Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

IBM Asks Court to Toss SCO's Entire Case 230

Posted by Zonk from the out-with-the-bathwater dept.
Lost+Found writes "After three and a half years of case proceedings, summary judgement motions have been submitted in the highly controversial SCO v. IBM case. SCOX shares took a loss of 18.75%, or $0.39, to close at $1.69. IBM shares rose 0.97%, a gain of $0.79, to close at $82.00. From the article: 'Both sides in SCO v. IBM have filed motions for summary judgment. To be precise, SCO has filed one for partial summary judgment and IBM has filed several motions for summary judgment, one for each of SCO's claims and two more for good measure on two of IBM's counterclaims. In other words, it is asking the court to throw out SCO's entire case, and to grant it judgment on two counterclaims without even going to trial on those two.' More motions for summary judgement from SCO against IBM counterclaims are currently being uncovered at Groklaw."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Asks Court to Toss SCO's Entire Case More

IBM Asks Court to Toss SCO's Entire Case

Comments Filter:

  • The meter continues to run .... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @07:43AM (#16197841)
    It would be very interesting to find out what the end bill is for both IBM and SCO for this monumental waste of time (unless you're a lawyer of course, then this has been one of the best account padders of all time). How much is SCO worth these days anyway, even if IBM were awarded the entire company, I assume it wouldn't come close to negating the cost?

    • Re:The meter continues to run .... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by i.r.id10t ( 595143 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @07:48AM (#16197869)
      Thats the beauty of having lawyers on staff. You pay them an annual salary, whether they are in court, doing research, etc. it doesn't matter. Fixed cost. Now SCO went out and got a few lawyers on retainer, so they will have a hefty bill, but I think IBM just has "regular" employees doing this on their side.

      • Re:The meter continues to run .... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @08:04AM (#16198013)
        IBM hires outside counsel to do the litigating. The in house lawyers handle all the routine contracts, and things like that.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 )
          IBM hires outside counsel to do the litigating. The in house lawyers handle all the routine contracts, and things like that.


          Ditto for SCO, and really for most companies in general. Even Microsoft hires outside attorneys for litigation; in fact, David Boies, who argued for Microsoft in the DOJ antitrust case is the lawyer who's spearheading SCO's case.

          • IIRC, Boies argued against Microsoft .... (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward
            in the antitrust case. Even the feds hire outside counsel from time to time.

          • Re:The meter continues to run .... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @09:24AM (#16198929) Homepage
            Er... I think you are mistaken by transplanting concepts of good/evil from your view of the world onto the legal world. Boies argued for DOJ and the states in the Micorosoft case and for SCO in the IBM case.

            Just goes to prove that there is no such thing as good/evil/right/wrong as far litigation is concerned. It is only successfull vs unsuccessful.

            Frankly, when SCO hired him my first thoughts were "they want their stock to go up". While his early courtroom showings (old case of IBM vs govt, etc) were good he has not won a significant case for a long time. At the same time every single one of his cases has generated a significant "positive" publicity for his client before losing. DOJ practically lost DOJ vs MSFT, Gore election case was also lost, etc. He may still win something for them, but the amount of stock rise and initial buzz around his participation in the case is clearly disproportional to his actual achievement.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by steveg ( 55825 )
              Boise *won* DOJ v. Microsoft, then lost it again when he "let" George Bush become president. That's just one loss, though, not two.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Ster ( 556540 )
            Umm, you got that backwards. Boies was the initial lawyer *for* the DOJ.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 )
        SCO got a fixed upper limit agreed on their costs with the legal firm representing them, they dont have an 'unknown' bill as such.
      • Because of the limited finances SCO has available they made an agreement with their lawyers to pay a fixed cost for the lawsuit. I forget exactly how much it is, but I believe it was done with the judges blessing to ensure SCO didn't suddenly lose their lawyers smack in the middle of the whole thing.
    • Do you want to know what SCO is worth or what the paper costs? The first question is easy to answer, the second requires looking up some stock info.
    • Not a complete waste for IBM. They generated a lot of good public relations over this case with their favourite target customers: IT personnel.

      Perhaps not enough to make IBM to actually want these difficulties, but they're smart enough to recognize and exploit the benefits.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Idaho ( 12907 )

      How much is SCO worth these days anyway,


      SCOX 3 year price chart [nasdaq.com]. Because one picture is worth a thousand words.

