decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
As an IBM Employee... | 401 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:34 AM EDT
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:35 AM EDT
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:35 AM EDT
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:36 AM EDT
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Decade And A Ghost -- Wow!
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:54 AM EDT
Ten years now for this case, and SCO is just a ghost of its former self -- in
fact it's difficult to see what is there that is worth messing with, though it's
always been difficult to see how they ever really thought they had a case.

Well, it would be nice if the old "ghost" is quickly extinguished, but
it seems to have more lives than two cats.

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

a possible explanation for SCO's motion
Authored by: IANALitj on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 04:53 AM EDT
Looking at SCO's motion, the formalities suggest a possible explanation for this
effort.

The motion is brought by "THE SCO GROUP, INC., by and through the Chapter
11 Trustee in Bankruptcy, Edward N. Cahn"

There are quite a group of lawyers identified as representing the movant: two
from HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C. (one being Brent O. Hatch) and no fewer than
six from BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP (including David Boies, Robert
Silver, Stuart H. Singer, and Edward Normand).

These last four are not cheap to hire.

It seems to me that Cahn might be well aware that this whole exercise is likely
to fail, but he is going ahead anyway.

About the only asset available to the estate of which Cahn is the trustee is the
obligation of retained counsel to represent him through thick and thin -- mostly
thin, by now.

By demanding that his counsel proceed in all possible directions, Cahn is going
to be costing them a pretty penny. They might be willing to come up with real
cash to get off the hook.

As a pleasant by-product, Cahn is also costing IBM some money. (I doubt,
however, that he would bother to suggest that IBM also contribute to bring this
matter to an end.)

Just my cynical opinion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I get the impression.....
Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 05:00 AM EDT
.... that IBM know that there is no hope of recovering anything except maggots and a very bad smell from the rotting corpse of SCO, but are going to make BSF suffer for their part in the fiaSCO by making them do yet more unpaid work, their costs already having passed the capped limit in their deal with the SCOundrels.

If so, that may teach Boies a lesson about the need to check that their clients really have a case before taking their money. The actions of BSF, from the beginning, were highly unethical and resulted ultimately in the bankrupcy of SCO. Ethical and responsible lawyers should have turned down the case, in the interests of the client, who from the beginning could not win, perhaps some did before BSF came along?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl Mcbride back in the news
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 05:37 AM EDT

He's a class act.

Salt Lake Tribune

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do you realize this case has been going on for ten years and two months?
Authored by: tyche on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 07:19 AM EDT
I can only say one thing to PJ's statement (above) - Jarndyce v Jarndyce.

The difference between this actual English Court of Chancery case - the basis
for Charles Dickens 'Bleak House' novel - is that IBM actually has a case, and
TSCOG doesn't.

Popcorn, anyone?

Craig
Tyche

---
"The Truth shall Make Ye Fret"
"TRUTH", Terry Pratchett

[ Reply to This | # ]

Coyote vs the Roadrunner
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 08:36 AM EDT

This reminds me of the Warner Brothers cartoons of my childhood. Wile E.
Coyote was going to try and get the Roadrunner. You knew he was going
to fail from the start of the cartoon. The we question was how inventive he
would be, and how he would fail.

Good entertainment!

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

Counterclaim 10
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 09:57 AM EDT
Are the issues, that IBM tried to quash with counterclaim 10, really settled or
could they ever rise again like the undead? In other words, could whoever owns
the Unix copyrights ever raise the issue that IBM copied their code into
Linux?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Responds to SCO's Motion Asking for Reconsideration ~pj
Authored by: eggplant37 on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 10:30 AM EDT
I'm simply speechless that I'm sitting here, 10 years after I
first started reading about this case, and the zombie wants
to resurrect. Hilarious. Get the popcorn, mates. I predict
shenanigans are going to get ribald.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Be careful what you wish for, SCOXQ...
Authored by: red floyd on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 01:59 PM EDT
You might just get it.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO at it again... (sw goes to look up def of "swivel eyed loon")
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 02:06 PM EDT
The UK version of the species is easy to spot...

How to spot a swivel-eyed loon: A beginner's guide to this increasingly vocal species

I wonder if this is the US version?

---
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 | # ]

IBM Responds to SCO's Motion Asking for Reconsideration ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 02:28 PM EDT
>>>
I believe all that's left ... is SCO's unfair competition claim regarding
Project Monterey and its tortious interference claim alleging that IBM
interfered with SCO's market and business relationships.
>>>

Before Chapt. 11 in September 2007, the prevailing opinion on
Groklaw was that the real case was contractual and the copyrights
laments were just fud.

Indeed, IBM released large code modules (e.g. file sytems) as GPL to
Linux and SCO couldn't stop whining about it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Responds to SCO's Motion Asking for Reconsideration ~pj
Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:49 PM EDT
{
To tell you the truth, I'm kind of looking forward to this case being reopened
}

Pass the popcorn. ;-)


---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Responds to SCO's Motion Asking for Reconsideration ~pj
Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 05:36 PM EDT
To think how quaint and simple times were a decade ago, when
all we had were copyrights to worry about. Things that we
could prove the provenance of, if over time.

Now with the awful patent trolling that is going on now by the
likes of Apple, Microsoft, Nokia, Lodsys and uncountable
others. Makes me almost wish for the good old days :-D

---
Scott
-------------------------
LINUX - VISIBLY superior!
--------------------------------------

[ Reply to This | # ]

As an IBM Employee...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 26 2013 @ 03:00 AM EDT
This is very heart warming. It sends a very clear message to
anyone who wants to file frivolous allegations against IBM in
the future. And what better way than to yank the rotting SCO
carcass from the vultures, suck out their bone marrow and then
crush their bones.

The fact that David Boies will endure more financial misery is
satisfying to say the least. This case will haunt him until
the day he dies. SCO and David Boies are forever linked.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell is Attachmate
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 11:39 AM EDT
Would Attachmate still be willing to waive SCO's claims against IBM?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Responds to SCO's Motion Asking for Reconsideration ~pj
Authored by: AH1 on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 05:39 PM EDT
Agreed. I am willing to bet there are a number of litigation happy trolls who
are unwilling to tempt fate. The precedent is there. Sue us ONLY if you are
ready to fight to the death. Then be prepared at the end to watch us grind the
your dead corpse of your company into dust.

Then again SCO was warned of their folly every day for the last 10 years......

[ 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 )