proxy70

https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/08/28/0237243/after-18-years-scos-ibm-litigation-may-be-settled-for-145-million

Slashdot

* Stories
*
+ Firehose
+ All
+ Popular
* Polls
* Software
* Apparel

Submit
Search Slashdot
[ ]
* Login
* or
* Sign up

* Topics:
* Devices
* Build
* Entertainment
* Technology
* Open Source
* Science
* YRO

* Follow us:
* RSS
* Facebook
* Google+
* Twitter
* Youtube
* Newsletter

Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

Nickname: [ ]

Password: [ ]

[ ] Public Terminal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Log In] Forgot your password?
Close

binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid

freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe

offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated

insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated

descriptive

typodupeerror

Try the CryptoTab Browser. It works like a regular web browser but
mines Bitcoin for you while you use it! Works on all devices. | Do
you develop on GitHub? You can keep using GitHub but automatically
sync your GitHub releases to SourceForge quickly and easily with this
tool and take advantage of SourceForge's massive reach. | Follow
Slashdot on LinkedIn
x
151105221 story IBM Open Source The Courts

After 18 Years, SCO's IBM Litigation May Be Settled for $14.5 Million
(scribd.com) 126

Posted by EditorDavid on Friday August 27, 2021 @11:30PM from the
worth-the-wait dept.
Slashdot has confirmed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware that after 18 years of legal maneuvering, SCO's
bankruptcy case (first filed in 2007) is now "awaiting discharge."

Long-time Slashdot reader rkhalloran says they know the reason:
Papers filed 26 Aug by IBM & SCOXQ in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Delaware for a proposed settlement, Case 07-11337-BLS Doc 1501:

By the Settlement Agreement, the Trustee has reached a settlement
with IBM that resolves all of the remaining claims at issue in the
Utah Litigation (defined below). The Settlement Agreement is the
culmination of extensive arm's length negotiation between the Trustee
and IBM.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Parties have agreed to resolve
all disputes between them for a payment to the Trustee, on behalf of
the Estates, of $14,250,000. For the reasons set forth more fully
below, the Trustee submits the Settlement Agreement and the
settlement with IBM are in the best interests of the Estates and
creditors, are well within the range of reasonableness, and should be
approved.
The proposed order would include "the release of the Estates' claims
against IBM and vice versa" (according to this PDF attributed to SCO
Group and IBM uploaded to scribd.com). And one of the reasons given
for the proposed settlement? "The probability of the ultimate success
of the Trustee's claims against IBM is uncertain," according to an
IBM/SCO document on Scribd.com titled Trustee's motion: For example,
succeeding on the unfair competition claims will require proving to a
jury that events occurring many years ago constituted unfair
competition and caused SCO harm. Even if SCO were to succeed in that
effort, the amount of damages it would recover is uncertain and could
be significantly less than provided by the Settlement Agreement. Such
could be the case should a jury find that (1) the amount of damage
SCO sustained as a result of IBM's conduct is less than SCO has
alleged, (2) SCO's damages are limited by a $5 million damage
limitation provision in the Project Monterey agreement, or (3) some
or all of IBM's Counterclaims, alleging millions of dollars in
damages related to IBM's Linux activities and alleged interference by
SCO, are meritorious.

Although the Trustee believes the Estates would ultimately prevail on
claims against IBM, a not insignificant risk remains that IBM could
succeed with its defenses and/or Counterclaims
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware told Slashdot
that the first meeting of the creditors will be held on September
22nd, 2021.

[apply tags ]

Related Links

The Most Popular Posts On Facebook Are Plagiarized

The SCO Vs IBM Zombie Shambles On

Submission: IBM settles SCO case after 18 years for $14.5MM

Titan's Strange Chemical World Gets Simulated in Tiny Tubes

After 18 Years, SCO's IBM Litigation May Be Settled for $14.5 Million
More | Reply Login

After 18 Years, SCO's IBM Litigation May Be Settled for $14.5 Million

Post Load All Comments
Full Abbreviated Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More | Reply Login

Nickname: [ ]

Password: [ ]

[ ] Public Terminal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Log In] Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Search 126 Comments Log In/Create an Account
Comments Filter:

* All
* Insightful
* Informative
* Interesting
* Funny

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted
them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

*
Darl McBride? (Score:5, Interesting)

by backslashdot ( 95548 ) writes: on Friday August 27, 2021
@11:37PM (#61737567)

No jailtime for Darl McBride inflicting mental damage and
harassment on Linux users? I wonder how much damage the FUD
inflicted on Linux workers and companies just to keep brain-dead
SCO alive on life support?

Reply to This Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
+
+
Re:Darl McBride? (Score:5, Interesting)

by suss ( 158993 ) writes: on Saturday August 28, 2021
@12:07AM (#61737629)

Apparently he's a mormon and spawned 7 children. He also
filed for bankruptcy last december...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

I'm guessing/hoping he's getting nothing out of this.

Reply to This Parent Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
o
o
Re:Darl McBride? (Score:5, Informative)

by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) writes: on Saturday
August 28, 2021 @04:57AM (#61737911)

I'd paternity test those children. Wouldn't be the first
time Darl has claimed authorship of work done by others.

