Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

SCO's Motion to dismiss Red Hat's Complaint Denied 290

Soko writes "The scoop is on Groklaw - SCO's motion to dismiss is denied, and further activity in the case is now pending the outcome of the SCO vs. IBM litigation in Utah. If they lose against IBM, will there be anything left for Red Hat to kick around, though?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO's Motion to dismiss Red Hat's Complaint Denied

Comments Filter:
  • by Gabrill ( 556503 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:39AM (#8791425)
    You forget the fun of dancing on the grave of your foe!
  • does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jagilbertvt ( 447707 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:39AM (#8791430)
    Just as long as SCO goes under in the end, does it really matter?
    • Re:does it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cshark ( 673578 )
      Well, it would be nice if IBM and all the others were exonerated. But no, I guess it doesn't really matter.
      • Why it matters (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Allen Zadr ( 767458 ) <Allen DOT Zadr AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:54AM (#8791574) Journal
        The problem is that if there is still suspicion - and it's found that Novell still owns the UNIX patent - then what would keep Novell from doing the same (flush SuSE as SCO flushed Caldera), starting this whole nightmare over again.
        • Novell != SCO (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @11:00AM (#8792190) Homepage
          With publicly owned corporations, nothing is for sure when it comes to profit; remember that the boards of directors of all publicly traded companies are tasked with maximizing stockholder value.

          That said, I don't think Novell would take the SCO route, all the signs are against it, and they have seen what is going to be the fate of SCO. But this is still a good point, a good reason that we really NEED the IBM issue to come to it's complete end.

        • IBM and Novell have already inked agreements for IBM to sell SUSE and use it as thier OS of choice. Novell has no reason to go after other *nix vendors. They stand to make more money playing fair than behaving like SCO.
        • Re:Why it matters (Score:3, Interesting)

          by OwlWhacker ( 758974 )
          I think you'll find that Novell wants to succeed in business, not just make a gamble to see if it can rake in a large amount of money before its business goes under.

          What company would want to be despised to the extent that SCO is? If you're into death threats, hey, go for it. Whatever floats your boat.
        • Re:Why it matters (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cshark ( 673578 )
          Nothing except the fact that Novell has more to gain from the openness of linux than otherwise. Novell has had financial problems in the past, but I don't think they would ever do anything that would cause the company to implode the way sco has. Besides, Novell has partnership agreements with IBM and others that will keep their linux strategy, or some variation of it strong for years to come.

          If you're going to worry about Novell, worry about the fact that they're integrating Mono directly into Suse to crea
    • Re:does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AKnightCowboy ( 608632 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:49AM (#8791535)
      Just as long as SCO goes under in the end, does it really matter?

      I wish Microsoft would just cut to the chase and buy SCO so they could take over the lawsuit. I guess it's better to sue by proxy to avoid anti-trust issues, but I think we're all reasonably aware of who is really behind this fiasco. Follow the money trail.

    • by WhiskerTheMad ( 765470 ) <{whisker} {at} {}> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:57AM (#8791597) Homepage

      In short, YES.

      Remember, SCO's purpose here is not to win, or even survive, it's to spread disinformation and fear about open source and Linux. The *real* win comes when SCO is exposed as the passel of lying, greedy, goat-molesting asshats they are, and when their claims about "IP Problems with Linux" are shoved firmly where they belong (namely, certain executives' orifices.

      Orifices? Orifii? What's the plural of orifice? Anybody?

      • by micromoog ( 206608 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:19AM (#8791772)
        Orifices? Orifii? What's the plural of orifice? Anybody?


      • by 4of12 ( 97621 )

        Remember, SCO's purpose here is not to win, or even survive, it's to spread disinformation and fear about open source and Linux.

        Sure seems that it's either that, or to make a lot of money on stock prices that jump around.

        Proof of either motivation will be hard to come by, but it sure would be nice to see it come out in the open...

