Last of Original SCO v IBM Linux Lawsuit Settled (zdnet.com) 126
"[N]ow, after SCO went bankrupt; court after court dismissing SCO's crazy copyright claims; and closing in on 20-years into the saga, the U.S. District Court of Utah has finally put a period to the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit," writes ZDNet's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols. From the report: According to the Court, since: "All claims and counterclaims in this matter, whether alleged or not alleged, pleaded or not pleaded, have been settled, compromised, and resolved in full, and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Motion is GRANTED. All claims and counterclaims in this action, whether alleged or not alleged, pleaded or not pleaded, have been settled, compromised, and resolved in full, and are DISMISSED with prejudice and on the merits. The parties shall bear their own respective costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. The Clerk is directed to close the action." Finally!
Earlier, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which has been overseeing SCO's bankruptcy had announced that the TSG Group, which represents SCO's debtors, has settled with IBM and resolved all the remaining claims between TSG and IBM: "Under the Settlement Agreement, the Parties have agreed to resolve all disputes between them for a payment to the Trustee [TLD], on behalf of the Estates [IBM], of $14,250,000." In return, TLD gives up all rights and interests in all litigation claims pending or that may be asserted in the future against IBM and Red Hat, and any allegations that Linux violates SCO's Unix intellectual property. "While we're one step closer, the SCO lawsuits still live on just like one of those Halloween monsters that just won't die," concludes Vaughan-Nichols, noting the lawsuit Xinuos filed against IBM and Red Hat in March for allegedly copying their software code for its server operating systems. "But, in this go-around, there aren't many people in the audience."
Earlier, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which has been overseeing SCO's bankruptcy had announced that the TSG Group, which represents SCO's debtors, has settled with IBM and resolved all the remaining claims between TSG and IBM: "Under the Settlement Agreement, the Parties have agreed to resolve all disputes between them for a payment to the Trustee [TLD], on behalf of the Estates [IBM], of $14,250,000." In return, TLD gives up all rights and interests in all litigation claims pending or that may be asserted in the future against IBM and Red Hat, and any allegations that Linux violates SCO's Unix intellectual property. "While we're one step closer, the SCO lawsuits still live on just like one of those Halloween monsters that just won't die," concludes Vaughan-Nichols, noting the lawsuit Xinuos filed against IBM and Red Hat in March for allegedly copying their software code for its server operating systems. "But, in this go-around, there aren't many people in the audience."
The final verdict: (Score:5, Funny)
Former SCO Execs will be wrapped into barbed wire and shot into the sun, for every onlookers entertainment.
Re:The final verdict: (Score:5, Funny)
If we put that on pay per view, we could probably recover the cost of the whole mess.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that many people still care about this.
Re:The final verdict: (Score:4, Funny)
Bill it as "lawyers getting roasted over real fire" and people will tune in that don't even know what SCO is.
Re: The final verdict: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: The final verdict: (Score:4, Informative)
I liked a few of them
1/ They stole our IP and put it in Linux. When press releases showed that it was they themselves that tried to put it in Linux only to be rejected as unwanted (think that one was streams)
2/ IBM interfered with these customers of ours by converting them to Linux. Their press releases had boasted about how THEY had converted those customers to Linux.
3/ To get our wholly owned subsidiary to disgorge that property we would have to sue ourselves.
4/ IBM software ported to our OS can't then be ported to Linux (even when the port was from the original version on a different OS) because it is derivative of our code even though it doesn't and never did contain any of our code. Copyright doesn't work that way, neither did their license as how it worked had been publicly explained by the company previously explicitly excluding this interpretation.
5/ IBM can't tell the Linux people that something doesn't work when they learned it doesn't by trying to do it by the modifying our OS. That "negative knowledge" belongs to us not them.
6/ The APA (asset purchase agreement) amendment transfers copyrights required by the business we bought so therefore you have to transfer the copyrights to us for this NEW business we are working on (suing our customers for violating those copyrights).
7/ The whole "Slander of Title" complaint where the law was intended to apply to real estate not other types of property like copyrights.
8/ That money we were supposed to send you when we collected it from your customers has all been spent. The money we have now is all NEW money so we don't have to give any of it to you to replace what we kept (and spent) of yours.