For those unaware, the SysV UNIX code that SCO claimed
was violated by the Linux kernel was never owned by SCO.
It was owned by Novell, SCO only had a license to sell
licenses for it, and SCO had been failing to pass along
the licensing fees to Novell, which came up in the
proceedings.

Reply to This Parent Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
#
o
My clock is wrong. It doesn't say April 1st (Score:2)

by shanen ( 462549 ) writes:

Or should it say October 31st for a story about zombies
and vampires?

Please make it go away. But don't pay it money. That will
just make it hungry and it will come back for more.

However I mostly see this entire thing as proof of
concept. The concept is a borken [sic] economic system.
(Apologies to Patrick Dussud the Lisp master of
Microsoft. (I worked with him at TI many long years
ago.))

#
o
#
#
@
@
Re: (Score:2)

by Maury Markowitz ( 452832 ) writes:

> Remember kids: Allah never once says he loves
you!

Do you blame him?

-
+
They probably would've made more 18 yrs ago. (Score:5,
Insightful)

by big-giant-head ( 148077 ) writes: on Saturday August 28,
2021 @02:05AM (#61737737)

IBM probably would've written them a 20 or 30 million dollar
check to go away 18 years ago. Now probably every cent of
that 14 mil is going to lawyers for 18 years worth of work.
Stupid greedy assholes.

Reply to This Parent Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
o
o
Re: (Score:3)

by Maury Markowitz ( 452832 ) writes:

I'm curious why there is any money exchanging hands at
all. Nothing was demonstrated, so what is IBM actually
paying for?

#
#
Re: They probably would've made more 18 yrs ago. (
Score:2)

by op00to ( 219949 ) writes:

14.5 million is nothing for IBM. Not even a rounding
error. This is a cheap way to kill SCO once and for
all.

@
@
Re: They probably would've made more 18 yrs ago.
(Score:2)

by neilo_1701D ( 2765337 ) writes:

How is giving SCO money killing them?

-
-
Re: (Score:2)

by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) writes:

Because in exchange they're agreeing not to
sue any more, and they owe far more than
they're getting.

If I buy you a gun, and you agree to point it
at your head, the fact I paid $699 for the
gun (it's an SCO Linux gun!) doesn't mean I'm
not killing you by giving you it.

Why is SCO settling? Because this is the best
they'll get. If they don't accept it SCO's
eventual bankruptcy judge will start coming
for the personal assets of every board member
and executive.

=
#
Re:They probably would've made more 18 yrs ago. (
Score:5, Insightful)

by whoever57 ( 658626 ) writes: on Saturday August
28, 2021 @01:22PM (#61738795) Journal

so what is IBM actually paying for?

So that IBM doesn't have to keep reporting the
ongoing litigation in its public documents.

Reply to This Parent Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
@
+
Re:Darl McBride? (Score:4)

by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) writes: on Saturday August
28, 2021 @02:54AM (#61737783)

FUD inflicted on Linux workers and companies

Look at it this way: today, Linux powers the world one way or
the other, and provides jobs to millions - including yours
truly, DESPITE the SCO bullshit. Why? Because it's so much
better than the FUD that it simply went right past it and
established itself on its own technical merits (not that
Linux wasn't already taken seriously in the 2000's mind
you...)

If anything, the SCO-IBM thing was an acid test that Linux
passed with flying colors.

Also, at the time, it proved that it was getting to be a big
enough pie that big companies were willing to go at each
other's throat with millions of dollars and beaucoup lawyers
to get a a slice of the pie.

The SCO-IBM lawsuit was a good thing for Linux. Just not for
SCO.

Reply to This Parent Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
o
o
Re:Darl McBride? (Score:4)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes: <
martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Saturday August 28, 2021
@06:35AM (#61738057) Homepage Journal

The SCO-IBM lawsuit was a good thing for Linux. Just not
for SCO.

None of the SCO suits were good for Linux, period. All of
them increased uncertainty and thereby reduced uptake,
setting back computing substantially with continued use
of Windows.

Reply to This Parent Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
#
#
Re:Darl McBride? (Score:4)

by Junta ( 36770 ) writes: on Saturday August 28,
2021 @07:44AM (#61738137)

The argument is that prior to the case, a lot of the
industry was still wary. I recall a few people
speaking about how the stuff hadn't really been
tested in court, as one reason to stick by their
veteran Unix vendor, or if x86 is so appealing, maybe
consider Microsoft stuff. So sure, it did scare a lot
of people, but the fact that things were out in the
open in a real court gave the industry a general
sense for how the courts would treat it and also
further influence the industry to reinforce how to
treat Unix code and GPL code to avoid having trouble.

Further, as far as possible cases go, SCO v. IBM
probably was one of the better scenarios. If it could
have been some direct legal conflict between
Microsoft and IBM it would have likely been much more
complicated in the industry perception. IBM is famous
for its legal prowess and SCO was perceived as a
dying company trying to pull a hail mary with people
skeptical about their chances. Microsoft would have
been a different sort of scenario. The fact that the
SCO case happened, but no other major conflicts of
this nature happened was reassuring, that even when a
concrete demonstration of the legal opportunity is
presented, no one else jumps into the fray directly.

