|
Novell Sends a Letter to Judge Kimball |
|
Tuesday, November 14 2006 @ 11:55 PM EST
|
Here's something a little different. Novell has sent a letter to Judge Dale Kimball, with a suggestion. The suggestion is that he not decide which case should go first, SCO v. Novell or SCO v. IBM, until after dispositive motions are decided in both cases. Novell's letter shows what prompted it -- SCO and IBM have sent two letters to the judge, one on October 27 and another on October 31, both about trial timing. We don't have those letters, but it seems SCO has done a 180 and is now asking the court to *advance* the Novell trial date, which Novell points out is "diametrically opposed to their relief SCO just sought and was in part granted."
You'll remember that SCO had asked that the Novell case be put on hold until after IBM was decided, in their Motion for an Expedited Stay or Continuance. Novell opposed that idea. The judge didn't grant that request for a stay, but he did give them more time for discovery, set March 14 for dispositive motions, and put off the trial date until September 17, 2007. He also indicated he thought the Novell case should probably go first. Now SCO has changed its mind and instead of wanting a stay in the Novell case, suddenly it wants to speed it up instead.
What does it all mean? I can't say for sure, because we don't have the other letters. But when you see a party suddenly shifting strategies in the middle of the stream and heading back in the opposite direction, it usually means they are afraid of drowning. Something may have turned up in discovery, making SCO want to cut discovery short after all. Novell has just filed a motion to compel discovery, after all, which might be related. Then there is the arbitration, the X factor. And certainly another interpretation could be that Novell doesn't expect much to be left on the table regarding the ownership of the copyrights after their dispositive motions are decided, in which case having Novell go first loses its rationale. If IBM wins first, clearly that helps Novell's case. And vice versa, so IBM would like Novell to go first, and Novell normally might like the opposite. In this case, it prefers to reserve its vote until after the air clears and everyone knows what issues are to be decided at trial. I don't think SCO at this point knows what it wants. Novell's lawyers seem to have SCO in a terrible tizzy.
Novell's suggestion is that what makes sense is to think in terms of "the proper sequencing of issues for trial, not which case's trial should precede the other." The argument is that he decide based on issues remaining after dispositive motions are decided in both cases, because until then, no one, including Kimball, knows what issues will be left to be decided. That is, of course, correct. So, since the dispositive motions haven't been decided, and in the case of Novell aren't even before him yet, Novell suggests postponing a decision on which trial goes first until after he knows which issues are left on the table. Meanwhile, why not pencil in September 17 for both cases, and then address the order once the picture is clearer? As you will remember from the October 24th hearing in SCO v. IBM, the IBM trial date has been postponed from February of 2007 because there was no way to get the summary judgment motions heard in time for that date to be realistic, and both sides were asked by the judge to get together and come up with a new schedule. Novell here suggests a date of September for both cases, so that dispositive motions can first clarify the issues. Here are the Notice of Filing [PDF] and the letter [PDF] so you can read them for yourselves and draw your own conclusions, even if, like me, you decide there is no way to really know what it means for sure until more hints are revealed in future documents, which will certainly happen.
But to help us figure it out, here's the section from the transcript of the October hearing in SCO v. IBM, at which Judge Kimball asked both sides if they had an opinion as to which case should go first (I'll be posting the complete transcript shortly):
THE COURT:
Here's another thing I want to get your quick
reaction to. Novell isn't here, but you both know
there's another case. Is there an argument that that
case ought to be tried first, at least from you two
folks? I'm not asking Novell that. They are not here --
or it is not here. Do you have a reaction to that
question?
MR. SINGER: My immediate reaction would be
that the IBM case should come first, that the contract
claims shouldn't be affected by the issues there. The
copyright claim on which IBM is seeking a declaratory
judgment, and we simply have a similar copyright claim,
that is affected by the question of whether or not those
copyrights were transferred from Novell to SCO. That
issue is one which is -- if that was decided adversely to
us would moot out that aspect of this case.
THE COURT: Do you have a comment?
MR. MARRIOTT: I do, Your Honor. There is, I
think, an excellent argument that the trial of that
matter should come first because there are issues, as
Your Honor well knows, there that would dispose entirely
of causes of action and claims in the IBM case. Just by
way of example: The ownership of the copyrights is an
issue in those cases. If it's found in that case that
Novell, not SCO, owns the copyrights, that cleans up -- a
lot of IBM's motion for declaration of non-infringement
of Linux, for example disappears.
THE COURT: "Cleans up" is your phrase, not
Mr. Singer's?
MR. MARRIOTT:I suspect that's right, Judge.