9/ We shouldn't have to put the money you claim we owe you into escrow as we have more than enough money to see out the case. Followed by entering bankruptcy protection on the Friday before the Monday on which the trial would begin.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thought of some more.
10/ one of the appeals where judge after judge found ways to recuse themselves as no one wanted to touch this toxic sludge of a case.
11/ The argument that they didn't need to tell IBM what they stole because IBM knew very well what they stole. Presumption of guilt before the trial actually begun.
12/ SCO persuading the Judge that IBM had to clarify in detail the nature of their claims. IBM followed this by demanding that SCO do the same and for arguments basically said "What SCO said
Re: (Score:2)
Samizdat? As in, Samizdat [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Fair enough.
I remember quite a lot of rejoice when a notorious German copyright lawyer earned a 14 month sentence and killed himself instead of going to prison. Was actually about the same time as the SCO process.
Re: (Score:2)
I know. Unfortunately I was busy somewhere else so I couldn't fulfill my promise to him, that I'd tap dance on his grave.
And he wasn't really that important in my life either. Of the three cases we had against each other, I only lost one concerning slander, sadly I'm no longer allowed to call him "Dörrpflaume".
Re: (Score:2)
I know. Unfortunately I was busy somewhere else so I couldn't fulfill my promise to him, that I'd tap dance on his grave.
And he wasn't really that important in my life either. Of the three cases we had against each other, I only lost one concerning slander, sadly I'm no longer allowed to call him "Dörrpflaume".
Do you have a link?
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately that was before the internet was as big a thing as it is today, the record number is somewhere in my archives.
Re: The final verdict: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep
Re:The final verdict: Groklaw is dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The final verdict: Groklaw is dead (Score:4, Informative)
I miss Groklaw. Pamela Jones was the best part of the whole saga.
Early on she definitely put together a bunch of information and a community around it. However, she chose to disappear and as far as I know, no reasonable competent open source / legal community has arisen to replace Groklaw. If it had never existed then maybe we would have a better, or even just "almost as good" alternative that would still be working.
Perhaps the worst thing is that the comments on Groklaw are hidden behind copyright protection and unsearchable meaning all that effort and information is effectively lost forever. Hasn't she done more damage than good in the end?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
comments are owned by the posters -- and Groklaw exposed the BSD settlement. so, no, I think it was overall a net benefit. Let alone exposing all the holes in SCO's argumentation.
One of the posters had insisted that it was a pump-and-dump., combined with a shakedown. With the benefit of hindsight, it seems he was correct.
Re: (Score:2)
So... your argument is that she did too good of a job, set a standard nobody can live up to, left without leaving us with anything, so she did a bad job?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So... your argument is that she did too good of a job, set a standard nobody can live up to, left without leaving us with anything, so she did a bad job?
My argument is that she did a good job of analysis; she then did a reasonable job of setting up a community - which she used to help her with continuing analysis but which also sucked in a whole load of other people who contributed their ideas.
She then did a terrible job of stewarding that community on when she wanted to leave. Imagine if Linus Torvalds suddenly discovered that all his code actually secretly belonged to Microsoft under an agreement he signed 20 years ago. Imagine if AT&T suddenly cla
Re:The final verdict: Groklaw is dead (Score:5, Interesting)
She was subject to a lot of personal abuse, likely by SCO's shills. I also got the impression that she was pretty burned out by the end of it. I don't think she ever really intended to become any kind of leader, but rather that she saw the inequity and greed underlying the copyright claims. Some people are life long warriors, and some people have just one fight in them. She did an extraordinary thing and earned the right to choose what she wanted to do next.
Re: (Score:2)
She was subject to a lot of personal abuse, likely by SCO's shills. I also got the impression that she was pretty burned out by the end of it. I don't think she ever really intended to become any kind of leader, but rather that she saw the inequity and greed underlying the copyright claims. Some people are life long warriors, and some people have just one fight in them. She did an extraordinary thing and earned the right to choose what she wanted to do next.