Despite SCO being seen as a desperate crash grab, the
grounds of the case looked at least more substantial
than an utterly frivolous lawsuit. So it was the
right balance between 'nutjob trying to get money
from IBM for no reason whatsoever, so ignore the
whole thing' and 'they may have a serious legal
problem'.

It's all a judgement call and it's impossible to know
which view is right, but I can see the argument that
SCO v. IBM while frustrating, may have ultimately
been better than alternatives.

Reply to This Parent Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
@
@
Re: (Score:3)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:

IBM is famous for its legal prowess

...and yet is winding up paying millions in a
settlement. That's not a positive outcome. It
leaves everyone else saying "if even IBM had to
pay, what chance do we have to escape alive?"

-
-
Re: (Score:3)

by Junta ( 36770 ) writes:

That's true, though I think the most likely
target for frustration would be a legal
system can be unfair and force someone to pay
to make it go away when they want some
proceedings to just stop, when the adversary
is willing to just keep it alive in the
courts indefinitely.

I would like some analysis as to why paying
would have been IBM's only or best option
though. Regardless of the reason, it's
ridiculous that they could reasonably keep
this going for 18 years with nothing
substantive to present after the

=
#
Re: (Score:2)

by whoever57 ( 658626 ) writes:

All of them increased uncertainty and thereby
reduced uptake,

For a time. But then documents came out partially as
a result of the litigation which showed definitively
that Linux was clean. It's possible that it was a net
benefit, because it ultimately undercut the FUD that
Microsoft was promoting.

@
#
Re: (Score:3)

by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) writes:

Don't want to rain on all of your parades (not just
you drinky but the people you're replying to) but
from what I could tell the corporate world just
ignored the lawsuit completely. Virtually everything
that isn't Mac based that's "new" is based upon the
Linux kernel now. Almost everything else has
disappeared - Windows has, if anything, retreated and
is now only ever used on desktops and a declining
number of servers. QNX et al are even nichier than
they were before.

TVs? STBs? Medical alert bracelets? W

@
o
#
#
Re: (Score:3)

by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) writes:

When I say it's a good thing, it's because it didn't
cost anyone of any value in the Linux community any
money.

SCO's reputation was irreparably damaged and they
lost a bundle of money. Cry me a river...

IBM's budget is bottomless. Who cares.

Yes, it did provide an insane source of income for a
lot of attorneys - something deplorable in and of
itself. That's the only downside.

@
@
Re:Darl McBride? (Score:5, Insightful)

by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) writes: on
Saturday August 28, 2021 @05:01AM (#61737923)

It actually cost us a great deal. The uncertainty
seemed feasible, and appealed to many anti-free
software advocates, and people who continued to
insist that Linux was a UNIX. It is not a UNIX:
it is not POSIX compliant with the UNIX standards
and not permitted to use the trademark.

The lawsuit served to keep companies uncertain
about the provenance and wary of possible
violations away from Linux for years. Settled or
not, obviously fraudulent or not, various firms
and even developers chose to avoid the risk.

Reply to This Parent Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
-
-
Not just developers (Score:2)

by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) writes:
OEM computer manufacturers. The idea of
selling a computer that had no Microsoft
software is highly appealing to an OEM. If
nothing else they can use it as a negotiating
tactic and if the os is free even better. But
you can bet the thought of selling say half a
million PCS running Linux and then facing a
multi-million dollar lawsuit kept a lot of
them away. Remember most people use PCS for
shopping and email. Maybe organizing pictures
a bit. That's why Chromebooks took off so
much. It's also why it had to b
=
+
Re: (Score:2)

by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) writes:

I wonder how much damage the FUD inflicted on Linux workers
and companies

None. The world didn't care. And Linux went from nothing to
one of the world's most used systems (in the form of embedded
and mobile devices) during the SCO litigation period.

o
+
Microsoft's interest in the SCO lawsuit (Score:3,
Informative)

by pcr_teacher ( 1977472 ) writes:

Was this lawsuit only about money?
Doesn't anyone remember Microsoft's interest in this lawsuit?

https://www.zdnet.com/article/... [zdnet.com]

"Mr. Emerson stated that Microsoft wished to promote SCO and
its pending lawsuit about IBM and the Linux operating system.
But Microsoft did not want to be seen as attacking IBM or
Linux. For that reason, Microsoft wanted to further its
interest through independent investors such as BayStar,"
Goldfarb claimed."

o
+
Re: (Score:2)

by methano ( 519830 ) writes:
I remember being intensely interested in this a number of
years ago. Now I can't even remember who I was pulling for.
o
+
Re: (Score:2)

by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) writes:

If anything, Linux is a far stronger force now than it was in
2007. Proving damages would probably be quite difficult, as
SCO is only known as a punchline to a series of jokes now,
and Linux runs the majority of the Internet and devices used
as clients on the Internet (Android phones)

o
*
That should almost pay off the lawyers (Score:5, Informative)

by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) writes: on Friday August 27, 2021
@11:37PM (#61737569)

$14M is petty cash for IBM and to make this go away once and for
all is worth a lot more than that.

