Comments on: Judge whittles down SCO claims against IBM

Dispute continues, but SCO will have to press on without hundreds of claims in its Linux code case.

[chuck_whealton]

Sweet....

It's about time. Now if they can just get the rest of the
arguments thrown out, perhaps SCO can finish going out of
business...

Charles Whealton
Chuck Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[John Kuzak]

perhaps SCO can finish

http://www.analogstereo.com/vauxhall_vx220_owners_manual.htm

[chuck_whealton]

Sweet....

It's about time. Now if they can just get the rest of the
arguments thrown out, perhaps SCO can finish going out of
business...

Charles Whealton
Chuck Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[John Kuzak]

perhaps SCO can finish

http://www.analogstereo.com/vauxhall_vx220_owners_manual.htm

[Zymurgist]

Old news....

This happened several days ago and is old news at this point. The article doesn't even point out that of the remaining claims, only one has any relation to Linux at all.

The article also doesn't point out that the claims were thrown out not on the basis of having (or not having) merit, but rather on the basis that the claims would have required evidence to support them and since SCO has been unable to indicate that any such evidence exists, the claims are thus invalid.

Presumably, one would come to the court with evidence that a crime had been committed. In this case, the plaintiff had a claim but no proof and after a couple of years still hadn't been able to come up with any.

I rather suspect that in the end SCO will be ordered to reimburse IBM their legal fees, which could well exceed the worth of SCO in it's entirety.

[Zymurgist]

Old news....

This happened several days ago and is old news at this point. The article doesn't even point out that of the remaining claims, only one has any relation to Linux at all.

The article also doesn't point out that the claims were thrown out not on the basis of having (or not having) merit, but rather on the basis that the claims would have required evidence to support them and since SCO has been unable to indicate that any such evidence exists, the claims are thus invalid.

Presumably, one would come to the court with evidence that a crime had been committed. In this case, the plaintiff had a claim but no proof and after a couple of years still hadn't been able to come up with any.

I rather suspect that in the end SCO will be ordered to reimburse IBM their legal fees, which could well exceed the worth of SCO in it's entirety.