        In the end, the legal team defending SCO will still maintain that "they were pursuing what they believed to be genuine issues with misappropriation of SCO intellectual propert

      • SCOrifice (Score:5, Funny)

        by RelliK ( 4466 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:34AM (#8791904)
        Henceforth, the plural of orifice is scorifice.
      • by vwjeff ( 709903 )
        I agree that SCO has no intention to win here. What I do think they are after is money. Usually in a case like this a company like IBM would make an offer to buy out the smaller company. I believe SCO's original plan was for this to happen but IBM realized the negative press they would get for buying SCO.

        As bad as it might sound I think a company will have to buy the IP rights to UNIX in order to shut SCO up. SCO will not win this case and the value of the "company" will drop. At this point someone wi
        • by SillySlashdotName ( 466702 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @02:24PM (#8794788)
          As bad as it might sound I think a company will have to buy the IP rights to UNIX in order to shut SCO up. SCO will not win this case and the value of the "company" will drop. At this point someone will buy them.

          Why would anyone buy them? I am serious.

          What does TSG have that is worth ANYTHING to another business? Their claim to the IP that is supposedly in Linux is being fought in court, and TSG has not yet shown they will (or even could possibly on a day when the weather forecast in Hades is particularly chilly) prevail in their claims of ownership.

          They don't own office space (rented from Canopy), real estate (rented from Canopy), office furnishings (rented from Canopy), inventions or patents that are in demand. They don't have any key technology, resources, or even executives that have a clue. Why would anyone want to buy TSG?

          With a book value of $1.31 per share, buying them AT MARKET would entail a premium of about 840% over what it would cost to start over from scratch.

          The only asset they have is a lawsuit against IBM that, IF they win (not bloody likely, from what I have been reading) could be worth about 20 times their current market capitalization. Other than some Microsoft shills (Enderly? Didio?) they are not convincing many that they have any chance of winning, though - and I really think the Microsoft shills are not convinced, they are just selling their integrity to the highest bidder.

          Again, why would anyone buy them?

          I do agree, though, that it would be nice for SOMEONE to shut them up. SEC, DOJ, are you listening?
  • cool (Score:5, Informative)

    by irokie ( 697424 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:40AM (#8791438) Homepage
    seems pretty cool.
    red hat don't have to pay for as much serious litigation as they would've done in the full on trial and they can sit back and relax while IBM pound away at SCO.
    and in the event that IBM actually lose, then they're ready and waiting with a second shot.
    • Re:cool (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timbloid ( 208531 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:46AM (#8791499)
      If IBM lose, won't it have a detrimental effect on the Red Hat case?

      And none of this seems to be having much effect on the SCO share prices...if anything, then end of March saw an upswing in their value... &m ode=basics&selected=SCOX
  • by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:40AM (#8791445) Homepage

    IBM will leave a pulp of tissue with the blood sucked out of it...

    On the plus side you can make a decent soccer ball out of dried human body parts so Red Hat should be able to have a decent kick-around after winning the rights to the dismembered body parts.

    Estimated value of this football game is around $1m as it will be considered "conceptual art" and snapped up in minutes.

    The football match will be titled

    "Icarus compressed"
  • Don't you mean "When they loose against IBM"?
    • by Marc2k ( 221814 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:44AM (#8791476) Homepage Journal
      Are you suggesting that they are pretty tight now? I'd be inclined to disagree, they're already pretty loose.
  • by RailGunner ( 554645 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:42AM (#8791462) Journal
    SUre, there's still one more thing that Red Hat could get - criminal charges filed against Darl McBride. Barratry, Racketeering, and Extortion.

    Even better? Pin some of it on his Microsoft puppetmasters.

    • No (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:52AM (#8791561)
      SUre, there's still one more thing that Red Hat could get - criminal charges filed against Darl McBride. Barratry, Racketeering, and Extortion.

      No, you can't. The standard for such charges are pretty high. First, for barratry, one would have to have solid evidence that Darl/SCO/Canopy acted in bad faith, and were suing for fun. You'd have to have evidence that not only are their claims crap, but THEY KNEW IT. Good luck.

