Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission Summary: 0 pending, 19 declined, 3 accepted (22 total, 13.64% accepted)

+ - Apple Bounceback patent FINAL rejection from USPTO affects Samsung damages

Submitted by DickBreath
DickBreath (207180) writes "I knew when Apple won against Samsung that it was just a little bit too soon for Apple to start counting those billions. According to Groklaw Apple's '381 patent has received a final rejection from the USPTO. This will have a huge effect on the damages Apple won in the Apple vs. Samsung I which is still in appeal. Apple and Samsung are squabbling over whether the Apple vs Samsung II trial should wait on the outcome of the appeal of Apple vs Samsung I."
IBM

+ - Hell Freezes Over: SCO vs IBM trial back on again-> 1

Submitted by DickBreath
DickBreath (207180) writes "It looks like the lawsuit SCO started back in March 2003 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 source 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. 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."

Link to Original Source
Caldera

+ - SCO is Toast! Court Rules: Novell owns UNIX.->

Submitted by
DickBreath
DickBreath writes "Judge Kimball has ruled in the SCO vs. Novell. See it here on Groklaw.

SCO does not own Unix copyrights. Therefore, SCO has no standing to sue IBM re: Linux.

Example of standing: Jane cannot sue Bill for sealing John's tires. Jane does not have standing. (although John has standing to sue Bill for stealing his tires.)

SCO does not have standing for the lawsuit it filed against IBM back in Mar 2003. SCO was hoping to win $5 Billion from IBM, and then charge every Linux user $699 per cpu.

There is not yet an outcome in the IBM case. But I would be willing to bet we'll see some action RSN."

Link to Original Source

The IBM purchase of ROLM gives new meaning to the term "twisted pair". -- Howard Anderson, "Yankee Group"

Working...