You may well be right, and whilst I think there's a little criticism that is due to PJ since she chose to ignore warnings about the danger of what she's doing, the majority of the blame for the damage that her leaving caused has to go to those who pushed her up onto a pedestal. Even those people, I don't think we should fully criticise since they probably made their decisions with the best of intentions. Instead, we should learn that succession planning is critical in open communities. That means both ens
Re: (Score:2)
succession planning is critical in open communities
OK. Who's next in line to be abused by proprietary software interests with deep pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
OK. Who's next in line to be abused by proprietary software interests with deep pockets.
I won't go out of my way to get in trouble, but I and plenty of others have shown considerable willingness to put action where it counted. Including supporting ongoing distribution of Linux inside companies when The SCO Group was trying to make trouble. I think there's plenty of people who will stand up if they have to. What's crucial is that working volunteer communities are sometimes very difficult to stand up. They depend on a huge number of things coming together, including just a group of people who
Re: (Score:2)
PJ left because of the crypto wars. FFS, it's the very last story on the front page of Groklaw [groklaw.net].
She said she couldn't trust email any more and shut down.
Re: (Score:3)
PJ left because of the crypto wars. FFS, it's the very last story on the front page of Groklaw [groklaw.net].
She said she couldn't trust email any more and shut down.
What is your point? It's not her reason for leaving that I'm criticising. It's her prior decision to set things up so that when she left, everything died. She caused real damage. It's a real lesson in how a single individual can do massive damage to a cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough.
Thanks for the clarification.
Re: (Score:2)
As for PJ, what I remember is that she wanted to be anonymous because people would come after he
Re: (Score:2)
The main strength of groklaw was the community input to get all information to counter SCO's claims. That, and PJ's ever continuing efforts to collect this information and make it available, for us but most importantly, for IBM's legal council. I like to think that the community made it possible to counter all of SCO's wild claims. Sure, we all knew they were bogus, but that is just not enough in a court of law.
As for PJ, what I remember is that she wanted to be anonymous because people would come after her personally and she stopped because she feared they were close. I don't know if this is lore or that her identity is known, but that's how I remember it. Anyways, she did the computing world a great service.
I think that there's at least one senior member of the "Slashdot community" / also Groklaw / also open source who has actually met her or at least knew her identity. Realistically I don't think there would have been specific consequences of her identity being discovered and I don't think it was anything special that would get her into trouble (e.g. her being a judge in the case or having a job with SCO or something). Her stopping was a general fear of surveillance after specific leaks about the NSA meanin
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking Scientologists or Christians or what?
Re: (Score:2)
Check with the Library of Congress they were supposed to be keeping an archival copy of Groklaw.
Found it [loc.gov]; it's only available physically in the library. That means from my point of view, not even based in the states and especially in the pandemic, it's not usable. Due to that I'm not able to check whether it includes comments and whether they are searchable. It's "better than nothing" definitely, however to be frank I think it shows how the community failed PJ by not being clear that there needed to be some form of successor available to take over from her if she became unavailable.
Thanks anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Groklaw. That community is what eventually led me to go to law school.
Re: The final verdict: Groklaw is dead (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The final verdict: (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, all pay-per-view suggestions must be of the form "I have a great idea for a TV show: 'The Beating of a [SCO executive]...'".
Does one of our other contestants have an answer?
Re: (Score:2)
Former SCO Execs will be wrapped into barbed wire and shot into the sun, for every onlookers entertainment.
Stuff can come out of the sun ... could we use a black hole instead ?
Re: (Score:2)
And all because of what? (Score:2)
malloc was it?
Re: (Score:3)
As I recall, one of the claims dealt with the process scheduler, which SCO claimed Linus had ripped off. Linus explained at the time that there really aren't a lot of ways to write a pre-emptive scheduler. It's akin to a horse-drawn carriage manufacturer suing Ford Motor Company because the Model T had four wheels.
$14m settlement? (Score:5, Insightful)
So am I reading this right? IBM paid $14m to settle this case once and for all? To the best of my recollection, they won every round in court...or have I forgotten something over the last 20 years? I guess from a practical standpoint on their part, that's probably chump change to make sure this is done and buried. But still, it feels disappointing that they ended up paying them even a penny after 2 decades of bullshit.