      For racketeering and extortion, which I'm assuming you're using to attack their "licensing" behavior, you won't get that either. Reason is because they at least have a reasonable claim on their actions - basically, it's not extortion for them to defend their rights, and until it's damned clear they don't have such rights (like after some court case), you'll lose this one too. Also, what's the "weapon" (ie, the "or else...") behind the extortion claim? A lawsuit? So in that case, you'd have to prove the barratry case before starting the extortion case, and that won't work on it's own.

      So I know the /. crowd loves the idea of criminal actions against Darl, including stoning, hanging, or general torture. But it isn't realistic, and I think people should learn the *legal* background of such terms if this barratry argument is to keep going around and around for another couple of years like it has so far.

      • Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Scarblac ( 122480 ) <> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:59AM (#8791618) Homepage

        First, they distribute Linux under the GPL. Then a while later, they go around telling people they owe $699 to them or they have to stop using Linux. How is that not extortion?

        • Here's how.. (Score:3, Informative)

          First, they distribute Linux under the GPL. Then a while later, they go around telling people they owe $699 to them or they have to stop using Linux. How is that not extortion?

          First, because it's not clear, legally, at this point, that the GPL has invalidated their IP that could possibly be in linux. There are a number of reasons for this, which I won't belabor here, if for no other reason than it's been knocked around for over a year now. Yes, yes, we all "know" SCO's claims (whatever they are today) ar

      • Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)

        by 0x0d0a ( 568518 )
        Technically, if someone managed to break into Darl's computer and dropped a set of anonymous tips, if Darl is silly enough to keep incriminating evidence that he *knew* he was filing bogus lawsuits, I suppose he could get in trouble.

        Note that an anonymous tip would be very different from getting a bunch of (obviously not legitimately obtained) documents and handing them to the police, who then wouldn't be able to use them.
      • They SHOULD know their claims are crap. Ignorance is no excuse, right?
      • by DanTheLewis ( 742271 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @01:24PM (#8793957) Homepage Journal

        SCO's licensing behavior, as IBM has been pointing out [] in their Counterclaims to the SCO lawsuit (Counterclaim 6, para. 142-147 is especially relevant), violates the GPL, because SCO distributed Linux and other GPL software, then attempted to alter the terms of the license using SCOsource.

        Paragraph 147 shows what kinds of damages open source developers have a right to expect:

        147. As a result of SCO's breaches of the GPL, countless developers and users of Linux, including IBM, have suffered and will continue to suffer damages and other irreparable injury. IBM is entitled to a declaration that SCO's rights under the GPL terminated, an injunction prohibiting SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches of the GPL and an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

        SCO is unpopular with "the /. crowd" precisely because a significant number of them are Linux and open source developers. Yes, all open source projects get tarred with the same brush in the non-tech public (read: investors) when SCO claims the GPL is unconstitutional and threatens to sue end-users. These guys aren't multimillionaires being bankrolled by M$ and don't have the money, time, or ability to get into a legal fight with SCO. They all lose customers and support until the lawsuits are over. When the Yankee Group publishes yet another TCO study [] that says "Linux is great, but, oops, the costs of indemnity from legal challenges pending in the courts forced us to revise our cost estimate upward," businesses learn that Linux is risky until the court cases are over. Developers lose.

        Someone must be responsible! Someone must pay for this damage! The thought that Darl McBride, Canopy, M$ et al. will come away from these lawsuits, no matter what, with their reputations, fortunes, business practices, quotidian lives intact is like a maddening thorn in the brain of "the /. crowd". That's why everyone keeps asking about criminal charges... not because they really hope to see these people in jail, but because they are yearning for justice.

  • It's about time (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Egekrusher2K ( 610429 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:42AM (#8791464) Homepage
    I've been waiting for something like this. SCO have been complete hypocrites about all of this. They claim they have IP rights on code that is being used in Linux/Unix. They wait MONTHS to produce the said code, and only by the order of a judge. Said code was stolen by SCO from ANOTHER COMPANY!!! They have no backing. Now, they are completely fucked, and I sit here in my chair and laugh. They need to be put out of business... permanently.
    • ...and their management team needs to face criminal charges and do the jail time if found guilty.

