On CBS MoneyWatch: Warning: This Blog Will Harm Your Health
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 16 of 80:
Next »
« Previous
Not true
>>>I am more curious as to why the issue with Novell isn't being resolved first. Because when Novell is held to be the true copyright holder then SCO's case goes bye bye.<<<

The two cases are related only by the thinnest of threads. Recall, the newSCO v. IBM case is a breach of contract action. The newSCO v. Novell is over who actually holds the copyrights. Although it started in state court as a slander of title. It went to the feds because newSCO cannot actually prove they own anything. State courts cannot rule on copyright actions. That is fed domain. Since newSCO cannot prove slander of title they can't prove they actually hold title to, it had to go to the feds first to decide the copyright questions.

I see the press releases from Darl & Co. seem to have worked, though.

FYI. The judge in the newSCO v. Novell has already hinted that unless newSCO can present some evidence that it will go bye-bye.

The case that is actually closer to the Novell case is the Autozone case. Once newSCO fails to prove they actually own the copyrights, (remember, the burden is on the plainitff. newSCO has to prove they own them. Novell does not have to prove newSCO does not own them) the Autozone case will go bye-bye.

The more interesting case is the Redhat v. newSCO. Once newSCO fails to prove they are the copyright owners the way will be paved for a summary judgement against newSCO in that case. Redhat is virtually assured of a win once newSCO loses to Novell. All that will be left to decide is the damages. Maybe Redhat will become the new owners. Then maybe they'll change the name to RedSCO or SCOhat or something else silly.

