• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

SCO, you no have code? DO NOT PROCEDE PAST GO

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_hi_te/linux_lawsuit_2


SCO dealt setback in IBM Linux lawsuit

By PAUL FOY, Associated Press WriterFri Jun 30, 5:12 PM ET

A U.S. magistrate has struck down many of the SCO Group Inc.'s claims against IBM Corp., saying the Utah company failed to show its intellectual property was misappropriated when Big Blue donated software code to the freely distributed Linux operating system.

Magistrate Brooke Wells dismissed 182 of SCO's 294 claims, dealing a major setback to SCO's $5 billion lawsuit.

The suit, filed in 2003, accused IBM of donating SCO's Unix code to Linux developers, but Wells ruled SCO had produced virtually no proof of the allegation.

She said SCO had "willfully failed to comply" with court orders to show IBM which of millions of lines of code in Linux were supposedly misappropriated. SCO argued that was IBM's job.

Wells likened SCO's stance to a security guard who accuses a shopper of stealing merchandise ? and demands the shopper show proof of the theft.

"It would be absurd for an officer to tell the accused that 'you know what you stole; I'm not telling,'" Wells wrote in a 39-page decision signed Wednesday.

The magistrate said that if there was any merit to SCO's claims, they were likely to produce only nominal damages instead of billions of dollars.

"It is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put 'all evidence ... on the table,'" she wrote.

Wells dismissed SCO's arguments that only IBM engineers could verify that IBM gave away proprietary software code to Linux, a work of thousands of developers around the world.

"SCO's arguments are akin to SCO telling IBM, 'Sorry, we are not going to tell you what you did wrong because you already know,'" the magistrate wrote.

SCO acknowledged Friday that the ruling was a setback, but spokesman Blake Stowell said the company would continue to press its case. He said the magistrate dismissed general claims but kept several major ones that assert lines of Unix code were dumped into Linux.

The ruling capped a month of bad news for SCO. The company reported $4.69 million in losses for its most recent quarter, including nearly $3.8 million in new litigation expenses.

Any appeal would go to U.S. District Judge David Kimball, who has already upheld an evidence-related ruling by Wells that SCO had appealed.

IBM spokesman John Charlson said the company doesn't comment on litigation, but that Wells' ruling "says it all."

SCO doesn't have enough evidence "to shake a stick at," said Pamela Jones, creator and editor of Groklaw.net, a Web site devoted to open-source software legal issues.

"Linux is booming, and everyone knows now that the code has been examined every which way, and it's clean as code can be," she said.

how do you justify $3.8 million dollars in litigation-related expenses to your investors? 😛
 
SCO has been screwed since this lawsuit crap started. They know they are worthless so they just went into the litigation game, but they suck at that too.

Yea it's IBM's responsibility to present to the court the code in question. SCO needs to hire better lawyers, and cheaper ones.
 
Originally posted by: SampSon
SCO has been screwed since this lawsuit crap started. They know they are worthless so they just went into the litigation game, but they suck at that too.

Yea it's IBM's responsibility to present to the court the code in question. SCO needs to hire better lawyers, and cheaper ones.

you know the IBM execs and the SCO lawyers are on a boat somewhere in the Riverera laughing their fvkign asses off at the SCO investors:laugh:
 
Originally posted by: SampSon
Yea it's IBM's responsibility to present to the court the code in question. SCO needs to hire better lawyers, and cheaper ones.

Granted, I've been celebrating the 4th of July a bit early, so my sarcasm meter is non-existant at the moment... but please tell me you're joking.

SCO knew from the beginning they didn't have anything to stand on at all, and they were hoping for IBM to settle. 10% of what they were asking for would still have been a very profitable venture for them.

They tried to bluff with their "we know you know what we're talking about so pay up before we bankrupt your company" play, and IBM told them to piss off. Good for IBM for now falling for the ignorant mentality that's prevalent these days to pay off lawsuits 'just in case' so they can't go for the 8000% damages that so many of them claim.
 
Wow, three years to get to this point. The only winners will be the lawyers. What else is new?
 
Originally posted by: cruzer
Wow, three years to get to this point. The only winners will be the lawyers. What else is new?
And Microsoft. They funded SCO both directly and indirectly to support this case as anti-linux FUD.

If DOJ wasn't doing a good job, Brownie, they should penalize MS for participating in this smear tactic.
 
Originally posted by: cruzer
Wow, three years to get to this point. The only winners will be the lawyers. What else is new?

True about the lawyers, but also for Linux OS to come out of this free and clear, its a gigantic with for its future development.
 
Back
Top