SCO Versus Novell Going All the Way 121
Robert writes "Computer Business Review reports that ownership of the Unix System V code copyrights is set to be decided in court after a US District Judge rejected Novell Inc's second request that SCO
Group Inc's slander of title case be dismissed." From the article: "Novell's second motion to dismiss SCO's slander of title claim was prompted by an apparently positive response from Judge Dale Kimball to its first request to throw out the case, although he rejected it having concluded that the arguments about the agreements at the heart of the case would be more properly heard on potential later motions for summary judgment or trial."
The only real winners... (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter which side comes out on top, the lawyers still get paid. (Unless the accept payment only with a favorable verdict, but they might be company lawyers.)
Re:The only real winners... (Score:2)
In most systems i belive you can either be awarded costs or countersue for them but you still have to have the money to pay in the first place and if your opponent goes bankrupt then you may not get it payed back even if you win.
Re:The only real winners... (Score:1)
[foo, bar, bletch]
lawyers, the law, represent
programmers, computers, program
mechanics, cars, repair
doctors, medicine, practice
lawyers are professionals - one of the older professions. professionals work to get paid in most cases.
Re:The only real winners... (Score:2)
I guess the same could be said of medicine if someone decided to mug you in the street then they are basically forcing you to pay a doctor.
Re:The only real winners... (Score:1, Interesting)
Pure and simply, lawyers have destroyed the commonsense relation between justice and the citizenry, erected themselves as an indispensible middleman layer pushing bits of ruling that are every bit as obscure as chicken entrails, and turned "justice" into a paid-for benefit proportional to the size of your wallet.
In other words, they are not only a waste of space within the area of human endeavour, but positively inimical to it.
And you ask "Why the hostility"?
Re:The only real winners... (Score:1)
is the same as
USA : Israel : Palestine
Now, before you go modding this. Think about it.
MS helps SCO behind the tables. Everyone knows about it. MS doesn't confront Linux directly. Linux gets angry about MS backing up SCO. Finally, it makes Linux so angry that MS gets a big blow from Linux.
Now substitute.
Oh yeah, and the only real winners here are
Re:The only real winners... (Score:1)
In your analogy, who is the counterpart to Hamas?
Re:Novell wins (Score:4, Funny)
>
> From the mysterious future.
Nuh-uh.
"SCO Versus Novell - case to go the distance"
From the mysterious future.
"Novell wins", "SCO defeated in Novell Case", and "Novell victorious over SCO" can't even appear in the mysterious future until after the trial is over.
Islamic terrorists troll slashdot? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, isn't anything possible in a
Re:Novell wins (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Novell wins (Score:2)
I disagree.
It's irrelevant as to whether Novell owns the copyright - they believe they do (and proved that they have a good reason to belive so), and that's all that matters for the case at hand.
Novell didn't want to go the distance, they just wanted this to go away.
By denying their motion, Judge Kimball as put a distinct "screw you" to justice, and given the go-ahead to frivolous lawsuits everywhere.
We *KNOW* that SCO's suits are frivolous, and yet they are allowed to harr
Re:Novell wins (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Novell wins (Score:3, Insightful)
My understanding is that SCO is the reseller for Unix licenses but Novell was still holding the copyrights. SCO is just a salesman for Unix and Novell gets the bulk of any Unix sales while SCO gets what appears to be a commission. Since SCO is the only person selling the licenses they needed to
Re:Novell wins (Score:2)
Which is precisely why the case should have been dismissed.
Please re-read my post, you seem to misunderstand what I wrote.
Re:Novell wins (Score:2)
That doesn't make a lick of sense. You agree that there are some gray areas. That's what the court case is for, to clear those up. What you originally wrote was
"It's irrelevant as to whether Novell owns the copyright - they believe they do (and proved that they have a good reason to belive so), and that's all that matters for the case at hand."
It doesn't matter one bit if Novell believes they own the copyright or if they believe they ha
Re:Novell wins (Score:2)
But it is not a copyright lawsuit. It is a slander of title lawsuit.
For SCO to win, they must prove several things including that they own the copyrights and that Novell knew that SCO owned those copyrights when they made their statements that they owned them.
Thus, if Novell's belief that they own the copyrights is reasonable, then as far as this lawsuit goes, Novell should win regardless of whether or not they own the copyrights.