  • Don't get too excited. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <slashdot.kadin@xoxy . n et> on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @07:45AM (#16197847) Homepage Journal
    I think it's important not to get too worked up over this one. As much as I'd love to see the judge give SCO the legal equivalent of that old Mortal Kombat finishing move where the guy shoves his fist in through his enemy's sternum and rips out his spine, given the way this case has gone in the past I don't see it happening.

    Motions for summary judgement are just part of the process; both sides file 'em, even when it's ridiculous (as SCO's are), usually the judge ignores them both, and life moves on.

    • Re:Don't get too excited. (Score:5, Funny)

      by deviceb ( 958415 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @07:59AM (#16197965) Homepage
      whoa now... lets clear some things up here.
      "guy shoves his fist in through his enemy's sternum and rips out his spine"
      The only guy who shoved his hand through your sternum was Kano, ..& he ripped out your heart.. not spine.
      SubZero ripped off your head with the spine attached. -I think this is what you meant.

      I agree SCO wishes it could have a piece of IBM(ridiculous) I hope a public caning is given to the execs of SCO for even stepping up to IBM. how dare they
      D,F,F,F,HP!

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Zenaku ( 821866 )
        But. . .but. . Sub-zero. . . No, he only froze them and smashed them into shards of ice! If he had ripped their heads off it would have been a terrible influence on me, glorifying violence and whatnot. I'd have surely grown into a mass-murderer if that had been the case!

        And Kano. . . ripping hearts out? How terribly violent! No, no, I'm sure that as I recall he only punched through their sternum and then held up his closed fist in victory, that's all. Whew, thank god they didn't let the sort of viole

    • Re:Don't get too excited. (Score:5, Informative)

      by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @08:41AM (#16198383) Homepage Journal
      Motions for summary judgement are just part of the process; both sides file 'em, even when it's ridiculous (as SCO's are), usually the judge ignores them both, and life moves on.


      But, IBM has already filed for summary judgement once and, at that time, Hon. Dale Kimball hinted that IBM might consider filing such a motion later in the discovery phase. So that's what IBM's legal team is doing here... what they've already been asked to do. Chances are, Kimball is going to grant the summary judgement on this one.

      (IANAL)

  • Summary Judgement (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blantonl ( 784786 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @07:45AM (#16197851) Homepage
    What IBM should really do is formally offer SCO a settlement of One US Dollar. It would be One US Dollar more than SCO could ever hope to win with their baseless and time consuming lawsuit.

    They could do it by scheduling a news conference, and taking that One US Dollar and placing it into a pretty frame, and the SCO attorneys would drool all over it and believe that they actually won something.

    Jeeze.. just stick a fork in them - they are done.

    • Re:Summary Judgement (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Phil246 ( 803464 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @07:48AM (#16197871)
      they could have easily settled long ago - thats not the point. they do not want to settle the case and leave doubts over linux, they want to crush it completely.

      • Re:Summary Judgement (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mr_mischief ( 456295 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @08:40AM (#16198379) Journal
        They could have easliy bought SCO before going to court. That's what they would have done before settling.

        IBM's confident that this case will help them in the long run, or they wouldn't be involved in the litigation at all.

        There was a bunch of speculation before the pretrial hearings even started that IBM might buy SCO, liquidate the corporation, and open-source all the software assets, and be done with the whole mess. Winning in court proves things about the GPL, the open development of software, the honesty of IBM as a corporation, and a few other things that a buyout or a settlement never could.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Stormwatch ( 703920 )
          Maybe I'm being a romantic here, but could it be that someone at IBM made the decision with this in mind: "it'd be easier and cheaper to buy them out, but doing so would reward cheating scumbags"?
          • Given IBM's past bad behavior, that doesn't seem likely. Perhaps they see this as more of a PR campaign aimed at convincing F/OSS fans that they're really good guys. In the meantime, they continue profiting from their proprietary software and kill any inexpensive products (such as Visual Test) that threaten their more expensive alternatives, instead of making them open source.

          • Re:Summary Judgement (Score:5, Informative)

            by rkhalloran ( 136467 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @10:20AM (#16199801) Homepage
            If IBM chose to settle rather than litigate it through, it would likely encourage any other failing firms that had past dealings with IBM to try and salvage themselves by filing suit with the expectation of settlement money or acquisition. The legal expenses here to discourage others are no doubt much less than a series of 'payoffs' would be.

