Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Caldera Software Linux

SCO Files To Amend Claims To IBM Case, Again 157

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @11:05AM (#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.
  • by rkhalloran ( 136467 ) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @11:06AM (#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.


  • Re:IANAL (Score:4, Informative)

    by nomadic ( 141991 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .dlrowcidamon.> on Thursday January 11, 2007 @11:08AM (#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 KokorHekkus ( 986906 ) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @11:37AM (#17556840)
    ...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 wants to get a payoff)
    From Infoworld 2004-08-31:
    In an apparent response to industry rumors that SCO may become the target of a hostile takeover bid, SCO's Board of Directors has implemented a "shareholders rights plan" designed to deter unsolicited takeover attempts, McBride said. "We believe that this will basically keep any outside offers or potential takeovers that are not in the best interest of the shareholders at bay," he said. The plan, which was adopted by the board on Aug. 10, gives SCO's board the right to determine the "fair value" of the company in the event of a takeover attempt, McBride said.
    Source: Nscocaps_1.html []
  • by elrond2003 ( 675701 ) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @01:08PM (#17558300)
    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 scam. Some listeners at the conference call thought that it was funny that some of the "contingency" payments had already been made and the case had just been filed, for instance.
  • by bored_lurker ( 788136 ) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @01:13PM (#17558414)
    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 Oriumpor ( 446718 ) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @03:10PM (#17560648) Homepage Journal
    Danegeld []
    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!"
  • Re:MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2, Informative)

    by wrook ( 134116 ) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @04:00PM (#17561770) Homepage
    Heh heh... Thanks. But in retrospect calling people who were short selling "morons" is kinda flamebait... I'll accept 20% flaimbait for that ;-) In reality it was an unconscious dig at people who try to "play" the stock market and end up losing their shirts. But as unconscious as it was, it was uncalled for...
  • by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) * on Thursday January 11, 2007 @07:06PM (#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.

No problem is so large it can't be fit in somewhere.