I hadn't thought about SCO since groklaw went out of print but I
cannot remember a single meritorious or justified claim that SCO
was pursuing. How the hell did they manage to last this long in
litigation? Microsoft was funding them long ago but I thought
that was over with.

Reply to This Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
+
+
Re: (Score:3)

by ytene ( 4376651 ) writes:
They didn't.

If you remember, IBM had filed a motion to dismiss before the
original Judge, Dale A. Kimball. Judge Kimball had already
signalled through previous rulings that he was not buying
TSG's fiction, so on the day before everyone was due back in
court, TSG filed for bankruptcy.

They thought that they would ride out the storm, regroup and
carry on, but the bankruptcy judge, Kevin Gross, had other
ideas. He took the entire company and put it into the hands
of a former judge, now a partner in a lega
o
o
Re: (Score:3)

by H_Fisher ( 808597 ) writes:
In other words, it's Charles Dickens' Bleak House, but
set in modern times, and with computers.
#
#
Re: (Score:2)

by shanen ( 462549 ) writes:

Currently reading the introduction of Bleak House and
trying to decide whether or not to continue. I think
you just answered "No."

@
*
Welp that's it folks (Score:5, Funny)

by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) writes: on Friday August 27, 2021
@11:38PM (#61737575)
time to close down /.. It's been a good run, but the promise of a
fresh round of SCO lawsuits is the only thing keeping this site
going.

Maybe if we brought back Natalie Portman's hot grits....
Reply to This Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
+
+
Re:Welp that's it folks (Score:4, Funny)

by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) writes: on Saturday August 28, 2021
@12:09AM (#61737633)
No, we have to wait for the year of the Linux desktop!
Reply to This Parent Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
o
o
Re: (Score:2)

by backslashdot ( 95548 ) writes:

Yeah, I'm waiting for my flying car powered by fusion
energy running desktop linux on a beowulf cluster of
raspberry pis where I shall play Duke Nukem Forever
(actual envisioned version.)

#
#
Re: (Score:2)

by bn-7bc ( 909819 ) writes:
Well give it 30 years, by that time you at least will
have cars powered by fusion ( at least indirectly eg
EVs power by a grid partially powered by fusion power
plants). The flying part might need longer, an ai'm
not shore we want that un dense urban environments at
least, it complex enough to manage essentially 2d
traffic. On intercity/interstate highways maybe where
you have rather ling stretches for people to merge/
divert in 3 dimensions ( well wihecles on ap, I don't
trust the average driver with pilot
@
@
Re: (Score:2)

by josquin9 ( 458669 ) writes:

Technically, anything powered by solar energy is
fusion powered, so, if you put a few panels on
your garage roof to charge the battery, you've
got your fusion-powered car.

-
-
Re: (Score:3)

by dryeo ( 100693 ) writes:

Technically, all fossil fuels were originally
created with fusion power, so we already have
fusion powered vehicles.

=
o
Re: (Score:2)

by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) writes:

No, we have to wait for the year of the Linux desktop!

ChromeOS is Linux. There are 50 million of them on
desktops.

#
#
Re: (Score:3)

by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) writes:

A bootloader for a webbrowser is not the Linux that
the nerds asked for.

@
@
Re:Welp that's it folks (Score:4, Informative)

by Junta ( 36770 ) writes: on Saturday August 28,
2021 @07:53AM (#61738141)

To their credit, they do let you run linux in a
container environment including graphical
applications. It still kind of sucks because it
can go a bit off the rails and mysteriously not
work and be hard to fix (I found out recently
that when my kid logs into their ChromeBook too
fast after turning it on, the android runtime
fails to start and will never start, or sometimes
on a boot, it can't possible decrypt the home
directory unless it's rebooted, and options to
try to fix are limited because they do the
equivalent of 'welding the hood shut'). Their
window management is pretty bare bones and no
flexibility to pick a different one.

So I agree with ChromeOS being not the Linux I
wanted, but ChromeOS is a bit more than a
web-browser boot loader. Strangely as of WSLG,
Windows is *closer* to being a nice Linux
experience than ChromeOS, since it's equally
capable but frankly has better software quality
than Google, but it still lacks Window management
capabilities that I can easily get in a 'real'
Linux desktop.

Reply to This Parent Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
-
#
Re: (Score:2)

by bn-7bc ( 909819 ) writes:
What is this obsession with linux on the deskrop,
linux dominates servers and embedded ( at keast to
some degree, and we can debate wether Android is
linux or not in other places). Isn'r that enugh? I
know this is controversial but maby, just naby linux
is not a goid desktop OS for everybody? Maybe
resources spent on desktop could be better spent on
making linux even better at server and embedded.
@
o
Re: Welp that's it folks (Score:2)

by guacamole ( 24270 ) writes:

And the space elevator.

#
#
Re: (Score:2)

by bn-7bc ( 909819 ) writes:
Well that might be what the market gives them, I
think windows ( gaming, and legacy corparates) And
mac ,for those how absolutely hate Windows or need to
run mac only sw ,has the desktop market prity much in
their grip, but so what I'm nit saying that desktop
is dying but it's becoming less important over all.
Grandma( or grandpa fir that maatter ) might do ok
with a br keyboard ( and possibly even a mose) for
their tablet, a lot of ofgice drones might as well
have that boot-loafer for a web browser for al
@
o
Re: (Score:2)

by HiThere ( 15173 ) writes:

For me that was 1999. Plus or minus a year. But I kept
MSWind around until a usable word processor showed up.

