| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! (Groklaw)Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! (Groklaw)Posted Aug 11, 2007 19:03 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! (Groklaw) by dark Parent article: Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! (Groklaw)
Actually the story took so many years because such a powerful opponents were involved. That's by design: when there are "big guy" vs "small guy" legal fight judge always take the side of "small guy" wherever it's possible. Why ? Easy: if the truth is on side of "big guy" - it'll eventually win anyway, but if the truth is on side of "small guy" - it can lose by just doing stupid mistakes cheap lawyers are prone to. Such "small guy" bias prevents it. Sure - sometimes the system can be played (like it was this time) but in general it's good approach. And if the "small guy" is truly wrong - he'll be eventually punished and legal fees will be astronomical. Of course the problematic case is when "small guy" is a shim for someone truly powerful - but it's not clear how the court can be sure that it's the case...
(Log in to post comments)
Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! (Groklaw) Posted Aug 11, 2007 19:53 UTC (Sat) by Kluge (guest, #2881) [Link] Certainly the case wouldn't have taken so long if SCO hadn't had enough money to pay their lawyers to obstruct progress in the case at every turn. But I've never heard of a pattern in which judges favor "the little guy". I have heard of many cases where the "little guy" is bullied into settling by a lack of funds necessary to counter the "big guy's" legal attrition strategy.
I hope you're right.
side of the small guy? Posted Aug 11, 2007 21:48 UTC (Sat) by ccyoung (guest, #16340) [Link] "...judge always take the side of "small guy" wherever it's possible"
emm, want to review the Roberts court? or, how about sitting in a typical small criminal court - I think you'd find it pretty astonishing.
would love to be proven wrong (you proven right), but my limited experience points directly contrary.
of the riaa cases, how many have been fought? how many successful suits against the microsoft tax we all know and love? how many times have you challenged a patent that's obviously bogus? ever try to recover $ from an att&t overcharge? the list is endless.
side of the small guy? Posted Aug 12, 2007 6:27 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] of the riaa cases, how many have been fought? Not many. Even so few we have successful ones. how many successful suits against the microsoft tax we all know and love? What exactly are you talking about ? The fact that noone was able to force Microsoft to change it's predatory licensing policy ? Sorry - it goes way beyond "small guy" vs "big guy". If you are talking about refund - people were able to get it many times. Even without court. I think you totally misunderstood what I wrote. Court does not make it easy for a "small guy" to harass a "big guy" - it'll be equally wrong. And yes, it's often the case that a "small guy" folds up without court (what the court can do in this case?). But if a "small guy" actually is brave/foolish enough to go to court - then it'll have judge's sympathy and support. Wherever possible, of course. Judge will not bend the law for the sake of a "small guy" :-) But when the law offers choice...
Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! (Groklaw) Posted Aug 12, 2007 10:47 UTC (Sun) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link] Cheap lawyers that cost 25 million? Ouch.
Sorry, but three years to solve an obvious case, costing millions for both sides, only convinces me that the system does not work at all. And it's not even over yet.
Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! (Groklaw) Posted Aug 13, 2007 14:13 UTC (Mon) by peace (guest, #10016) [Link] Remember how the Germans kicked SCO's case back down the courthouse steps? Now there is a legal system that works.
|
|
||||||||||||