The SCOundrels lose!
Plastic PPRuNer
Thread Starter
The SCOundrels lose!
SCO (ex-Caldera), who have been trying to extort fees from Linux users for allegedly using Unix code (that they allegedly owned) in Linux have lost again.
After one judicial determination which found that they didn't own the UNIX copyrights (such as they are) they appealed and won a jury trial.
The jury trial has now determined that they indeed do not own the copyrights in question (Novell does and always did) and the whole miserable scam collapses.
Incidentally, SCO never managed to show any UNIX code in Linux despite their initial allegations of "millions of lines of code"
Congratulations to Groklaw -
Groklaw - Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs - for tracking and exposing this nasty little MS-backed litigation lottery from Day 1.
Despite having taken refuge in Chap 11 bankruptcy SCO will now have to face the full wrath of IBM in a related trial....
Like rogues take warning....
Mac
After one judicial determination which found that they didn't own the UNIX copyrights (such as they are) they appealed and won a jury trial.
The jury trial has now determined that they indeed do not own the copyrights in question (Novell does and always did) and the whole miserable scam collapses.
Incidentally, SCO never managed to show any UNIX code in Linux despite their initial allegations of "millions of lines of code"
Congratulations to Groklaw -
Groklaw - Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs - for tracking and exposing this nasty little MS-backed litigation lottery from Day 1.
Despite having taken refuge in Chap 11 bankruptcy SCO will now have to face the full wrath of IBM in a related trial....
Like rogues take warning....
Mac
Hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian title
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: is everything
Posts: 1,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shame the alleged instigator of all this isn't there to take his/her/its alleged bumps.
Update 5: good grief.
Update 5: good grief.
Last edited by Bushfiva; 31st Mar 2010 at 10:48.
I smiled when they won the summary judgement from Judge Kimball, frowned* a tiny bit when it was remanded back to court for a jury trial to decide fact, and smiled a lot when the jury decided the same as Kimball.
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in the SCO camp's post-result discussions. Serves them right after seven years of one trumped up claim after another. Now for the SCO vs IBM case, SCO vs Novell Swiss arbitration, SCO vs Red Hat and finally, SCO Ch11 bankruptcy conversion to Ch7 (just a prediction, the Ch7 thing).
I find it strange that a company can enter Ch11 protection with enough money to pay all its creditors and then after several years of protection have insufficient funds to pay much of anything to anyone - even protected funds that belong to someone else. I sometimes toy with the idea of buying a single share in SCO when the the price falls to 1c / share. Just so I can have a certificate where the paper is worth more than what it represents.
*Only a tiny frown. The appellate court's decision stated that because the lower court's decision hinged around a question of fact, and not a question of law, summary judgment wasn't appropriate. Then they said that Novel's case had a lot going for it. Ooh! Wait! That wouldn't be a clue for SCO, would it?
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in the SCO camp's post-result discussions. Serves them right after seven years of one trumped up claim after another. Now for the SCO vs IBM case, SCO vs Novell Swiss arbitration, SCO vs Red Hat and finally, SCO Ch11 bankruptcy conversion to Ch7 (just a prediction, the Ch7 thing).
I find it strange that a company can enter Ch11 protection with enough money to pay all its creditors and then after several years of protection have insufficient funds to pay much of anything to anyone - even protected funds that belong to someone else. I sometimes toy with the idea of buying a single share in SCO when the the price falls to 1c / share. Just so I can have a certificate where the paper is worth more than what it represents.
*Only a tiny frown. The appellate court's decision stated that because the lower court's decision hinged around a question of fact, and not a question of law, summary judgment wasn't appropriate. Then they said that Novel's case had a lot going for it. Ooh! Wait! That wouldn't be a clue for SCO, would it?