#
o
#
#
Re: (Score:2)

by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) writes:
Bring CmdrTaco back!
@
+
Re: (Score:2)

by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) writes:

Definitely, if this brings back Pamela Jones and Groklaw. I
recall that McBride had cashed out over 20 million worth of
shares in SCO during that whole farce -- wonder where all
that money went ? I also remember spending years out of my
life, under the same nick, doing transcribing and reading
*every* single word written about the case. IMHO the best
possible outcome would be for McBride and Ralph Yarro to get
real jobs. The kind where you have to punch a clock. Then
they can begin to learn about the real v

o
+
Re: (Score:2)

by Bu11etmagnet ( 1071376 ) writes:

> Maybe if we brought back Natalie Portman's hot grits

I'm currently trying to imagine a Beowulf cluster of these.

o
*
Win for IBM (Score:2)

by careysub ( 976506 ) writes:

This is surely less than the litigation costs IBM was facing just
to address the (meritless) claims of these IP pros. Now they can
close the books on it.

+
*
Yeah, SCO should pay 14.5 million to IBM (Score:3)

by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) writes: on Friday August 27, 2021
@11:40PM (#61737579)

and everyone else they tried to sue.

SCO should also be liable for all the court costs over 18 years.

Make sure you cut the head off and stuff it with garlic, after
you stake the heart.

Reply to This Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
+
*
I've been on /. long enough to remember (Score:2)

by Sebby ( 238625 ) writes:

when this whole mess started. I quite frankly never expected it
to last this long, and after a point, thought it would never
actually end.

+
+
Re: (Score:2)

by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) writes:

You've never been to court then.

I sued the builders of my house for hidden defects and it
took 7 years to get a judgment.

My problem was a wet wall. Nothing like SCO's outrageous
claims involving billions of dollars in damage. 18 years
doesn't surprise me in the slightest. If anything, I'm
surprised it's finally brought to a close.

o
o
Re: I've been on /. long enough to remember (Score:2)

by alexgieg ( 948359 ) writes:

Your legal system is fast compared to the one in my
country. A few years ago we read in the news about a
civil case that got its final judgment after 120 years.
It went through the transition from monarchy to republic,
then through 7 regime changes between democratic and
dictatorial periods, 4 constitutions (including a
constitutionless period and the civil war that followed
demanding a constitution), and 2 revamps of the entire
civil code...

#
+
Re: (Score:2)

by Junta ( 36770 ) writes:

Get off my lawn, person with a 6-digit id ;)

o
+
o
o
Re: (Score:2)

by HiThere ( 15173 ) writes:

No. It's the result of one honest judge being replaced
(via a carefully timed bankruptcy proceeding) by a
crooked one who effectively stole the money for his
friend.

#
*
18 years! shakes head (Score:5, Insightful)

by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) writes: on Friday August 27, 2021
@11:56PM (#61737609)
Justice delayed! Is Justice denied!
America's legal system is completely broken. The Judges and
Lawyers have mucked up the works so badly that we as a society
can't afford/get actual justice on a meaningful time frame.
Reply to This Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
+
+
Re: (Score:3)

by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) writes:

Society doesn't give a shit about a contractual spat between
two companies. This isn't a criminal case.

o
o
Re: (Score:2)

by geekmux ( 1040042 ) writes:

Society doesn't give a shit about a contractual spat
between two companies. This isn't a criminal case.

And your statement does nothing to invalidate the parents
point. You act like criminal cases really go any better,
or society ranks it any higher on the give-a-shit meter.
They don't, which is why we maintain a US Legal system
and not a US Justice system. As with everything else
infected by Greed, it eventually comes down to making
money, and little else.

#
#
Re: (Score:2)

by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) writes:

And your statement does nothing to invalidate the
parents point.

It does as it has nothing to do with justice.

You act like criminal cases really go any better, or
society ranks it any higher on the give-a-shit meter.

No evidence was provided for or against criminal
cases. If you want to discuss that then let's start a
new thread rather than derailing a conversation, and
as to society rankings, it absolutely does. Society
cares about the speed of a justice system which
depends on fast resolution of matters of law. Law is
what governs society, not contracts or copyright
disputes. Literally no one gives a shit about this
except for the companies involved and it is not a
matter o

@
@
Re: (Score:2)

by HiThere ( 15173 ) writes:

That is a very strange position. If someone were
to sue you for no reason and the verdict go
against you, would you not feel that as
injustice?

Life and liberty are important, but they can't be
supported without finances. Being unreasonably
reft of you finances is a violation of justice.