  • Irony in the worst (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bwraith ( 461263 ) * on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:43AM (#8791471)
    It seems like SCO is getting the royal rump treatment now after issuing it's first jab against the *nix community, just as it is stated on the groklaw boards "this is just the first nail to be slammed into SCO's legal coffin"

    Let's hope this leads to a faster resolution of this most ridiculous case brought upon by SCO.
    • Maybe yes, maybe no. This about the hundredth "first nail" development, so much so that I noticed that the Groklaw has decided to start including exclamation points in its story titles, perhaps to differentiate from the other beginnings of ends..
  • by WgT2 ( 591074 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:44AM (#8791475) Journal

    When Red Hat gets their turn, maybe they can install linux in them and call them a badger.

  • by ponds ( 728911 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:45AM (#8791482)
    First off, I've seen alot less SCO news lately. I hope that this is a sign that it's almost over. Now on to the meat of my issue, we who are in the know, not just Linux Users, alot of people that I know who cant stand anything but MS: we are fairly informed about the SCO case. I used to assume that the public felt that way as well, but I don't anymore. We had a guest speaker in my infosec class last week, a professor from the University of Hawaii who wrote the textbook that we use. Dr. Panko's speech at some point turned to OSS vs proprietary software in terms of security. Panko claimed that the argument that OSS code is more secure was bunk, because all OSS code he has seen is crappy code (I doubt this is an informed opinion), and that most of it is just stolen from proprietary software anyway. Later in the speech someone asked a question regarding the subject of whether the security community will have to deal with MS's security methods forever. Panko quickly proclaimed that Linux is dying due to insurmountable legal trouble, and that they will likely never get out if it. I think that we do not have a good view of what the uninformed think about the SCO case. And while the case is substanceless, the PR is not. We need to take every opportunity to inform non-geeks, with the ample factual evidence that is out there, that this is an example of a pump and jump stock scam based on frivilous litigation, and that our chosen innovation paradigm (Open Source) is legit.
    • by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:05AM (#8791665) Homepage
      I wonder how much closed source software this guy saw. Judging from the comments about Microsoft's code leak (bad code, sloppy, etc..) OSS software can't be all that bad. I know that Microsoft's code leak was two years old Windows 2000 code, but still; a coder is a coder. If he pronounced OSS code as sloppy and bad code, he should say what he is comparing it to. Has he actually seen Microsoft's latest code?

      I can say that my car shifts smoothly and corners nicely, but I have no basis for comparison since I have never owned any other car. Has he seen any proprietary code? Thats what I want to know.

      • by m00nun1t ( 588082 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:43AM (#8791992) Homepage
        Maybe you should read up more before you make your "bad code" comments. Here's a review of the source code: 52/7795

        I'll quote for you since you are on /.:
        "...the quality of the code is generally excellent. Modules are small, and procedures generally fit on a single screen. The commenting is very detailed about intentions, but doesn't fall into "add one to i" redundancy..."

        "...Microsoft does not steal open-source code. Their older code is flaky, their modern code excellent. Their programmers are skilled and enthusiastic. Problems are generally due to a trade-off of current quality against vast hardware, software and backward compatibility..."
        • by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @11:43AM (#8792763)

          Maybe you should read up more before you make your "bad code" comments.


          "...the quality of the code is generally excellent. Modules are small, and procedures generally fit on a single screen. The commenting is very detailed about intentions, but doesn't fall into "add one to i" redundancy..."

          The article also notes:

          However, not everything is so rosy. Some of the modules are clearly suffering from the hacks upon hacks mentioned earlier. As someone who struggled immensely trying to get the MSInet control working not long after this code was released, it's a relief to see that the inet code is as bad as I thought.

          Although it goes on to say that most of these hacks seem to be due to backwards-compatability. However, having said that, bad code is bad code. A hack is a hack. And it would seem that indeed, even the vaunted Microsoft produces its share of hacks.

