SCO update
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:55 pm
Been a while, and there have been some interesting developments lately. All the details are of course available via Groklaw, but here's some high points.
1) The discovery phase of SCO v IBM has ended. SCO has so far shown no more real evidence than they did on day one. I believe my last update mentioned that a bunch of SCO's claims got thrown out because they didn't specify the location of the supposedly infringing code.
2) Because the discovery phase has ended, IBM has again filed for summary judgement. That means no trial by jury. They specifically cite the lack of specificity, and a whole lot more. SCO, if it is to make an effective answer, will have to be specific enough to convince the judge not to throw them out. Then they'd still have to win. If they didn't, their appeal is not covered under their legal fee cap and they'll start having to pay out the wazoo again for legal services.
(...meanwhile....)
3) In the Novell case, SCO was unwise enough to accuse Novell/SUSE of copyright infringement. Originally, SCO had filed against Novell for claiming that Novell had never sold the copyrights to the Unix code to SCO, and therefore all SCO's claims of ownership are bogus. Anyway, because SCO dragged copyright infringment into the case, Novell was able to demand arbitration under the UnitedLinux agreement, which Corel (SCO's predecessor) had signed up to, effectively preventing them from suing each other for copyright infringement in Linux. That means no trial, and probably a swift end to the matter. Oops.
4) Because SCO actually has to show that they want to get this "damaging" Novell stuff out of the way, and they thought they might have a better shot in court, they asked the judge to not allow a stay (for which Novell had asked) until the arbitration is settled. Judge granted their motion. So then...
5) Novell, who has claimed that SCO owes them many buxors due to Unix licensing agreements (like with Microsoft), and concerned about SCO's dwindling cash reserves, has asked that the court force SCO to set aside the amount in question until the matter is settled. SCO is faced with #2 above, and therefore concerned that doing so would leave it nothing with which to operate its business. Novell's reaction? "We asked for a stay, and you opposed it. NOW you want us to slow down?!?" Smirk. Novell smells blood and they're going in, but like a wiley chessmaster.
(...and finally...)
6) Larry Goldfarb, who works for Baystar capital, the company that invested many millions of dollars in SCO back in 2003, now claims that they did so because Microsoft said they were going to guarantee the investment. (Huh? Is this anti-trust material here?) He claims to have talked to three different highly-placed persons, by name, within MS at the time. He claims David Boies, senior parter at SCO's law firm, told him IBM was going to settle. When he asked to see SCO's evidence, Bois stopped returning phone calls. Hmmmmmm.
Oh, I forgot to mention. SCO is STILL, as of about a week ago, distributing Linux under the GPL. No way they can claim they didn't know what was in it after all these years of litigation. No way they can say oops on this one. Something like that is how Unix tech got out of the control of USL in the first place, and why they weren't going to win the suit against Berkely. Basically, can't claim it's a secret if you're telling the world. SCO can't claim they have secret stuff in Linux when they're piping it out over the net under the GPL.
1) The discovery phase of SCO v IBM has ended. SCO has so far shown no more real evidence than they did on day one. I believe my last update mentioned that a bunch of SCO's claims got thrown out because they didn't specify the location of the supposedly infringing code.
2) Because the discovery phase has ended, IBM has again filed for summary judgement. That means no trial by jury. They specifically cite the lack of specificity, and a whole lot more. SCO, if it is to make an effective answer, will have to be specific enough to convince the judge not to throw them out. Then they'd still have to win. If they didn't, their appeal is not covered under their legal fee cap and they'll start having to pay out the wazoo again for legal services.
(...meanwhile....)
3) In the Novell case, SCO was unwise enough to accuse Novell/SUSE of copyright infringement. Originally, SCO had filed against Novell for claiming that Novell had never sold the copyrights to the Unix code to SCO, and therefore all SCO's claims of ownership are bogus. Anyway, because SCO dragged copyright infringment into the case, Novell was able to demand arbitration under the UnitedLinux agreement, which Corel (SCO's predecessor) had signed up to, effectively preventing them from suing each other for copyright infringement in Linux. That means no trial, and probably a swift end to the matter. Oops.
4) Because SCO actually has to show that they want to get this "damaging" Novell stuff out of the way, and they thought they might have a better shot in court, they asked the judge to not allow a stay (for which Novell had asked) until the arbitration is settled. Judge granted their motion. So then...
5) Novell, who has claimed that SCO owes them many buxors due to Unix licensing agreements (like with Microsoft), and concerned about SCO's dwindling cash reserves, has asked that the court force SCO to set aside the amount in question until the matter is settled. SCO is faced with #2 above, and therefore concerned that doing so would leave it nothing with which to operate its business. Novell's reaction? "We asked for a stay, and you opposed it. NOW you want us to slow down?!?" Smirk. Novell smells blood and they're going in, but like a wiley chessmaster.
(...and finally...)
6) Larry Goldfarb, who works for Baystar capital, the company that invested many millions of dollars in SCO back in 2003, now claims that they did so because Microsoft said they were going to guarantee the investment. (Huh? Is this anti-trust material here?) He claims to have talked to three different highly-placed persons, by name, within MS at the time. He claims David Boies, senior parter at SCO's law firm, told him IBM was going to settle. When he asked to see SCO's evidence, Bois stopped returning phone calls. Hmmmmmm.
Oh, I forgot to mention. SCO is STILL, as of about a week ago, distributing Linux under the GPL. No way they can claim they didn't know what was in it after all these years of litigation. No way they can say oops on this one. Something like that is how Unix tech got out of the control of USL in the first place, and why they weren't going to win the suit against Berkely. Basically, can't claim it's a secret if you're telling the world. SCO can't claim they have secret stuff in Linux when they're piping it out over the net under the GPL.