-
*
Made my day (Score:2)

by LeeLynx ( 6219816 ) writes:
Not bad as cost-of-litigation settlements go, but considering how
much VC and other speculative money has been plowed into SCO in
its various incarnations over nearly 2 decades, that is a
hilariously small payout. I guess sometimes you gotta spend $100
to make $1.
+
*
* * F I N A L L Y * * (Score:3)

by divide overflow ( 599608 ) writes: on Saturday August 28, 2021
@12:40AM (#61737663)
This travesty of justice should have ended 20+ years ago.
It's absolutely shameful that SCO was able to drag this on for so
long.
Reply to This Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
+
+
Re:* * F I N A L L Y * * (Score:5, Interesting)

by sjames ( 1099 ) writes: on Saturday August 28, 2021
@12:50AM (#61737671) Homepage Journal

And even more shameful that SCO gets even a single penny in
payment. I get why IBM is willing just to make this go away
once and for all, but it's still a real shame that this is
about the only way it ever will.

Reply to This Parent Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
o
o
Re: (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:

Frankly, it's not clear that it actually will. SCO may
just sue someone else next, and it will still do damage
to IBM's bottom line which is now largely Linux-based,
and this decision might still cost them more money in the
future.

#
o
Re: (Score:3)

by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) writes:

And even more shameful that SCO gets even a single penny
in payment

SCO didn't. They don't exist anymore. Also SCO wouldn't
have even if they did exist. This doesn't cover legal
bills for a 18 year long fight.

#
*
I'll believe it when I see it (Score:2)

by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) writes:

Actually, maybe not even then - we've been told this was over
before.

+
*
Still confusing (Score:3)

by dogsbreath ( 730413 ) writes: on Saturday August 28, 2021
@01:04AM (#61737683)

The whole mess was in legal purgatory with incremental things
happening but no end in sight. See IBM SCO timeline
[wikipedia.org]

Back in April some outfit named Xinuos [arstechnica.com] buys SCO
and launches a bunch of familiar sounding lawsuits.

If Xinuos bought SCO, why is a trustee still involved?

Is this settlement with SCO via the trustee also settle the IBM
vs Xinuos lawsuit? Or are the IBM Nazgul (lawyers) settling this
to refocus on the new lawsuits?

Now, what about all of the other SCO legal wranglings. Is this
$14M plus settlement going to fund the remaining SCO/Xinuos
claims against Daimler, Autozone, et al? Hopefully it has to go
to pay off debts and not keep this zombie in play.

Also nothing appears to be settled about the merits of copyright
ownership claims of SCO/Xinuos. What is that status now? There is
no mention of Linux anywhere that I can see so are the
infringement claims still in play?

Doesn't sound like this is over yet unless there are legal
resolutions pending that haven't been reported on. Again, where
the fuck is Xinuos in all this?

Reply to This Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
+
+
Re: (Score:3)

by Aighearach ( 97333 ) writes:

Xinuos didn't buy SCO, they bought whatever was left of their
IP.

o
o
Re: (Score:2)

by dogsbreath ( 730413 ) writes:

That doesn't really explain a lot.

#
#
@
@
Re: (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:

Right, the real objection is why the fuck was SCO
allowed to sell anything so critical to the case
at hand while the future of their "company" was
in question and based in part on that asset?

-
-
Re: (Score:2)

by dogsbreath ( 730413 ) writes:

Yes. Exactly.

=
@
Re: (Score:2)

by dogsbreath ( 730413 ) writes:

Spelling it out for you: I am saying that there
is a lot of litigation left to be dealt with and
although IBM was the biggest individual target
the major issues and lawsuits are still up in the
air. Saying Xinuos bought some SCO IP instead of
SCO as a whole doesn't explain anything about the
current status of SCO, Xinuos and the IP claims.
It certainly doesn't explain how if someone else
now owns the IP to an extent that they launch
basically the same lawsuits all over again, that
the trustee can conti

-
-
Re: (Score:2)

by Aighearach ( 97333 ) writes:

Yes, it does explain those things. Quit
waving your hands around, and put on your
thinking cap.

And fuck off with your snide claims of being
anti-snide, moron. You ask the same questions
you just got the answer to. I'm not being
snide. At all. I'm not mocking you
ironically. I answered your fucking question.

=
o
Re: (Score:2)

by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) writes:

Since SCO did not own the SysV UNIX copyrights, and never
did, I fail to see the relevance. Novell never sold SCO
the copyrights, only permission to sell licenses to
others.

#
#
Re: (Score:2)

by dogsbreath ( 730413 ) writes:

Yes of course. You and I understand this yet SCO
launched many law suits based on the premise of
owning the rights. As far as I can tell nothing was
ever completely settled. Multiple lawsuits and
appeals are still dangling out there.

All this IBM/SCO result does is stop SCO litigation
about AIX infringement and things covered for IBM
only in the actions between SCO and IBM. Although IBM
was by far the biggest target, this action was never
the major thrust of SCO's claims.

Another question that hasn't bee

@
@
Re: (Score:2)

by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) writes:

None of the other lawsuits are hanging out there,
thankfully. The judge in the IBM suit did rule on
the stuff that was the basis of SCO's claims, and
almost all of it wound up getting tossed out for
various reasons (mostly being that even SCO's
"evidence" showed that it wasn't SCO's property
in the first place, the most embarrassing being
piece where what SCO claimed infringed were in
fact written by IBM). All that was left were the
AIX and Project Monterey things, which is what
this settlement probably cov

-
@
Re: (Score:2)

by Aighearach ( 97333 ) writes:

You and I understand this yet SCO launched many
law suits based on the premise of owning the
rights.

