Linux wins the SCO vs Novell

[ibuclaw]

Blog Post with the Final Judgement wording:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100610161411160

News Report here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/11/sco_novell/

For those who don't know the full story, behind this, see:
http://www.linux.org/news/sco/index.html

[Phrea]

Finally.

[K.Mandla]

Well done, sirs.

[Bachstelze]

"Linux wins" is a bit misleading. ;) The battle was between SCO and Novell, it did not involve "Linux" (whatever that would mean in such a case).

Great news, though.

[sydbat]

Yay!!

[samalex]

"Linux wins" is a bit misleading. ;) The battle was between SCO and Novell, it did not involve "Linux" (whatever that would mean in such a case).

Great news, though.

Linux wins by proxy though because SCO was saying it owned Unix, and since Novell contributed some of that code to the Linux project SCO was saying they then owned Linux -- or at least wanted to make some cash off Linux users since they claimed Linux used SCO's IP.

So I see it as a huge win for Linux. I don't know how many companies I've heard say they won't use Linux due to this lawsuit. Plus Windows vendors have used it as a deterrent/FUD to sway people way from Linux and to Windows.

Sam

[nerdopolis]

I'm kind of surprised that this has not been mentioned yet, but it seems SCO has taken another hit:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100610161411160

I don't know if this is the final blow to SCO, as that has been said before, and they still managed to rise from the dead... Feel free to discuss.

BTW: their stocks are at .02 now:lolflag:, which is the lowest I've ever seen them...

[Merk42]

I'm kind of surprised that this has not been mentioned yet, but it seems SCO has taken another hit:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100610161411160

I don't know if this is the final blow to SCO, as that has been said before, and they still managed to rise from the dead... Feel free to discuss.

BTW: their stocks are at .02 now:lolflag:, which is the lowest I've ever seen them...

It was mentioned, in a far more appropriate subforum (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1507196&highlight=SCO)

[nerdopolis]

sorry... I realized I posted this in the wrong fourm! Can someone move this to the cafe for me? Thanks.

[wilee-nilee]

sorry... I realized I posted this in the wrong fourm! Can someone move this to the cafe for me? Thanks.

I have already asked.;)

[lisati]

Moved.

[nerdopolis]

Thank you!

[Brunellus]

Well, now we've got a final judgment on the merits--we should be able to put this to bed.

That is, unless SCO wants to appeal the trial judge's denial of their motion to set aside the jury verdict--then this whole sordid affair will move to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals...

[Legendary_Bibo]

Well, now we've got a final judgment on the merits--we should be able to put this to bed.

That is, unless SCO wants to appeal the trial judge's denial of their motion to set aside the jury verdict--then this whole sordid affair will move to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals...

Lawyer talk confuses small brain :P

[Legendary_Bibo]

Wait so what does this mean? I'm still kind of new to the free software and whatever community thing.

[phrostbyte]

Why do we STILL keeping hearing about SCO?

[Brunellus]

essentially, the case went to trial, and a question was put to the jury: Do you find that SCO owned the copyrights involved in this lawsuit? and the jury said--"No, we don't."

SCO then filed a motion asking the judge to set aside that verdict, on the grounds that NO reasonable jury could have POSSIBLY made that finding based upon the facts in evidence. They also asked the judge to EITHER take the case out of the jury's hands and declare SCO the winners, OR to order a new trial with a new jury.

All of SCO's requests were denied. It's awfully tough to set aside a jury verdict on the grounds SCO advanced, because SCO would have had to show that there were pretty much NO facts in evidence that would have caused a reasonable jury to return the verdict it did (and, by implication, there were some jury shenanigans going on, like bias).

But SCO can still appeal the judge's refusal to set aside the verdict. I'm not sure whether they will--I've not followed the case closely enough to be able to say whether they can file an appeal with a straight face, since, generally, to get an appeal you have to claim that the JUDGE got the LAW wrong, somehow. . .

[Sealbhach]

Wait so what does this mean? I'm still kind of new to the free software and whatever community thing.

Microsoft funded SCO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies#Microsoft_funding_of_SCO_contr oversy) in their phoney legal battle to claim that parts of the Linux code base infringed their copyright. It was a way to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about Linux.

.

[K.Mandla]

By the power of Greyskull ... similar threads merged.

[mickie.kext]

I hope they are finally dead this time, but something tells me that they will just receive another round of funding from Microsoft and continue with frivolous suits and FUDing.

PS: In fact, they already got 2 million recently from some unknown entity:
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/novl_scoxq_sco-secures-funding-to-preserve-company-during-bankruptcy-846744.html

It is hard to understand what kind of business motive would someone have to invest in SCO which has no revenue and only burns money like a black hole. Off course unless that someone don't really want to make money by investing in SCO, but rather have vested interest in spreading FUD cloud around FLOSS and sees SCO as a perfect proxy.

[sdowney717]

It is hard to understand what kind of business motive would someone have to invest in SCO
the minds of parasites and gamblers.
MS funding is such a tiny tiny tiny amount of cash for them. It is worth it to them to keep up the Linux attack in every possible way.

MS wants to control it all.

Microsoft funding of SCO controversy

On March 4, 2004, a leaked SCO internal e-mail detailed how Microsoft had raised up to $106 million via the BayStar referral and other means.[57] Blake Stowell of SCO confirmed the memo was real.[58] BayStar claimed the deal was suggested by Microsoft, but that no money for it came directly from them.[59] In addition to the Baystar involvement, Microsoft paid SCO $6M (USD) in May 2003 for a license to "Unix and Unix-related patents", despite the lack of Unix-related patents owned by SCO.[60] This deal was widely seen in the press as a boost to SCO's finances which would help SCO with its lawsuit against IBM.[61][62]
[edit]

[cprofitt]

I wonder how much money Apple secretly contributed to the lawsuit... now that they are bigger than Microsoft.

:p

[MCVenom]

I wonder how much money Apple secretly contributed to the lawsuit... now that they are bigger than Microsoft.

:p
An interesting question indeed :P

[nerdopolis]

/dev/null !!!! The cockroach is still twitching!

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100707202429776

[Dr. C]

This will not end until SCO is liquidated under Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

[Old Marcus]

I thought they already tried that, but were rescued?

[McRat]

It appears they only have 9 days:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070723125447AAniMmo

[nerdopolis]

Now it seems they only have 9 days! If SCO doesn't delay it again, they are going to have a bankruptcy hearing at 10:30AM of August 16 2010.


Countdown is here ( I hope I have the time zone right):
http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?month=8&day=16&year=2010&hour=10&min=30&sec=00&p0=1029

Then again, they'll probably find some way to make their blasted existence as a company on this globe last longer though, even though they are down to almost nothing.

PS. It seems SCO even lost their web dude that used to keep the legal section of the website up to date! :lolflag:

[witeshark17]

Some crap just takes for ever to whither away... They just need a push :arrow:

[fatality_uk]

I sure hope SCO wins. I have 4 servers that need updating from SCO OpenUnix 5 to a newer version of the OS. If only there was a unix like operati.... DOH!

[Dustin2128]

happens every couple of months/years, some company tries to test GPL in court. Without exception, GPL wins.