«

"It's obvious from the argument here in this transcript that SCO, if
it even looked at that mountain of code, found next to nothing to match
Darl McBride's original mouthings to the press. What SCO will do to
defend itself from Lanham Act claims now is going to be interesting to
watch, but I have no doubt Red Hat is chortling. And you can really
feel, or at least I do, in this transcript that IBM senses it's all over
for SCO now, except for walking through the details as they flail about
with their "methods and concepts", trying to stay on their feet somehow.
I think that Judge Wells feels it too, and so she gives SCO the benefit
of the doubt here and allows the Declaration which IBM has told her in
legalese is an utter joke to them within the context of this motion."

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...60508230734757

About time, 3 years and millions wasted on harrassing Linux companies,
SCO looks to face the Lanham Act....jail time for Dear Darl, I hope....

regards

Thing

thingy <> wrote in news:vqq9j3-bdv.ln1
@news.thing.dyndns.org:

> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...60508230734757
>
> About time, 3 years and millions wasted on harrassing Linux companies,
> SCO looks to face the Lanham Act....jail time for Dear Darl, I hope....
>
> regards
>
> Thing


After I first read a little bit about the case I concluded, personally,
that there was no case. It is now 3 yrs later and my opinion has not
changed. It is like the "Chewbacca Defense" in South Park.
This is a very good Groklaw article to read if you haven't been following.
Take the 15 mins to read it.

--
Ciao, Dave

Dave Taylor wrote:
> thingy <> wrote in news:vqq9j3-bdv.ln1
> @news.thing.dyndns.org:
>
>
>>http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...60508230734757
>>
>>About time, 3 years and millions wasted on harrassing Linux companies,
>>SCO looks to face the Lanham Act....jail time for Dear Darl, I hope....
>>
>>regards
>>
>>Thing
>
>
>
> After I first read a little bit about the case I concluded, personally,
> that there was no case. It is now 3 yrs later and my opinion has not
> changed. It is like the "Chewbacca Defense" in South Park.
> This is a very good Groklaw article to read if you haven't been following.
> Take the 15 mins to read it.
>

I follow this very closely and I agree there is no case, but what I
think is not as important as what I think the court now thinks in this
instance.

The interesting thing is, I think IBM and the court and externally
RedHat can see there is no proper legal case against them and in fact
there never was. I recall the Lanham Act,

"What SCO will do to defend itself from Lanham Act claims now is going
to be interesting to watch, but I have no doubt Red Hat is chortling."

"Section A is often utilized in law when false statements are alleged to
have hurt a business. To be proven in court it must satisfy 3
principles: There was a false statement made, the statement was used in
commercial promotion, the statements created the likelihood of harm to
the plaintiff."

I wonder what else can be tied to SCO, ie using the courts to harass an
innocent party and materially effect their business. IBM will have
incurred significant costs in defending itself, SCO already has little
moeny, it was spent on its own lawyers....So if as I suspect SCO's case
collapses, SCO will be expected to meet IBM's bills and since the entire
case seems to have been based on fresh air and lies, I expect a judge to
award costs.....millions.....so it will bankrupt SCO, bye bye SCO.
Hopefully Darl with get his comeuppance as well, his lack of ethics and
greed should be his downfall.

regards

Thing

thingy wrote:
> I wonder what else can be tied to SCO, ie using the courts to harass an
> innocent party and materially effect their business.

There are a lot of important threads to this sorry saga.

What about SCO's financial backers? There was a story that Microsoft funded
SCO through some financial company.
Also, the SCO execs sold shares at high prices soon after the legal action
started. Looked very much like a pump & dump scam at the time.

The world will be better off without SCO and their cohorts.
But sadly, the only winners from all this are the lawyers.


Peter

On Fri, 12 May 2006 07:24:37 +1200, Peter wrote:

> The world will be better off without SCO and their cohorts.
> But sadly, the only winners from all this are the lawyers.

I don't think that SCO's lawyers will be winner - for two reasons.

1/ The fees to be paid by SCO were capped.

2/ The reputations of those particular law firms has hit an all time low
as a result of all their bad-faith maneuvering.

What I think will be the most important outcome of this case is the
certainty that the GPL is rock solid, that processes have been implemented
to ensure what SCO asserted could never happen, and that using Linux is
not a legal risk for businesses of any size or for joe public.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

On Thu, 11 May 2006 07:17:17 +1200, thingy wrote:

> I think that Judge Wells feels it too, and so she gives SCO the benefit
> of the doubt here and allows the Declaration which IBM has told her in
> legalese is an utter joke to them within the context of this motion."

My favourite quote is the part where J. Wells asked the Lawyer for IBM if
they had any objection to the SCO submitting a response to IBM's expert
witness's statement, and he remarked to the effect that it wouldn't affect
things at all, so long as they had the opportunity to respond; and the
judge also stated that would be the last that she would entertain on that
matter.

And then, of course there was SCO's desperate attempt to strike whole
chunks from IBM's subsequent response, and the Judge denied SCO's motion
motion to strike parts from IBM's declaration (or else have an opportunity
to reply) all that was even after SCO had been told plainly and
effectively not to waste its breath attempting to ask for such things.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Andreas Girardet: "In Suse, there are about 15,000 to 20,000
developers working on the project, and internally at Novell
we have about 1,000 developers devoted just to Suse."