Tag search
Final Judgment in SCO v. Novell: SCO Loses Again
- SCO's claims for Slander of Title (Count I) and Specific Performance (Count III) are dismissed [...]
- SCO's claims for Breach of Contract (Count II), Copyright Infringement (Count IV), and Unfair Competition (Count V) are dismissed [...]
- The remaining portions of SCO's claims [...] are voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, without the possibility of renewal following appeal.
Ah, what wonderful words to read. And about time too; It's been going on since January 2004. This should blast a giant hole in SCOs case against IBM since Novell is now authorised to indemnify IBM.
I suggest you hop over to Groklaw’s coverage of the final judgement. As usual it is an excellent read.
SCO files motion to subpoena Groklaw's Pamela Jones
SCO in its wisdom has just guaranteed that the judges in SCO v. IBM and SCO v. Novell will have to read Groklaw. In a stunning move of stupidity they filed a motion in SCO v. IBM to subpoena Pamela Jones and they want IBM to help them get it. To quote Lamlaw:
These guys are a bunch of jerkheads. I have other words that better describe people who abuse the legal system and attempt to harm members of the public for no reason other than to engage in their illegal conduct unfettered by public opinion and comment. (Any attack on PJ is an attack on everyone at Groklaw or anyone who has ever expressed an opinion openly.)
SCO believes it is entitled to IBM's help because they think IBM actively helps Groklaw. Their evidence: A couple of blog comments, some (probably planted) editorials and the fact that IBM donated some hardware to Ibiblio, a public service internet archive that happens to host Groklaw for free.
From: Groklaw
