Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Thu, 1 Sep 2011 02:37:22 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110831/17502915759/zombie-sco-loses-again-is-it-dead-yet.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110831/17502915759/zombie-sco-loses-again-is-it-dead-yet.shtml dead (finally). But, of course, that was wishful thinking. Zombie SCO came back for another whacking, and , as mentioned on Slashdot, another whacking it got. The ruling is worth reading if only for a nice, concise summary of the entire legal dispute and SCO's various attempts to reanimate its very dead corpse.

My favorite part may be a rather minor point in the larger fight, but part of the legal fight involved SCO claiming slander against Novell for telling the world that SCO didn't actually hold the copyrights for UNIX. SCO tried to claim that this hurt its business, and Novell reasonably countered that the thing that really hurt SCO's business was its own actions -- and, as part of that, showed the jury a BusinessWeek article about how SCO was "The Most Hated Company in Tech." SCO claimed this was hearsay, but the court didn't buy it, noting that it was one minor image seen by the jury over a much larger trial, but, more importantly, noted that "there was repeated testimony and argument over the course of the trial pointing out the unpopularity of the SCO Source program."

While there are lots of lessons to be learned from the nearly decade-long SCO legal fight to claim control over Linux and demand a toll from just about everyone, one key lesson is that going legal is no way to build a business that people like or respect. The crux of a strong market system is that it enables transactions where all parties are happy with the results, and all parties feel they came out better off. When your entire business model is to force people to pay, rather than providing real value for which they want to pay, you're positioning yourself for failure.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> please-be-dead http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110831/17502915759 Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:04:00 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100916/16052811045/unix-for-sale-massively-damaged-sold-as-is-absent-delusions-of-grandeur-over-linux-copyright-infringement.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100916/16052811045/unix-for-sale-massively-damaged-sold-as-is-absent-delusions-of-grandeur-over-linux-copyright-infringement.shtml apparently trying to sell off what remains of its "Unix assets," -- which, as you may have heard, does not appear to include the Unix copyrights. It's unclear what anyone would really do with whatever magical assets the sale comes with, but I would suggest suing IBM for infringement is not one of the better ideas.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> $1-obo http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100916/16052811045 Mon, 12 Jul 2010 06:27:14 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/00344710170.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/00344710170.shtml finally showing off some of the "evidence" that SCO believed proved Linux infringed on SCO's copyrights. Of course, with the case basically dead due to a court ruling (one of a few) that SCO never actually held the copyrights in question, this might not matter, but it's still interesting to view -- and, yet again, suggests how incredibly weak SCO's case is. The "evidence" is in a blog comment on an otherwise unrelated blog post by Kevin McBride, a lawyer who is the brother of former SCO CEO Darl McBride, the mastermind (or puppet, depending on who you talk to) behind SCO's strategy.

In that comment, Kevin McBride lists out 46 different "examples" of code that SCO claimed was copied from Unix into Linux. In case those files conveniently disappear, a Slashdot user conveniently republished the comment and archived the files. If you look through the files, you don't have to be a programmer to start questioning the copyright claims. Most of the lines are not direct copies at all, and seem to be on really, really, really basic functions -- the type of thing that just about anyone would program to create that functionality. In other words, it's difficult to see how there would be any copyright on that code at all, since it was hardly original or requiring any form of creativity. Others in the Slashdot comments point out that some of the code appears to have originated in BSD code, outside of what SCO was claiming it held rights to, and others suggest at least parts of the code came from a separate third party. Furthermore, even looking through the files it's difficult to find many cases where you could even claim "cut-and-paste copying" as was alleged. There does appear to be similar implementations of similar features, but that's quite different than copyright infringement.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> really?-that's-it? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100712/00344710170 Fri, 9 Jul 2010 03:31:15 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100709/00463910142.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100709/00463910142.shtml ruled against SCO for the... oh heck, we've lost count... 'th time, we wondered if the whole bizarre saga might finally be over. No such luck. Hephaestus points out that SCO has, in fact, appealed. Not much to say about this one, but just shake your head in amazement. Some day, will someone please do a full case study on SCO's elaborate decade-long suicide through bad litigation choice followed by even worse litigation choice?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> will-it-ever-die? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100709/00463910142 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:57:41 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100610/1629469773.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100610/1629469773.shtml never actually showed any evidence to back that up. Soon after all this started, Novell came along and noted that, as far as it knew, Novell still held the copyrights, not SCO. So the legal battle shifted to who actually held the copyrights, and SCO has repeatedly come out with the short end of the stick. First a judge ruled that Novell held the copyrights. After an appeals court said that a jury should decide that issue, rather than the judge, the case went back to a jury who also found that Novell, not SCO, held the copyrights. SCO then told the judge that the jury didn't really mean what it said in plain language, and said that the judge should order Novell to hand over the copyrights anyway.