          It would seem this has less to do with Open Source vs. Proprietary software than simply being the nature of the beast.
    • by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:09AM (#8791692) Journal
      This sounded kind of interesting, so I googled and quickly found Dr. Panko's website (there aren't many people out there by the name of "Panko").

      He's got a number of websites, one of which is here [].

      He definitely, ah, favors Microsoft. :-) Very unusual for a security guy.

      • by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:24AM (#8791813)
        People take computer advice from someone who:

        a) uses Frontpage
        b) doesn't change the title of the pages from "New Page 1"

      • It's sad that his security book is "market-focused" [] -- as in it focusses on security from a product (read Windows) point of view rather than providing a strong theoretical base for the subject matter. I think the CS gurus (read Stallman, Tanenbaum, Stevens, Djikstra) would tend to differ This quote is pretty telling:

        Up-to-Date Market-Focused Coverage

        As discussed below, some security certifications, such as CompTIA's Security+, pride themselves in being vendor neutral. Although this has some theoretical

    • After hearing what you report this guy said and having had a quick look at his web site, I'd say you had a pretty strong case for suing your school if they claim that they are selling you an "infosec" course.

      I would ask him for evidence of where this stolen code is and could he please produce an example. Accusing someone of stealing is quite a serious allegation.

      Claiming that "Linux has insurmountable legal trouble" is an opinion he is not qualified to give and he is expressing such an opinion in his prof
    • by hcg50a ( 690062 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:56AM (#8792134) Journal
      I've seen alot less SCO news lately. I hope that this is a sign that it's almost over.

      "Almost over"?

      The SCO trial with IBM hasn't even begun yet.

      There are one or two other cases with SCO (vs. Novell and/or Red Hat) -- I don't know what phase those are in.

      They are still in the discovery phase in the case of SCO vs. IBM, where they are debating what evidence will be included in the trial, and both IBM and SCO are pressing each other for information they believe is there, or for information that one side claims is there, but the other side claims does not exist.

      This thing may never reach trial -- I assume that is SCO's goal. IBM wants it to, so that precedents are set and issues are settled. SCO just wants people to do what they tell them and they want money. They want to keep things murky and scary.

  • by JessLeah ( 625838 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:47AM (#8791517)
    If they DON'T lose against IBM, we will have a lot to worry about.

    Let's hope and pray to $DEITY_NAME that SCO will lose. As I'm now 100% sure that SCO is just Microsoft's puppet, realize that this isn't just SCO (a piddly little company) versus IBM (a behemoth). It's Microsoft versus IBM. I'm pretty scared... how 'bout you?
  • Stock value? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CaptainBaz ( 621098 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:48AM (#8791524) Homepage Journal
    Perhaps this will reverse the recent increase in their stock price []. They haven't been spreading much FUD recently, so why has their stock been going up?
    • Don't know (I am not a stock broker), but as I've pointed out frequently in the past, their bottom [] line [] has certainly profited from everything going on.
    • I think they're somehow getting the best of all worlds:

      No news is good news,

      Bad news is good news,

      and Good news is good news.
    • Re:Stock value? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by supermojoman ( 699985 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:25AM (#8791819)

      Don't know exactly, but my first suspicion would be the buyback [] program. Choice quote [] (click link for source):

      "'Some critics believe the buyback frenzy was nothing more than executives seeking to maximize their own wealth. 'They boost the price in the short term and then sell their shares,' says Kathleen M. Kahle..."

      Definetely check that Groklaw link for more information. I'm just a programmer, so really, I don't know what I'm talking about. But the buyback program seems like a good place to start.

    • >They haven't been spreading much FUD recently, so why has their stock been going up?

      Simple, it is public knowledge that Microsoft has put aside about 80 million dollars for this, so they're obviously artificially keeping SCO's stock high by buying shares.

  • two front war (Score:4, Informative)

    by HealYourChurchWebSit ( 615198 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:51AM (#8791548) Homepage
    What my non-legal mind takes from this is that SCO now has to hire more lawyers because they've got a real problem on their hand with Red Hat.

