After 18 Years, SCO's IBM Litigation May Be Settled for $14.5 Million (scribd.com) 151
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.
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.
Darl McBride? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Darl McBride? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Darl McBride? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
My clock is wrong. It doesn't say April 1st (Score:2)
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.))
Re: (Score:2)
> 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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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:3)
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)
How is giving SCO money killing them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They probably would've made more 18 yrs ago. (Score:5, Insightful)
So that IBM doesn't have to keep reporting the ongoing litigation in its public documents.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 p
Re:Darl McBride? (Score:4)
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.
Re:Darl McBride? (Score:4)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Not just developers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Microsoft's interest in the SCO lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
That should almost pay off the lawyers (Score:5, Informative)
$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.
Re:That should almost pay off the lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
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 legal practice - Edward Cahn.
The best way to think about this is that the Trustee treated the case a bit like an investor would treat "junk bonds" - i.e. essentially worthless, but for a one-in-a-bajillion, moon-shot level chance that something might come back. So the Trustee would put the case on the shelf and take it down when they had no billable work from regular clients. They would use it to give clerks motion practice or for training purposes.
But it's worth noting that the lawyers had already sucked this corpse dry. TSG had about $20 million in cash and cash equivalents, plus cashflow, when they filed for Chapter 11 protection. Edward Cahn spent his way through all that in no time flat, with bankruptcy judge Kevin Gross signing expenditure approvals like he was writing autographs for fans.
IBM paying $14 million to get out from this makes no sense on the face of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Maybe if we brought back Natalie Portman's hot grits....
Re:Welp that's it folks (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Technically, all fossil fuels were originally created with fusion power, so we already have fusion powered vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
A bootloader for a webbrowser is not the Linux that the nerds asked for.
Re:Welp that's it folks (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Welp that's it folks (Score:2)
And the space elevator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For me that was 1999. Plus or minus a year. But I kept MSWind around until a usable word processor showed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
> Maybe if we brought back Natalie Portman's hot grits
I'm currently trying to imagine a Beowulf cluster of these.
Win for IBM (Score:2)
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:5, Interesting)
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.
I've been on /. long enough to remember (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: I've been on /. long enough to remember (Score:2)
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)
Get off my lawn, person with a 6-digit id ;)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Society doesn't give a shit about a contractual spat between two companies. This isn't a criminal case.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
* * F I N A L L Y * * (Score:3)
It's absolutely shameful that SCO was able to drag this on for so long.
Re:* * F I N A L L Y * * (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Actually, maybe not even then - we’ve been told this was over before.
Still confusing (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Xinuos didn't buy SCO, they bought whatever was left of their IP.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't really explain a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Yes. Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for this.
how much did the Trustee milk from the case (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
should be the other way round. (Score:2)
Storied Past (Score:2)
Re:Storied Past (Score:5, Funny)
Wow. Just telling you, you missed a lot since then.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Remaining Questions (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
They couldn't sue me even ... (Score:3)
... 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That's not justice. (Score:2)
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)
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.
Payday for liars (Score:2)
IBM should tell them to pay up for the wasted time, not give them free money.
14.5 Millions. Ok... (Score:2)
But who's paying whom?
Who really wins? (Score:2)
It was like something out of a Zombie movie (Score:2)
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)
SCO paying $14.5M to IBM, hopefully (Score:2)
Clearly not the old IBM (Score:2)
and the bill (Score:2)
and they spent 28 million on lawyer fees.
Re:which side is paying? IBM is paying SCO (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even so that's not right. IBM is paying the trustees of SCO. Probably it will entirely go to the lawyers.