SCO Asks Court To Reconsider IBM's Dismissal 139
VE3OGG writes "The SCO Group — the litigation firm currently in dispute with, among many, IBM, over supposed copyright infringing code in Unix — has quietly asked the courts to reconsider IBM's request to toss the case out. SCO argued that the court's November decision was procedurally and substantially flawed and they say 'the rules of procedure do not support such a result under the circumstances of this case.' If allowed to reopen the case, the SCO Group argues, that new evidence would present itself through the deposition of several IBM programmers who had previously been interviewed."
better late than never, (Score:5, Informative)
Summary is somewhat misleading. (Score:5, Informative)
IBM's reply on Groklaw (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Summary is somewhat misleading. (Score:2, Informative)
This is quite confusing, but I understand that evidence, not claims, was thrown out. (?)
SCO's arguments are misleading (as usual) (Score:3, Informative)
If you take a good look at SCOG's filings, you can see that they cherry-pick those parts of the evidence and declarations that seem to support their claim, often quoting incomplete paragraphs of contracts and correspondence, and using parts of declarations out of context.
It's just plain lies, dressed up to enable SCOG to present them without sanction.
Re:New evidence? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Summary is mostly misleading. (Score:3, Informative)
According to both the article and Groklaw, it's not so much that Judge Kimball threw out SCO's case as it is that he affirmed Magistrate Judge Wells' order that threw out the claims that SCO couldn't or wouldn't substantiate.
There is a still a problem with the terminology in the above. Judge Wells did not throw out claims (a legal term). She did not throw out evidence. She threw out allegations of IBM wrongdoing that were inadequately substantiated. Judge Kimball affirmed the ruling.
Contrary to SCO's latest filings and attempts to obfuscate the issue, all of the claims (Causes of action) are intact. They still have about a hundred allegations in play. Most of these allegations are still redacted from the general public but indications are that they are quite weak.
Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
> supposed copyright infringing code in Unix...
Incorrect. It's a contract case. The only copyright infringement claim The SCO Group is making has to do with IBM continuing to distribute AIX after TSG supposedly terminated IBM's irrevocable, perpetual, fully paid up SysV license.
> -- has quietly asked the courts to reconsider IBM's request to toss the case
> out.
Incorrect again. They have asked the court to reconsider its decision to toss most of TSG's evidence.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
> The SCO Group is making has to do with IBM continuing to distribute AIX
> after TSG supposedly terminated IBM's irrevocable, perpetual, fully paid
> up SysV license.
Sorry, but it's you that's wrong Mr Hasler.
Here's a breakdown of those Items that remain:
1 (JFS in Linux): Contract claim
2 (RCU in Linux): Contract claim
23 (Dynix EES in Linux): Contract claim, negative know-how
43 (Dynix TCP in Linux): Contract claim, negative know-how
90 (Dynix EES in Linux): Contract claim, negative know-how
94 (NUMA/SMP in Linux): Contract claim
113-142 (SPIE test suite in Linux): Contract claim
150-164 (STREAMS in Linux): Copyright claim
183-184 (Single Unix Specification ABI header files in Linux): Copyright claim
185 (atemalloc in Linux): Copyright claim
186-192 (misc Dynix stuff in Linux): Contract claim
194-203 (Monterey in AIX for Power): Copyright claim
204 (SysV in Dynix): Copyright claim
205-231 (Single Unix Specification material in Linux): Copyright claim
272-278 (ELF in Linux): Copyright claim
Total remaining items 106
Contract items 43, copyright items 63
Linux items 95, Dynix items 1, AIX items 10
Source: http://www.zen77087.zen.co.uk/nug/alleg/viols.sht
For informed discussion, forget Groklaw's red dress worshipping zombie horde.
Go to the SCOX forum at Investor Village
http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&
Ambiguity (Score:2, Informative)
This reads like SCO want the court to throw the case out, or that the court has thrown the case out, and SCO wants the court to reconsider. When, in fact, all that has happened is a sizeable portion of their case has been thrown out, not the case in it's entirety.
Re:Summary is mostly misleading. - Closed source. (Score:3, Informative)
Problem with that (Score:3, Informative)
Other asshats would then sue IBM (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Summary is somewhat misleading. (Score:4, Informative)
>Why does the concept of contempt still exist in today's court system?
>Can't judges rule on what is before them and put aside their emotions?
A contempt of court citation is not based on emotions. Contempt of court
has to do with a party's disobedience of a court order or certain well-defined types of misconduct that interfere with the legal process. Such rules carry the force of law, and a contempt of court citation is, depending on the specific case, a claim of civil damage or a criminal accusation made by the court against an individual.
Courts have an inherent power to punish persons for contempt of their rules and orders, for disobedience of their process, and for disturbing them in their proceedings. The basis for this doctrine dates back as far as any of the founding principles of English Common Law.