decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Media Reactions to Judge Wells' Order - Updated
Friday, June 30 2006 @ 04:42 PM EDT

I slept and slept and slept. And now, hopping back on my horsie, here are the media reactions to the news that the court just stuffed a sock in SCO's mouth. Mostly they quote at length from the very quotable judge's order.

For example, Andrew Orlowski in The Register, "Judge guts SCO claims -- Put up or shut up":

Wells found a vivid analogy for IBM's position of having to guess why it was guilty. "Certainly if an individual was stopped and accused of shoplifting after walking out of Neiman Marcus they would expect to be eventually told what they allegedly stole. It would be absurd for an officer to tell the accused that 'you know what you stole I'm not telling'. Or, to simply hand the accused individual a catalog of Neiman Marcus' entire inventory and say 'it's in there somewhere, you figure it out'," wrote Wells.

My favorite reaction, a comment on Slashdot by corby in part, improving on Judge Brooke Wells' analogy:

Actually, it's as if you walked out of Neiman Marcus, a security guard accused you of shoplifting, and then refused to tell you what you shoplifted. Then, the guard pulls over his buddy, respected Yankee Group Laura Didio. She looks in your bag, then looks at the Neiman Marcus catalog, and announces on national media that you have stolen something from Neiman Marcus but she won't say what it is [].

Three years later, during trial, the guard is still unable to explain what you stole from the store.

Ah, yes. The lovely and tireless Ms. DiDio. I bet you'd like to know what she and Mr. Enderle and the SCO gang have to say now? Here you go.

First, Bob Mims in the Salt Lake Tribune, in his article, "Judge voids most SCO claims":

SCO spokesman Blake Stowell acknowledged the ruling was a setback. "If two-thirds of your case is stricken, then it is a pretty serious matter. Our lawyers will determine how we proceed from here," he said.

However, Stowell argued that the remaining third of nearly 300 claims made by SCO still left the "foundation for a strong case." Ironically, specifics of many of those allegations are under seal to protect proprietary data.

Rob Enderle, Enderle Group chief analyst, said Wells' ruling was a solid defeat for SCO's use of a "quantity over quality approach to litigation strategy . . . . [Now] it will be vastly more difficult for them to get funding going forward as a result of the perceptions [stemming from] this decision. "And they are burning through their cash reserves very quickly," he added."

Hilarious, no? The problem is quantity over quality? I think not.

Mr. Enderle is singing a new song, i see. Remember his keynote address at SCOForum 2004, on why he supported SCO, "Free Software and the Idiots who Buy It"? It's still up on SCO's website. That wasn't the original title listed on the SCOForum program. On the program, it was called, "Free Software and the Fools Who Use It," but either way, I believe we catch his drift. "Why, as I recall, he told the world that he called up SCO and they did have evidence. They just won't tell the court what it is. Or how about this article, " Linux Community vs. SCO Battle, SCO Should Win. Cluestick: they didn't. It's a tad hard to win in court, unless you present evidence.

Mims asked me for a reaction too, of course, and here's what I said, in part: "There has never been an operating system picked over with such care and determination to find fault. And Linux has come through utterly clean as a whistle."

Next, both Slashdot articles: Slashdot #1 - IBM Motion to Limit SCO Claims Granted and Slashdot #2, "Judge Calls SCO on Lack of Evidence". The second one links to a headline you'll like on Computer Business Review, Matthew Aslett's "Judge calls SCO's lack of evidence against IBM 'Inexcusable':

SCO Group Inc has willfully failed to comply with the orders of the court hearing its breach of contact and copyright case against IBM Corp, according to the Magistrate Judge, who has declared the company's failure to detail its evidence against IBM 'inexcusable'.

The Lindon, Utah-based Unix vendor was taken to task for its legal tactics by Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells, who is handling the discovery portion of the case, as she granted most of an IBM motion to limit SCO's claims to those where is has provided specific evidence.

If you are a true believer in SCO's cause, here's one article that holds out hope for your wilted quest, "Open Source Victorious in Court":

While some started to believe this must be the beginning of the end for SCO's case, others are still saying that such a ruling is only a setback and the trial (plus the controversy) will go on until the final verdict will be reached.

Lamlaw's take:

Finally we get some resolution of these discovery issues.

It is important to note (and PJ at Groklaw does this), that the resolution here is not of the legal issues themselves on the merits but rather the exclusion of certain claims due to the failure of SCO to provide the necessary information as required by the court. Either way, a number of claims get tossed. And you must assume that the needed evidence just does not exist or at least SCO lawyers knew their evidence would not survive the light of the day, so they did not bother. This order is just the courts way of saying that the court will not bother either.

These events just give additional credence to the suggestion that SCO lawyers were all about creating a stink in the courtroom rather than having any chance at a legitimate case. That is the hallmark of a true nuisance case.

