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
new Judge, renewed confusion NewSCO vs OldSCO | 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
protection.

---
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.

RAS

[ 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.

---
Regards
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...


...D

[ 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 )