Judge rules SCO case in favor of IBM

[PrntRhd]

The judge did not just say SCO lost in their suit alleging IBM supplied UNIX code violating copyrights, but the way they behaved in their case was ridiculous.
"The court finds that SCO failed to comply with the court's previous discovery-related Orders and Rule 26(e), that SCO acted willfully, that SCO's conduct has resulted in prejudice to IBM, and that this result—the inability of SCO to use the evidence at issue to prove its claims—should come as no surprise to SCO.

In addition, the court finds that neither particularized findings on an item-by-item basis nor an evidentiary hearing is required to make these determinations. The court, therefore, affirms and adopts the Magistrate Judge's June 28, 2006 Order in its entirety."

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2066861,00.asp

:D

[LadyGrey]

Ok, I'm lost here. I have been out of the loop and as far as I can determine this has been going on for three years. I certainly know who IBM is, had a bomb myself, don't know who SCO is. Know what Unix code is but don't understand why it would be so awful if IBM gave code to Linux. It's open source, anyone can contribute. If IBM feels like giving their code to Linux why shouldn't they? I know, like I said I'm lost and I really got cross-eyed reading all that legal bologna!
Prnt, could you explain please, or anyone who has the time?
Thanks,
LG;)

[pave_spectre]

Some Unix code is proprietary (depends where it came from) and SCO was alleging that IBM gave some code belonging to SCO to the Linux OS violating their copyright.

SCO used to be fairly big in the Unix/Linux world and even had their own Linux distribution in which some of the disputed code was even alleged to have been released in which would invalidate SCOs suit anyway.

[mjc]

And SCO used the tactic of lawsuits to try to bolster the bottom line of a failed company...themselves. They thought that everyone would rollover and pony up licensing fees for the supposed 'violated' code and they would then be rolling in the dough...WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!

IBM fought back...:D

[LadyGrey]

Thanks Pave and mjc, now I know I was pretty much on the mark thinking that the whole thing sounded just a tad on the ridiculous side.
LG;)

[PrntRhd]

mjc had earlier posted this link to the SCO battle, still has some good stuff:
http://www.groklaw.net/

This just isn't SCO's week. Here it is, leaning against the ropes in SCO v. IBM, and here comes Novell. It has filed a motion for partial summary judgement, asking the court to rule that the APA gives Novell the right to waive the contract claims SCO has against IBM and Sequent:

Novell asks the Court to declare that Novell has the authority pursuant to Section 4.16(b) of the 1995 Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) to take the following actions: (1) to direct The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”) to waive its purported claims against IBM under the SVRX license agreements between IBM Corporation (“IBM”) and AT&T and between Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. (“Sequent”) and AT&T, and (2) because SCO refused (and still refuses) to follow that direction, to waive those claims on SCO’s behalf. In addition, Novell respectfully requests that this Court declare that SCO is obligated to recognize Novell’s waiver of SCO’s purported claims against IBM and Sequent.

The memo in support puts it like this:

Novell’s motion presents a single issue: whether the express terms of a 1995 contract authorize Novell to direct SCO to waive its purported legal claims for alleged breaches of SVRX license agreements with IBM and with Sequent, and to take action on SCO’s behalf when SCO refuses to so waive, where the plain language of the 1995 contract gives Novell “at its sole discretion and direction” the right to take such action concerning “any SVRX License,” and the IBM and Sequent SVRX license agreements are SVRX Licenses under the 1995 contract’s plain meaning of that term.

Novell is asking the Court to order SCO to accept the terms of the agreement when SCO bought Unix rights, where Novell has the right to control licenses and therefore make them honor the Novell exception for IBM and Sequent.
This will gut the rest of SCO's case.

Unfortunately for SCO, it will leave only IBM and Novell's counterclaims standing. SCO and their lawyers will face some severe sanctions if the court does its job correctly. IBM still wants their damage claims against SCO to go to a jury.