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols on Linux-Watch called his article, SCO hits iceberg [Update: That link no longer resolves. You can read it now, here, with a "free 7-day trial"]:

On June 28, Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells ruled largely in favor of IBM's "Motion to Limit The SCO Group Inc.'s Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material." This means that the vast majority of SCO's claims against IBM for misusing Unix code in Linux have been thrown out.

Since SCO first began claiming that IBM had placed its Unix intellectual property into Linux, opponents to its arguments, such as Linus Torvalds, have demanded that SCO show precise proof for its claims. In its motion, IBM took a similar tack....

SCO may appeal this decision. "Our legal team is reviewing the judge's ruling and will determine our next steps in the near future," said Blake Stowell, SCO's communications director.

While there are other issues still to be decided in court, with over two-thirds of SCO's claims now thrown out, SCO's lawsuit has clearly collided with a Titanic-sized iceberg.

Scott M. Fulton III in TG Daily, "Majority of SCO's claims in UNIX infringement case against IBM dismissed:

In a decision handed down late Wednesday that could leave absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind as to US Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells' opinion regarding the validity or substance of SCO's claims in the three-year-old UNIX infringement case against IBM, the judge granted IBM's motion to limit SCO's claims going forward to a much smaller list for which SCO has actually offered evidence.

The basis of IBM's motion had been that SCO, in claiming that IBM stole elements of Linux source code from UNIX - many of the rights to which SCO inherited, in several steps, from AT&T - failed to produce source code that would demonstrate that IBM had indeed stolen not just methodologies, but intellectual property. Judge Wells resoundingly agreed, in absolutely scathing language...

PC Pro, "Judge kills off SCO claims":

SCO has had the lion's share of the examples it put forward as evidence of the 'misappropriation' by IBM ripped from its case.

Judge Brooke Wells issued an order granting an IBM motion to dismiss SCO's claims due to lack of specificity: from a list of nearly 200 claims contested by IBM, just 10 remain - essentially removing two-thirds of SCO's contention.

Aside from lack of specificity as to what exactly the code in question is, the straw that broke the Judge's patience is that SCO required far greater levels of specificity from IBM when requesting materials for evidence throughout the discovery period: a level of exactitude to which it was unable, or unwilling, to rise itself

And Ms. DiDio? Did no one call her to comment? After all, she told the world that she had seen the code, and it was persuasive to her. Did SCO have a more faithful supporter? Grace Leong of the Daily Herald in Utah did ask her to comment, and you can read her pearls of wisdom in the article, "SCO dealt legal setback":

Laura DiDio, a senior industry analyst of the Yankee Group who tracks SCO, says Wells's latest ruling isn't a surprise.

"I recall earlier rulings where the judge issued scathing comments to SCO. The onus is on SCO to show the smoking gun. The judge in this case is again asking SCO to 'put up or shut up,' " she said. "With each passing month that SCO doesn't come forward to exhibit evidence of its claims, it loses more and more credibility, and it doesn't help its case to sell Unix products."

Ah. She's not surprised. No? That surprises me, given her earlier pronouncements -- and they were legion -- that SCO had a case and Linux was in trouble. Here's just one small example, an article she wrote about SCO registering copyrights (the ones Novell says belong to it, also currently in litigation and in arbitration), in which she wrote that the case would be tried first in the court of public opinion, and wasn't it ever:

Market Impact

The most tangible immediate result of SCO’s decision to register the copyrights will be to boost the perception among a large segment of the industry—although notably not among the Linux community—that SCO’s case is legitimate.

SCO’s move also puts more pressure on IBM to clearly articulate its position with respect to indemnifying its customers in the event SCO should prevail.

IBM continues to dispute and dismiss as “baseless” SCO’s claims that IBM misappropriated large portions of UNIX System V source code and embedded them into its Linux software offerings. IBM recently surpassed Red Hat as the largest provider of Linux server software. In a public statement, IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino said, “SCO needs to openly show the Linux community any copyrighted UNIX code which they claim is in Linux.”

There are strong indications that the industry at large takes SCO’s claims seriously.

Wall Street sees it that way. SCO’s stock soared nearly 15 percent on the news. It jumped $2.82 and was trading at $14.77 early on July 24, its highest level since February 2001. Since SCO filed the suit in March 2003, the stock has quintupled.

Enterprises will note SCO’s filing with heightened interest. In March, SCO sent letters to 1,500 large accounts informing them of potential liability. Since then, about four dozen enterprises contacted SCO for further information and the steps they need to take to legally license their IBM Linux 2.4 and 2.5 software. Expect those numbers to increase with the copyright filing. In addition, SCO is now ready to release a licensing plan so corporations can determine the cost of getting legal....

Expect IBM, SCO, and the very vocal Linux community to work overtime promoting their respective points of view to influence the opinions of corporate customers, the media, and analysts. Such posturing is designed to make one or the other party blink first and possibly hammer out a settlement. However, a settlement is unlikely in the next several months.