Re: $14m settlement? (Score:3)
I was hoping SCO would be ordered to pay IBM's costs!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then who is IBM paying? The lawyers who represented SCO? Why shouldn't they just be pushed out of an airlock?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:$14m settlement? (Score:5, Insightful)
have I forgotten something over the last 20 years?
You forgot one very critical bit. The timeline. 20 years. This isn't IBM saying "we admit we did wrong here's a settlement fee", this is IBM saying "Go f*** yourself you f***ing f***s. You've wasted 20 f***ing years of our f***ing lives. We will pay you this petty cash in exchange for a court declaration that we never need to see you f***ing wothless c***s***ers ever the f*** again."
It's a profanity wrapped in legalese and signed on a settlement agreement, and one signed knowing full well this $14m doesn't even begin to cover what SCO sunk into this in legal costs.
Re:$14m settlement? (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm... you know, for 14 millions, I could take a lot of verbal abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... you know, for 14 millions, I could take a lot of verbal abuse.
After they divide it up among all the lawyers who've been involved, it will work out around 37 cents/lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
We refer you to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram [mattwpbs.com].
Re: (Score:3)
I'm in security, I know all about verbal abuse. Though usually I'm the one dishing it out.
I'm kinda a high-tech dominatrix. I tell managers they're absolut idiots and they beg for more.
Re: (Score:2)
have I forgotten something over the last 20 years?
You forgot one very critical bit. The timeline. 20 years
And I guess you forgot the last 2 words in the very sentence you quoted from me: "20 years". So how exactly did I forget the timeline?
And I guess you also forgot to read on to the very next sentence where I said "I guess from a practical standpoint on their part, that's probably chump change to make sure this is done and buried." That's the very same thing you said, just less angry and vulgar. I fell like you've missed my point entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
And I guess you forgot the last 2 words in the very sentence you quoted from me: "20 years".
I did not. Turning the last words of someone against them is just a literally style to make a point, a turn of phrase somewhat literally. It is not meant to be interpreted as you literally not knowing it took 20 years. It is...
So how exactly did I forget the timeline?
meant to show that you knew about the time but neglected to figure out why said time was relevant to the settlement, and why someone would make it end.
And I guess you also forgot to read on to the very next sentence where I said "I guess from a practical standpoint on their part, that's probably chump change to make sure this is done and buried."
Not at all. Simply repeating one thing you got right doesn't change my point, which was (and sorry I feel I need to spell this out gi
Re:$14m settlement? (Score:5, Insightful)
So am I reading this right? IBM paid $14m to settle this case once and for all?
This is how broken the American legal system is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is how broken the American legal system is.
Literally every legal system allows parties to absolve claims in exchange for settlement. This isn't a broken anything. It's paying a fee to make an ongoing legal case disappear. Also any future cases, or any cases against anyone who does business with IBM, or any cases by anyone ever acquiring the corpse of SCO.
$14m buys a lot of protection:
In consideration of IBM’s obligations and releases underthis Settlement Agreement, the Trustee, for the Debtors’ bankruptcy estates,its agents, attorneys,
Re: (Score:2)
Literally every legal system allows parties to absolve claims in exchange for settlement. This isn't a broken anything. It's paying a fee to make an ongoing legal case disappear.
It's a bullshit case that never should have existed and IBM is having to pay more than most companies will ever produce in their lifespans to make the case go away. And you cite it as evidence that the legal system is not broken? That, sir, is literally insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Within the scope of value of both companies yes, that is evidence that the system is not broken. *You* won't be held to the same standards, you don't have $14m petty cash and haven't spent 20 years fighting a copyright lawsuit against another organisation on legal topic that hinges on incredibly anally worded legalese.
The stickershock you have is proof the legal system isn't broken. There are literally thousands upon thousands of cases settled across the country daily, but this one is uniquely newsworthy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but did the settlement specify how IBM will make the payment? My vote is for a dump truck to offload 1.4 billion pennies in front of the pathetic remains of SCO's premises.
Re: (Score:3)
Trying to inflate the property value, I get it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but did the settlement specify how IBM will make the payment? My vote is for a dump truck to offload 1.4 billion pennies in front of the pathetic remains of SCO's premises.
My vote is for IBM to pay in BitCoin. That way we can also enjoy the ensuing melt on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
DogeCoin.