MR. SINGER: Absolutely.
MR. MARRIOTT: A second issue is that in IBM's
motion for summary judgment on its contract claims, we
have argued and believe that Novell has, by way of the
rights it has under its asset purchase agreement with
Santa Cruz, the predecessor of the Park [sic] Corporation of
SCO, has the right to waive the alleged violations of the
contract, and that issue is another issue raised in the
Novell matter and, if decided in favor of Novell, would
preclude relief sought here.
MR. SINGER: Well, that's an issue that we
think is relevant to the IBM matter but not really to the
Novell matter. That is being litigated -- it concerns
Novell, but it is being litigated in the IBM case because
the claims Novell has purported to exercise the right to
waive are claims against IBM that are relevant here.
They are not relevant to the claims between SCO and
Novell.
MR. MARRIOTT: I agree it's an issue here. I
think it's also an issue there.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you both.
Thank you all. We'll be in recess on this matter.
MR. SINGER: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll hear from the two of you in a
few days. As you can see, SCO said that Novell should go last. So after that hearing, there has been a big change in SCO's preference. And now Novell, who wasn't represented at the hearing, wishes to add its two cents. And while it does so, it has the opportunity to make sure the judge is aware that SCO is saying opposite things in a very short time frame. Why do that? Well, for one thing, you kind of let the judge know that if he gives in to SCO's every whim, accepting at face value all their arguments as being sincere and true, you might just end up unfair to the other side, which just spent time and money -- lawyer time isn't free -- arguing against SCO's fervent wish to do the opposite of what it now fervently is telling the court it wishes to do after all. The big piece that is missing for us onlookers is: why has SCO changed its mind?
|
|
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:02 AM EST |
.
---
webster
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Whose letters - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:06 AM EST
- Whose letters - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:59 AM EST
- September 17th? - Authored by: glarepate on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:46 AM EST
- 2007 (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:50 AM EST
- Their (The) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 03:06 AM EST
|
Authored by: ilde on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:06 AM EST |
With clickable links if possible [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: SCOX, 1y Target Est: - Authored by: Ted Powell on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:17 AM EST
- OT: spam is spam - Authored by: grouch on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:26 AM EST
- Agreed. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:31 AM EST
- OT: spam is spam - Authored by: PM on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:29 AM EST
- OT: spam is spam - Authored by: Tyro on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 12:12 AM EST
- e360's opt-in - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 02:23 PM EST
- OT: spam is spam - Authored by: darkonc on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:37 AM EST
- OT: spam is spam - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 02:07 AM EST
- OT: spam is spam - Authored by: N. on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 04:42 AM EST
- spam spam spam - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 10:52 AM EST
- OT: spam is spam - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:58 AM EST
- There's existing law: defamation - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 02:56 AM EST
- OT: spam is spam - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 04:49 AM EST
- also note "commercial" was inserted - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:27 PM EST
- Time to recast the allegory? - Authored by: talldad on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 04:08 AM EST
- Ms Kroes sets deadline for microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 05:04 AM EST
- GPL Java and GPL 3. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 06:56 AM EST
- Longhorn as mainframe and Unix killer question - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 07:13 AM EST
- You're confusing Marketing and Technical requirements - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 07:33 AM EST
- You're missing the fact that it was a M$ show, and.. - Authored by: wood gnome on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 07:33 AM EST
- In short ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:14 PM EST
- More MS marketing lies... I have been to these shows before (MS noses grow longer everyday)! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 08:10 AM EST
- Prohibited anyway - Authored by: digger53 on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 08:14 AM EST
- Longhorn as mainframe and Unix killer question - Authored by: RPN on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 08:39 AM EST
- Longhorn as mainframe and Unix killer question - Authored by: LocoYokel on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 08:42 AM EST
- Longhorn as mainframe and Unix killer question - Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 11:11 AM EST
- Longhorn as mainframe and Unix killer question - Authored by: rsmith on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:46 PM EST
- Salesmen versus customers - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:37 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:18 AM EST |
If party A submits a sealed document to the court, can party B respond to those
"sealed" sections in an open submission. ie. party A submits a sealed
section concerning the costs of a building refurbishment, but party B openly
discusses the costs in their reply.
Is that allowed?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:19 AM EST |
I wonder what brought this about? Something is going on behind the scenes -
can't wait to see the additional documents so we can try and figure out what it
is!
You know my wife is getting jealous of PJ? I never read my wife's blog - but I
always read Groklaw <G>.
