Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Judge Kimball Rules at Last! (Groklaw)
Groklaw has the ruling in SCO V. Novell. "I haven't read it yet myself, just quickly skimmed it enough to see
that SCO owes Novell some money ($2,547,817 plus interest probably -- SCO
can oppose -- from the Sun agreement) and it had no right to enter into the
Sun agreement, but it did have the right to enter into the Microsoft and
other SCOsource agreements."
(Log in to post comments)
Judge Kimball Rules at Last! (Groklaw) Posted Jul 16, 2008 23:29 UTC (Wed) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] Gee, does SCO even have that much money left? If not, does this mean they have to change the channel from 11 to 7? (A subtle and dorky pun referring to the chapters of U.S. bankruptcy law, for those not familiar.) I am pleased with the ruling, though. A victory of sorts for Linux.
Loss Posted Jul 17, 2008 1:55 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] It seems to be a loss, at least for Novell. Suppose your neighbors fenced in twenty acres of your land, cut down the trees, and sold it; and the court ordered them, years later, to hand over only what they got for three acres of it. Even if the court agreed the neighbor was wrong, you'd have reason to be displeased with the decision -- particularly if your neighbor had also sued you for slander for having complained.
Loss Posted Jul 17, 2008 9:26 UTC (Thu) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link] > It seems to be a loss, at least for Novell. The judge has find out that SCO had a right to sell the license to Microsoft. Nowell initial claims was too broad. It is as if it turned out that for seventeen from the twenty fenced acres the neighbor had the rights due to some prior history.
Loss Posted Jul 17, 2008 11:59 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] No, he didn't find that they had a right to sell it to Microsoft. He just said that Microsoft hadn't got what they supposedly paid for, because it wasn't SCOg's to sell. I.e. MS has a legitimate claim to demand their money back, if they care, and if there were any left to be got. Of course MS, like Sun, really were buying the spurious attack on IBM, Novell, and Autozone, and got full value.
Judge Kimball Rules at Last! (Groklaw) Posted Jul 17, 2008 6:37 UTC (Thu) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link] 2.5 million seems a bit low for such a case.
Afraid? Posted Jul 17, 2008 2:10 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """ Judge Kimball did not change anything in his August 10th order, which I was afraid might happen. He could have, had he heard anything that he didn't know when he made that order. """ Two questions. What was Pamela afraid Judge Kimball might have found out about? And why are we still talking about SCO when there are far more relevant things we need to be concerned about today?
Afraid? Posted Jul 17, 2008 2:29 UTC (Thu) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link]
Afraid? Posted Jul 17, 2008 2:42 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Yes. I've been monitoring the whole sordid, and increasingly irrelevant, business all along. And I agree that LWN has, as usual, exhibited good taste on the matter.
Afraid? Posted Jul 17, 2008 13:31 UTC (Thu) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] It's interesting to note the marked difference between the ruling and what Groklaw's articles made the reader expect to happen. So much for all that MS/SUN/SCO source money being Novell's. Makes me wonder about how different the IBM rulings will be compared to what Groklaw is leading us all to expect. Is PJ really a legal expert whilst churning out analysis after analysis, or really just another blogger? The IBM rulings will decide that. SCO won most of Novell v SCO, and lost all of SCO v Novell. Time for the tie-breaker.
Afraid? Posted Jul 17, 2008 18:16 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] PJ could be a genius legal expert, but could still guess wrong every time the court comes back with a decision. Law in the end is the messy wetware world of emotions, human illogic, etc.. not logic. Logically, Novell could have gotten the keys to the kingdom from SCO.. but reality is not so nice.
Afraid? Posted Jul 17, 2008 18:57 UTC (Thu) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] I suggest you read the ruling for yourself. Kimball's logic looks pretty strong to me, even so far as calling a spade a spade regarding the legitimacy of the SCO Source scheme. PJ got the law wrong on this one as she usually refuses to believe any of SCO's claims and so ignores them.
SCO and King Pyrrhus Posted Jul 18, 2008 19:50 UTC (Fri) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] Being forced to pay over two million dollars counts as a victory for SCO? May they win many more of those.
Afraid? Posted Jul 17, 2008 6:09 UTC (Thu) by JesseW (guest, #41816) [Link] As I understand it (mainly from Groklaw postings), until a ruling is finalized, a judge can still change any previous order's e made. What PJ was concerned with was whether Judge Kimball would be swayed by any of the "arguments" SCO's lawyers had made claiming that his order of August 10th (saying in effect that SCO didn't own Unix) was wrong. It wasn't a case of "finding out", but of whether the judge would change his mind. He didn't.And as for Groklaw still posting entries about the SCO case -- it is one of the central focuses of the site; it'd be odder for PJ to stop posting about the SCO case before it's dead and buried than to drop it when it became clear that SCO is not a serious threat. And Groklaw has been posting quite a bit on more "serious" threats, or at least what PJ considers such.
Afraid? Posted Jul 17, 2008 14:41 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """ And as for Groklaw still posting entries about the SCO case -- it is one of the central focuses of the site """ You are correct. More succinctly one might describe it as a vendetta. It is Pamela's site and she can, of course, do as she pleases with it. I, personally and humbly, feel that her considerable talents could be put to better use challenging threats to FOSS which are relevant today rather than relentlessly and obsessively pursuing the destruction of a threat from yesteryear.
Different hobbies Posted Jul 17, 2008 14:57 UTC (Thu) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link] That's like telling programmers to code only new shiny projects instead of spending time on finishing older ones...
Afraid? Posted Jul 17, 2008 15:08 UTC (Thu) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] She certainly has lost her objectivity - and we'll skim over the reasons for that for now. She rarely accepts that on some points SCO may have a case because over time, rightly and wrongly, she's become so biased against SCO. However, that isn't the end of it. The GPL3 episode showed that for most of the "big" issues, she's turns issues into Us vs Them. When challenged in the comments section, she's increasingly responding with an appeal to her own authority on any given subject, even going so far as to ask people to trust her even when she chooses not to defend a viewpoint. Which was all well and good until she started sticking her nose in to the more controversial subjects in the FLOSS arena. When Groklaw started, it was hailed as one of those unique sites which unified most of the FLOSS scene, but taking her Us vs Them attitude to internal FLOSS politics (and the GPL3 episode was only the first one), that unity has now dissolved having alienated a large proportion of the original Groklaw audience. Now she's just preaching to the choir, finding difficulty in accomodating viewpoints which differ significantly to her own. That's pretty much why I now think of it as an FSF sounding board rather than anything which truly represents the many and conflicting interests of FLOSS which Groklaw originally set out to be when it started.
Afraid? Posted Jul 17, 2008 15:45 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """ She certainly has lost her objectivity - and we'll skim over the reasons for that for now. """ More importantly, she has sacrificed her credibility outside of the choir. The Maureen O'Gara business might, very understandably, have made it a very personal matter. I can understand that. But Maureen was ruined... long ago. Pamela has so much to give. I wish that she would channel her efforts where they would have more significance. But I am not Pamela. And cannot, and should not, make decisions for her. I simply state my opinion.
Afraid? Posted Jul 17, 2008 15:10 UTC (Thu) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link] Groklaw was founded in response to SCO's ridiculous lawsuits, so it's hardly surprising that PJ wants to keep going on this. Persistence does not mean 'vendetta'...
Afraid? Posted Jul 17, 2008 15:47 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Actually groklaw predates the SCO lawsuits by a few months.
Afraid? Posted Jul 17, 2008 15:57 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Actually, Groklaw hit the net in May, 2003 - a couple months after SCO filed its suit against IBM.
|
|||||||||||||