That collection of misinformation and failed predictions was written in July 28, 2003. The Linux community has never wanted the parties to settle. We wanted SCO repudiated for raising false accusations, impugning the integrity of thousands of volunteers who worked very hard to give the world some very wonderful software that anyone in the world can use for free and in freedom. They code in public, and they would never deliberately grab someone else's code. First, they take pride in their work. Second, they know the whole world can see their work 24/7. It is a huge disincentive to theft.

The Linux community knew from the first that SCO would lose if there was any justice in the world, and it was right, as events have now demonstrated. It's really that simple. We knew it, because we know the code, the development process, the tech, Unix history, and we know Linus. I knew from day one that Linus would never steal anyone's code. Period. From our side, it was never a matter of bashing anyone or attacking SCO. It was a matter of steadily, patiently digging up evidence that we presented to the world, the result again of thousands of volunteers.

And SCO should be ashamed of itself, along with all its backers. Speaking of backers, DiDio got one thing right back in August of 2003:

Unix software maker SCO might not be making any friends in the open-source communit with its plan to sell licenses to corporate Linux users, which the company claims have infringed on its own source-code copyrights.

However, the small Lindon, Utah-based company might be earning silent cheers from others, namely Microsoft, who are eager to see Linux -- and the open-source movement -- stumble.

"There's a lot going on behind the scenes," Yankee Group senior analyst Laura DiDio told TechNewsWorld. "Not necessarily coming out to say they support SCO or coming to their defense, but I think there are a lot of behind-the-scenes machinations."

Indeedy-do. There is plenty of shame to go around, but Microsoft's role stands out. Here's my question: if you're a monopolist and you enable a FUD lawsuit, and then your server sales go up at the expense of the victim, your competitor in the marketplace, is that an antitrust violation? You think?

The SCO story has now even reached Fox News, via an article by AP's Paul Foy, "Judge Tosses Out Most of SCO's Anti-Linux Lawsuit Against IBM", which is also now on ABC News and on Yahoo! News and Mercury News and the Washington Post and Business Week. Foy interviewed me also:

SCO doesn't have enough evidence "to shake a stick at," said Pamela Jones, creator and editor of, 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."

Speaking of icebergs, this is probably the right time to rerun JD Frazer's (of UserFriendly fame) prophetic cartoon, which he gave me as a gift:

Drawing © Copyright 2005 Pamela Jones


Media Reactions to Judge Wells' Order - Updated | 536 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Media Reactions to Judge Wells' Order
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 05:01 PM EDT
AIX is a pedigree cat. Linux is a stray cat.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: tuxi on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 05:09 PM EDT
Not that PJ made any mistakes ;)


[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: tuxi on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 05:10 PM EDT
Remember to post HTML formatted for clicky links


[ Reply to This | # ]

Where's the S.E.C.?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 05:19 PM EDT
So, what's it take for the S.E.C. to wake up and take a long, hard look at SCO's

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wells accused of sounding like PJ
Authored by: gvc on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 05:25 PM EDT
[...] Neiman Marcus analogy [...]

The above excerpt was actually from Judge Wells, and not from Pamela Jones, whose Groklaw blog rose to fame with its coverage of the well as for Jones' own pointed opinions about it. "One thing is certain," Jones wrote on Wednesday. "There will be no billions of dollars in damages, even if SCO could prevail on these puny items." However, those puny items will still be under debate for some time to come, perhaps months, Jones believes. Her commentary and analysis appears here, along with a complete copy of Judge Wells' ruling. For its part, SCO has had no official comment on the matter.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Will SCO ever be forced to admit that there is no real evidence?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 05:25 PM EDT
Dismissing most of the evidence for vagueness is a good first step. But it does
not satisfy me.

I fear that this case will never go to trial, and thus SCO execs will never take
the witness stand and be questioned about their "mountain" of

What the media may never find out is not only is the SCO evidence is poor, but
there never was any evidence.

To continue with the shopping analogy - there is nothing in the bag, and there
never was. But until we get the guard on the witness stand, he'll never admit

[ Reply to This | # ]

"IBM has won a MINOR battle"
Authored by: Eeyore on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 05:30 PM EDT
I wonder what the author would consider a MAJOR battle... ;)

Judge Hands IBM a Small Win Against SCO

[ Reply to This | # ]

Battlefield is shifting.
Authored by: GrueMaster on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 05:36 PM EDT
The battle on this front is nearly over. Lord Cornwalis-McBride is being hammered from all angles. The only thing left is to send one of his underlings out to surrender.

However, as similar as this legal battle has been to our countries revolutionary war, there is a newer, more powerful battle warming up: Patients.