When you just say "owning the rights," that lazy
phrasing contradicts your claim of understanding.
There are different words for different rights.
Maybe that's why you don't understand? You insist
you do understand at the same time you claim not
to understand?

Another thing you're not understanding is why the
word "estate" is used. Because there is no
company "firing dollars into the legal furnace."
The lawyers who worked for SCO ended up with
their property. They gave their IP to the lawyers
when they folde

-
+
o
o
Re: (Score:2)

by dogsbreath ( 730413 ) writes:

Thanks for this.

#
*
how much did the Trustee milk from the case (Score:4, Insightful)

by RotateLeftByte ( 797477 ) writes: on Saturday August 28, 2021
@02:58AM (#61737793)

My guess is in the millions. For what? very little AFAIK.

This should have been settled with SCO paying all of IBM's costs
more than a decade ago.

Reply to This Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
+
+
Re: (Score:2)

by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) writes:

SCO has no money to pay IBM's costs. I'm willing to bet that
after IBM pays SCO this $14.5million SCO won't have any money
left either after paying *their* legal costs.

There's a reason this entire case involves a trustee in a
bankruptcy court.

o
o
Re: (Score:2)

by geekmux ( 1040042 ) writes:

There's a reason this entire case involves a trustee in a
bankruptcy court.

Yes. Like Cold Fusion magic, 21st Century lawyers have
figured out a way to extract blood from stone.

#
+
Re: (Score:2)

by ytene ( 4376651 ) writes:
When TSG filed for Chapter 11, they had a small net-positive
cash flow and (IIRC) something like $20 million in the pot.
The corpse would in theory have been able to continue to
collect the original Unixware license fees as an Agent for
Novell, inc, but would have been required to give 90% of that
to Novell and retain just 10% as a handling fee. This gets
complicated since Novell are now toast, but if they had a
successor-in-interest, the 90% would go there. In other
words, the Trustee would have had a tri
o
*
should be the other way round. (Score:2)

by haraldm ( 643017 ) writes:
In fact, SCO should have to pay $14.5M to IBM, not vice versa,
for all this nonsense. And Darl Bride (the man with the suitcase
full of stolen source codes) should have gone to jail long time
ago.
+
*
Storied Past (Score:2)

by NicknamesAreStupid ( 1040118 ) writes:
Wow! I did not know what happened to Santa Cruz Operations. I
remember working with them in the 1980s, when they were tucked
into the back of an office park at the south end of Highway 9.
They reminded me of Digital Research in Pacific Grove, another OS
company that did not make it.
+
+
Re:Storied Past (Score:4, Funny)

by phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: on Saturday August 28, 2021
@04:15AM (#61737857) Journal

Wow. Just telling you, you missed a lot since then.

Reply to This Parent Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
o
+
Re: (Score:2)

by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) writes:

I met with Doug Michels way back when a couple of times for
business reasons. I found him pretty likable, intelligent,
and easy to have a conversation with. My wife liked him as
well and they traded e-mails for many years after that. It
was about that time that his dad Larry (never met him) had to
step down over sexual misconduct issues. Doug took over and
had a reasonable vision for the company.

They had come a long way into building a company in a
business model along the likes of Novell or even a

o
+
Re: (Score:2)

by HiThere ( 15173 ) writes:

SCO was not the Santa Cruz Operations. They sold their name
and continued in business under a new name (which I've
forgotten). But if the address is in Utah, it's the evil
company rather than the good guys.

o
*
Remaining Questions (Score:5, Interesting)

by ytene ( 4376651 ) writes: on Saturday August 28, 2021 @04:11AM
(#61737853)
Much as I'm sure IBM - and perhaps the rest of the Linux
community - may shrug out a sigh of relief over this, there are a
few other, un-answered questions to be resolved.

1. Why Now?
As many here have pointed out; this has been grinding on for
*years* in the hands of the Trustee, Edward Cahn. What has
changed that brought everyone back to the table now? It's
dangerous to speculate, but I notice from his Wikipedia
[wikipedia.org] page that Cahn is now 88 years old. Do you
supposed he's had enough, decided it's time to retire, and
thought he'd gouge the corpse for one last nickel?

2. Where Does This Leave TSGs Claims?
This closes the case against IBM. But didn't another company
purchase the SVRX rights from the Trustee and make a noise about
trying to resurrect more claims against the Linux kernel?

3. What About Those Who Paid?
Back while all this was an active story, while PJ was regularly
posting updates, she covered a story about a small US company
that ran Linux in support of their business - just a handful of
servers. An employee of that company received a threatening
demand letter for $700 per server... and paid up. It was only
later, when the same person started to look in to the problem a
bit more carefully, that they realised they had been duped by
TSG's shake down. This might raise a question of: was this latest
agreement dispositive, or does it change the agreed facts with
respect to ownership?

I ask this last question because anyone who paid the $700 fee to
The SCO Group might, if this agreement and all the findings
between the implosion of the original case and now, have a
reasonable case to go back to Judge Cahn and the Trustee and
demand a refund.

Which I'm thinking would likely annoy the heck out of Judge Cahn.

