SCO judgement - "Like rogues take warning!"
Plastic PPRuNer
Thread Starter
SCO judgement - "Like rogues take warning!"
So SCO has finally lost its seven-year bluff/con-scheme to tax Unix/Linux users.
Having lost in a trial as a matter of law and then won an appeal for a jury trial they eventually lost that too. Now, in the final judgment they lose bigtime. Well, it took long enough and shows just how far you can get by gaming the system.
See Groklaw - Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED!
While PJ has occasionally annoyed me by some of her attitudes, congratulations to her for her obsessively detailed blog covering the whole rotten affair and her stick-at-it-ness to the end.
Red dress time at last.
Mac
Having lost in a trial as a matter of law and then won an appeal for a jury trial they eventually lost that too. Now, in the final judgment they lose bigtime. Well, it took long enough and shows just how far you can get by gaming the system.
See Groklaw - Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED!
While PJ has occasionally annoyed me by some of her attitudes, congratulations to her for her obsessively detailed blog covering the whole rotten affair and her stick-at-it-ness to the end.
Red dress time at last.
Mac
Plastic PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Here's the Final Judgment wording:
This matter came before the Court for trial on March 8, 2010, through March 26, 2010. Based on the Jury Verdict and the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Final Judgment is entered as follows:
1. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on SCO’s claim for slander of title pursuant to the Jury Verdict.
2. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on SCO’s claim for specific performance pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
3. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on Novell’s claim for declaratory relief pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Specifically, the Court declares:
SO ORDERED.
DATED June 10, 2010.
BY THE COURT:
______[signature]__________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
2. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on SCO’s claim for specific performance pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
3. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on Novell’s claim for declaratory relief pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Specifically, the Court declares:
a. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, Novell is entitled, at its sole discretion, to direct SCO to waive its purported claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees; b. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, Novell is entitled to waive on SCO’s behalf SCO’s purported claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees, when SCO refuses to act as directed by Novell; and
c. SCO is obligated to recognize Novell’s waiver of SCO’s purported claims against IBM and Sequent.
4. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on SCO’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith. c. SCO is obligated to recognize Novell’s waiver of SCO’s purported claims against IBM and Sequent.
SO ORDERED.
DATED June 10, 2010.
BY THE COURT:
______[signature]__________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
They started their self imolation as a company with finances in relatively good standing, sued their own customers and others based on falsehoods they propagated to support their con, discovered that the truth will eventually come out in spite of their best efforts and - while still solvent - filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy on the eve of court to delay the inevitable. During Ch. 11 their funds and, most importantly, funds that belonged to others were squandered through deliberate delay after delay. I expect next will be Ch 7 to wind up the company's affairs for cents on the dollar.
Best thing that could happen now is for both the IBM case & Swiss arbitration to proceed to well and truly nail their hide and prevent future sleazes following suit, followed by going after SCO's management & legal entities for implementing such dishonest acts.
Best thing that could happen now is for both the IBM case & Swiss arbitration to proceed to well and truly nail their hide and prevent future sleazes following suit, followed by going after SCO's management & legal entities for implementing such dishonest acts.
Plastic PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Novell did the original deal with the Santa Cruz Operation, who were eventually bought out by Caldera. Caldera then changed its name to SCO (a name deliberately chosen to resemble that of the Santa Cruz Operation) as Darl McBride, SCO's MD had (or was slipped) an idea...
Darl was warned beforehand that the status of the Unix copyrights generally (as well as in particular) was dubious.
An independent expert he appointed to look into the question of Unix code in Linux concluded that there wasn't any (and was ignored).
SCO may have thought that IBM would buy them out (or at least pay them to go away) - a strange misjudgment, knowing IBM's history.
SCO may have though that Linux companies would nervously react to the threats and buy a SCOsource indemnity (as EVI and almost no-one else did).
Microsoft certainly pointed Baystar in SCO's direction (to the tune of $50M) and various monies of uncertain provenance washed SCO's way.
SCO were greedy alright but perhaps they were the patsy all along?
No-one with any knowledge of the copyrights and contracts thought they could possibly win in the end, but the litigation dragged on for seven long years (thanks to some admirable shyster lawyering by Boies Schiller), costing Novell, IBM, AutoZone and Red Hat a mort of money. And of course, casting a persistent shadow of doubt on the legality of Linux, so reducing its uptake by businesses.
SCO lost in the end, as we all knew they would, but someone (no names, no pack-drill) in fact did very nicely out of this mess (and no, I'm not talking about the lawyers).
So for the deep pockets behind it all, it was well worth it at twice the price....
Mac
Darl was warned beforehand that the status of the Unix copyrights generally (as well as in particular) was dubious.
An independent expert he appointed to look into the question of Unix code in Linux concluded that there wasn't any (and was ignored).
SCO may have thought that IBM would buy them out (or at least pay them to go away) - a strange misjudgment, knowing IBM's history.
SCO may have though that Linux companies would nervously react to the threats and buy a SCOsource indemnity (as EVI and almost no-one else did).
Microsoft certainly pointed Baystar in SCO's direction (to the tune of $50M) and various monies of uncertain provenance washed SCO's way.
SCO were greedy alright but perhaps they were the patsy all along?
No-one with any knowledge of the copyrights and contracts thought they could possibly win in the end, but the litigation dragged on for seven long years (thanks to some admirable shyster lawyering by Boies Schiller), costing Novell, IBM, AutoZone and Red Hat a mort of money. And of course, casting a persistent shadow of doubt on the legality of Linux, so reducing its uptake by businesses.
SCO lost in the end, as we all knew they would, but someone (no names, no pack-drill) in fact did very nicely out of this mess (and no, I'm not talking about the lawyers).
So for the deep pockets behind it all, it was well worth it at twice the price....
Mac