The only way we're going to win on the new battlefield will be through prior art and/or legislation, two areas that will really test our mettle. Prior art can help win the minor skirmishes that come up, like the latest Redhat lawsuit, or the other patient case involving model railroad control software, but they will keep coming up unless new legislation is put in place to keep the trolls and wolves at bay. It is also the last major trump card that Microsoft has to play legally (not that they would do anything underhanded like violate our highly regarded antitrust laws).

Redhat has an excelent video that shows how history repeats itsself wrt linux here titled "truth happens". Very well done (although I wish it were better than 320x200).

You've entered a dark place. You are likely to be eaten by a Grue!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Something afoot in the wind...
Authored by: Briareus on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 05:38 PM EDT
...and it smells so sweet I even logged in to comment.

The only real thing I have to say (beyond the obvious exuberance most of us share) is that I am wondering now what Microsoft is going to do in response. Martin Taylor's embryonic fairness is gone, their open source lab seems ready and willing to disparage open source, and of course Get The FUD is glacially growing, but these things are old hat and seem to fool only the non-adepts and tourists.

With Vista becoming what little it is and the Googleplex making inroads and the .NET/Live strategy accumulating ever more detractors and bug reports, and let's of course not forget OSXs elegance, it seems like this SCO loss is going to force Microsoft to have to pull a hat out of a rabbit.

Anyone have any ideas of what's in the works or what to look for?

A sort of neighborhood watch has long been in order for those who play in the Redmond sandbox.

Have a great weekend everyone, and PJ you might not wear the red dress yet but try it on and twirl before the mirror a bit, you deserve it :)

scary times are never dull

[ Reply to This | # ]

That's a beautiful cartoon
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 05:47 PM EDT
Props to Illiad, for something more eloquent than a thousand words.

And, of course, to the lady in the red dress...


[ Reply to This | # ]

P.J. And Sleep
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 06:11 PM EDT

Ok, choice quote:

"the court just stuffed a sock in SCO's mouth"
I'm guessing P.J. had a very good sleep.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Fundraising tshirt?
Authored by: romana on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 06:33 PM EDT
The Iliad cartoon is terrific!:) I am sure I am not the only one who would buy
it as a mug/tshirt as part of a Groklaw fundraiser.....

ITShare SA Inc -
ITShare SA gives away computer systems
created from donated hardware and opensource software.

[ Reply to This | # ]

AP picks up news, and links Groklaw
Authored by: PSaltyDS on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 06:36 PM EDT
The AP picked up the story, and one place it wound up was Utah's Channel 5. An interesting thing in that article is at the bottom, where one puts informative links on the topic at hand:

"Without a doubt, this is a major blow to SCO," said Pamela Jones, creator and editor of, a Web site devoted to open-source software legal issues. "There has never been an operating system picked over with such care and determination to find fault, and Linux has come through utterly clean as a whistle."

------ On the Net:"


"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." - Geek's Corollary to Clarke's Law

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whatever happened to...
Authored by: Carla Schroder on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 06:40 PM EDT
Darl and Maureen O'Gara? Enderle and DiDio still show
their faces in public, which is very brave of them, but
our other two favorite mouthpieces have been awfully

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let's not forget the wonderful Mr. Lypns at Forbes
Authored by: ray08 on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 06:54 PM EDT
I read his dribble (link at Yahoo financials). Actually, he looked liked a
scared little puppie running away with his tail between the legs. Didn't add any
real editorial comments, just rehashed the facts as the court handed SCO it's

All you so-called analysts: Where are you now with your fictitous remarks and
FUD? Cat got your tongues? Do any of you still feel you have credibility? No one
here thinks you do (unless they're SCO schills hiding under the widely used name
of anonymous).

Caldera is toast! And Groklaw is the toaster! (with toast level set to BURN)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Media Reactions to Judge Wells' Order
Authored by: grundy on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 06:57 PM EDT
Note how many times Neiman Marcus is mentioned!

And the references to the text of the order are all

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 07:12 PM EDT
Hm... well, I see more "blogs" than "media" on this list. And a lot of the media sites covering this are tech media. Bit of a far cry from when Darl was appearing on the covers of national news magazines.

Still, the Fox News / AP coverage is an EXTREMELY interesting development. And the "flip-flops" from Erlende and Didio make it all worth it. So, good news today :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Media - Authored by: Jude on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 08:12 PM EDT
  • Media - Authored by: PJ on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 09:31 PM EDT
  • Media - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 03:52 AM EDT
  • Media - Authored by: CanonicalKoi on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 09:35 AM EDT
AP Article by Paul Foy
Authored by: RFD on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 07:28 PM EDT
This link is to He also quotes PJ.

Eschew obfuscation assiduously.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks to SCO for making Linux famous (now go away)
Authored by: laitcg on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 07:29 PM EDT
Now that the judge has thrown out virtually all of SCOs complaints against IBM's usage of Linux we should take a step back and thank SCO. If it weren't for the utter stupidity associated with the SCO vs. the World lawsuits, odds are Linux wouldn't be the news subject that it is. The SCO lawsuits are arguably the best marketing that Linux could have ever received. And since IBM already has a cadre of lawyers, let's call it break-even, if not in fact free press...

