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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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.

SCO Finally Shows its Legal Strategy Going Forward ~pj
Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 12:28 PM EDT

SCO was ordered by the judge, the Hon. David Nuffer, to tell him what claims it believes survived SCO's massive loss to Novell, in order to go forward in SCO v. IBM, and it has now done so.

Thanks to the judge's order, we finally learn what SCO has in mind, and I've emphasized part of it:

The Novell judgment has no bearing on the following claims, which therefore remain ripe for adjudication: SCO’s Unfair Competition claim (Count VI) concerning the Project Monterey joint venture; SCO’s Interference with Contract claim (Count VII), which (among other things) alleges that IBM interfered with contracts pursuant to which SCO licensed post-1995 UNIX products to third parties; and SCO’s claim for Interference with Business Relationships (Count IX), which alleges that IBM interfered with SCO’s market position and business relationships.
All right, SCO is saying, we don't have the copyrights. But we had contracts. The "among other things" means they have more in mind they don't wish to tell us about yet, as is SCO's wont. It's about post-1995 SCO products and Project Monterey and IBM allegedly turning folks against SCO. Like they needed to turn anyone away from SCO. When a company shoots itself in the foot by suing its own customers right and left, it tends to create an atmosphere of alarm and distrust, resulting in others putting space between them and the foot-shooter.

IBM gets to respond next, and I expect them to say that SCO has zero claims left standing. And then we'll get to IBM's counterclaims, at last. Here's a chart of all the summary judgment motions left hanging when SCO filed for bankruptcy protection.

And by the way, the Project Monterey claim is supposed to be mostly dead, at a minimum, in that the contract was over so many years ago, the statute of limitations already ran out, with the then-judge in the case ruling that SCO knew or could have known about the issues it raised long ago. So I'm not sure what the plan is here, but with SCO it is bound to be something no one else would even try. David Boies is known as a gambler, and it shows. Groklaw has a page dedicated to Project Monterey, listing every article we ever did that mentioned it, if you are the deep-diving sort.

The filing:

06/24/2013 - 1119 - NOTICE OF FILING of The SCO Group, Inc.'s Statement in Compliance with the Court's Order Reopening the Case re 1115 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Judgment Dismissing SCO's Claims Mooted by the Final Judgment in SCO v. Novell)(Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 06/24/2013)

If you'd like to read SCO's Second Amended Complaint, it's here. If you prefer charts, here's one with SCO's claims on the left and IBM's responses on the right. Aren't you glad we did all this work at the time? How in the world would we understand a thing now, if we didn't have this treasure trove to rely on? There's another chart you might like, showing all of IBM's summary judgment motions and the 597 exhibits in support of each one from 2006.

Let's remind ourselves of what the claims are that SCO asserts are still relevant. Count VI reads like this:

(Unfair Competition)

181. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs No. 1-180, above.

182. Plaintiff and its predecessors have built the UNIX System V Technology, the Unix Software Code, SCO OpenServer, UnixWare and their derivatives through very substantial efforts over a time span in excess of 20 years and expenditure of money in excess of $1 billion.

183. IBM has engaged in a course of conduct that is intentionally and foreseeably calculated to undermine and/or destroy the economic value of UNIX anywhere and everywhere in the world, and to undermine and/or destroy plaintiff’s rights to fully exploit and benefit from its ownership rights in and to UNIX System V Technology, the Unix Software Code, SCO OpenServer, UnixWare and their derivatives, and thereby seize the value of UNIX System V Technology, the Unix Software Code, SCO OpenServer, UnixWare and their derivatives directly for its own benefit and indirectly for the benefit of its Linux distribution partners.

184. In furtherance of its scheme of unfair competition, IBM has engaged in the following conduct:

a) Misappropriation of source code, methods, trade secrets and confidential information of plaintiff;

b) Breach of contract;

c)Violation of confidentiality provisions running to the benefit of plaintiff;

d) Inducing and encouraging others to violate confidentiality provisions;

e)Contribution of protected source code and methods for incorporation into one or more Linux software releases, intended for transfer of ownership to the general public;

f) Use of deceptive means and practices in dealing with plaintiff with respect to its software development efforts; and

g) Other methods of unlawful and/or unfair competition.