    As I see it, and I could be wrong, if SCO wins against IBM, then they make Red Hat's case. Even if SCO loses, they've still got some real damages claims to deal with.

    Worse, it means they're going to have to put-up or shut-up proving their accusations for the Red Hat case, evidence, which if admitted, could bolster IBM's defense.

    Either way, SCO has failed to learn from history.
  • This sucks ! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:52AM (#8791562)
    No, really, this sucks.

    RedHat tried to get SCO to shut the f**** up until the SCO vs IBM trial has gone through. The judge answers that although their claim (of SCO being a liar scaring their customers), they have to wait and see until the other trial is over.
    In other words, SCO may carry on lying and RedHat can do nothing but cry over their and Linux' reputation until IBM is done.
    And when IBM is done, there'll be nothing left of SCO for RedHat to be compensated with.
    No, really, this is not a victory for RedHat...

    • Re:This sucks ! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by IPFreely ( 47576 ) <> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:33AM (#8791896) Homepage Journal
      RedHat should request a temporary restraining order until the outcome of the IBM case.

      Since the purpose of the RedHat case was to make SCO shut up, and the case has been delayed pending the IBM case, then RedHat is being denied justice pending another case. Since SCO started the IBM case, they are effectively in the drivers seat on both. That denies RedHat justice, under the control of SCO. RedHat should get something, like some type of temporary restraining order against SCO at least until SCO clears up their IBM case.

    • Re:This sucks ! (Score:3, Informative)

      Justice delayed is justice denied.

      SCO knows this, that's why they keep screwing around just to keep the courts tied up for as long as possible.

      In this case, the real question is 'Why?'. Why did the judge delay? Was the judge overwhelmed with BS and confused as result? And can Redhat appeal the judges ruling to delay?

  • by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:55AM (#8791579) Homepage Journal
    If they lose against IBM, will there be anything left for Red Hat to kick around, though?

    Red Hat isn't looking to kick them around after they lose to IBM. Red Hat has a few goals: bring more of SCO's actions to light and into court by putting them on the legal defensive; helping IBM by bringing these things to light and legitimizing IBM's arguments if they win; hedging their bets in case IBM loses (if IBM loses, Red Hat's in big trouble, so this pre-emptive strike may help protect them or at least raise money for their future legal defense).

    I think all Red Hat cares about is IBM winning. After they win it doesn't matter if there's anything left to kick around.

    Of course the usual IANAL applies... :)
    • by The Lynxpro ( 657990 ) <> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @11:26AM (#8792511)
      "Red Hat has a few goals: bring more of SCO's actions to light and into court by putting them on the legal defensive; helping IBM by bringing these things to light and legitimizing IBM's arguments if they win; hedging their bets in case IBM loses (if IBM loses, Red Hat's in big trouble, so this pre-emptive strike may help protect them or at least raise money for their future legal defense)."

      Even if IBM loses this round, IBM will definitely appeal. That means the case will be drawn out even longer, and SCO will burn through more reserve cash. They can't exactly sell any more licenses to Microsoft for funding, and if they file against more corporations, that means more costs and more distractions which probably won't generate any more cash to fund the ongoing lawsuit against IBM. Compared to SCO, IBM has the funding behind it similar to Microsoft. IBM won't settle this either; they have too much pride to settle with such an insignificant company as SCO. If they did, they'd set a precident for more insignificant companies to try to sue them over dubious claims. The truth is, IBM is going to go thermonuclear and I doubt they'll sell-out to Microsoft in the end like Time Warner and now Sun have done.

  • There's a lot of speculation on Groklaw as to whether this is good or bad for SCO (and Red Hat). My view is that everyone will ultimately be a loser in this whole saga, except for the lawyers. If Red Hat, IBM, Novell etc. win the arguments in court, they are unlikely to get any money from SCO as by then they will have been bled dry. (unless Microshaft or a.n.other give them another wodge of money).
  • by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:09AM (#8791691)
    If you can install Linux on a dead badger...

    We could install Linux on a dead Darl.

    Wouldnt it be alanis-morrissette-like ironic?

