Re: [SLUG] SCO Looses

From: Paul M Foster (paulf@quillandmouse.com)
Date: Sun Aug 12 2007 - 22:38:33 EDT


SOTL wrote:

> On Sunday 12 August 2007 17:58, steve szmidt wrote:
>> On Sunday 12 August 2007 19:30, SOTL wrote:
>>> On Sunday 12 August 2007 11:27, Paul M Foster wrote:
>>>> William Coulter wrote:
>>>>> Now that Novell is the owner of UNIX or UNIXWARE
>>> That is not what the judge said despite what PJ said.
>> After having read the ruling there are some points I don't see.
>>
>> Since they owned it to start with
>
> There is mistake #1
>
> Go back to the BSDi ruling. AT&T did not own Unix therefore Unix System Lab
> did not own Unix thus Novel could not buy Unix. Unix has a long and troubled
> history originally written much like Linux with all writers working for major
> companies and/or major universities, the only internet access outside
> government in those days.

And yet, the judge said:

"[T]he court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare
Copyrights."

Could some other judge see it differently? Sure. What matters is what
the *last* judge thinks.

>
>> hands. Thus until another ruling says otherwise Novell owns it.
>
>> You also called it a minor victory which guts the case very significantly.
>>
>> Finally, what is your background to argue these points, over a paralegal
>> like PJ?
>
> I have no desire to get into a fight over the ownership of Unix with you.
>
> As far as PJ, PJ is not thinking at the current moment or reading what SCO is
> saying. Wish I had saved the USL to the SCO sites so you could get a
> completely different perspective.
>
> But, after all is said and done all this ruling was is answers to partial
> summary judgments. It was not a resolution of the Novel suit. It was not a
> resolution of the appeal which will certainly be filed. So it is only round
> one. Lots of things can happen. Recall what happened to the judge in the
> Microsoft case. This is not over.
>

I'm inclined to agree this does significant damage to SCO's case(s).
Whether there will be an appeal or not depends on two things: 1) Do
SCO's lawyers believe that a different judge would see the evidence at
hand differently? SCO's case(s) was always exceptionally weak. Witness
the massive changes to their claims over time, because they realized
they couldn't win on this or that point. 2) Whether SCO will be in
business or be able to afford to continue appeals. Yes, some deep
pockets like MS could chip in, but they'll only do that if *their*
lawyers believe they have a chance of winning on appeal. My guess is
that this was a long shot that MS was willing to bankroll for a while.
But I don't see SCO winning their current cases or their appeals. And if
the lawyers agree, SCO might as well liquidate and open a burger franchise.

Side note: lots of people whine about PJ, but she's closer to being a
lawyer than I am. So while I don't take what *anyone* says as gospel,
I'm generally willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Considering
the sources of many of the complaints I've heard about her, I don't
place much stock in such complaints.

Paul

-- 
Paul M. Foster
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS).  Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:33:27 EDT