185. IBM’s unfair competition has directly and/or proximately caused significant foreseeable and consequential harm to plaintiff in the following particulars:
a) Plaintiff’s revenue stream from UNIX licenses for Intel-based processing platforms has decreased substantially;

b) As Intel-based processors have now become the processing platform of choice for a rapidly-increasing customer base of enterprise software users, plaintiff has been deprived of the opportunity to fairly exploit its market-leading position for UNIX on Intel-based processors, which revenue opportunity would have been very substantial on a recurring, annual basis but for IBM’s unfairly competitive practices;

c) Plaintiff stands at imminent risk of being deprived of its entire stream of all UNIX licensing revenue in the foreseeably near future;

d) Plaintiff has been deprived of the effective ability to market and sell its new UNIX-related improvements, including a 32-bit version of UNIX for Intel processors developed prior to Project Monterey, and its new web-based UNIX-related products, including UNIX System V Release 6;

e) Plaintiff has been deprived of the effective revenue licensing opportunity to transfer its existing UNIX System V Release 4 and Release 5 customer base to UNIX System V Release 6; and

f) Plaintiff has been deprived of the effective ability to otherwise fully and fairly exploit UNIX’s market-leading position in enterprise software market, which deprivation is highly significant given the inability of Microsoft Windows to properly support large-scale enterprise applications.

186. As a result of IBM’s unfair competition and the marketplace injury sustained by plaintiff as set forth above, plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but no less than $1 billion, together with additional damages through and after the time of trial foreseeably and consequentially resulting from IBM’s unfair competition in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.

188.[sic] IBM’s unfairly competitive conduct was also intentionally and maliciously designed to destroy plaintiff’s business livelihood and all opportunities of plaintiff to derive value from its UNIX-based assets in the marketplace. As such, IBM’s wrongful acts and course of conduct has created a profoundly adverse effect on UNIX business worldwide. As such, this Court should impose an award of punitive damages against IBM in an amount to be proven and supported at trial.

I think you can see pretty easily that this claim is mostly, if not all, dead. All that SCO lists as surviving is the Project Monterey part. IBM will certainly point out that SCO was never in the Project Monterey agreement with IBM. Santa Cruz was, and when it sold to Caldera, later to be called SCO, it broke the terms of the agreement, IBM long ago informed the court. SCO tries to tell it the other way, just as it rounded up ex-Novell executives willing to pretend that SCO got the UNIX copyrights when in reality it did not.

I'll move on to the next claim before my blood pressure gets too high. But I'll just say that in a world filled with corruption, it nevertheless still bothers me a lot when people go into court and testify to things that are not so. And my personal view is that law firms shouldn't help them, because it undermines respect for the law, and that's not the proper role for a lawyer.

Here's SCO's claim VII:

(Interference with Contract)

187 [sic]. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges by reference paragraphs 1-186, [sic]above.

188.[sic] SCO has contracts with customers around the world for licensing of SCO OpenServer and UnixWare.

189.[sic] IBM knew and should have known of these corporate software licensing agreements between SCO and its customers, including the fact that such agreements contain confidentiality provisions and provisions limiting use of the licensed object-based code.

190.[sic] IBM, directly and through its Linux distribution partners, has intentionally and without justification induced SCO’s customers and licensees to breach their corporate licensing agreements, including but not limited to, inducing the customers to reverse engineer, decompile, translate, create derivative works, modify or otherwise use the UNIX software in ways in violation of the license agreements. These customers include Sherwin Williams, Auto Zone, among others.

191.[sic] IBM’s tortious interference has directly and/or proximately caused significant foreseeable damages to SCO, including a substantial loss of revenues.

192[sic]. IBM’s tortious conduct was also intentionally and maliciously designed to destroy plaintiff’s business livelihood and all opportunities of plaintiff to derive value from its UNIX-based assets in the marketplace. As such, this Court should impose an award of punitive damages against IBM in an amount to be proven and supported at trial.

Do you see SCO's problem here? It's that all the evidence from discovery resulted only in claims about code donated to UNIX. And SCO doesn't own that. And as for the contractual element, the AutoZone litigation showed that SCO was whistling past the graveyard. There was no there there. And that is why I despise SCO for keeping this empty litigation going. Part of why.

Here's SCO's Claim IX:

(Interference with Business Relationships)

208. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges by reference paragraphs 1-207, above.

209. SCO had existing or potential economic relationships with a variety of companies in the computer industry, including but not limited to Hewlett Packard.

210. IBM has intentionally interfered with plaintiff's existing or potential economic relations. For example, at Linux World in January, 2003 IBM representatives contacted various companies with whom SCO had existing or potential economic relations. These IBM representatives said that IBM was discontinuing doing business with SCO and that these other companies, some of whom are business partners with IBM, also should discontinue doing business with SCO.

211. IBM, as the world's largest information technology company, as well as the world's largest business and technology services provider ($36 billion), and the world's largest IT financier ($35 billion in assets), has considerable clout with these companies that it told to stop doing business with SCO.

