SCO vs. IBM Trial Back On Again

D___Breath writes "The lawsuit SCO started years ago against IBM (but really against Linux) is back on again. SCO first filed this clue-challenged lawsuit in March 2003. SCO claimed Linux was contaminated with code IBM stole from UNIX and that it was impossible to remove the infringement. Therefore, said SCO, all Linux users owe SCO a license fee of $1399 per cpu — but since SCO are such great guys, for a limited time, you can pay only $699 per CPU for your dirty, infringing copy of Linux. Of course, Novell claimed and later proved in court that SCO doesn't even own the copyrights on UNIX that it is suing over. IBM claims there is no infringing code in Linux. SCO never provided evidence of the massive infringement it claimed existed. The court ordered SCO three times to produce its evidence, twice extending the deadline, until it set a 'final' deadline of Dec 22, 2005 — which came and went — with SCO producing nothing but a lot of hand waving. In the meantime, SCO filed for bankruptcy protection in September 2007 because it was being beaten up in court so badly with the court going against SCO."

Who's paying SCO's lawyers?

[denis-The-menace]

In the article, it says SCO is broke:
"total assets as $0 (yes, that's "zero"), down from $1,326,293 on petition date, and total liabilities of $1,119,238, up from $418,965 on petition date."

So who the F@#K would represent them for free?
Is money coming from "the cloud"?

Re:Statute of limitations

[doconnor]

It would be cheaper for IBM just to buy SCO. Since they are in bankruptcy protection they can't turn down a responsible offer.

Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers?

[dkleinsc]

If it's the same as the last round, I'd say that we'd find the answer we were looking for in Redmond, WA.

And that's not just basic MS bashing - we have the memo [catb.org].

Re:Statute of limitations

[UnknowingFool]

Yes but this was SCO's plan all along. At this point IBM is pissed enough that they want to grind SCO to dust rather than purchase them. Also buying SCO also means buying SCO's liabilities which include numerous lawsuits. (This was the one aspect SCO forgot in that when they bought Santa Cruz's business they also bought Santa Cruz's liabilities to Novell). Really SCO has no assets IBM wants.

Re:Summary Judgement

[UnknowingFool]

IBM has already moved for summary judgement and the court has ruled that there are enough issues of law for the case to proceed. Normally summary judgements are granted when they are no issues of fact. Some of the claims SCO has made may be thrown out because they did not own the copyrights. (IBM violating their Unix agreements have been waived by Novell and Novell owns the Unix copyrights). Claims that IBM interfered with SCO's business and IBM infringed upon UnixWare copyrights is a question of law.

Re:$1,515,129

[dkleinsc]

IBM has 3 reasonable purposes here:
1. They want SCO to have to get up in court and admit that they never had a leg to stand on, or a ruling from the bench to the same effect. This is in part to prevent any successor to SCO from pulling the same stunt.
2. To deter anyone else who's tempted to make similar claims from even trying it.
3. Buying them out would be a mercy killing. IBM has no reason to be merciful.

Re:$1,515,129

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm betting you could simply up and purchase all SCO's assets for about $2-4m.

Whole point of this trial is about refusing to buy out company which tries to extort money.

Only when they're fighting over billions. IBM will spend more on lawyers that SCO would cost to buy right now. It's in their shareholders' interest to end this case as cheaply as possible. Buying what's left of SCO is the quickest and cheapest solution, and a kick in the teeth for Microsoft. IBM will have access to all the documents from MS's and Sun's attack on Linux via SCO, which will prove to be very embarrassing.

Re:Statute of limitations

[debrain]

UNIX is nowhere near old enough to have had its copyright expire yet. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that SCO doesn't own the copyright.

Expiration of copyright and statute of limitations are separate issues.

Copying of a work after the copyrights expire does not constitute copyright infringement.

If infringement has occurred, one must bring a claim before the statute of limitations expires.

Expiration of copyright is somewhere in the order of 80 years or so, depending on where you are. The typical statute of limitations is usually between 1 and 6 years, depending on the claim and the jurisdiction.

IAAL, but this is not legal advice. Please seek legal counsel for advice on any specific issues.

no, It's... Apple?

[Creepy]

actually, I'd think it would benefit Apple more than Microsoft
Steve Jobs pre-death said he "wants to go thermonuclear on Android"
Android runs using Java on Linux
SCO owns some interest in UNIX (apparently) and claims to own Linux and is suing for $699-2798 for a license
an Android phone even starting at $699 is already D.O.A. because you can buy a friggin' iPad for that
Apple has the second largest marketshare for smartphones behind Android, so has the most to win - Microsoft has a measly 2%.
ergo an SCO win is a win for Apple, though it would benefit Microsoft as well... until Apple sues them into the ground for swipe to unlock and other copied features...

Re:no, It's... Apple?

[slydder]

Actually this, if it goes through, would clear IBM and such remove the SCO threat to Linux completely (at least from SCO's claims that were filed).

I would actually bet money that this the deal struck between IBM and SCO is one where SCO gets paid to let IBM win that case. Thus saving (for a time) SCO from complete bankruptcy and clearing IBM, and thus Linux, from the charges leveled by SCO.

Just a thought.