    Imagine Darl, eyes glazed over with a bluish skintone, shuffling himself about arms outstretched, moaning "liceeeeeeeense... LICEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNSE".

  • by Whafro ( 193881 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:11AM (#8791708) Homepage
    Yeah, it's only 10:10am and SCOX is down 3.8% on the morning, with the ask prices looking abysmally low.

    Could be a very long day for SCO.
  • by Vexler ( 127353 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:22AM (#8791795) Journal
    I like the idea that the judge is playing the cases off each other, probably wanting to see the Utah case as a precedent with which she can then use against SCO. If it doesn't go fast enough, though, she reserves the right (wisely) to proceed without it (probably thinking that SCO doesn't have a chance in Delaware either). In either case SCO may have just hit the point of no return: The hand's stuck in the cookie jar, and now the question is not whether to deny that it did it, but to see how much of their collective hand gets lopped off.
    • Don't forget that IBM has a motion to dismiss pending in its case with SCO specifically addressing those counts in SCO's complaint dealing with its contention that linux contains SCO IP. IBM's motion dovetails nicely with the Novel motion to dismiss where the main issue is whether or not Novel ever transferred the copyrights which SCO claims it owns re Unix. If SCO loses those motions, they will probably be barred from taking a contrary position in the redhat case under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
  • by stecoop ( 759508 ) * on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:26AM (#8791826) Journal
    Enough tangents and wishing SCO to simply vanishing - it's going to be around a little while.

    The issue at hand in the article and context is SCO will not be battling Red Hat and IBM at the same time. The case against SCO from Red Hat wasn't dismissed but deferred. Red Hat claims damages from SCO in regards to harming the Linux kernel because of the lawsuit and publicity towards suing IBM over the Unix core system.

    In context against IBM - that is another story and we'll be seeing that unfold. In my opinion that is going to be a tough case to win for SCO. Remember SCO was a happy go lucky company and then Linux IPO Caldera Systems [] bought SCO []. I can't see a Linux company coming to power and suing others over the Unix System even though IBM already had a license for the Unix core system.

    Now back to Red Hats Case. RH is suing SCO basically over the suite against IBM. I seriously doubt that RH will win this case because the grounds of suing someone because you sued someone. RH is must prove malice in the context of SCO public statements. This is very hard to prove.

    The break it down here is what's going to happen. First RH has to wait, IBM will win, RH will lose the Case against SCO, SCO will loose market share from other litigation cases yet to be determined.
  • by bug ( 8519 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:30AM (#8791864)
    It seems like most of the conclusions regarding this ruling, including that from Groklaw, are that this is good news for RedHat. I simply can't understand that. Sure, the judge ruled against SCO's motion to dismiss, but on the other hand, the judge ruled that no further action can be taken until the IBM case is resolved. That's not going to happen for months or years.

    Most of the point of the RedHat vs SCO lawsuit is to eliminate the FUD surrounding Linux. This would allow RedHat to continue to market its products without its prospective customers shying away due to potential legal issues. When the judge ruled that the case is effectively on hold until the IBM case is decided, the judge effectively denied RedHat its best legal opportunity to end the SCO FUD machine in any useful timeframe. As the old saying goes, "justice delayed is justice denied."
    • by BigBadBri ( 595126 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @11:22AM (#8792451)
      You'll notice that the judge also instructed both parties to inform the court in writing every 90 days of the progress of the IBM case.

      This is very good news for Red Hat, as it provides at least three opportunities between now and next April for them to convince the judge that SCO is dragging its feet on the IBM case, being obstructive in discovery, etc. etc., and so persuade the judge to deny SCO's Motion To Dismiss and to make the case move forwards.

      Conversely, SCO has to justify its actions every three months without upsetting the judge.

      If Red Hat plays the situation correctly, this delay may only last the first 90 days, since there is already ample evidence to show that SCO has been dilatory at best in its handling of the IBM discovery motions.

      I don't think it's as black as you paint it.