That's not happening. Once again, the judge has ruled for Novell over SCO. In theory, this should end the whole saga. The judge ordered that the case be closed, and without the copyrights, SCO's suit against IBM is dead as well. Will SCO give it up finally? Or will it somehow be reanimated yet again?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> will-it-ever-die? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100610/1629469773 Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:37:10 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100430/0204269253.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100430/0204269253.shtml yet again and having a jury declare that Novell still owns the Unix copyrights, and they were never transferred to SCO (after a judge had already said the same thing). And yet, as Slashdot alerts us, SCO has now told the judge he should order Novell to hand over the copyrights anyway. Talk about getting desperate. When will SCO finally be put out of its misery?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> good-luck-with-that http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100430/0204269253 Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:45:00 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100330/1520448793.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100330/1520448793.shtml it still owned the copyrights on Unix. The case went back and forth for ages, with a lot of questionable activity (including questions concerning Microsoft's supposed funding of SCO's activities), including accusations that the whole thing was an attempt to pump-and-dump SCO stock. Back in 2008, we thought it was finally over when a judge ruled that Novell owned the copyrights, leading many to expect SCO to finally just die off. Instead, it declared bankruptcy, got a lifeline and continued the fight -- leading to an appeals court ruling that the question over copyright ownership needed to be determined by a jury rather than a judge. As we noted at the time, this was hardly (as SCO's Darl McBride insisted) a vindication for SCO -- it was just another chance for SCO to lose in court.

And lose, it did. As was widely expected, the jury has that Novell owns the copyrights on Unix and SCO basically has no case. Once again, this suggests that SCO has never had a case, and has just been wasting everyone's time (and a lot of people's money) for a long, long, long time.

But, of course, it's probably not over yet. SCO says it will continue the original lawsuit against IBM, saying that it won't be over copyright, but breach of contract claims. Of course, it's now been almost a decade and we still haven't seen what it is that IBM did wrong. SCO still hasn't shown anyone what code breached what contract. However, as Groklaw notes, even if SCO (with what money?) keeps fighting the lawsuit against IBM over contract terms, that's a much more limited lawsuit, as the terms are just between IBM and SCO -- and wouldn't impact the wider "Linux" ecosystem, since others did not sign any kind of contract with SCO. Still, at some point, you would hope that the folks still left at SCO involved in this case realize enough is enough and just let it die.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> is-it-dead-yet? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100330/1520448793 Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:29:35 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090824/2244595987.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090824/2244595987.shtml ruled that SCO did not actually own the copyrights it claimed it did, and that they still belonged to Novell. While SCO received a slap on the wrist ($2.5 million) for this, it basically wiped out the key part of SCO's lawsuit against IBM, and led SCO to file for bankruptcy. Some investors supposedly pumped some money into SCO to keep it breathing, but later details on that made the whole deal seem very, very sketchy. However, now SCO might have a very slight chance to turn things around.

