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."
Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides who would want to buy a sinking ship with a huge hole in the bottom?
Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (Score:5, Insightful)
The SCO Group (NOT the Santa Cruz Operation, by the way, they're now called Tarantella) must be crushed into an unrecognizable mess of lies and hopelessness. There is no other way. Their attorneys should be disbarred, their officers should all spend a few decades in Federal prison, and anyone who bought stock in them because they saw the hope of a payout from this extortion scheme should rot in hell.
Actually, it may have one advantage (Score:5, Interesting)
Gates is too rich. (Score:2)
Turn a disadvantage into an advantage.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (Score:5, Funny)
Don't forget the bit about "the lamentation of their women", that really needs to be worked in there somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But that can't come until after IBM sees SCO driven before them, which has to happen after the aforementioned crushing. You gotta keep to the schedule that was given, y'know.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no rule, nor should there be, that attorneys should be punished for representing jerks. Chances are, SCO engaged their services without telling them everything they needed to know, things like "we don't actually own Unix." Now the lawyers are stuck riding this out, because if they walk away, or even slack off, that could get them disbarred, censured, or on the wrong end of a malpractice suit.
These big-dog lawyers are no fools. Undoubtedly they have a pretty good idea of where their case is going. But if they don't go down swinging, they'll never get another client.
Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in this case the sco attornies are taking sco stock as payment:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/18/17 2233 [slashdot.org]
I don't know legally what this all means (IANAL) but it seems to me it could present a conflict of interest, and depending on how much stock they have (i.e. is it a significant percentage) it could potentially open them up to liability. Ultimately I suspect the SCO lawyers have knowingly done some very naughty things, but proving this in a court of law is another matter. Thus
Re: (Score:2)
I call shenanigans when I see 'em, and if BSF can't see that what they're doing is supremely unethical, they ought to be driven out of business just on that basis alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it aply if I "shorted" them? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the whole case was evil does not mean you can't appreciate the work they've done. It's impressive...most impressive!
Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Novell? Who is in bed with Microsoft? They'd probably turn it over to them instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft purchased Novell's soul to prevent this from happening.
That's what they've wanted all along... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
SCOX DELENDA EST!!
Re:That's what they've wanted all along... (Score:5, Insightful)
"That if once you have paid him the Danegeld,
You never get rid of the Dane."
Re:That's what they've wanted all along... (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Let us also not forget that they were shipping their own version of Linux on into late 2006 under the GPL license. Even if their claims were true, they're moot.
Stupidity 101 (Score:1, Redundant)
The counterclaims would bankrupt whomever buys SCO (Score:2, Interesting)
Whoever bought them could never survive the judgements that'll come down against SCO.
I think what's more interesting than SCO is what'll happen to SCO's backers that put them up to this (like microsoft who raised $86 million for SCO's lawsuit)
Re: (Score:2)
IBM want to make an example of them to discourage anyone else launching frivolous lawsuits against them and to turn around now and buy them would negate the point of the entire excercise.
Novell want money from SCO for the licence fees they are selling which Novell should have got the lions share of. They are hardly like to buy SCO when they could easily get all their assets anyway when SCO has to pay up.
I can't see anyone else being interested since the dreadful health SCO is curr
Re: (Score:2)
This comes up every time....
NO. For the same reason you shouldn't give money to hostage takers. You will only encourage them, and copycats, to do more of the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Even without a buyout, those involved in this nonsense have actually made a good deal of money - the lawyers, Darl and the other execs (who are on hefty salaries) who have done rather well from all this, thank you very much. The people I feel sorry for the actual engineers at SCO, as there can be no doubt the company won't come out the other end of this in any fit state to carry on. It used to be a damn good little company, providing a good product at sensible prices. Now look at them. They're just a bad joke.
Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (Score:5, Interesting)
The executives exercised stock options all the way up until the end of 2004. It seems they were mostly granted at between $1 and $2 and excercised for between $10 and $20, but there are some exceptions. I didn't add up all the money, but it was definitely in the multi-millions of dollars.
There are huge stock grants to a law firm (about 10 million shares), which I think is the law firm representing them (I assume for services rendered). So the absolute big winners seem to be the lawers, but the executives and Baystar seem to have made millions as well. The losers are the people who invested at anything over $4 (or the morons who sold short, not understanding that it takes *time* for a stock to fall).
As a disclaimer, I only quickly reviewed this material, so there may be errors in my summary. If you care about this stuff, I suggest you compile it properly yourself.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even without a buyout, those involved in this nonsense have actually made a good deal of money - the lawyers, Darl and the other execs (who are on hefty salaries) who have done rather well from all this, thank you very much.