Re:Novell wins (Score:2)
I am curious whether or not SCO can/will use this as a reason to delay the IBM suit.
If the IBM suit depends at all on who does own the copyrights, what do you bet SCO will ask the court to delay until after their lawsuit against Novell is decided.
Re:Novell wins (Score:2)
"I am curious whether or not SCO can/will use this as a reason to delay the IBM suit."
I think the copyright issue may only have relavance in the IBM case in regards to SCO trying to revoke their license. I think SCO might have had a case against IBM if they stuck with project monterey. Not that they would win but that they would have some legitimate reasons for pursuing a case and I wouldn't put it past IBM t
Re:Novell wins (Score:2)
Novell has a very, very strong case. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. (Score:5, Insightful)
Those guys are way passed embarassing.
Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. (Score:1)
I just...stopped caring months ago. Everybody knows it'll end in nothing happening at all. The only people who walk away happy are the lawyers.
Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. (Score:2)
I hope not. I want to SCO be declared bankrupt.
Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. (Score:2)
Put that silly "who owns what" question to rest.
Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. (Score:1)
I think if you look a little deeper you will find that X/Open -> now The Open Group owns the UNIX specs and name and the other court cases will not impact them much. Now if you mean Unix, those are owned by the companies or groups that developed them. It looks like Novell sold most rights except copyrights of their version of Unix to oldSCO. I think SCO would
Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. (Score:2)
I think they were pretty much always morally bankrupt, so we're waiting for a judge to declare that to be so.
Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. (Score:2)
Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. (Score:1)
But, what they really care about is how much they can sell it to someone else. That (and to a lesser extent) dividends are all that matters.
There's a lot of companies out there that I think are overpriced. It doesn't matter as long as you sell them before the world wakes up (a lot of buyers of stock are sheep).
Summary judgement is still possible (Score:5, Insightful)
The motion for dismissal and the amendment were denied. However, Novell can still file for summary judgement.
There are (at least) two separate issues: (a) were the copyrights transferred to SCO; and (b) did Novell claim not with malice.
The most recent dismissal motion speaks only to (b).
It seems to me that (a) is a matter of law rather than fact, and might well be decided by summary judgement.
Re:Summary judgement is still possible (Score:1, Interesting)
TSCOG's first suit was dismissed (without prejudice) because Novell pointed out they did not claim any actual damage. TSCOG's second suit still did not claim any actual damage, only elaborated on their potential damages, but Novell totally ignored that in their motion. I d
Re:Summary judgement is still possible (Score:2)
Perhaps they *want* to go to trial? Perhaps they have some cast-iron evidence that TSCOG wouldn't have much of a chance to know about because Novell's UNIX business was sold to the company now known as Tarantella, who then sold it on to the company now known as The SCO Group. There is a large opportunity for discussions between Novel
Re:Summary judgement is still possible (Score:2)
BTW: I am not a lawyer.
Re:Summary judgement is still possible (Score:2)
Nope, it was Sun Microsystems.
Re:Summary judgement is still possible (Score:1, Redundant)
It should have hapened a long time ago (Score:3, Insightful)
- But they never had a good story that would hold up.
This makes me wonder.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This makes me wonder.. (Score:2, Funny)
Legel briefs.
well, at least they make sure they get made even if they outsource the work to another company.
Re:This makes me wonder.. (Score:2)
I'm wearing some right now.
Everyone tells me they are very stylish.
-- The Emperor
They have new releases (Score:5, Informative)
Optional KDE desktop for modern look and feel
OpenSSH and OpenSSL
Includes Mozilla 1.7
Includes MySQL database (Community version)
Includes Postgresql database
CUPS has been added as an alternative to System V LP
Gimp-print 4.2.5, foomatic 3.0.0-01, and ghostscript 7.05.6
Now if your a BSD or linux user you may be thinking "hmm, those look familiar" and you would be correct.
It seems that many of the new features in SCOs software offerings are actually open source software from those same people the SCO CEO says are dope smoking, thieving, pinko communists.
burnin
SCO *is* disputing the legitimacy of the GPL (Score:2)
Sorry to correct you, but scox certainly is disputing the legitimacy every single GPL project in existance.
Scox has declared the GPL, not only illegal and unenforcable, but actually unconstitutional.
These accusations by scox are in their court filings, and in a letter to the US congress.