            In this case also, as much effort as IBM has placed behind Linux, they need to have it seen as free of any legal issues to be able to market it effectively. I suppose SCOX was assuming IBM would rather give them a quick payoff to 'go away' then slug it out in court.

        • Winning in court proves things about the GPL, the open development of software, the honesty of IBM as a corporation, and a few other things that a buyout or a settlement never could.

          Also, winning in court shows that IBM kicks SCO's a**.

          Or, at the least, doesn't reward SCO. Being bought by IBM would be a great ending for SCO, whereas losing in court, filing for bankruptcy and then watching people carry your computer equipment out to pay the debt-holders is... less so.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tim C ( 15259 )
      IBM are probably the largest company in the world right now that is actively supporting Linux. If they settle, that leaves the way clear for SCO to take on smaller companies. It may not create a precedent (except perhaps in the minds of their intended victims), but they'll have already defeated their single most dangerous opponent.

      Or, IBM can push the case to the bitter end and prove in court that the claims are groundless, and end it once and for all.

      If you were IBM, and had long term strategies based arou

      • Re:Summary Judgement (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @07:59AM (#16197959) Journal
        If you were IBM, and had long term strategies based around Linux, which would you do?

        Lose the case in back-door deal whereby I would end up paying SCO almost nothing, but provide them with a precedent that would allow them to round up all of my competitors and remove them from my competitive landscape.

        Why, what would you do?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MindStalker ( 22827 )
          IBM has long term strategies based upon the openness of Linux, not on being one only Linux. They are making their money off hardware and support, not direct software sales.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by minus9 ( 106327 )
          But, if by competitors you mean other Linux companies such as Redhat and Suse etc, they are as much partners as they are competitors. Destroying the companies which make the software you make money providing support and services for would not be a smart move.

        • Re:Summary Judgement (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @08:18AM (#16198143)
          Given that I'm IBM and have a team of lawyers who I would be paying regardless, and that SCO's next targets would most likely be the very companies that so thoughtfully provide me (for free!) with most of the software that I'm basing my hardware, support and professional services sales around, I'd crush them before they got any funny ideas about taking out the aforementioned companies and cutting my current strategy off at the knees.

          It's called "enlightened self interest"; the right thing is also the best thing for yourself, no matter how many others it may also help. Any advantage gained in paying off SCO now would likely be lost in the future, especially as it's extremely unlikely that SCO would be paid off so cheaply.
    • Loser pays the court price tag.

      I wouldn't settle for one dollar (plus expenses) when I could get away for free. And the chances are awefully good! It's not like it cuts into IBMs daytime biz to be present in court, if SCO wants to keep the cost running, more power to them. Hand 'em enough rope!

    • Re:Summary Judgement (Score:5, Informative)

      by archeopterix ( 594938 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @08:56AM (#16198577) Journal
      What IBM should really do is formally offer SCO a settlement of One US Dollar. It would be One US Dollar more than SCO could ever hope to win with their baseless and time consuming lawsuit.
      Nope. IBM don't just want to fend off SCO. They want to crush them, and the future of Linux might not even be their #1 motivation. The fate of SCO will be like a giant poster: "That's what happens to you if you're dumb enough to mess with IBM". Such a chilling effect on future baseless lawsuits against IBM is something they just can't miss.
      • Such a chilling effect on future baseless lawsuits against IBM is something they just can't miss.

        Or even well founded ones. Knowing that you are facing a nuclear power in a litigation situation makes you less likely to sue, period.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by msobkow ( 48369 )

        Everyone knew not to mess with IBM in the first place, the same as they know not to mess with Sun, Microsoft, HP, or anyone else with a patent portfolio and a serious legal budget.

        IBM continues to invest in the case not because it's cost effective, not because it's the "right" thing to do, but to ensure that the question of derivative APIs (not code) is settled in the courts once and for all. There have been cases in the past over smaller related issues, such as the macro names and syntax between Lotus

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 14CharUsername ( 972311 )
        Remember when SCO sent letters to all of IBM's clients demanding $699 per copy of linux. Rember how we all laughed at that? Well IBM wasn't laughing. You can sue IBM and that's ok, all part of being a big corporation. But make a legal threat against IBM's customers? That's a whole other story. IBM wants to crush SCO and then desecrate their corpses now. You just don't mess with their customers.
  • SCOX shares took a loss of 18.75%, or $0.39, to close at $1.69.