212. IBM's intentional interference was for an improper purpose and/or by improper means.

213. IBM's intentional interference has directly and/or proximately caused significant forseeable damages to SCO.

214. IBM's tortious conduct was also intentionally and maliciously designed to destroy plaintiff's business livelihood. As such, this Court should impose an award of punitive damages against IBM in an amount to be proved and supported at trial.

All of the above companies, and more, testified that it was not true. It never happened. Nobody had to tell people that SCO was dangerous to do business with. SCO was suing its own customers. Like IBM, for example, and making wild claims about Linux that were out-and-out lies, as it developed, but which everyone, including me, knew were not going to stand the test of time. And they didn't. Shame on Microsoft and Sun for giving these people money which SCO used to pursue its fanciful claims. One of SCO's claims was that by distributing Linux for free, it was unfair competition. Sound familiar? That's one of the complaints Microsoft, Oracle and the misnamed FairSearch have lodged against Google. What a coincidence.

And now that Microsoft and Oracle are partners in the cloud, think about the history when you are trying to decide who to trust, if anyone, with your stuff.

Now they'll probably sue me for interference with business relationships.

Sigh. I hate these litigious hijinks. Speaking of which, this claim is the one that SCO brought under a Utah law it itself sponsored after it sued IBM. I always called it Yarro's Law, and you can read about it here, if you scroll down or just search for Yarro.

The final list of those allegedly turned away from SCO were BayStar, HP, Computer Associates, Oracle and Intel and an "OpenSource conference in Scottsdale, Arizona." They all denied it, including the arranger of the conference, John Terpstra.

Right. IBM ruined SCO's reputation in the Linux community. Puh-lease. It was its then-CEO Darl McBride who told the world that he knew if he litigated, the community would hate him, and he decided not to sit around the fireside with us because he cared about the shareholders more. Remember that? "The last time I checked the CEO was in charge of shareholder value, not standing around the campfire singing Kumbaya with the Linux world," he said.

And here's how IBM responded [text; PDF] at the time in its still-pending-after-all-these-years motion for summary judgment:

SCO's Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action allege that IBM has interfered with SCO's contracts and business relationships with customers, business partners and other entities. As shown in detail below, SCO's description of these claims has shifted throughout the pretrial proceedings, expanding, contracting, and again expanding (at times wildly), with the only constant thing being SCO's failure to provide any clear identification of the specific contracts or business relationships that were supposedly injured or the acts of IBM that allegedly caused such injury. Although it appeared that SCO was attempting simply to avoid disclosing its evidence (at least until trial), it is now clear that what SCO has been seeking to disguise is the lack of any support for these claims at all....

1) Of the companies SCO mentioned specifically by name, the companies or entities all deny any such interference and there's absolutely no evidence on SCO's side to support its allegations. And as for the alleged interference with the Unix on Intel market, Utah law doesn't recognize activities regarding an entire market as a basis for recovery for "intentional" interference;

2) Utah law, which IBM says applies to the interference claims because if there had been any injury, it would have been there that it would have been felt, requires SCO to prove that IBM's allegedly tortious acts were undertaken with an improper purpose or by improper means, which is not the case, IBM sums up. In fact, SCO's own experts have acknowledged that IBM's support for Linux was motivated by "compelling competitive reasons and undertaken for the purpose of protecting IBM's legitimate, long-range economic interests";

3) There's no causal link shown by SCO between anything IBM has done and any specific injury to SCO. If SCO is experiencing a deteriorating business, its own witnesses and documents show it's because of a variety of factors having nothing to do with IBM, including "decisions made by SCO management."

Actually, SCO at one point included Groklaw as one entity IBM allegedly tried to turn against SCO. However, then they dropped Groklaw from the ever-changing list. Can you imagine?

I can tell you, with all sincerity, that I never desired a relationship with SCO or had one to ruin, and that I despised SCO all on my own from the first day I heard about their attacks on Linux. Then there was the libel against me in public and the stalking and the threats and the emails pretending to be fans and trying to locate me. Oh, and trying to get the court to gag Groklaw. And after all that, they had the *nerve* to claim IBM interfered with my relationship with SCO.

SCO has no shame. No news there.

In truth, I agreed with Richard Stallman long before that happened that Caldera was a parasite on the FOSS community, and Caldera's SCO persona demonstrated he was right, as he usually is about such things.

Here's how SCO responded to IBM's summary judgment motion on this claim. It's on this level: SCO did not encourage its customers to use Linux instead of UNIX:

SCO supported its customers’ use of Linux as a complement or addition to its UNIX operating systems, but only at the customer’s request, not at SCO’s encouragement.
That is, of course, a very large pile of sliced baloney. At one point, in fact, Caldera sold *only* Linux. And when it bought some UNIX assets, the idea at the time was to move UNIX customers to Linux. Proof from this TechWeb article back in 2001 [full article]:
Caldera Systems Inc. will soon close its acquisition of SCO's Unix business—and jump start its strategy of moving SCO customers to Linux.