But, that doesn't stop from distributed GPL projects, and bragging about it.
Re:This makes me wonder.. (Score:2)
Re:This makes me wonder.. (Score:1)
Re:I'm confused (Score:2, Informative)
Unix was created by AT&T (supposedly to run a space-war game).
Re:I'm confused (Score:2)
In summary (Score:5, Funny)
2.) Novell publicly claims SCO doesn't actually own the copyrights.
3.) SCO sues Novell for, erm... "slander of copyright"
4.) Novell files a motion to get the case dismissed. Judge denies but drops hints that it could work...
5.) Novell files another motion to dismiss.
6.) (You are here) The judge says quit trying for a dismissal, it all must to go to trial, presumably to resolve who actually owns the copywrites.
7.) circa 2009, trial begins.
8.) The sun expands and engulfs the Earth in plasma. Utah slagged into a molten puddle.
9.) UT&T, corporate descendent of AT&T, publicly claims Novell does not actually own the copyrights.
10.) An Ixian investment group buys majority shares of GBM, UT&T, Novell and enslaves the entire population inhabiting the artificial planets orbiting Betelgeuse, where the descendents of Darl McBride are rumored to have migrated after Earth was no longer tolerable.
11.) Zarthon declares war on Ix, pointing out that Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, and Douglas McIlroy were all genetic plants sent to humanity to promulgate rational computation throughout the universe.
12.) Heat Death overcomes the universe as the Zath-Ix war consumes all Baryonic matter 18.3E21 Earth years early.
Re:In summary (Score:2)
Perhaps this is a job for Greasemonkey [mozdev.org].
Re:In summary (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In summary (Score:1)
(Hmmm... maybe there's some way to tap this as a perpetual energy source. Can you convert trial motions to kinetic motion?)
Re:In summary (Score:2)
No...trial motions are basically black holes. Time eventually goes to a standstill for anything entering its event horizon.
Re:In summary (Score:1)
Re:In summary (Score:2)
Re:In summary (Score:1)
13) ???
14) Profit!!
Offtopic: Can someone.... (Score:3, Funny)
How in the hell can he go after BSD?
Re:Offtopic: Can someone.... (Score:1)
Isn't Caldera a medicine for skin rashes? (Score:5, Interesting)
This suit is a joke, and I hope that Caldera gets theirs in the end.
I also will firmly place my tinfoil hat on and assume that M$ has something to do with this...
Re:Isn't Caldera a medicine for skin rashes? (Score:2)
And when they do, I hope it's sharp and pointy.
No, A Caldera is a .. (Score:2)
What Would Happen (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What Would Happen (Score:1)
With regards to the whole "Linux ate our baby" thing, it's not going to change a whole lot.
Re:What Would Happen (Score:1)
Re:another stupid lawsuit (Score:2)
Go Figure.
--
BMO
Re:What Would Happen (Score:2)
Novell would say, "no, they're not," since they weren't necessary for the prior decade, and they'd be right.
SCO sues Novell for breach of contract, and the fun starts over again.
Re:What Would Happen (Score:2)
Novell's Very Foolish.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hundreds of thousands of dollars just evaporating in court and lawyer costs every month this thing goes on. Is Novell so well-off this won't affect their bottom line every quarter?
If there's any SCO left when they get to the end, they declare bankruptcy. Then what does Novell have? Satisfaction in being right? I wish I could feed my family by just being right.
Or maybe the IP issues are better clarified. Well, Novell can't use that to their exclusive benefit. So where's the money?
What does Microsoft get? One less competitor.
Re:Novell's Very Foolish.... (Score:2)
They haven't got much choice. SCO is suing them for slander of title, so Novell either continue, or admit liability and pay up punative damages for the "slander".
Re:Novell's Very Foolish.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Once Novell has clear title, though, speculation is that they can then claim their legal expenses as special damages and sue SCO for the exact same thing that SCO is attempting to sue Novell for.
U've got it backwards: scox is suing novell (Score:2)
SCO v. IBM ruling today: trial set for Feb 2007 (Score:4, Informative)
Judge Kimball followed up that Monday SCO v. Novell ruling with a SCO v. IBM ruling today. Here are text [scofacts.org] and pdf [scofacts.org] versions.
He granted SCO a four-hour deposition of Sam Palmisano, IBM's CEO and former VP of all things Linux. He denied SCO's motion to belatedly amend its complaint to include a claim for Project Monterey-related copyright infringement.
The order includes a new schedule. The old one had been tossed out in January [scofacts.org].
The new schedule roughly matches IBM's proposal [scofacts.org] (as amended at the hearing; see pages 90-91 of the transcript [scofacts.org] where IBM says to add two months to everything in the proposal), but with another two months added for most pre-trial dates, pushing the end of discovery to July 10, 2006. He added another couple months for deciding dispositive motions before the trial, making for a trial date of February 26, 2007. He included the interim deadlines IBM wanted for parties to "Identify with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material", setting December 22, 2005 as the final date for all source code at issue to be identified by version, file, and line of code.
Per Kimball's order [scofacts.org] back in February there will be no summary judgment motions before the end of discovery, and the new schedule calls for the last brief on post-discovery summary judgment motions not to be due until September 26, 2006, so I think November 2006 is the earliest we could see a summary judgment motion heard and decided.
So the Judge is using IBM's project plan. (Score:2)
I belive SCO has acted like Cuba during the cold war (all the really stupid stuff is done by proxy). The real struggle is MS vs IBM. MS want time to catch up with *nix like tools built in to the CLI and IBM wan't to push Linux becaus
Re:SCO v. IBM ruling today: trial set for Feb 2007 (Score:3, Insightful)
Question (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:2)
It is possible, but I think the judge could find in favour of Novell without making any statement about the copyright.
> 2. If so, what happens to SCO's other lawsuits?
They sue Tarantella for everything they've got.
Current events, calendar (Score:2, Informative)
Quick update: IBM wins [groklaw.net] most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.
Current events:
SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and
Re:Don't sweat it. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/3110981 [atnewyork.com] SCO also said they were coming after BSD.
Re:Don't sweat it. (Score:2)
Re:Don't sweat it. (Score:2)
Nice troll.
I have a mac, it runs OSX Tiger. Nice little desktop, but "a better unix?" I don't think so. Let's just say I prefer suse 9.3 on the desktop, and in the server room, there is absolutely no comparison.
There is certainly a place for OSX, but trolls like the parent do nothing to help the mac cause.
Re:Don't sweat it. (Score:2)
Now with the inclusion of mach and other features into OSX I'm not sure how valid the above is, but I'm guessing the arguement could be made. Really though it I guess is doesn't matter since Linux isn't a unix so it cannot be the better unix. As I said with the screwing with BSD tha
Re:Don't sweat it. (Score:2)
There is the "legal" definition of unix aka "UNIX(TM)" and then there is tech definition of unix, aka "genetic" unix, i.e. the set of OSes which are clearly part of the unix family tree.
Neither Linux nor BSD are legally "UNIX(TM)", but both are clearly "unix"; Solaris and HP-UX are bo
Re:Don't sweat it. (Score:2)
If you are looking for sh and Apache and MS Office, Mac's the way to go. If you really want a Unix, probably look for a vendor that considers Unix their #1 priority.
Re:Don't sweat it. (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a long time Mac developer. I have written or contributed to many commercial software applications for older versions of Mac OS and also for MacOS X. I have some experience with Unix (and getting more all the time with OS X). I am not, nor have ever been a system admin. I don't think I really "grok" the kinds of issues that system admins have to deal with.
So, my question is this: what specifically is better about sus
Why would I want to drop open source (Score:1)
Just feeding a troll, but... (Score:4, Informative)
McBride said during a press briefing at the inaugural Enterprise IT Week at cdXpo Conference here. "We have enough sorted out, but we are so focused on the [IBM litigation]. With our limited energies and what our guys are going through, we probably won't file any suits against BSD until sometime in the first half of next year."
http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/3110981 [atnewyork.com]
So your precious Mac and BSD aren't safe from these clowns either. But then you likely don't really care since your just a cowardly troll.
burnin
Re:Just feeding a troll, but... (Score:2)
Re:Just feeding a troll, but... (Score:1)
Haha good luck Darl, the BSD code has been reviewed in the AT&T case and the code split was under the supervision of a court when AT&T and Berkeley split the code. If he really found something in the BSD codebase, then it definitely was only code which was sanctioned by the court to be public domain.
Perhaps Darl was referring to something that had been added to the BSD operating systems after the split between USG and BSD.