[ Reply to This | # ]

To slightly mis-quote Terry Pratchett
Authored by: tyche on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 07:56 PM EDT
With regard to TSCOG's future, after this resounding dismissal of their
proported "claims":

They're gonna get CHEESED! That's like getting creamed, but it lasts longer.


"It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury....
signifying nothing."
Shakespear, Macbeth (The Scottish Play)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Media Reactions to Judge Wells' Order
Authored by: blacklight on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 09:16 PM EDT
"The onus is on SCO to show the smoking gun." Laura Didio

I have to say that both Rob the Shillmeister and Laura D (the next lower grade
is either an E, an F or a 0 depending on which country you are from) have a
genius for not merely stating the obvious, but stating the obvious long after it
has been been obvious to everyone else.

I am afraid that the only smoke coming out of SCOG these days are the gases that
are escaping out of SCOG's corporate rear end. The pressure to produce in the
bedroom - Oops, I meant, courtroom - that pressure was just too much.

Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Better Press, but Still Room for Improvement
Authored by: OnlyAnEgg on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 09:27 PM EDT
Maybe I should be gratefull, but there's still a misunderstanding here - as expressed on Slashdot **insert obvious comment** and quoted from TG Daily: to limit SCO's claims going forward a much smaller list for which SCO has actually offered evidence
The actuality is that it has been whittled to those where a SCO has actually made a specific claim.
The presumption that there is evidence for the remainder is a mistake - as Lamlaw notes It is important to note (and PJ at Groklaw does this), that the resolution here is not of the legal issues themselves on the merits

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't understand what SCO could possible present
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 09:31 PM EDT
. . . that couldn't have been resolved years ago at no cost and minimal effort by simply sending an email to the kernel mailing list and asking "Hey, anybody know the background on such-and-such piece of code?"

I hope somebody points that out before this whole thing's over. I mean, what a collosal waste of time, effort and money, over what will surely turn out to be nothing. If SCO had simply behaved like civilized people to start with all of this, and I mean ALL OF IT, could have been avoided; but no, they had to come on all talking trash and with the lawyers and the lawsuites and the threats and insinuations and the letters to congress.

Then, when we who use and develop FOSS stood up and said, from day one "Identify what you're talking about", they refused. Another oportunity lost. And for not simply lying down and accpeting these unsubstantiated and inflamatory allegations we've all been cast as some kind of hippy fanatics.

I'm still angry (but these days it's lot more fun, heh heh heh).

P.S. I did the best I could, but I'm, um, between spell checkers right now, so please forgive me for any mistakes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scrutinized Operating Systems
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 09:48 PM EDT
There has never been an operating system picked over with such care and determination to find fault. And Linux has come through utterly clean as a whistle.

Actually, I can think of a couple examples:

1. z/OS (previous names: OS/390, MVS). In the 1980s one of the Japanese computer manufacturers literally stole MVS, IBM's flagship mainframe operating system. It was one of the biggest cases of industrial espionage in history and caused a great stir. IBM sued and won huge damages, but IBM had to prove its case through careful code comparison and by showing that the code was not otherwise "available." Moreover, this operating system has been thoroughly vetted through the world's most demanding, mission critical business and government operations for decades. Boy does it work.

2. BSD, which survived and won an AT&T UNIX onslaught.

Nonetheless, Linux is in rare company, especially with z/OS. Maybe that's why IBM promotes Linux for mainframes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The media missed something
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 09:59 PM EDT
I think the magic word "nominal" (from "the nominal instead of in
the billions") should be included in the news too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Haven't we forgotten something ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 10:13 PM EDT
Wasn't today (June 30th) the hearing on SCO's expert reports ?

Is there any news from that ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow - check this out !
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 10:37 PM EDT
SCO stories are starting to filter through to Google News now !

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't forget the IBM motion to limit SCO experts report
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 11:11 PM EDT
Please don't forget the IBM motion to limit SCO experts reports. This order
from Judge Wells limits the case to the discovered evidence presented to IBM.
The SCO experts reports have also exceeded the discovered evidence.
This order looks to foreshadow the outcome of the IBM motion to limit the SCO
expert reports to discovered evidence. I expect Judge Wells to have another
long order to limit SCO's expert report to the discovered evidence.
Also IBM's partial summary judgment has yet to be decided.
SCO's case looks to be getting smaller. PJ stated that this case will show
people a passion for the law. It has done that and more.

SCO's wildest dreams are turning into a nightmare. Will McBride and friends
ever get another job with a resume like the one thay are producing.

Thou few will read these words, many will be affected by it

[ Reply to This | # ]

Iceberg Analogy
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 12:22 AM EDT
I liked what someone above commented regarding the Itanic being one little item
that triggered the downward slide of SCO... but in terms of this case, I think
it would be prudent of BS&F to think "If we're running into icebergs,
maybe it's time to turn off the ice maker."


