Skype vs. SCO [LWN.net]

Skype vs. SCO

Posted May 8, 2008 21:48 UTC (Thu) by ajross (subscriber, #4563)
In reply to: Skype vs. SCO by dwheeler
Parent article: The GPL wins in Germany - again

I won't step into the "US Courts are teh suX0r" mess.  But I will point out that the example
is flawed: SCO is the plaintiff in their case.  The goal of the free software community in the
SCO case is just to protect the status quo.  As they haven't won a judgment yet (and don't
appear to be likely to at any point in the future), the status quo is still in effect and
"we're winning".  The courts are doing their job.

(Log in to post comments)

Skype vs. SCO

Posted May 8, 2008 22:29 UTC (Thu) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link]

I would add to your remarks that the US court system (or any court system for that matter) is
not designed to deal with the situation where a plaintiff seeks to drag out a case. In most
court cases, the plaintiff wants a resolution as soon as possible, to redress whatever wrongs
they have suffered. SCO, on the other hand, wants to prolong the litigation for as long as
possible, and they don't seem to be in any hurry to collect damages.

Skype vs. SCO

Posted May 9, 2008 8:01 UTC (Fri) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link]

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.

Skype vs. SCO

Posted May 10, 2008 16:57 UTC (Sat) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]

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.