Much litigious. Very settle. Wow!
Not a loss for IBM (Score:2)
It's basically go-away money. Originally, SCO was suing for hundreds of millions, or possibly billions, in royalties and licensing fees. $14 million probably covers the fees of the law firm suing IBM, and not much more.
The law firm was probably threatening to drag the lawsuit on and on, and this was the cheapest way to put an end to it. I think IBM made it's point. They bankrupted a company that went after them. They made no admission that they were in the wrong in the settlement. The law firm that picked u
Re: (Score:2)
I've been in business long enough to know that even if you're in the legal, moral and ethical right, there's a point where it's cheaper to pay to make a nuisance lawsuit go away. It sucks that bad guys get rewarded, but in this case, it's the bankruptcy administrators that get the cash, and in return IBM can close the file permanently.
Re: $14m settlement? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To me it shows this is not the IBM of old that would have put SCO's head on a pike outside their headquarters as a warning to other companies like Xinous. The new IBM probably is tired of the decades long lawsuit and wanted to be done with it.
That IBM was always more bark than bite. After Microsoft and Compaq called their bluff, no one feared IBM's lawyers as much anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
No, there was no settlement of $14m, if you read the court order, it was an offer made to the bankruptcy court by the trustee running SCO. They'd drop everything for $14m, which was probably the outstanding liabilities of the company.
Remember that part owners of SCO was the law firm representing SCO, Bois shicller or whoever it was..
They'd spent a bunch of money trying to defend the case and get money out of IBM. Looks like they've given up.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I was reading a different document, they did pay it.
Re: (Score:2)
Likely, there was nothing left of the SCO assets for TSG to pay the lawyers so IBM just bought them off by "settling" for exactly what the lawyers were owed. Otherwise, their only hope of getting paid would be to keep the case going in perpetuity.
From the court's perspective those lawyers merely conceded all arguments and since there was no longer a dispute the case is closed.
Wow. Just wow. (Score:5, Informative)
Let's face it. SCO has quite the history with Slashdot [slashdot.org]. Lawsuit [slashdot.org], after lawsuit [slashdot.org], after lawsuit [slashdot.org] of history! And even after they were found dead [slashdot.org], then dead-dead [slashdot.org], then setting-the-coffin-on-fire dead [slashdot.org], we couldn't help but wonder whether some freak-of-nature might burst out at any moment [slashdot.org]. There hasn't been a more culturally-significant Slashdot saga than SCO! Oddly, I think I'll miss this.
"But, in this go-around, there aren't many people in the audience."
Makes me wonder how Slashdot will respond to this final nail in the coffin. C'mon Slashdot, how about one more 1,000+ comment response, for old times sake?
Re: (Score:2)
No, not exactly (Score:3)
That $14 million is going into the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy settlement to pay off debts. I doubt they'll see any of it themselves.
Re: Wow. Just wow. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kill off SCO while its still an infant. Noone will know their name so it will be a thankless sacrifice when its all done. Lol.
You mean kill off Caldera [wikipedia.org], right?
Re: (Score:2)
I had friends who worked for the old SCO, and they would be sad if SCO were killed off. More importantly they were the only affordable alternative to Microsoft products at the time when SCO Unix was a real thing. And on a personal note the existence of SCO helped create the geek scene in scruz without which I might be an incel douchebag. So yes, please don't kill SCO, kill Caldera instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps send Darl McBride as a Mormon missionary to North Korea instead of Japan.
Thank God! (Score:2)
Where were you....? (Score:3)
Where were you when this saga started? I was with a different wife in a different state in a different job in a different religion... basically I was a different person. What about you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Different job. Other than that, same person I'm now. Maybe a bit easier to exploit, judging from my salary back then.
Re: Where were you....? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same wife, same state, same house, same company, the job has changed some but that was more a gentle slide into differentials rather than a full-fledged title jump. That said, I was definitely a different person. Going from your twenties to your forties changes a dude, whether you want it to or not. I'm definitely happier now than I was then. And much more sure of myself.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a different wife, and was working as a system administrator for a small local ISP at the time. We still were running a dial-up service at the time, and just moving into broadband. Looking back, I was leading an entirely different life. I had two young kids (9 and 10 if I'm doing the math right).