[ Reply to This | # ]

Media Reactions to Judge Wells' Order - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 12:26 AM EDT
I can go along with minor. A ruling on couterclaim 10 or perhaps SCO turning on
their backers might be major.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Myself, I'd sorta like to see SCO appeal...
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 02:05 AM EDT
And get some more of their claims knocked off.

What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger it grows.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wrong again
Authored by: ash4stuff on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 04:16 AM EDT
the judge granted IBM's motion to limit SCO's claims going forward to a much smaller list for which SCO has actually offered evidence.
Did they show evidence? Or where the items not tossed out (yet) simply because in these cases SCO supplied enough information on what infringing code they mean. They have just specified the accusation, they haven't shown any "evidence" as far as I can see.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Wrong again - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 06:17 AM EDT
    • No - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 01:42 PM EDT
      • No - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 02:06 PM EDT
        • No - Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 07:19 PM EDT
        • No - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 07:16 AM EDT
Novell and their Royalties?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 06:06 AM EDT
Might be another good time for Novell to ask again about their royalties on previous sales of UNIX. With TSG's cash burning fast and a few public setbacks like this to scare future investors away, Novell might be left with a few cents in the dollar.

To borrow from PJ:

In its opposition to Novell's Motion for a More Definite Statement [PDF], SCO says in plain English to the court, we don't have to tell Novell in our complaint which unfair competition law we think they violated. We told them enough facts to meet the pleading requirements. Novell can find out in discovery which law or laws we have in mind.

All we need is another "put up or shut up" order stinging across TSG's naughty knuckles and the whole world will know that their Modus Operandi is no longer effective.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Piercing the corporate veil"
Authored by: belzecue on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 09:28 AM EDT
... four little words that might be keeping McBride awake at night recently.

I'd be wondering, too, just how much of a SCOrched-earth approach IBM intends to
pursue in this case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Media Reactions to Judge Wells' Order - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 11:29 AM EDT
Now that the 'Media' seem to be finally realising that the foul odour in this
case is actually coming from the SCO side of the room, perhaps its time to stop
the Didio, Enderle O'Gara etc bashing and move on. Judge Wells has just given
them a severe beating with the cluestick, so no more need from us. no.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yahoo ---- Court Tosses Most of SCO Claims Against IBM Over Linux Code
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 11:31 AM EDT

A direct link from the SCO stock page is this article, SCO Dealt Setback in IBM Linux Lawsuit

[ Reply to This | # ]

Open Source Victorious in Court
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 11:42 AM EDT
While some started to believe this must be the beginning of the end for SCO's case, others are still saying that such a ruling is only a setback and the trial (plus the controversy) will go on until the final verdict will be reached.

Latest SCO spokesman the Black Knight added: "Just a scratch. It's only a flesh wound!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Media Reactions to Judge Wells' Order - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 01:49 PM EDT
Memo to PJ

I like that picture of you with the Titanic in the background. However,
shouldn't you be holding a big white sink stopper attached to a short chain in
your right hand.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Film to follow at 11......
Authored by: dromasco on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 02:00 PM EDT
PJ, you've finally qualified for the media tease lead-in of the year: "I
bet you'd like to know what she and Mr. Enderle and the SCO gang have to say
now? Here you go."

Can anyone NOT continue to read this article?

and P.S.: NICE red dress!


[ Reply to This | # ]

An analogy for what happened
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 03:12 PM EDT
This part of the case, that is Judge Wells recent ruling, seems from this (programmer's) perspective to be akin to compile errors. That is, the roughly 2/3 of the claims that were thrown out were not thrown out on the merits, they were thrown out because they didn't pass the "articulate your claim with enough clarity so that we can proceed on it" test. A compile error.

It will be fun to see what happens when they try to run whatever's left past Judge Kimball. But, of course, next up . . . Expert Reports! What will pass, what will be left behind. Find out on the next episode of Inherit the Hot Air!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's reaction: backing off of Linux licenses?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 04:50 PM EDT
Hey, I just checked out SCO's site under

Products->SCO Unix->Unix License Purchase

This just displays a generic page which says how To purchase a SCO product and
gives out phone numbers. No word on Linux, on licensing, pricing, on why anyone
should even buy a license, nothing.

Could it be they're backing away from the whole thing now?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What media?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 04:55 PM EDT
You start with TheRegister and Slashdot. That's two techie places that were
never, ever SCO-friendly. Well, at least not since SCO turned nasty :-)

Seems like less of the mainstream media.

[ Reply to This | # ]

tSCOg Successes non-existent on Web
Authored by: LarryVance on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 08:40 PM EDT
It had been a long time since I visited the "SCO" web site. I was
just browsing through a few of the different links to see what is still up and
whether it is still even mentioning any of the linux or related lawsuits.