Caldera is confident it can move SCO customers to Linux. "We have brick-and-mortar businesses using Unix applications today," said Ransom Love, Caldera president and CEO. "We can move them to Linux and the Internet using Caldera technologies."

Until customers migrate, Caldera, Orem, Utah, will offer Linux as a low-end OS, with UnixWare as a high-end alternative for customers who need more power and for those wary of open-source software. SCO offers technology called Lxrun that lets Linux apps run on UnixWare. Caldera also plans to migrate clustering technology from UnixWare to Linux to make Linux more powerful.


If you'd like to compare what SCO thought remained in the case after the Novell victory on summary judgment on August 10 of 2010 (which is when, by the way, SCO should have quit this entire farce and any normal litigant probably would have, seeing the finger writing on the wall), here's what they said in 2007 in answer to that same question:

Sixth Cause of Action Unfair Competition

SCO alleges that IBM has engaged in unfair competition in several respects. The Order does not bear on SCO's allegations (as described in SCO's Second Amended Complaint, interrogatory responses, and/or prior memoranda in the case) that IBM has engaged in unfair competition through its misconduct in connection with Project Monterey and by inducing companies to breach their corporate licensing agreements with SCO. This claim remains ripe both with respect to SCO's ownership of post-1995 UnixWare copyrights and because SCO's ownership of any UNIX or UnixWare copyrights is not necessary for SCO to pursue the claim.

Seventh Cause of Action Interference with Contract

SCO alleges that IBM has induced companies to breach their corporate licensing agreements with SCO. The Order does not bear on this claim.

Ninth Cause of Action Interference with Business Relationships

SCO alleges that IBM interfered with SCO's actual and prospective business relationships with a variety of companies. The Order does not bear on this claim.

SCO's Claim for Copyright Infringement

In its Order dated February 9, 2005, the Court agreed with IBM's arguments on the question and found that SCO had asserted a general Linux copyright claim in this case. As the Court further noted in the same Order, "IBM's Tenth Counterclaim appears to be broader in scope that SCO's claims." The Order as pertaining to ownership of copyrights bears on this claim inasmuch as it would bar SCO from pursuing such claims as the purported owner of all UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. SCO submits that the Order does not preclude SCO from pursuing copyright infringement claims insofar as it occupies the position of an exclusive licensee from Novell, or as the owner of the post-1995 UnixWare copyrights.

Here's what IBM said back then, which may give us foregleams of what they'll say next:
As is discussed below: (1) the Novell Decision effectively forecloses all of SCO's claims; (2) requires summary judgment in favor of IBM on several of its counterclaims and strengthens IBM's remaining counterclaims; and (3) impacts all of the pending motions.
There was a hearing back in the day on some of SCO's claims about interference and unfair competition, which you can read about here. Some of the claims are dead and buried now, but you may find the interference materials of interest.


SCO Finally Shows its Legal Strategy Going Forward ~pj | 293 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 12:42 PM EDT
Please state the nature of the correction emergency.

For misspellings, please use the form

wrong => right

in the title.

Thank you.

I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 12:43 PM EDT
On-topic posters will be forced to explain, in full legalese, why "rounded
corners on a phone" is an "invention" worthy of patent

I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks here
Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 12:44 PM EDT
Please put the name of the newspick as your title, and a link might be helpful,
in case it scrolls off the front page.

I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes comes here
Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 12:45 PM EDT
For those of you working on it, we all thank you, and you know the drill.

I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Song on Radio
Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 12:57 PM EDT
I think it's the law that radio pays 2 cents for playing a
song. So those views should have raised over $200.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • My Song on Radio - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 01:42 PM EDT
  • My Song on Radio - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 02:06 PM EDT
The Record
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 01:07 PM EDT
The court record is SCO's biggest enemy.

IBM will point to the past record. Groklaw will point it out. Groklaw readers
will point it out.

Maybe SCO can motion to have the past record of the case forgotten. Let's start
fresh on a clean slate untarnished by SCO's past statements.

The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Some of the claims are dead and buried now,"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 01:12 PM EDT
This is a new judge. And this is SCO. Expect quite a few of the dead and
buried claims to be excavated, redressed, and having new lipstick applied.

The main legal strategy of SCO is hoping for IBM to lose concentration in this
whack-a-claim game.