A judge has overturned part of the lower court's original ruling on who owns the copyrights to Unix, and ordered a full jury trial take place to determine who actually owns the copyright. Oddly, the court did not overturn the part where SCO has to pay Novell $2.5 million -- which could push the company over the final edge. If, however, SCO can stay alive, and it does go to trial, the company could (and likely will) still lose that trial (and, we're still twiddling our thumbs and waiting for any evidence from SCO that IBM actually infringed on the UNIX copyrights... but that's another story and another lawsuit). SCO's Darl McBride (how he's still running the show is beyond me) is claiming this is a validation for SCO, but that's not even close to true. All the court is saying is that there wasn't enough for the summary judgment on the copyright ownership, and the issue should be taken up in a full jury trial. That's not a "validation" of SCO's position -- it's a small, and likely temporary, lifeline.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> not-dead-yet http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090824/2244595987 Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:41:48 PDT Carlo Longino http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/1225544171.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/1225544171.shtml from port 80, the port used by HTTP traffic. He later added that open WiFi should be banned as a means to stop porn. Not surprisingly, his ideas failed to find traction (except with the governor of his home state, Utah) but Yarro and his anti-porn group are pressing on, and are now asking ICANN to set up a "Cybersafety Constituency" to create binding rules on how to deal with net porn. How's this for a binding rule: don't access porn sites, and you won't be bothered with it? The idea that anybody -- let alone ICANN -- should be able to play the role of global web censor is scary, and opens the door to restrictions on all sorts of objectionable, but not illegal, content. As The Register notes, Yarro called for supporters to make comments on the proposal at ICANN's site, and plenty of people from Utah obliged. Wonder what all the people in the state who love net porn think of the proposal...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> silent-majority http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090318/1225544171 Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:42:00 PST Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090112/0220093364.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090112/0220093364.shtml Slashdot points us to the latest in the never-ending saga of SCO trying to claim infringement in Linux. Despite massive setbacks that should have just ended the quixotic campaign, it appears that SCO is looking to sell off its actual businesses in order to keep the lawsuit campaign going. It's amazing that after losing pretty much every aspect of this campaign from the very beginning, that folks at SCO still think it's worth pursuing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> going-full-on-patent-troll http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090112/0220093364 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:27:41 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080717/1024051709.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080717/1024051709.shtml sue Linux out of existence, it's finally had to pay at least some of the price. As you probably know, soon after SCO sued IBM, Novell pointed out that it was pretty sure SCO was wrong in claiming to hold copyrights over Unix code. In fact, Novell was pretty sure that it still owned those copyrights. SCO then took Novell to court over the issue -- making that the main arena for SCO's claims. It took plenty of time, but the judge ruled that, indeed, Novell owned the copyrights, basically derailing SCO's entire basis for its lawsuits. At first it appeared as if SCO was just going to give up. It declared bankruptcy and many hoped it would just go away. Unfortunately, it received a lifeline in the form of a $100 million line of credit, allowing it to keep on suing.

As for the Novell case, a judge has finally come down with the final ruling on a fine, and it's basically a slap on the wrist to SCO. Rather than buying Novell's argument that 95% of SCO's licensing revenue actually belongs to Novell, the judge took a much more limited approach saying SCO only owes $2.5 million. It's not peanuts, but it's a lot less than many had hoped. It certainly will allow SCO to keep going (and potentially appeal this ruling) which is why many are labeling this as a mixed bag sort of ruling. Still, as has been pointed out, SCO is the one that kicked this off, suing IBM and then Novell... and the end result is that SCO is paying out $2.5 million. That's probably not what the company's execs expected when they started down this path.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> this-ain't-over-yet http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080717/1024051709 Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:16:18 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070914/160057.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070914/160057.shtml didn't even own some of the copyrights it claimed to. Instead, those were possessed by Novell. Monday the two firms were supposed to be in court to figure out how much SCO now owed Novell, but that's going to take a back seat to the news that SCO has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The announcement uses the typical "hoping to reorganize" type language, but it seems pretty clear the company (which was already looking somewhat shaky in terms of its financials) would rather not have to pay Novell... or deal with the fact that it may owe quite a bit in the other lawsuits its involved in, which are likely to fall apart without these particular copyrights. It's a nice strategy, really. Claim ownership and sue lots of big companies. Hype up how sure you are that you're going to win. Watch your stock price rise... so you can sell shares and make some money. Then, as the whole house of cards collapses, just declare bankruptcy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> we-will-prevail,-huh? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070914/160057 Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:10:56 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/184153.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/184153.shtml are skeptical and point out the lack of evidence to support SCO's position. One offshoot case, you may recall, was that soon after the original SCO-IBM case was filed, Novell came out and announced that it still owned the copyrights on Unix, and SCO was incorrect in claiming the rights had been transferred. In fact, Novell pointed out that behind the scenes SCO had been quietly begging Novell to transfer the copyright to them. However, SCO continued its brash legal fight against reality and sued Novell. Late Friday the ruling came down, and once again, SCO was on the losing side. The judge found that Novell still owns the copyrights to Unix, meaning that the meat of SCO's case against IBM may have just disappeared. In retrospect, it's fairly amazing the lengths that SCO and its supporters have gone in trying to tar everyone who questioned their position. Don't expect an apology, though.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> whoops http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070810/184153