Ironically the front page has a link at the top -- "Successes". If
you click on that link it comes up with a page not found error.

It has been a long time since their news links have pointed to any legal
articles. The most recent I noted was the Enderle article "Sco Should
Win". Has Rob now started to seriously backpedal, or is it that tSCOg has
not been paying the bills lately?

Never underestimate your influence!
Larry Vance

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Scheme -- Some Reactions
Authored by: webster on Sunday, July 02 2006 @ 12:53 AM EDT
1. While discussion of the PIPE Fairy, FUD, M$, and the Scheme are old hat
around here [just search on the left], it is appropriate to revisit this issue
in the light of pivotal new events.

2. It is a pivotal new event since the Court's decision striking most of SCO's
evidence reads like an expose of years of FUD. SCO's claim is lame and now the
world can read about if from a credible Court. The trend of adverse decisions
will continue against SCO.

3. Just what is the Scheme? Who originated the Scheme? Who were enlisted into
the Scheme? How was it to be carried out?

4. The purpose of the Scheme was to destroy Linux. Linux was to be attacked
with negative ads, deceptive ads, slyly commissioned studies, planted articles,
corporate attacks, AND coordinated litigation. Linux had to be stopped. It was
too good, too large, a blob of a target, inexpensive, secure, growing, and a
threat to the Monopoly, suspect #1. FUD they could do themselves. Because of
their Monopoly status, and antitrust scrutiny, they could not do litigation.

5. Why is the Monopoly suspect #1? They have the motive, means, money. They
are used to cheating and paying a few million if caught. Rules are made to be
broken, that is what fines are for. It is Okay and successful if you can get
away with it. At the rate of $30 million net profit a day, they are too big,
beyond the capacity of governments' to punish them. They purchase good will and
influence; they create their own reality. The litigation would be a major part
of the FUD Scheme. It was a stopper for corporate purchasers, IBM's backbone.

6. Anyone could have originated the Scheme and sold it to the appropriate
parties. For this Scheme to be implemented it was necessary for a very high
ranking corporate personage to insist on it. Someone who was most eager to
destroy Linux or make millions on the Scheme or both. The reason a high
corporate personage was necessary was because they would have the clout to
demand this litigation step without caring much about the sufficiency of the
claim. They would overpower those who did. Someone who is used to, and
comfortable with, dirty tricks, or nuisance litigation. Suspect #2, an outside
corporate operator may also have originated the scheme. Suspect number three
would be the slimy consultant who could have conceived the plan and recruited
the corporate movers to follow their intere$t$.

7. Some corporate Fairy wanted this attack on Linux right away. The FUD has
always driven the litigation. That was why the litigation was so screwy. IBM,
Daimler-Chrysler, Autozone, Novell. All screwy. The suits are so screwy the
lawyers are in professional jeopardy, e.g. slander of title knowing they did not
have copyright documents! E. g. D-C had not used SCO softwre for 8 years! If
it was really about stolen code, we would have know what it is and the matter
would have been resolved years ago. The code has never been specified because
by specifying some, you exonerate the rest. This would have essentially cleared
all of Linux. So one must certainly conclude that the court was used as a
skirmish in a corporate war. The issues meant nothing, other than for
propietary salesmen to say, "Linux has stolen code. It is a risky

8. Wells decision is a giant step toward resolution of of the SCO suit. It is
on schedule, shortened even. SCO is but a bit player. They have earned a few
million, but their dreams of hundreds of millions are gone. The question is to
what extent will IBM pursue the perpetrators and seek retribution. Are they
preparing a criminal portfolio to present to prosecutors at the appropriate
time? That would certainly move disclosures along. Will IBM countersue the
perpetrators, including the PIPE Fairy, RBC, DB and the multi-million dollar
sham UNIX Licensors. They all knew or should have known there was no evidence.
They all should have done due diligence before investing millions. If not they
relied on some big corporate Honcho, for the go ahead on this project. IBM has
had the benefit of discovery and depositions. Evidence is volunteered also like
the Holloween X letter, a smoking gun if ever there was one. It has already
been admitted to. Where did the depsitions of all the related parties take IBM.
They probably heard a lot of the Fifth. The gun smokes more. The consequences
here know no bounds. The Monopoly could change hands. We could some day be
arguing about the best desktop: Gnome, KDE or Windows, all on the same menu.

9. The experts will be the next to go. They will be relieved. IBM can use
their own expert credentials to impeach them. When they say how they became
UNIX and Linux experts and mention their books, it will all be explained by them
and used against SCO. What little they will be allowed to testify about will be
shredded. They will be turned against their own party. No testimony at all
will be better.

10. SCO has thrown in the towel. Their lawyers, at least, won't destroy their
professional lives and just throw anything out there. Vaguely specifying was as
far as they could go in professional good conscience. It is their way of saying
they have nothing. They appreciated the fishing expedition; it was a testament
to their artistry, but, boy, was it boring.

