unix in the public domain. Ironically, they probably did so illegally, since Novell owned the copyrights, not that Novell is likely to complain at this late date.

        • by Danathar (267989)

          Oh yes they CAN!!!

          What? Don't agree? Well I'm sure we can settle this with a LAWSUIT!!! Muhaaawwaaaa!

        • Getting the copyrights now shouldn't help them. All the code in Linux has been already distributed by the current Unix copyright holders under the terms of the GPL.

          Purely devil's advocate: if the copyrights rightfully belong to SCO, then Novell didn't have the right to distribute that code under the GPL in the first place and SCO could un-license it. By analogy, if I ended up with a copy of that source code Microsoft lost a while back, I couldn't legally put it under the GPL and give a copy to you under the terms of that license. If I did, and Microsoft came knocking on your door, you wouldn't be able to tell them that you were entitled to keep and use your copy.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Xtifr (1323)

            Purely devil's advocate: if the copyrights rightfully belong to SCO

            But they don't. SCO is asking for them to be turned over now, but they still rightfully belong to Novell at the moment. QED.

            Your analogy fails because you don't currently own the copyrights to that hypothetical MS code. If it was your code--your copyright--and you had some agreement to turn it over to MS if they needed it, but in the meantime, you had GPL'd it, that would be a better analogy, and I don't see any reason why MS could argue that you shouldn't have GPL'd it while it was still yours. They ca

      • Ultimately, that would mean nothing. Even if SCO somehow prevailed here and received the copyrights, its case against IBM is still baseless, and whatever few customers they might still have are probably in the process of migrating to a system supported by a more stable company.
        • Man, I can't see myself sticking to a product put out by a (fiscally and morally) bankrupt outfit like SCO if I wasn't being threatened by guys with no necks in shiny suits.

          I guess Derle is going to pursue this crap-fest until not even an insane disbarred legal-aid shyster would be willing to take it on because there are little old ladies with scalded laps taking on McDonald's who have better cases.

          What a joke this is making of the entire legal profession. They ARE shysters.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by burnin1965 (535071)

        SCO's case against IBM would have _some_ (and i say _some_) merit.

        Actually, no, the Caldera / The SCO Group lawsuit never had any merit and it was learned through discovery that it was known by all the Caldera / The SCO Group insiders that there was absolutely no merit to their case from the onset.

        After intensive and expensive internal attempts to find something that could be used to sue linux user's for a SCO Tax the Caldera / The SCO Group investigation found absolutely *nothing*. ie no evidence of any co [groklaw.net]

        • by ashridah (72567)

          Wait, who lost their lives, exactly? and by which means?
          I mean, i could understand if someone lost their livelihood, and thus, couldn't pay health insurance and died, but are we talking murder here?

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by burnin1965 (535071)

            http://www.digitaliq.com/parser.php?nav=article&article_id=431 [digitaliq.com]

            The Noordas, along with their daughter, Val Kreidel, and James Stewart, another attorney from Ballard Spahr, were at a different location.

            Via speakerphone, apparently reading from a script, Mrs. Noorda terminated President/CEO Yarro, CFO Darcy Mott and legal counsel Brent Christensen as officers of Canopy...

            The Yarro et al lawsuit painted a picture of Val Kreidel, the daughter of Ray and Tye, as one of the driving forces behind the ousting o

  • by jimicus (737525) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @09:51AM (#32013678)

    Don't know if anyone else remembers "It's Flashbeagle, Charlie Brown"....

    Judge: What are you doing, SCO?
    SCO: I'm waiting for my sweet baboo.^W^W^W^W^W suing Novell because they assigned us the copyright to Unix.
    Novell: We did not assign you the copyrights!
    SCO: Novell sold us the copyright in 1995.
    Novell: WE DID NOT!
    SCO: Well, you should have!
    Judge: Oh, brother.

  • by Hognoxious (631665) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @09:52AM (#32013692) Homepage Journal

    Hey your Judgeousness, while you're listening, I'd like a pony.

  • picture it: In the living room, the Killer (SCO) is lying on the ground, dead. The Hero (Novell) can finally relax and embrace his Girl (the OSS community). But no, shocking twist! The Killer rises behind them, brandishes a knife, and...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by WillDraven (760005)

      The judge busts in the door just in time to deliver a definitive shotgun blast to the face?

      One can hope.

  • Make. It. Stop. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @09:57AM (#32013776)
    Seriously, at what point does the legal system decide it's fed up with their bullshit and put a stop to it. Everyone deserves their day in court but I think SCO has gotten more than their due...
    • Re:Make. It. Stop. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RichMan (8097) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @10:03AM (#32013878)

      When SCO decides to stop spending money on lawyers. The problem is SCO managed to sucker the lawyers in at the beginning into an up front fee and the lawyers are committed to see it through "all appeals". So while SCO is now bankrupt and running on a loan in bankruptcy over its non-existant IP the lawyers are still "happily paid" and running this thing.