That's why there _must_ be a way to put those people behind bars. Their sole intent in all this has been to benefit themselves and the interests behind the Canopy Group at the expense of the company itself, its shareholders and the Linux ecosystem. Since day #1 there was no hope of winning.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 wa
Re: (Score:2)
Now, Darl McBride, in an interview, has said that he doesn't understand why IBM didn't just buy The SCO Group to make the lawsuit go away.
The reason IBM hasn't is because IBM doesn't want every pissant little company with a failing business to go, "Hey, I know how we can get out
Re: (Score:2)
This is ridiculous. 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. They'll never win any of them, but they'll continue to be a nuisance. Ugghhh
What SCO is doing is ridiculous. It would also be ridiculous for someone who works with or has a Linux distro to buy them out. All it would do is show that you can make a lot of money if you release enough hot air. Someone buying out SCO would invite other
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Boo Hoo (Score:1)
there is only one SCO filing left. really. (Score:5, Funny)
No, one more beyond that... (Score:2)
actually, the chapter 7 will be involuntary. (Score:2)
so then who are SCOs creditors? (Score:2)
if SCO has been doing any significant business, they'd have to buy paper clips, toners, maybe even media to dash off another copy of the OS. all of those outfits would be screaming for payment, seems to me.
which logic supports the question of "has anybody bought anything from these loonies lately?" certainly Daimler-Chrysler is not a customer thanks to SCO's thrashings.
I suspect the lawyer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you're going to comment on someone else's English you may want to pay more attention to your own. Sentences and the word "English" are usually capitalized. The GP had one spelling mistake in an entire paragraph and you managed two mistakes in 6 words.
IBM's rebuttal: (Score:2)
"oh, your Honor, we are but mere idiots drooling on our papers, we just want money. grant us our relief and give us lots of everybody else's money. also, your wallet and watch, hand 'em over."
"Your Honor, I am but a simple caveman: One day while gathering some food I was caught up in an icy river and frozen in a glacier for ten thousand years. I do not understand your complex world. But I do understand this: my client, the IBM corporation, requested and received final disclosure of the complaints to be brought against it by the plaintiff, SCO Group, and these complaints were not a part of that disclosure. Surely, your honor, if a simple caveman can understand this it must be equally evident
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think they're hoping for one thing - that the judges will get (too) pissed off and make a mistake.
Or, quoting from SCO's litigation strategy documents [mwscomp.com]:
Lawyers Worth Their Weight in Dirty, Shoddy Paper (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the precedents that IBM should produce by seeing this travesty trial to its just conclusion is penalties for the SCO lawyers who have been wasting court time with this obviously frivolous lawsuit. Why should taxpayers subsidize those lawyers with free access to the courts for their stockmarket scam? The SEC should look at their brokers, too, to see whether they are in on the deal - almost certainly they are.
This case shouldn't end with only strong precedents clearing Linux developers and distributors from the FUD SCO has pumped into the market for years now. It should end with disbarred lawyers and delicensed brokers, and probably punitive damages (paid to the court, compensating taxpayers) exceeding the profit those professional crooks have made from the stock transactions their work has been the smoke and mirrors to produce.
Re:Lawyers Worth Their Weight in Dirty, Shoddy Pap (Score:3, Funny)
I love the following quote from Syriana:
"Some trust fund prosecutor, got off-message at Yale, thinks he's gonna run this up the flagpole, make a name for himself, maybe get elected some two-bit, congressman from nowhere, with the result that Russia or China can suddenly start having, at our expense, all the advantages we enjoy here. No, I tell you. No, sir. Corruption charges! Corruption? Corruption is government intrusion into market efficiencies in the f
Re: (Score:2)
One of my favorite lines from living in New Orleans was "In Louisiana, people don't expect corruption. They demand it."
Re:Lawyers Worth Their Weight in Dirty, Shoddy Pap (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO paid a "fixed fee" to BS&F to manage all cases through appeals, I believe it was $29M. There is also a refillable misc-costs bucket of $5M that has already been topped up twice. The misc-cost bucket sort of puts a lie to the "fixed fee" handling of the lawsuit.
In any case SCO is now facing Novell asking for a lot of cash that SCO no longer has.
Re: (Score:2)
How does the Lanham act make SCO liable for anything? Is this the "Unix" copyright argument with Novell?
Re: (Score:2)
Er, not "copyright", trademark, which the Lanham Act covers.