    • Keep in mind the implications of having the motion denied, however: This means that not only does the judge think there is enough for RedHat to go on, but that SCO can't back out of the case anymore. If anything, this is not only very good for RedHat, but also very bad for SCO both from legal and from PR viewpoints.
  • by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:32AM (#8791883)
    1: Is there anyone on Slashdot that honestly feels there's even the slightest probability that SCO will win?

    2: If we all know they're going to lose, why do people keep posting stories about it?

    I don't want to troll, but I really don't think anyone here things SCO has a chance in hell. We also know that when they lose this lawsuit, they're going to go out of business and a year or two afterwards, nobody will be thinking about them. So why are we paying so much attention to this. I mean, the whole thing is really a non-event and by constantly running stories about it, you're only helping Red Hat. Any publicity they get just makes them seem more legitimate. They're not legitimate at all.

    I really can't wait for them to just lose their case, go out of business, and be out of everyone's mind.
    • Oops, I meant by "running these stories you're only helping SCO" not Red Hat. Hey, maybe it's helping Red Hat. If it is, hurry. Sorry for the booboo. Shoulda previewed....
  • I doubt SCO will have any money left by the end of the IBM case to be honest (they will have to file for bankrupsy before then) m &q=l&c= I expect the climb in that graph to start dropping again quickly cause of this.. At some point SCO will have to give up anyway.. The funny thing about this whole lawsuit is that even if SCO by some off chance wins, IBM will just sue them anyway again.. And there must be at least a few hundred pendin
  • by wardk ( 3037 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:48AM (#8792042) Journal
    So SCO gets to defame Redhat with FUD and old fashioned lies until the IBM case is completed. Redhat gets no immediate relief.

    This is a small gain for Redhat on one side (as if anyone thought this would get dismissed), but a bigger loss for Redhat on the other (as if we thought RH would get screwed for possibly 2 more years with no recourse).

  • by lavalyn ( 649886 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:50AM (#8792066) Homepage Journal
    You misspelled when.
  • by RunzWithScissors ( 567704 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:56AM (#8792137)
    The reason that Red Hat sued SCO was because SCO was making, as of yet, unfounded claims to customers that Red Hat was infringing on their IP for UNIX. Red Hat's suit is more about keeping SCO from saying derogatory things about The Hat than getting a hefty settlement from SCO for damages. Besides, what would Red Hat do with $6 bln? Probably buy a kickass RV, no wait, they did that already...

  • by ziegast ( 168305 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @11:01AM (#8792192) Homepage
    Lackadaisical [] (adj.) - 1) Lacking spirit, liveliness, or interest; languid: "There'll be no time to correct lackadaisical driving techniques after trouble develops" (William J. Hampton). 2) Affectedly pensive; languidly sentimental.

    And now thanks to SCO and the RedHat lawsuit [] (page 5) referenced by the Groklaw article [] we might see an expansion of the definition for lawyers and geeks alike...

    3) Lacking urgency and passionate conviction: "[SCO is] ... taking a lackadaisical attitude toward pursuing its claims."

  • by drizst 'n drat ( 725458 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @11:06AM (#8792254)
    Their stock has been rising since last week and is currently [] above $11 a share. For a company allegedly on the ropes, they're not doing too bad. Go figure ...
  • by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @02:54PM (#8795172)
    Beer company A falsely claims that the employees of beer company B are urinating in company B's product. How unfair is that to company B?

    Now imagine that company A's claims are headline news in dozens of publications for over a year. Sure, company B could call company A a liar, but a lot of people will avoid beer from company B, just to be safe.

    The scox case is exactly like that. Msft/scox is loadly claiming that Linux is "contaminated" with UNIX code. Yet, after an entire year, scox offers no evidence.

    After sitting on scox's laughable motion to dismiss for over six months. The judge *finally* declares: "I'm too stupid and lazy to set a court date, or to tell scox to lay off the unproven statements against scox's competitors. So, I'll just allow scox to unfairly bash the competition, maybe Utah will do something and spare me the trouble."

    This decision could not have possibly been more favorable to scox. Maybe the USA could learn something from Germany's justice system.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. -- Milton Friendman