    Morons....

  • The perfect Iceing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by budgenator ( 254554 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @07:47AM (#16197865) Journal
    FTA
    What does that mean? That if IBM were to prevail on all its motions (of course that is a rare event indeed) then the only thing left to bring to a jury would be IBM's counterclaims. That has to be SCO's worst nightmare. That would mean the only questions for the jury to decide, if they found for IBM on the rest of IBM's counterclaims, would be how bad was SCO and how much do they owe IBM?

    Wouldn't that be the perfect iceing on SCO's cake!

  • About time.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ronanbear ( 924575 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @07:48AM (#16197867)
    That the judge dismissed this sorry excuse for a lawsuit and put it out of it's misery.

    This has been going on for far too long now and it's been clear to everyone for years now that even the broken patent/copyright system won't side with SCO.

    They've got nothing and SCO are a joke. Noone even takes this case seriously anymore.

    • Re:About time.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @07:52AM (#16197901)
      IANAL, but AIUI the consensus of opinion is that the judge is playing everything by the book, dotting every last "i" and crossing every last "t", in order to ensure that neither party can come back and say "Not fair!" when judgement day comes.
    • This has been going on for far too long now and it's been clear to everyone for years now that even the broken patent/copyright system won't side with SCO.

      There are still 2 or 3 cases to go (at least the Novell and Red Hat ones) that are waiting on this one. It'll be a while before SCO 100% dies.

  • And the moral of the story is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lottameez ( 816335 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @07:49AM (#16197881)
    ...if you want to make the $'s, go to law school. It doesn't matter if anything is produced, you still make money.

  • Legal Extortion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Yahma ( 1004476 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @07:50AM (#16197889) Journal

    One can only hope that this case will prevent "Legal Extorion" from occuring in the future; but alas, that is just wishful thinking... IBM is a big rich company. If SCO were to come after a small fish like you or I, would we have the money to defend ourselves the way IBM did? I seriously doubt it. More than likely, had SCO sued me directly, I would have run out of financial resources trying to defend myself, and would have capitulated. SCO probably would have gotten summary judgement against me and precedents in case law would have been set. The sad thing is, had SCO has smarter lawyers, they wouldn't have tried to take on a big fish like IBM, but would have sued a very small company with few finanical resources to defend themselves. Once a precedent has been set, they could have laughed all the way to the bank. Believe it or not, the legal system is full of cases which many would consider "Legal Extortion" (ie. Pay up now, or face an expensive and lenghty lawsuit). One industry I can think of where many hungry lawyers prey upon is the California Real Estate market. Which brings me back to a headline I once saw on a magazine for lawyers in California. The headline read: "Mold is GOLD!", meaning that the common practice of bringing in an environmentalist to find 'mold' in a home and then turning around and suing the former homeowner for not disclosing the potentially hazardous condition that is causing the new occupants all sorts of numerous ailments, is worth big bucks to many california lawyers.

    Here's hoping that this case will help the little guy... but I'm not gonna hold by breath!

    Yahma
    BLASTProxy [blastproxy.com] - Bypass firewalls at school and work, anonymously.
    Mortgage Tricks [mortgagetricks.info] - Insider tips and tricks to get a low rate mortgage

  • And the people said... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Gavin Rogers ( 301715 ) * <grogers@vk6hgr.echidna.id.au> on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @07:52AM (#16197905) Homepage
    And the people said, "About time!!"

  • How far can IBM go? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @07:56AM (#16197931) Journal
    OK let us say IBM eventually wins and SCO loses. At that point SCO is bankrupt and IBM cant hope to get back any of the court costs it spent defending itself. At that point, can IBM go after the original investors in SCO who gave it the money to start and carry on the bloody fight? What should IBM do to go after them? Prove that they intentionally funded SCO for the express purpose of bleeding IBM and hurting? Or what else it has to prove?

    Or can it pull an SCO trick itself? I mean just claim that the original investors were just legal extortionists and file a case against them and bleed them and give them a taste of their own medecine?

