The GPL wins in Germany - again

You're probably correct, I've never looked into it, but I'd regard it as wasting court time
and ergo contempt of court. This is just my opinion, but where foot-dragging is clearly
demonstrated AND is clearly foot-dragging, then the party so doing should be held in custody
for a time equal to the time wasted.

Where the foot-dragging is an effort to manipulate the court system by draining the defendent
of resources, that should be considered a criminal act and the custody should be that of jail
until a decision is made as to whether to press criminal charges.

Where the foot-dragging appears to have no actual purpose but appears to be connected with
delusions (real beliefs that have no foundation and would be accepted as impossible by any
reasonable person with exactly the same knowledge in exactly the same circumstance), psychosis
or schizoeffective behaviour (good managers are mildly schizophrenic, studies suggest, but
that does imply they must eventually snap), then the custody should be in a mental facility
until a thorough medical examination can determine the competency of the individual and
whether involuntary commitment may be required.

SCO may well fit in the latter.

I think two suits between two companies tend to be long drawn out affairs, due to the number
of documents that tend to get requisitioned and number of people to talk to, and the sheer
amount of money meaning that no stone goes unturned. Novell v. SCO wasn't that slow, and I
think SCO v. IBM would have gone a lot quicker if IBM had the slightest bit of culpability and
thus a reason not to let SCO take as much rope as it wanted. 

And more importantly, a system where there isn't consistency, i.e. where any Judge can make up
verdicts rather than rely on the case history to ensure that everyone petitioning the court
gets essentially the same treatment would be the opposite of Justice. The purpose of case law
is to ensure uniformity and fairness in the system with one central authority (Supreme Court)
to decide what the appropriate interpretation of the law is when different regional courts
come to different conclusions.

What you call common sense, I call favoritism or persecution. Judges routinely like to hide
their own bias under the label of "common sense". IMO the use of a Common Law system is much
more appropriate when considered in it's entirety than any other system I'm aware of.