Message ID: 234091
Posted By: manyhats23
Posted On: 2005-02-09 19:02:00
Subject: Today's Rulings and the Future

Judge Kimball has made a firm decision. It isn't one that most posters wanted, but it *is* a firm decision. He has stated that the discovery process may provide SCOX with evidence to refute the claims made in CC10. He is giving SCOX the benefit of the doubt by allowing them to complete discovery.

However, there isn't anything stopping IBM from filing for Summary Judgement when discovery is complete. My personal bet is that Cravath is already preparing such a document.

What the ruling does is place SCOX in a trial it can ill afford, and probably will not have the funds to argue well. Perhaps (as some have stated) that a gambler might want to invest in SCOX at this point. Perhaps that money will see SCOX through the trial.

But any re-reading of today's ruling makes clear that the court hasn't seen any evidence that supports SCOX's claims to ownership of any copyrights, nevermind the ability to enforce them upon IBM. If an "investor" reads the rulings, the many statements by Judge Kimball would cast a large shadow of doubt over the ability of SCOX to prevail.

Let's assume what I said above is true: discovery ends, and IBM files for a Summary Judgement. How long is that from now? How would that delay the trial date? And what is (tigers in Manhattan not withstanding) possibility of SCOX prevailing over the second Summary Judgement filing? Judge Kimball has made it clear that the COURT does not believe SCOX can prevail against a Summary Judgement filed after discovery is complete.

My new WAG? Discovery ends, IBM files for a Summary Judgement, and Judge Kimball grants it.


[While I thought the PSJ was well argued, IANAL. The legalities surrounding how a PSJ is granted and on what grounds still eludes me.]

Message ID: 234141
Posted By: rgriffith64
Posted On: 2005-02-09 19:57:00
Subject: SCO is going broke, it won't help them

If SCO is broke is does not end the lawsuit. That would be up to the bankruptcy attorney and if SCO really has a case there would be no problem running it through to the end as SCOs attornies are not allowed to abandon the case due to bankruptcy and SCO has already paid for all cases up through all appeals.

Once SCO crumbles IBM will go after the motivation and financing of the operation.

I can see IBM taking this through to the end just to get their name fully cleared and get all the corpses fully gutted and hanging on the fence posts.

With bankruptcy SCO can only hope to throw out a few sacrifical corpses for the Nazgul.

Message ID: 234385
Posted By: mcbride4prison
Posted On: 2005-02-10 08:46:00
Subject: "Judge Slams SCO's Lack of Evidence"

Slashdot reports on press coverage.

Message ID: 234386
Posted By: paulshirley2002
Posted On: 2005-02-10 08:46:00
Subject: What the CC10 PSJ was really about

Its understandable that so many of us desperately wanted the PSJ to be granted, despite all the credible legal advice that it was incredibly unlikely. But don't feel too bad, the PSJ was designed to expose SCO's evidence (or lack of it), not terminate the claims.

SCO have established they had no evidence or that they lied to the court and consequentialy any evidence they did have is now inadmissable. They've also proved the Lanham act charges.

Most important of all: even if SCO escape this fiasco through bankruptcy the PSJ attempt allowed Kimball to publicly state that SCO *have no evidence*, that destroys much of the doubt that would remain after a settlement under duress following bankruptcy or Canopy shutting down the case.

IBM didn't win the jackpot but make no mistake, simply filing damaged SCO. This is IBM's first serious attack in the PR war and they seem to be much better at it than SCO, they managed to get Kimball to be their mouthpiece!

Message ID: 234783
Posted By: atul666
Posted On: 2005-02-10 18:14:00
Subject: Kimball News Roundup

Here's a roundup of the media coverage the Kimball ruling's getting. Overall the stories so far have focused on the things Kimball had to say about the weakness of SCO's case. We haven't heard from the usual suspects yet. Has nobody called Enderle or Didio for a quote yet? I'd like to hear what they have to say about this stuff.

* The AP story, the version you'll see in your newspaper. No byline.
Interestingly, Forbes is running the AP story, not one of its own.

* Stephen Shankland story (CNet)
Quotes attorneys who say this is bad news for SCO.

* Susan B. Shor, for LinuxInsider
Larry Rosen quoted

* Vaughan-Nichols eWeek story,1759,1763661,00.asp
More extensive Larry Rosen quote, mentions lack of evidence
Includes & explains Kimball's reference to Novell case.

* Bib Mims (SLC Tribune)
Focus on the 'sco has no proof' angle. Salmon & Darcy quotes.

* Ronna Abramson (TheStreet)
"SCO Bad-Mouthed in Ruling"
www . thestreet . com/_googlen/tech/software/10208415.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

Lucy Sherriff at The Register
"SCO dodges bullet"
Uses part of same John Ferrell quote given by Shankland.

Matt Whipp for PCPro
Quotes an EFF attorney, who expected the PSJ denials & says it's a big defeat for sco.

Rodney Gedda, Compuerworld Australia;813583771;fp;16;fpid;0
Quotes attorney Brendan Scott at firm Open Source Law, leads with Kimball's denial of SCO's attempt to dismiss CC10.

Elizabeth Millard, Enterprise Linux IT
enterprise-linux-it . newsfactor . com /story.xhtml?story_title=Judge-Critical-of-SCO-in-IBM-Case&story_id=30394
Quotes an attorney who says how hard it is to get a PSJ, which is an important point.

John Paczkowski's Good Morning Silicon Valley column
Refers to Shankland story

Message ID: 234784
Posted By: atul666
Posted On: 2005-02-10 18:16:00
Subject: Kimball News Roundup II

Also a few blog references to the ruling came up while I was searching:

Tom Graham at Neowin
Seems to give more credence to the SCO/M$ worldview than most stories.
Lots of comments below story.

Terri Wells (Dev Shed, other sites)
References Shankland story.

Dana Blankenhorn at ZDnet
Thinks it won't go to trial. Same guy who had trouble with Merkey a while back.

Also, here's the inevitable Slashdot story. References GL and Shankland story.

Message ID: 234962
Posted By: rkhalloran
Posted On: 2005-02-11 09:37:00
Subject: This contract assigns NO copyrights...

You keep beating the same dead horse, Leddy.

(a) Kimball's ruling only says that a PSJ prior to completing discovery would be premature.

He *also* says that SCO has yet to provide any reasonable evidence, and implies that a re-filing by IBM once discovery closes would be likely to succeed because of that. He's giving SCO a nice long rope to hang themselves on, and denying them an appeal option based on a 'rushed' PSJ.

(b) The copyright law is specific here: a contract must *EXPLICITLY* assign copyright to be held valid, to avoid a he-said/she-said situation.

The contract between Novell and oldSCO specifically EXCLUDES copyrights to SysV, except for "those required for business operation".

There is *NO* documentation to show a valid transfer of any such copyrights after the fact. If there was, SCO wouldn't have been asking Novell last year to pretty-please transfer them, now would they?

The shilling is getting old and tired. SCOX has no case, no friends and no future.

SCO delenda est!!

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "manyhats23", "rgriffith64", "mcbride4prison", "paulshirley2002", "atul666", "rkhalloran" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Copyright 2005 Yahoo! SCOX. Messages are owned by the individual posters.