Re: (Score:2)
Where were you when this saga started? I was with a different wife in a different state in a different job in a different religion... basically I was a different person. What about you?
High school, under a different Slashdot UID that I lost the password to and now can't even remember what the username was.
I literally just messaged a friend from high school the link to this story as it was something we used to talk about back when we were teenagers, we are now both almost 40...
Massaging the proverbial wooden leg (Score:5, Insightful)
I am surprised that this is considered a victory. The whole point of the lawsuit was not to win, but to make sure that every corporate lawyer learns that Linux is a legal risk.
Use Linux, get sued.
Sure, you can win the lawsuit or have it dismissed 18 years later, but in the meantime your clients will learn that your company is getting into legal trouble and will move their business elsewhere.
And long after your company is dead and forgotten, you may hold a piece of paper pronouning victory.
The other problem is that Microsoft made sure that the SCO vs IBM lawsuit is included as an example in the textbooks of all MBAs. These people will get in positions to make purchasing decisions at various companies and when they see Linux they remember "legal risk".
The SCO lawsuit started in 2003. The year 2004 was declared the (now much-derided) "Year of the Linux Desktop". The naming was correct. While before that year you had to make a pretty strong argument to use Linux on the Desktop, from 2004 onwards one had to work hard to find a reason not to use it.
Microsoft bankrolled SCO's lawsuit to offer that reason: Legal Risk.
Re:Massaging the proverbial wooden leg (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is hilarious because last time I checked Azure runs more Linux workloads than Windows ones. If this spooked anyone it was in 2004 but by a year or two later everyone realized there was no "there" there and just moved on.
Re:Massaging the proverbial wooden leg (Score:5, Interesting)
In 2004 Microsoft was run by Ballmer, and you may remember him characterizing Linux as a "cancer".
Also back in 2003, the city of Munich started their much-advertised Linux migration and Ballmer deployed his army of sales people to stop it. It only took one large city to do the migration and the fear was that it will open the floodgates.
After that, people did not "move on". It was ok to run Linux, but only where it cannot be seen: in some server room, but not on the desktop.
As for Azure running on Linux, Microsoft has no qualms about taking advantage of something they threaten. The Azure on Linux is also something that happened only after Ballmer was replaced as CEO.
They may "Love Linux" now, but for them it is only unpaid development work they can take advantage of.
Remember the Microsoft Open Source License? You can make any changes to their code as long as you license them free of charge back to Microsoft.
I call it the Napoleon License: "I am the Community".
Re: (Score:2)
That's the power of the CEO's direction. Gates ignored Linux. Balmer competed with Linux. Nadella monetised Linux.
Xinous dubious claim (Score:3)
IBM has represented that a third-party owns all of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights, and that this third-party has waived any infringement claim against IBM.
Except no one has said that, not even IBM. What has been said and confirmed by a court is that Novell not SCO owned the copyrights to original Unix (System V), and that IBM has an perpetual, irrevocable license. Unixware has always been SCO's property which no one disputes.
This is why IBM should have never settled with SCO. This claims is so ludicrous that I think Xinous is aiming for a settlement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a sad state of affairs (Score:2)
When a company's sole means of being in business is to sue other companies, something is wrong. I'm looking at YOU eastern district Texas patent trolls.
What will come next. (Score:2)
Glad to see it finally over.
I wonder what will happen next.
Takes me back (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, Reiser updates you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Surprising (Score:5, Informative)
Back when SCO was the Santa Cruz Operation they were a reputable, responsible company with a worthwhile product (two, if you count both SCO Xenix and SCO Unix.) I defy you to name a better OS than Xenix which runs on a 286 with 1MB RAM.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that Santa Cruz Operation is still around. As Oracle.
Santa Cruz Operation became Tarantella, acquired by Sun in 2005, and a part of Oracle because Oracle acquired Sun.
The SCO that sued IBM was originally called Caldera, who you might know from Caldera Linux, one of the ea
Re: Surprising (Score:2)
Caldera linux was based on redhat. They added Motif and a desktop similar to SCO Open Desktop and called it Caldera Network Desktop. It was a decent way to get a Motif license tho.