Re: (Score:1)
No, that's not right. The buyout part is correct, but not the shares. There was an early claim made by both TSCOG and BS&F that BS&F were taking the case on contingency. That was true as far as it went, but I didn't go very far. The reality was that BS&F were taking the case on contingency or flat rate, whichever was greater. However, both groups publicly touted the contingency and were completel
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Lawyers Worth Their Weight in Dirty, Shoddy Pap (Score:2)
80% Insightful
20% Flamebait
SCO still has the money to pay asTrollMod'ers to anonymously flame Slashdot posts.
Like a bad zombie movie (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The hero keeps firing his gun at the oncoming zombie, shouting "Why... wont... you... DIE!"
Because this zombie has the head stuck up its ass. Hero will have to aim at the lower torso for the Win.
Re: (Score:2)
FINAL Disclosure (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Destination [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Destination_2 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Destination_3 [wikipedia.org]
I'm being told that "Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted." Hopefully including this here will help post it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_I [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_2 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_III [wikipedia.org]
http:// [wikipedia.org]
Final? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, I watch enough TV... (Score:1)
..and Fantasy (Score:4, Funny)
They're using Square's definition of "Final" arn't they...
Appropriate since their entire case is "Fantasy".
IANAL (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:IANAL (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't have detailed knowledge of the US legal system, but isn't SCO stretching it beyond it's limits in a way rarely seen before. And certainly with such high profile cases with companies of these sizes?
Neither am I a lawyer, but it seems to me that SCOX has gone long past the point of no return. They have to do everything and anything to drag it out as long as is possible. But, your insight is correct, I'm unaware of any situation where things have gone the way the SCOX suits have gone. The complex nature of software code, Patents, and Copyright has allowed it, but the one redeeming factor here is that we may actually fix parts of the system as a result, but perhaps that is wishful thinking.
What I'd re
Re:IANAL : IANALE(ither) (Score:2)
It seems to me that criminal prosecutions of SCO's legal team would (even if something that the law allows) set a precedent that would make it easier for large/rich corporations to seriously threaten smaller corporations or individuals who want to challenge them in court. Perhaps there could be Iis?) some kind of middle ground that would allow any party to a lawsuit to file a complaint that would result in fines, censure or some other less severe punishment for the legal team.
Similarly, putting
Questions for lawyers (Score:2)
Is SCO better or worse than that textbook example?
Is there a strategic advantage to IBM in not filing a motion for sanctions? If so, what is it?
What are some possible reasons why a judge might act as though SCO were a legitimate plaintiff?
Do SCO's lawyers have grounds for walking away from the case? Aren't attorneys entitled to "fire" their clients if the clients have materially misled them?
Re: (Score:2)
your honor, i OBJECT! (Score:3, Funny)
on what grounds?
on the grounds that it's disasterous to my case.
I used to be a sadistic, beastial, necrophiliac... (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps they misread... (Score:2)
This is all about delay (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO is essentially saying the following:
Your honor, since the trial date has been postponed to after Novell (September 2007), let us amend our "final" disclosure. IBM has lots of time to respond to this, so it causes no harm.
SCO obviously doesn't understand the word final. They also say (this is a quote):
The public interest is in having this matter resolved in a reasonable time frame. SCO had 3.8 years (from when they filed in March of 2003 until when final disclosure happened in December of 2006) to assemble their evidence. The longer this charade goes on, and that Linux is under SCO's cloud of FUD, the more damage SCO is doing.
SCO has tried to delay at every turn during this trial, so this comes as no surprise. It now seems obvious that this whole lawsuit was an attempt to delay Linux adoption by destroying Linux credibility in the marketplace. This whole thing was about delay.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately I did not bookmark the page and cannot find it now, but back in the day Darl had a moment of candor during an interview and when asked why he filed the suit said (paraphrasing}:
"We were approached by outside parties who asked us to use the power of our license to help monitize Linux."
In his attempt to deflect bad feelings away from SCO he . .
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I can't wait for IBM's response. It'll be something along the lines of: What is the point of deadlines and procedures if they can keep changing things? Also, it's been 3 #@%%!% years.
Re: (Score:2)
"SCO submits that in light of the removal of this case from the trial calendar, there is no bona fide reason to reject an amendment to the December Submission to include that information - especially where the information was disclosed to IBM through expert reports served in May, 2006."