      So the lawyers are committed. I sort of hope this is the lawyers doing an exit strategy of over committing on a stupid claim that will get denied so they can then make a short appeal which will also get denied then exit. Then they can point at this filing and say "see we did our best".

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by wandazulu (265281)

        It's even better for the lawyers: They can point to this case for any prospective clients and show how totally committed they are to any case they take on.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hrieke (126185)

        But... They wouldn't have done their best.
        You'd never want your lawyer to short your appeals- that would be grounds for another appeal (they didn't do everything possible) and be a career suicide for your lawyer (who'd want to hire someone who didn't do everything possible for you; bar sanctions; plus a law suite when you sue for failing to do everything possible all come to my mind).

        You want this case battle tested to the very, very, very bitter end. Each of these scars give armor and defense to Linux and

        • Re:Make. It. Stop. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by ari_j (90255) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @12:07PM (#32016282)
          Ineffective assistance of counsel is basically never grounds for an appeal in a civil case, as this is. That one is pretty much reserved for criminal convictions, and even then if you choose your own lawyer it's a tough thing to get a court to agree with. But you would definitely have grounds for a legal malpractice claim if a lawyer intentionally lost your case.

          Turning to the case actually going on here, what SCO filed is a proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. This is a document familiar to any civil litigator, as it's what you want the judge to sign off on either after a bench trial or after a jury returns its verdict in a complicated matter such as this one. It's not more litigation or anything, it's just SCO's post-verdict filing for the court to either approve or modify. Granted, their arguments in it may border on frivolous (I haven't read it other than the table of contents, but it looks mostly legit from that), but their lawyers are ethically required to make the best arguments they can for their client and that's what they're doing.

          What it sounds like is going on here is that the jury concluded that Novell owns the Unix copyright, so the lawyers looked for a reason why SCO should get it and came up with only one answer: That Novell had contracted to give the copyright to SCO and the Unix copyright is a unique thing that justifies specific performance (normally reserved for things like real estate sales and other unique things where just paying the value of the item won't allow you to go out and buy it for yourself, which is a more standard contract remedy). This is perfectly reasonable and a lawyer who doesn't at least try it is not a lawyer you'd want to hire.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Locke2005 (849178)
        Just one problem with the upfront fee agreement: all the really competent lawyers at the firm long ago distanced themselves from this cluster-fuck and passed the responsibility for the case onto the most junior lawyers. So yes, SCO is still getting representation, but it is inexperienced, fresh-out-of-law-school representation... which explains a lot of what you see in their filings.
    • by jimicus (737525)

      IANAL, but AFAIK most legal systems do have a mechanism for stopping vexatious litigants. But it's usually intended to deal with people who waste court time with stupid cases. The sort of person who'd sue McDonalds because there was chicken in their chicken sandwich meal.

      Perhaps some lawyer will enlighten me (NYCL?), but my understanding is it's much harder to do that against someone who keeps on coming up with claims which may actually have a sound legal footing at first glance.

      In any event, I'd dearly l

      • Re:Make. It. Stop. (Score:5, Informative)

        by ari_j (90255) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @12:21PM (#32016534)
        No sane lawyer would take the SCO case on a contingency fee (where the lawyer takes a portion of any future recovery in the case and gets paid nothing for his time if he loses it), but that doesn't rule out the possibility here. I'd say, though, that there is less than a 0.1% chance that this is being handled on a contingency.

        Most of what's going on here is just part of the same lawsuit that we've heard about for years. News snippets tend to portray legal cases as if they are handled as on TV shows, where the client walks in the door with a problem on Monday and closing arguments at the trial are Thursday, with a big check to cover the verdict being spent on scotch and cigars by noon on Friday. For instance, the McDonald's coffee case was in the news just to report the jury verdict. The appeals, settlement, and years of prelude were not given nearly the same coverage.

        In this case, we get snippets of things that people submit and the editors see fit to post on the Slashdot front page. But it's all part of a process. You see the same thing with space shuttle missions. They report blast-off, a major Hubble repair, and landing. But during all of that time, there are a million switches to flip and buttons to push. The astronauts don't just sit there for two weeks twiddling their thumbs. It's the same way in a lawsuit of any complexity, but especially something this big.

        What this article is about is SCO's proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. This is filed late in the litigation process, generally after trial, and in the space shuttle analogy is the request for landing clearance. Novell files one, too, and then the judge decides which facts and legal conclusions are warranted on the jury verdict (which is decisive as to factual issues unless there is basically no evidence at all to support it) and the governing law (statutes, case precedents, etc.) Even if the shuttle mission were completely pointless, once you blast off you have to see it through to the end. Any argument that a lawyer makes with a straight face in this post-verdict filing is entitled to be reviewed by the judge and ruled on.
    • by GooberToo (74388)

      Seriously, at what point does the legal system decide it's fed up with their bullshit

      Never. The US legal system is completely fucked up - by design. Nothing new has been brought to the table in years and yet this bullshit continues. IF the legal system actually worked, this crap would have been kicked out of the courts years ago, SCO would be completely bankrupt, and the possibility of and harassment and fraud charges would have been posed against the SCO executives. If anything, cases like this bold, underscore, and highlight just how completely fucked up the US legal system is; proving it

  • by sizzzzlerz (714878) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @10:37AM (#32014496)

    All their legs and arms have been chopped off and they're still taunting the legal system.

    Running away, eh? Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!

  • Define "No" (Score:5, Funny)

    by PineHall (206441) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @10:41AM (#32014584)

    From the Article:

    The jury was asked, "Did the amended Asset Purchase Agreement transfer the Unix and UnixWare copyrights from Novell to SCO?" It answered, "No," ... SCO contends the jury could have meant various things by its verdict that do not preclude Stewart from ordering the transfer.

    What part of "No" do you not understand?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Just Some Guy (3352)

      The jury was asked, "Did the amended Asset Purchase Agreement transfer the Unix and UnixWare copyrights from Novell to SCO?" It answered, "No,"

      Well, clearly they mean that a different APA (to be revealed at a later date, pending further funding from Microsoft) will prove their ownership. The first APA - the one we actually know about - doesn't, but SCO feels that the jury was dumb to find that way without consulting a magic 8 ball first.

    • Re:Define "No" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by UnknowingFool (672806) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @12:25PM (#32016640)
      What SCO's legal argument now is quibbling over details. SCO says the jury ruled that they did not receive the copyrights in the APA in the past. The APA in the most favorable view to SCO is that the APA was a promise to transfer the copyrights at some indeterminate future date. IANAL, but for this future transfer to occur, a contract must be signed and money must be paid. A promise to pay is contingent on the details. These are details that neither Novell nor SCO worked out in the past. This the problem for SCO since Novell can now simply say: "We'll transfer the copyrights if you pay us $300 trillion dollars."
  • Is this an April Fools joke? But it's not the first? Hm. I basically read this like... "okay, I lost in court, but Judge, can you give me the copyright so I can win?" So pathetic.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gtall (79522)

      Not quite as pathetic as the current judge, however. Given the lengths he went to in order to help SCO along during the trial, it is not beyond reason for SCO to hope that the judge simply hands them the copyrights. And it isn't beyond plausibility the current judge is enough of an idiot to actually hand them over. He's been in SCOs corner since day one, good thing the jury wasn't.

  • by Errol backfiring (1280012) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @10:55AM (#32014880) Journal

    ... is an IP troll without IP.

    Pathetic.

  • by ari_j (90255) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @10:55AM (#32014882)
    I don't have time to read the whole thing that SCO filed at the moment, and likely won't, but a quick scan of the table of authorities shows that SCO cited an article entitled Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity, 3 J. High Tech. L. 1 (2003) to support their campaign to threaten one of the greatest creative accomplishments in computer technology (an entirely free, open-source operating system available to all and competitive with thousand-dollar alternatives). Who wants to call Alanis this time?
  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @11:11AM (#32015192) Homepage

    So, does that mean that everyone who paid for a Unix license from SCO can sue SCO to get a refund? Or are those people too embarrassed to admit what they have done?

  • The case has shown how someone with money can play the US court system ... on several levels ... for multiple years with effectively NO case, draining the funds from corporations and taking up the time of large numbers of lawyers the entire time.

    If the defendants go out of business or die of old age before due process is complete, is justice really served?

  • by pyrr (1170465) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @12:34PM (#32016800)

    I know there's a process that has to be followed, but it's obvious at this point, that the SCO lawyers are just trying to appropriate what money they can before it comes time for Novell to collect the judgement against SCO that they are owed under the license agreement. The more of the company's money that they squander on themselves, the less creditors will be able to collect after the liquidation.

    I wonder why the trustee is allowing this. It doesn't seem like this situation is much unlike a private citizen, being aware of an imminent, pending judgement against him (which will result in the loss of all his assets), wrecking the house that will be foreclosed upon, and going on a spending spree to empty his bank account, so the creditors are left with rather little.

    There should be consequences for this sort of behavior, even if it's a corporation. Sure, the lawyers will argue that they have to keep trying, even if it's a foolish longshot. I'd maintain that they should face having the courts recover any of SCO's money they have collected in compensation for chasing their longshots, and they should also be held *personally* fiscally responsible for the repayment of the other parties' legal fees if they fail to prevail. They're wasting everyone's time, money, and resources, yet risk nothing in pursuit of their frivolous longshot. But the way things are, nobody will be on the hook over this bad behavior. Novell will just come out a loser even though they've prevailed. The only winners will be the lawyers.

The meta-Turing test counts a thing as intelligent if it seeks to devise and apply Turing tests to objects of its own creation. -- Lew Mammel, Jr.

Working...