I will agree that newSCO is going out of their way to confuse the issue. The latest depositions by the newSCO lawyers seem to focus on copyright questions. Very puzzling since the case does not turn on copyright ownership. Perhaps newSCO is grasping at straws in an effort to prevent IBM win a PSJ on CC 10. Perhaps newSCO thinks they can confuse the judge enough to drag this out to a jury trial. After all, the goal of the trial was to creat an atmosphere of FUD surrounding Linux while MS works feverishly on getting longhorn out the door. MS wants companies to be afraid of Linux and has contributed considerable sums of cash to keep the fearmongering financed. In fact, what happened is that MS funded the exoneration of Linux. I'll bet chairman billy didn't see that one coming. The fact that Darl & Co. was able to artifically inflate stock prices and walk away with millions is just a bonus for the newSCO management. You do remember all of the newSCO management selling off stock as fast as they possibly could while the prices were up, don't you? That was the point I knew it was all a scam. If I thought I had a chance of winning billions I wouldn't be selling stock that could be worth possible 5 times the current value or more. Would you? It was never a copyright case. I always knew the press releases were bogus. That was never a question of copyrights. The question was whether IBM breached their contract with newSCO. Once the newSCO management started dumping their stock I knew it was a scam and everyone else should have. I probably said that here on ZDNet at least a dozen times. Usually when bitty was on one of his 'copyright theft' rants.
Posted by: AmusedAtItAll   Posted on: 02/10/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Aren't they dead yet?  Linux User 147560 | 02/09/05
Yeah, they are...  Martin Marvinski | 02/09/05
SCO the chicken with it's head cut off?  Laff | 02/10/05
Darl and company reminds me of kids on the playground.......  Squawkbox | 02/10/05
Look at the bigger picture  hawkeyeaz1 | 02/10/05
Hey! Didn't MS pay SCO for some licenses?  Laff | 02/10/05
If it were true  AmusedAtItAll | 02/10/05
Yes they did.  htotten | 02/10/05
RE: Yes they did  AmusedAtItAll | 02/10/05
Maybe I'll buy SCO  Martin Marvinski | 02/10/05
Obvious IS Obvious  Roger Ramjet | 02/10/05
Let the courts decide  BXLE | 02/10/05
I do admit  Roger Ramjet | 02/10/05
SCO Win?  htotten | 02/10/05
Money go bye-bye  hawkeyeaz1 | 02/10/05
Not true  AmusedAtItAll | 02/10/05
SCO's a sinking ship  doctormoriarty | 02/10/05
You judge  Art Royce | 02/11/05
I dont get it.  vdraken | 02/10/05
Ditto  htotten | 02/10/05
Cynical me ...  lalogos | 02/10/05
Let's not mix metaphors, particularly invalid ones  gardoglee | 02/10/05
To forestall appeal  IT_User | 02/10/05
Great answer!  George Mitchell | 02/10/05
To forestall appeal  lshurr@... | 02/10/05
Deep Blue from Big Blue  hawkeyeaz1 | 02/10/05
Alliance.. hmm  Angel_LB | 02/10/05
Just Wait  Inventor_z | 02/11/05
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz *thud*  George Jay | 02/10/05
Well, there is always....  hawkeyeaz1 | 02/10/05
Meanwhile, Canopy Group is coming apart ...  George Mitchell | 02/10/05
IBM owning UnixWare  htotten | 02/10/05
Good one! happy  hawkeyeaz1 | 02/10/05
Who Owns Unix?  OldTimer1 | 02/12/05
Hasn`t Unix fallen into general public domain?  OldTimer1 | 02/12/05
Can`t Microsoft be held liable?  OldTimer1 | 02/12/05
I just don't get it.  wfrizzell | 02/16/05
Are you saying Canopy will not give SCO  Laff | 02/10/05
Its hard to  hawkeyeaz1 | 02/10/05
Obviously They Just Don't Care  Olde Foxx | 02/10/05
Agreed.  htotten | 02/10/05
Does SCO have a case?  mwagner@... | 02/10/05
SCO vs Novell  htotten | 02/10/05
does sco have any evidence  brainwerx | 02/10/05
And Yet...  Anonymous31 | 02/10/05
It is all a matter of due process ...  George Mitchell | 02/10/05
It is all a matter of due process ...  PeterPilot | 02/10/05
Not as bad as it sounds  AmusedAtItAll | 02/10/05
SCO your going down  basilf@... | 02/10/05
SCO needs a spanking...  KeJorn | 02/10/05
You had to know this was coming  jaddison@... | 02/10/05
Bad Legal and Management advice  lsorrells | 02/10/05
SCO has no chance  DAve1225 | 02/10/05
It's all a FUD campaign against open source!  MacGeek2121 | 02/10/05
Remember Bell Labs and Berkeley?  dgari | 02/11/05
HA!  FreeBSD | 02/10/05
It's not over yet, but...  John L. Ries | 02/10/05
If they had a case  hawkeyeaz1 | 02/10/05
Wake me up when the case is over  Michael Kelly | 02/10/05
attorneys  chief125 | 02/10/05
Attorney at law, or green..  Angel_LB | 02/10/05
It's The Money  wbs00001 | 02/10/05
Isn't this an abuse of process?  themackae | 02/10/05
It is not so cut and dried  Mack DaNife | 02/10/05
 htotten | 02/10/05
Why doesn't SCO work for a living?  daver_z | 02/10/05
Judge missed the point?  Gregory.J.Bradley@... | 02/10/05
Close  hawkeyeaz1 | 02/10/05
We are still in discovery here. The judge is giving SCO a last chance  hipparchus2000 | 02/11/05
The Emperor's New Clothes  algo | 02/10/05
SCO vs Linux  lenk2it@... | 02/10/05
Your facts  avdp | 02/10/05
All you say may be true, but...  John L. Ries | 02/10/05
The problem is ...  George Mitchell | 02/10/05
Here is a Tree from 1969  osreinstall | 02/10/05
Re: SCO vs Linux  Letophoro | 02/11/05
sco dropped the copyright "sco code in linux" clause a while ago  hipparchus2000 | 02/11/05
Judge Slams SCO!!!  Inventor_z | 02/11/05
Gary Kildall  dgari | 02/11/05
SCO is Nuts!  laredoflash@... | 02/11/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

SmartPlanet

Click Here