SCO Asks Judge To Give Them the Unix Copyright 286
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.
sco still alive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:sco still alive? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:sco still alive? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I think this is at least number 3.
Number two was the previous litigious incarnation, and number one was the original Santa Cruz Organization who actually made software.
This thing just won't die.
Cheers
Re:sco still alive? (Score:4, Interesting)
This thing just won't die.
To some extent, it's impressive. McBride has figured out that as a CEO, he doesn't need a product, and he doesn't even need a legal theory to stay employed. All he needs is to stay in court for as long as possible, and he has access to whatever money is in SCO's name. If Thompson is any indication it'll be about 5-6 years before he even the most insulting filings won't give him a judge's ear anymore. It's really quite impressive, and a nice gig if you have the stomach for it. I'm pretty sure his days consist of telling his lawyers "I don't care how stupid it is, file another complaint, objection or legal brief." and going golfing.
Re:sco still alive? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:sco still alive? (Score:5, Funny)
Besides the kick in the nuts, he was also fired.
Re:sco still alive? (Score:5, Interesting)
This current litigious incarnation is what is left of Caldera.
It's actually really funny they chose that name, since a Caldera is actually the remains of a formerly-functional volcano. They occasionally emit smoke, but that's about it.
Not only... (Score:3, Insightful)
...is it a formerly-functional volcano, it is usually one that has collapsed due to crumbling infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure Novell is wondering the same fscking thing. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if anything i learned from Quake is true, i can blast it into chunky kibbles...
sco "open server" gnu utilities (Score:2)
GNU Utilities Supplement for SCO OpenServer 6
The GNU Utilities Supplement represents the initial supported release of a selection of key GNU utilities for OpenServer 6. With these key utilities customers will be able to more easily port and develop open source products and customer specific applications for OpenServer 6 using the native C and C++ Development System. It will also allow active participation in open source development proje
Re:sco still alive? (Score:4, Funny)
Yes. Little did the public know that the earlier SCO was forked just before the court cases. When SCO died, SCO@r23 simple took its place. SCO@r23 was in fact identical to SCO though, and few** were any the wiser, since SCO's development had stalled at the age of 4.
** I had to sleep with Darl's wife to get this information. I am not proud of it. Also, note that his wife was NOT currently, and in fact had never been forked. At least, not until I slept with her. I don't know why I'm telling you all this. I'm sure it'll come out in future SCO divorce ligitation anyway.
Re:sco still alive? (Score:5, Informative)
Ummm ... don't forget who's funding them [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean, who funded them?
Re: (Score:2)
Have they spent it all yet? $106 million is quite a lot of money. Maybe it's in a special lawyer's trust fund to set them up for the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Your wording implies (deliberately, I suppose) that MS is still giving SCO money. This is not correct.
I just want an honest presentation of the facts.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm saying that $106 million could fund a bunch of lawyers for several years.
Do you know the details of the contract? It might have said "in return for 10 years of litigation we agree to pay $106 million"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It might have said "in return for 10 years of litigation we agree to pay $106 million
Like I said: I just want an honest presentation of the facts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your post is a perfect example of this FUD, as it doesn't address the fact that the article completely fails to mention that Sun was involved as well.
Re:sco still alive? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you truly don't understand the issues with a convicted monopolist (such as Microsoft) paying a 3rd party to attack their competition, then no amount of rational discourse will help you understand why that's wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also the fact that Microsoft had any involvement in the SCO case is completely beside the point, as my original point was that Suns payment to SCO, and thus willing involvement, has been totally swept under the carpet.
You can repeat the 'Microsoft, Microsoft
Re:sco still alive? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:sco still alive? (Score:5, Funny)
And with strange aeons even death may die.
Just more evidence that SCO is an unholy abomination, an eldritch spawn from the depths, dreaming yet always on the verge of descending upon the Earth in a storm of chaos, madness and despair. Note the double meaning of "lie" in above excerpt from the necronomicon. Note also, that they used to be called Caldera - making their connection to sinister chthonic powers a wee bit too obvious for my taste...
IA! IA! SCO FHTAGN! CALDERA FHTAGN!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not dead - it's a zombie process. Which means, unfortunately, that "kill" doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
isn't sco dead yet?
You aren't dead unless Netcraft says you're dead. [netcraft.com]
PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing. (Score:5, Informative)
"Mommy! Make Timmy give me the toy!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing. (Score:4, Funny)
It's pretty much "Mommy! Make Timmy give me the toy, so I can hit Susie with it!"
nah, SCO is dead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn! (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Wikipedia to the rescue (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Wikipedia to the rescue (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought The Guiding Light was picked up by a cable network for new episodes (much like CBS picked up Medium).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Uhhh...with a show called "The Guiding Light", wouldn't you figure maybe SONET/SDH instead?
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Good grief, let's not overstate the importance of this case.
Re: (Score:2)
They are arguing about the ownership of Unix.
That is no trivial matter by itself.
Re: (Score:2)
To future HISTORIANS? Yes it is.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what about that comment I read in another story here on slashdot (about the Apple phone prototype):
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)
[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!
For god's sake. YOU'RE DEAD! Now Shut UP! (Score:2)
Derle McBride isn't even allowed in the building anymore.
Somebody disbar that lawyer out of common sense.
And if SCO _did_ get it... what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what? (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes they CAN!!!
What? Don't agree? Well I'm sure we can settle this with a LAWSUIT!!! Muhaaawwaaaa!
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"few customers"? (Score:2)
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)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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)
http://www.digitaliq.com/parser.php?nav=article&article_id=431 [digitaliq.com]
Shades of Charlie Brown (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Hey Judge, while you're listening (Score:5, Funny)
Hey your Judgeousness, while you're listening, I'd like a pony.
slasher movie (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re:Make. It. Stop. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how many large companies are still buying into that FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAICT, their argument is now "Novell didn't sell us the copyrights, but that's not what the intention was when the agreement was signed. So we'd like you to overlook the letter of that agreement and instead consider its original purpose."
Just once, I'd like a judge to say "You know what? At the rate you lot are going, I'm going to be dead before this case is finished. In fact, everyone in this room is going to be dead before the case is finished. So instead I'm ordering that we forget the case altoget
Re: (Score:2)
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
They're the Black Knight of the Holy Grail (Score:5, Funny)
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)
From the Article:
What part of "No" do you not understand?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
I'm sorry but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Worse than a rebel without a cause (Score:4, Funny)
... is an IP troll without IP.
Pathetic.
Best part: Copyrights and Copywrongs citation (Score:5, Informative)
Can I get my Unix license back? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Not so amusing for the US Legal System, IMO. (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Bleeding the husk dry... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Note: This response is going to ignore that both a federal judge and, after an appeal sent it back to the courts, a federal jury found that Novell kept control of the UNIX copyrights, since in theory SCO could appeal the second decision.
What, you didn't think there would be laws to force a company to abide by a contract they agreed to?
Having said that, as I recall said contract's second amendment* said something about selling the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)