Before justice can be served, it needs to get minced and fried.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"that's not the proper role for a lawyer"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 01:22 PM EDT

I'd just like to say that I would hold utmost respect for the Legal Profession if most carried themselves as Abraham Lincoln did.

You must remember that some things legally right are not morally right.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Chromebook Thread
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 02:45 PM EDT
Proposed new thread... Just for PJ and anyone exploring
Chrome OS.

RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

new Judge, renewed confusion NewSCO vs OldSCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 03:09 PM EDT
Me thinks SCO is trying to befuddle the new judge over the distinction between
Santa Cruz Operations and newSCO.

I believe IBM will set this straight pretty quick.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Quantum law!
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 03:43 PM EDT
We're now seeing something physicists predicted 50 years ago!
Sco has collapsed in on itself and is no longer in this universe. To all intents
and purposes it is gone. However when lawyers gets to close to Sco's event
horizon their intelligence is sucked in and the anti-particle of intelligence is
ejected - and we get another Sco claim!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Finally Shows its Legal Strategy Going Forward ~pj
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 03:57 PM EDT
Having read SCO's response a couple of times I still don't exactly know which
parts of their complaint they are willing to give up. It seems large parts of it
are merely whining about legitimate competition and not tied to any specific
acts by IBM, even some of the specific allegations seem remarkably trying to
sell SCO's customers IBM products.

It seems to me there needs to be an edited version striking exactly which words
they agree are no longer part of it.

Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Finally Shows its Legal Strategy Going Forward ~pj
Authored by: 351-4V on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 06:15 PM EDT
While I'm a bit befuddled about what SCO thinks it might achieve with this and why exactly are they pursuing this of any motive other than habit, I do think it will be interesting and entertaining to watch the Nazgul slice and dice this one apart.

Large popcorn, please.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I found the real reason SCO is still trying
Authored by: foulis on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 06:45 PM EDT
/snark on
I seem to recall (not sure, might have killed that brain cell with demon
alcohol) PJ saying she would go quietly into the night when the SCO litigation
ended. Well, this is McBride and Co. doing a payback. "We won't quit, so
you can't retire. Nyah, nyah."
/snark off

[ Reply to This | # ]

Laughing too hard to snark
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 03:20 AM EDT
There are so many laugh out loud opportunities for snarking (e.g. 'Whose billion was it, anyway?') that I have had to hold myself back. I limit myself to stifled hysteria and one point.
...Linux software releases, intended for transfer of ownership to the general public.
I cannot think of any software releases in the life of Linux and it's many distributions that has ever been intended for transfer of ownership to the general public. Ownership must remain with the author in order for it to be Linux.

Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Finally Shows its Legal Strategy Going Forward ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 11:21 AM EDT
I swear this is a "Shroedinger Lawsuit" ... just don't open
the box... er... Bleppcase.

No one knows if the SCOg's claims are alive or dead...


[ Reply to This | # ]

Which direction?
Authored by: Pogue Mahone on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 02:05 PM EDT
I don't like to disagree with you, PJ, but I think SCO has shown its legal
strategy going backward.

delta alpha victor echo at foxtrot echo november dash november echo tango dot
delta echo

I'm not afraid of receiving e-mail from strangers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO tries to sneak in a couple of things
Authored by: jjon on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 03:26 PM EDT
I see that SCO has stuck to it's tactics, trying to sneak a couple of unrelated things into what should've been a very simple order.

I predict that IBM will successfully object to the last 2 paragraphs of the Order, and the court will just cross them out before signing the order.

The purpose of this order is to simplify the case, by getting rid of the claims that both sides agree are out. So SCO is free to make the claim that "the Novell judgment has no bearing on the following SCO claims...", but IBM is free to disagree. The court shouldn't rule on that here - it's not the appropriate time, and fighting over that would just complicate matters. That argument should wait for the summary judgement motions, which are next. The court should just accept that it's disputed, and it doesn't need to be part of the dismissal order, so the court should cross it out.

SCO also snuck in "Each Party to bear its own fees and costs with regard to the dismissed claims" into the order, without mentioning this in it's accompanying Statement. Since IBM has conclusively won on these claims, and SCO should've realised that was going to happen before it filed it's lawsuit, SCO would normally have to pay IBM's costs. IBM might decide that's not worth fighting, since SCO has no money to pay costs. But if IBM does decide to fight, I believe the court can just leave the discussion about costs to a later date, after there's a final decision covering the whole case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Finally Shows its Legal Strategy Going Forward ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 03:20 PM EDT
Too bad IBM never distributed Caldera / SCO Linux.

Then SCO could sue IBM over Caldera / SCO Linux!

That would be fun to watch.

[ 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 )