Which seems only fair.
Reply to This Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
+
*
They couldn't sue me even ... (Score:3)

by Qbertino ( 265505 ) writes: <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on
Saturday August 28, 2021 @04:38AM (#61737891)

... if they wanted to. I still have a fresh mint copy of the
original "SCO Linux" CDs with GPL legal notice on paper and all.
I was at some Linux conference where they handed these out just
after hopping on to the Linux train and still wanted to play
along with the community. I sealed and locked it away when the
whole SCO litigation non-sense started.

AFAICT they actually had a reasonable chance at maintaining the
vibe of "seasoned professional Unix shop Grand-Daddy joins the
Linux kids and gives Linux extra credit". If they'd have played
their cards right and hadn't started acting like a bunch of
douchebags, they'd be among Redhat, SuSE and Ubuntu today.

Reply to This Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
+
+
Re: (Score:2)

by HiThere ( 15173 ) writes:

No. Their Linux was based on Caldera Linux which was strong
inferior to both Red Hat and Debian (that I'm sure of). What
they *perhaps* COULD have done was developed the Linux/Novell
interface, and used that as their selling point. But it's not
clear what license they had to that, as a version was
included with Red Hat, so it was probably GPL, and probably
developed by Novell.

o
*
That's not justice. (Score:2)

by TheNameOfNick ( 7286618 ) writes:

Fucking end these assholes. Do not pay them a dime. If people can
misbehave this badly and still get paid for it, there is no
justice.

+
+
Re: (Score:2)

by HiThere ( 15173 ) writes:

I'm rather sure the assholes being paid will turn out to be
the lawyers (including the Trustee). Not that I disagree with
you, but the legal system is intentionally designed to ensure
that the lawyers get paid.

o
*
Payday for liars (Score:2)

by nagora ( 177841 ) writes:

IBM should tell them to pay up for the wasted time, not give them
free money.

+
*
14.5 Millions. Ok... (Score:2)

by Opportunist ( 166417 ) writes:

But who's paying whom?

+
*
Who really wins? (Score:2)

by AndyKron ( 937105 ) writes:
How much did the lawyers make during that time?
+
*
It was like something out of a Zombie movie (Score:2)

by John Allsup ( 987 ) writes:

The shambling lawsuit that simply refused to die. Is it really
all over, is the creature really dead now, or is it a setup for a
19th sequel: raiders of the return of the son of the bride of the
son of zombie horde strikes back part IV.

+
+
Re: (Score:2)

by raftpeople ( 844215 ) writes:
Very very slow zombies.
o
*
SCO paying $14.5M to IBM, hopefully (Score:2)

by OneHundredAndTen ( 1523865 ) writes:
Anything else would be preposterous.
+
*
Clearly not the old IBM (Score:2)

by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) writes:
The old IBM would have not settled at all and pushed for a win
and sought attorney's fees
+
*
and the bill (Score:2)

by renegade600 ( 204461 ) writes:

and they spent 28 million on lawyer fees.

+
*
+
+
Re:which side is paying? IBM is paying SCO (Score:5,
Informative)

by Fallen Kell ( 165468 ) writes: on Saturday August 28, 2021
@12:00AM (#61737619)
As the title says, IBM is paying SCO to get this over with.
It includes some great language, such that SCO, "the Debtor's
bankruptcy estates, or its affiliates, successors, assigns,
heirs, and representatives, at any time had, now have, or
hereafter can or may have against IBM for, upon or by reason
of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever, from the beginning
of the world to the date of this release concerning, related
to, arising out of, or arising from the Utah Litigation, the
Proof of Claim, or IBM's relationship with the Debtors or
their estates (or their predecessors), Project Monterey, or
IBM's relationship with the Debtors or their estates."
Reply to This Parent Share
twitter facebook Share on Google+
Flag as Inappropriate
o
o
Re: (Score:2)

by dsgrntlxmply ( 610492 ) writes:
A lot of eyes of newt went into that cauldron of verbiage
while it was being stirred.
#
o
Re: (Score:2)

by HiThere ( 15173 ) writes:

Even so that's not right. IBM is paying the trustees of
SCO. Probably it will entirely go to the lawyers.

#
*

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript
enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your
preferences instead.

Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.

* 980 commentsBiden Sworn In as 46th President
* 958 commentsDefeating Trump, Joe Biden Declared Winner of US
Presidential Election
* 713 commentsChuck Schumer Wants To Replace Every Gas Car in
America With an Electric Vehicle
* 691 commentsTrump Attacks Legitimate Vote-Counting Efforts and
Claims Fraud Without Basis
* 640 commentsRichard Stallman's Return Denounced by the EFF, Tor
Project, Mozilla, and the Creator of Rust

Space

Titan's Strange Chemical World Gets Simulated in Tiny Tubes

13 comments

Facebook

The Most Popular Posts On Facebook Are Plagiarized

33 comments

Slashdot Top Deals

Slashdot
Post Moderate Moderator Help Delete

* Get more comments
* 100 of 126 loaded

* Submit Story

fortune: cannot execute. Out of cookies.

* FAQ
* Story Archive
* Hall of Fame
* Advertising
* Terms
* Privacy Statement
* About
* Feedback
* Mobile View
* Blog
*
* Icon Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Slashdot

* [njs]
Working...