    • Re:How far can IBM go? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dreamchaser ( 49529 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @08:07AM (#16198037) Homepage Journal
      First, the legal fees are pretty much a drop in the bucket for IBM. Second, and IANAL, they might be able to go after former SCO officers if there is evidence of illegality, but not individual private investors.
      • Perhaps IBM would then take ownership of the brand name "Unix". What could they do with it? Wave it around as a trophy while doing a Dogbert Happy Dance.
        • Right now, it is doubtful if SCO has the rights to Unix. IIRC they are in a lawsuit with Novell over that, where Novell says the rights have never been properly tranferred to now-SCO. So I guess that would be settled quickly between IBM and Novell, in a way that lets both of them save face.
        • Although SCO wants people to believe that it owns UNIX, the actual UNIX name trademark is owned by The Open Group and it is not contested.

    • I think they've certainly been hunting for evidence for that sort of thing, see e.g. this Groklaw article from February [groklaw.net]. However, I don't follow everything closely enough, I don't know if anything came of that later.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by octaene ( 171858 )

      Maybe they could make AIX open source? That'd be nice.

    • Re:How far can IBM go? (Score:4, Informative)

      by RevMike ( 632002 ) <revMikeNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @08:32AM (#16198291) Journal

      This is called Piercing the corporate veil [wikipedia.org]. It is not easy, but not impossible either. If IBM was able to show that the major shareholders were using SCO as a sacrificial pawn to go after IBM, but prevent IBM from being able to collect damages, then IBM might be able to go after those shareholders directly.

      I don't think MSFT is a SCOX shareholder. I think MSFT "funded" SCOX by making some lame licensing deals. I wonder how creative IBM's lawyers are willing to be.

  • The perfect storm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @08:12AM (#16198081)
    Judge K. grants most of IBM's wishes.
    Judge K. grants Novell a writ of replevin. That means that the funds that SCO should have turned over to Novell when it sold licenses to Microsoft and Sun go into a trust account. SCO only has ten million in the bank so it is instantly bankrupt.
    All the issues in all the trials are then amicably settled by the bankruptcy trustee.
    Holy smoking crater Batman, this puppy is never going anywhere near a jury.
    Well maybe some stuff will go before a jury. Darl may pay dearly for flapping his gums so loudly. There are the Lanham act issues. The SEC may also step in. Many people have said that the whole scheme involved a pump and dump on the stock market. There is certainly the odor of some kind of manipulation. In fact it has become a standing joke on the Yahoo SCOX message board (and now on InvestorsVillage as well). They call it the PaintBlaster with reference to the fact that the shares seem to get predictably 'painted up'.
    • lol... "predictably painted up" ... the share prices are getting "painted up" from having everyone and their dog trying to short this fucker. I wonder, can someone who knows more than I tell me how the stock market would react when the majority of the "stockholders" of a particular stock are all trying to short it?

      • lol... "predictably painted up" ... the share prices are getting "painted up" from having everyone and their dog trying to short this fucker. I wonder, can someone who knows more than I tell me how the stock market would react when the majority of the "stockholders" of a particular stock are all trying to short it?

        You haven't been able to short SCOX for years. There simply haven't been any shares available to borrow for the past three years or so, and the price is well bellow $5/share, so your explanat

        • it was a "lol theory" and I tried to make that clear; along with the fact that I'm not a stock market expert (or even a neophyte... I'm somewhere below that)

          That being said: Why haven't you been able to short SCOX for years? And I thought that if you were shorting the stock, you weren't actually trying to sell your stock, so if everyone who could tried to short the stock, the market shouldn't react as if they all were trying to sell. But shorting a stock is a bit arcane to me, so I don't think that absolut

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by GigsVT ( 208848 )
            You can't short a stock if you can't borrow some shares.

            Basically when you sell short, you are borrowing some shares from someone else, selling them right away, and promising to pay them back later on.

            If your broker can't find someone with a long position to "borrow" the shares from, they can't let you sell short.