11. One suspected when SCO renegotiated their retainer with BSF, the Litigation
Aspect of the FUD campaign had failed. They were in unforeseen territory.
IBM's Linux program did not collapse. IBM has measured the market impact to
substantiate their damages. Imagine where they would have been without this
litigation. Will they round up all the perpetrators and make them pay? Even
the ones without deep pockets, such as executives and officers personally? The
sins of one will be the sins of all. It should be interesting. Wells has
written a good chapter. This saga is like a new "War and Peace."


[ Reply to This | # ]

Media Reactions to Judge Wells' Order - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 02 2006 @ 03:58 PM EDT
In SCO's case it's more like not telling you what you stole and WHERE you stole
it. Here's a catalog from Neiman Marcus, and one from Bloomingdales, and one
from Macy's, oh and one from Nordstroms. Here's a calendar too, not exactly
sure when you stole it...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Strange - SCO FUD Webpage not updated
Authored by: jmc on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 03:46 AM EDT

SCO seem to have forgotten (at the time of writing) to update their FUD page with Judge Wells' order - in fact quite a few things haven't been updated recently.


Yet that site was supposed to be "The Right Place" to go. Very strange....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Media Reactions to Judge Wells' Order - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 01:10 PM EDT
If anyone has bothered to look SCO has not posted anything about the order to
their website. But if you notice all the "good" rulings have been
posted on fairly quickly. Its not long now....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Media Reactions to Judge Wells' Order - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 03:14 PM EDT
So what happens in the end when SCO has been litigiously mashed into bankruptcy
and history? What becomes of the prime criminals in this years long travesty;
Flake Stowall, Gnarly McBride and the rest of the SCO mafia? Will they declare
personal bankruptcy and retire to the caribbean on funds they screwed investors
out of and squirreled away in Zurich, or will they face fraud and perjury
charges like any average citizen would?
And what about people like Microsoft's PR mouthpiece, Laura "The
Idiot" Didio? Will the tech industry put any stock in anything she writes
ever again?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Stock Down 20%
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 04:04 PM EDT
Thought I heard that the stock market was closing early today, so maybe that'll
be the final, but looks like SCO dropped about 84 cents, or 20+ percent today.

Perhaps some folks in the business world are finally getting the news.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Okay - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 04 2006 @ 02:19 PM EDT
    • Okay - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 04 2006 @ 03:13 PM EDT
      • SCOX closed down... - Authored by: Jamis on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 04:23 PM EDT
      • Okay - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 07:06 PM EDT
"Theft" and "steal" are Incorrect Terms
Authored by: LuYu on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 04:17 AM EDT

They code in public, and they would never deliberately grab someone else's code. First, they take pride in their work. Second, they know the whole world can see their work 24/7. It is a huge disincentive to theft.

The Linux community knew from the first that SCO would lose if there was any justice in the world, and it was right, as events have now demonstrated. It's really that simple. We knew it, because we know the code, the development process, the tech, Unix history, and we know Linus. I knew from day one that Linus would never steal anyone's code. Period. From our side, it was never a matter of bashing anyone or attacking SCO. It was a matter of steadily, patiently digging up evidence that we presented to the world, the result again of thousands of volunteers.

Why did you have to go and say the "S" and "Th" words? You are versed in the law. You know that "infringement" does not mean "theft" and that information cannot be "stolen" -- except possibly in the case of privacy. Defining "infringement" as "theft" only increases the power of SCO-like con artists such as the RIAA. These people lie for a living, and associating copyright violations with theft just makes information appear to be their "property".

For the sake of review, the English Legal Definition of "theft" is as follows:

A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

With copyrighted works, it is impossible to deprive anybody of anything. If I take a copy of a book from your house, you do not have it anymore -- and the author of the book is in no way involved (in other words, even if I am convicted of stealing your book, I still owe the author nothing). If I copy a book you have, you still have it (do I suddenly owe the author something now?). This is an important distinction. The fact that stealing implies depriving someone of something -- beside the fact that it only applies to physical property -- means that copyrighted works cannot be stolen by method of copying.

So, please, do not hurt the causes of Free Software and Free Culture in general by treating ideas as property. That is just what the authors of the Newspeak Dictionary, the one that defines "infringement" as "theft", would like you to do.

"Proprietary software is an antisocial practice."
-- Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Stock's plummeted
Authored by: tristangrimaux on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 01:12 PM EDT
And I would like Damn McBride to explain why SCO turned
out from its core business, and who back them up. He
should say something like: "it wasn't my fault!!!
Microsoft made me do it!!!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re-read Enderle and be amazed
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 04:54 AM EDT
The article has a link to Enderle's keynote address at SCOForum 2004. Re-read
it. It's amazing that anyone took this guy seriously. I won't comment on it
because if I do, he'll announce that people on Groklaw are abusing him.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )