SCO gets a decision.

[Chronon]

I think it's safe to say that most people thought they had heard the last of SCO vs. ___ after the 2007 decisions. However, it seems they aren't done yet. I found this article (http://www.linux.com/news/biz-os/legal/42614-sco-group-gets-key-ruling-in-appeals-court-against-novell-as-legal-fight-continues) mentioning a decision last week to overturn four decisions made in 2007 in the case against Novell. Apparently, the $2.55 million judgment stands for now but it seems that SCO is still around and threatening. What do these decisions mean for Linux?

[eragon100]

I think it's safe to say that most people thought they had heard the last of SCO vs. ___ after the 2007 decisions. However, it seems they aren't done yet. I found this article (http://www.linux.com/news/biz-os/legal/42614-sco-group-gets-key-ruling-in-appeals-court-against-novell-as-legal-fight-continues) mentioning a decision last week to overturn four decisions made in 2007 in the case against Novell. Apparently, the $2.55 million judgment stands for now but it seems that SCO is still around and threatening. What do these decisions mean for Linux?

More comedy :lolflag:

[Chronon]

So, sit back and grab some popcorn?

:popcorn:

[aesis05401]

Then:
SCO was never a threat to Linux because they have never been able to provide documentation that matches the American legal definition of admissible substantiating documentation for their accusations.

The threat was and continues to be in the public perception that is left behind from the fact that the courts continue to find justification for allowing the case to continue without anything resembling evidence. It is difficult to convince a potential client that there is no infringement issue with Linux when the American courts have found grounds to allow the case to continue for years without SCO actually putting forth any significant qualifying evidence.

Furthermore, given the fact that SCO has had access only to proxy investment money for the last several years but has magically not run into any real money troubles suggests that even if their company is dissolved we will be hearing more from whatever large American IT company may be funding them.

Now:
Evidence is becoming less of a requirement in IP cases as the influence of the Eastern District of Texas increases.

For all we know we could wake up tomorrow and find that THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._John_Ward) proud defender of American IP rights is going to be hearing a Linux infringement case. I don't have the references bookmarked anymore because I can barely stand to admit that my country allows judges like this to sit upon the bench. While he may have changed or softened his tune a bit by now, the last time I checked this judge had no problem stating that patent trolls are mostly a myth made up by thieves who want to steal other people's IP.

Additionally, he does not allow due process for pre-trial processes for trivial things like EVIDENCE DISCOVERY!!! He believes that allowing more than a day or possibly two at most for examining evidence to be brought in the case is some sort of nefarious tactic on the part of the defendants of patent infringement allegations. He actively sanctions defense lawyers who cannot respond to complex motions within arbitrary time-frames - effectively discrediting the defense lawyers in front of the jury time and again during a trial because they aren't meeting deadlines that he makes up on the spot.

As his influence grows, the Eastern District of Texas is growing and is now considered the premier American court system to get a rubber stamp win on your patent infringement suit.

[Chronon]

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment with
regards to the royalties due Novell under the 2003 Sun-SCO Agreement, but
REVERSE the district court’s entry of summary judgment on (1) the ownership
of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights; (2) SCO’s claim seeking specific
performance; (3) the scope of Novell’s rights under Section 4.16 of the APA; (4)
the application of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing to Novell’s rights
under Section 4.16 of the APA. On these issues, we REMAND for trial.

It seems they reversed summary judgments and call for a retrial of these issues.


Summary judgment is a legal term which means that a court has made a determination (a judgment) without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued as to the merits of an entire case, or of specific issues in that case.

So, it seems that they only have called for a full trial to determine the outcomes of these issues. SCO merely won a right to a trial regarding these points.

[Viva]

They're never going to get anything from the case. It is pure FUD backed by microsoft. Thankfully, Microsoft's intervention was outed before they pumped the 80 odd million into SCO, but I'm sure they'll find another way. Spreading FUD to make sure businesses don't mass adopt linux. Microsoft have gone down in my estimation even lower after this and the Kenneth Brown/Samizdat fiasco.

[Chronon]

After looking at the document I quoted I'm inclined to agree. While this appeal succeeded to the extent that the judge[s] agreed that enough ambiguity exists that a summary judgment is not warranted, this is rather different from actually having the evidence to find in favor of SCO on any of these points.

[handy]

Novel should just buy SCO.

[MikeTheC]

If I was insanely wealthy, here's what I would do:

1. Buy SCO and drive it into the ground.

2. Hire on retainer as many core Linux developers as I could.

3. Establish software patents on the following items:
...1. DRM
...2. Authentication & Activation
...3. Any available area of data encryption
...4. Any available area of data encoding
...5. Any available area of data transcoding and/or transcription
...6. Any available area of user interaction, including GUI- and CLI-based interfaces
...7. Any available area of data transmission
...8. Any available area of data storage (up to but not including "physical" components)
...9. Any available area of the composition, arrangement and display of data

4. I would license the patents dollar for dollar based on the per-unit sale price of software

5. Simultaneously engage lobbyists in the U.S. Congress and in houses of government throughout the world to roll back and standardize copyright length to life of author plus 50 years.

Hopefully this would help to undo the damage of the past 20 years or so.