  • Who profited from the 2004 spike? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @08:15AM (#16198107) Homepage
    All well and good, but the whole business certainly produced an impressive bulge in plenty of time for SCOX shareholders to line their pockets by selling stock that had been practically worthless the year before. [marketwatch.com]

    The legal soap opera is interesting, but the real question is whether anyone profited from that stock bulge... and if so who and how much... and whether anyone intends to go after them for securities fraud. If not, then the whole charade may have been immensely worthwhile for SCO's insiders. IBM wins a pyrrhic victory, SCO goes bankrupt, thanks to the concept of a corporation the officers have no personal liability, and if they owned SCO stock and managed to sell it in 2004 they could well be laughing all the way to the bank.
    • Bravo on your fancy word usage, but what about IBM's victory would be remotely Pyrrhic? They've got the reserves to fight 10 legal battles like this one at once for years straight without putting a strain on their finances.
  • This is turning into a bit of a "Summary Judgment throwing contest". I understand why IBM would request them (because SCO doesn't have anything), but then SCO threw some back at the counterclaims, as if to say "Yeah? Well, take that! And you smell!". It's like chimps throwing poo...
  • After three and a half years of case proceedings, summary judgement motions have been submitted in the highly controversial SCO v. IBM case.

    Controversial? I thought everyone agreed that SCO didn't have a case.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Svartalf ( 2997 )
      The controversy is one of "Why has it gone as long as it has?", rather than SCO having a case- because it doesn't have one.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bostik ( 92589 )

      Controversial? I thought everyone agreed that SCO didn't have a case.

      Exactly. I believe the only controversy has been whether this lawsuit should exist in the first place.

  • Reform (Score:3, Interesting)

    by w0lver ( 755034 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @08:39AM (#16198371) Homepage
    Until there are general limitations on IP and patent litigation, this type of lawsuit will continue. It's the legal equivalent to chicken, which company runs out of money or guts first. The case will remain in some fashion until there are no more avenues to attack. With out some changes in the system, or best case a "loser pays" system, we will see this case and many others like it in the system for years. My prediction is that this case will drag on long into 2008, wasting million of shareholders dollars on both sides for very little gain.

    • Re:Reform (Score:5, Funny)

      by kalpol ( 714519 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @08:53AM (#16198535)
      Chicken isn't really a good analogy unless maybe between a Geo Metro full of clowns painted in bumblebee stripes with an air horn, a fart-can muffler, and a bicycle bell on the steering wheel, against a Freightliner truck.

  • Let me link to an old Slashdot comment... (Score:3, Informative)

    by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @08:45AM (#16198437)
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=67838&cid=6216 434 [slashdot.org]

    Couldn't explain it any better.

  • Disovery is closed and time for IBM's SJ Smackdown. I'm betting they granted most, if not all their PSJ's. Time to stick a fork in this pathetic case.

    Let's not forget Microsoft's involvement in this swarmy tale. They got caught in bed with SCO, sort of like being caught with a hooker when the media shows up. I'm guessing no one at SCO is going to volunteer for federal ass-pounding prison if there's a way to drag some MSFT execs into the case with them. It'll be interesting to see if that's what IBM's

    • I'm guessing no one at SCO is going to volunteer for federal ass-pounding prison if there's a way to drag some MSFT execs into the case with them.

      I agree with your whole post 100%, but this is the tricky part.

      Let's say all goes as IBM has planned and SCO gets their collective asses handed to them in court. And the SEC goes after them for insider trading once the whole case is settled and made public.

      What next?

      Exactly how do you draw a line between MS and the greybar hotel? Yeah, MS did finance t

  • That you've just stepped off a space ship and are visiting and know nothing of our ways and culture. Read this thread. You'd be thinking you'd landed on some pretty crazy planet!
    • You'd be thinking you'd landed on some pretty crazy planet!

      Not having visited other planets, I can't really compare how ours compares in craziness to others, but I would venture a guess that this would be a pretty accurate depiction of our planet.

  • After three and a half years of case proceedings...

    If Microsoft funded SCO for any or all of the SCO v. IBM case, they got their money's worth.

  • Value of SCO (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @09:29AM (#16199001)
    Intresting things to note about SCO Currently:

    58 percent of the company is held by major owners and mutual funds.
    Ownership:
    DERBY, STEVEN About 10%
    LAMAR, STEVEN M About 10%
    BAYSTAR CAPITAL II LP about 8%
    Glenhill Advisors LLC 10.19%

    The firm is worth between 20 and 40 Million USD and has 14 million in cash
    but they go through 9 Million a Year.

    - mph

Slashdot Top Deals

//GO.SYSIN DD *, DOODAH, DOODAH

Close