So not only are they claiming that IBM has plenty of time to respond, but that they are already familiar with some of it, given that they tried to add it back in May 2006. That was the amendment that the judg
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the primary reason why this attempt is likely to fail. Judges have basically four priorities when deciding what they think about something, in order of decreasing priority:
Delaying tactics fall squarely under #2. Judges loathe delay. A delayed case is a case that they're going to have to keep working on, and cases always get more
My plan for IBM (Score:2, Funny)
2. Crush SCO completely in court to the point even the Judge laughers at SCO.
3. Buy SCO out after they are about to declare they are bankrupt for 1$.
4. Have a big camp fire using the SCO buildings and transfer all SCO remaining staff to the "Whipping Boy" Department.
and just for kicks and giggles
5 . Profit
Resources -- At least IBM has big pants (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, SCO is floundering like a stuck pig on the end of a deep-sea fishing line. They're bleeding all over the friggin' ocean and their lawyers are sucking up the blood as fast as it's pouring out.
How soon before McBride and the boys finally run dry and succumb to their fate? Will there be any money to pay Novell for the licensing fees they are due? Will there be any money to pay IBM's legal team for this long, drawn-out court case?
Something doesn't sit right in my mind when a company can use its dying breath to unfairly inconvenience other companies. If SCO doesn't have any money left to pay its debts when the "curtain is coming down" on this case, can the judge haul off and McGwire the money from the SCO gang like candy from a pinata?
I hope so.
Re: (Score:2)
Just guessing, but I expect IBM doesn't want to be raped over a barrel by some cowboy outfit that has some tenuous claim on IBM's business. I'm sure they could have paid up, or bought them out, and perhaps with hindsight they may even have done it. But at this point they just want to see SCO die in a fire and send out a message to an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(With apologies to JMS and Vir Cotto)
"What do you want, IBM?"
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when the judge cuts off your head and sticks it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations of law school graduates that some cash grabs come with too high a price. I would look up at your penniless eyes and wave, like this." [waves, smiling]
This is damaging credibility (Score:5, Insightful)
What I fail to understand is that the American justice department is allowing all this to continue. To which I'd like to immediatly add that this whole ordeal is more damaging than people might realize. For me its also portraying the whole justice system as something which you really can't take too seriously. Jury courts? Sure, try to work on their emotion. Trials with no end because no evidence is being produced what so ever? Sure; only in America so it seems.
What makes me look upon this with a little disdain for this, arrogant if you will, IMO display of incompetence is the sheer fact that SCO has also tried this in Europe just once. The only thing they ended up with was a threat for some major fines (due to plain out slander) if they pulled a stunt like that again.
What is it with these people? If they need to apply the law and it allows for grand mockeries like this wouldn't it make sense to get something in motion to actually
Guys, this isn't only hurting business. Its hurting your credibility too!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The reason for the delay, outside of shady lawyers, is that the justices involved are bending over backwards to prevent any successful appeal of their future rulings. A successful appeal would make them look bad and hand SCO a victory it ill-deserves.
The sh
America isn't strictly a republic anymore (Score:3, Interesting)
We're a fledgling corporate oligarchy. Lobbyists and corporate interests have seen to that.
Most of the laws being passed these days concern business interests. I won't get too heavily into it but a good example is to study our DMCA and see how our original ideas of freedom of speech and expression have been "curtailed" to benefit a few businesses. Or how eminent domain was recently expanded to cover business interests, not just civic ones. Plenty of examples, and this is Slashdot so I shouldn't have t
It's because SCO is the plaintiff (Score:3, Insightful)
This suit is backwards. SCO brought this suit, yet they want to stall. Usually, the plaintiff wants to push the case forward, and the defense wants to stall. The system is set up so that the plaintiff pushes the case forward, which is why this is dragging on.
Bear in mind that SCO's stalling isn't a problem for IBM. Is IBM losing customers over this? No. Is it costing IBM significant amounts of money? No. (IBM total revenue for 1995: $91 billion. Gross profit: $37 billion). Can SCO afford to kee
D'OH! nobody here understands, either. (Score:2)
it is customary in filing lawsuits to have information supporting your case, even here.
dismissed with prejudice (Score:2)
seems to me IMHO that the judge should have whacked his gavel and dismissed with prejudice (meaning never able to file again) three and a half years ago.
SCO would of been able to go to the appeals court and asked to have the case reinstated, then if it was it would look bad for the judge. Though it's a real hassle, with both judges letting SCO run with this case they are giving SCO a lot of rope to hang themself with.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Anyway, that's the way things were until the last set of judgments. The judge agreed with IBM that the SCO-Novell case has to be resolved first, because if Novell never sold certain rights to SCO, SCO didn't have standing to file a whole bunch of its claims in the first pla
Final (Score:3, Funny)
--Inigo Montoya
They hired a new investigator (Score:3, Funny)
SCO is paying him in stock
Re:setting up for appeal (Score:4, Insightful)
SCOX DELENDA EST!!