---
Wayne
http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:34 AM EST |
If one were to play devil's advocate, you could suppose that SCO's discovery
in the SCO v Novell case turned up some smoking gun which they are anxious to
get before a jury. Of course, you could also suppose that pigs will fly some
day. --- Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set
him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry
Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: grahamt on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:48 AM EST |
We see Novell's letter, because they filed it.
But it references two earlier SCO letters, and we're learning of these letters
now for the first time.
How does SCO send letters to the Judge, but delay Groklawyers from seeing them
until later? Did SCO not "file" them, but just "mailed" them
in instead?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:49 AM EST |
It'll never fly. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:59 AM EST |
Head hits desk!
If this was a novel it would be rejected as toooo surreal.
Tufty
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rfrazier on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:06 AM EST |
In order to put off decisions being made, wouldn't it be best if the least
advanced trial was to go first? So, now IBM is put on hold until Novell is
decided. When the Novell case is about ready to result in decisions, it will be
put on hold until IBM is decided. When it is about time for decisions in IBM,
it is Novell who must go first, and IBM put back on hold.
Best wishes,
Bob
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:07 AM EST |
>>" Novell's lawyers seem to have SCO in a terrible
tizzy."<<
Yup, just like a panicky squirrel dashing back and forth in front of an oncoming
car that's about to run over it.
I know. I've seen it happen.
---
What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger it grows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:20 AM EST |
Good!
Then I'll be able to sort out my chicken scratchings.
Seriously, it's great that you can get hold of these transcripts. There's just
so much more going on at these hearings than any one (or two, or three) people
could ever manage to capture longhand.
---
---
That's not a law suit. *THIS* is a law suit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:26 AM EST |
Shouldn't it be:
Firstly, ...
Secondly, ....
Finally, ...
instead of:
First, ...
Second, ...
Finally, ...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Firstly? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 04:04 AM EST
- Firstly? - Authored by: N. on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 05:08 AM EST
- Firstly? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 06:53 AM EST
- Firstly? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 05:16 PM EST
- Firstly? - Authored by: IRJustman on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 11:01 AM EST
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:38 AM EST |
SCO seems to have recognized they are in a death spiral and they that need to
save the women and children first.
Actually I don't know that. I have no idea what is happening except that SCO
seems be coming unglued.
I suspect that there is nuclear bomb in the sealed discovery, but that is a
WAG.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:44 AM EST |
Well to be sure, if I had a mind like SCO's I would also try to change it as
soon as possible! :^)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:53 AM EST |
As an alternate I suspect that SCO has now decided that their claims in Novell
might fare better if the claims in the IBM case are still undecided.
The Judge has already pretty much committed to moving the IBM case back. How
much is conjecture, although the recent delays suggest a lot.
The Novell case was not scheduled to go to trial until after IBM, but a change
in schedule for IBM could possibly (likely) change the order of the cases.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darkonc on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:57 AM EST |
It reminds me of a Physicist who once quoted Lewis Caroll's Alice In
Wonderland...
It gets curiouser and curiouser and then all of a sudden
you wonder why it was ever curious to begin with.
If you think that the one
thing that IBM and Novell have in common is that they jut want to stomp SCO so
deeply into the ground that they'll never come back from the dream, it makes
total sense.
For both IBM and Novell, it looks like there's something
going on in the other trial that might be useful in their trial -- but you can't
resolve the issues to the preference of both Novell and IBM unless you
efectively hold the trials simultaneously -- which is effectively
impossible
Unless.....
If you hold both trials almost in unison, then
Kimball can issue a pair of decisions that effectively combine the intelligence
that he receives from both trials....
The Supreme Court of Canada actually
does this from time to time -- They take two (or three) related cases and hear
them at about the same time -- then they release simultaneous decisions on the
related cases that effectively give far more guidance to lower courts than any
one of them alone would provide -- and they do seem to interleave the guidance
from the simultaneous cases.
If the trials actually do interleave he may
even be able to decide certain issues in each trial that are useful to the other
before they both end. --- Powerful, committed communication. Touching the
jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 02:37 AM EST |
Given the fact that SCO isn't really doing these court-cases but is
mostly perfoming a communications campain with the law-suits as a means, who is
to say that they've changed their minds?
I think they might very well
simply be trying to influence public opinion and the judge's/s' opinions with
their bizarre antics. Alternatively, sometimes it's easier to get what you want,
even just partly, if you have your opponent fight for it, too... If so, it seems
to have worked, now nothing will be decided before dispositions in both
trials have been done. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Or... have they? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 03:27 AM EST
- Or... have they? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 07:03 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 03:57 AM EST |
They want to show that it is exactly what SCO did and that hence therefor SCO
has every right to do so. Once they get a ruling on this, they can use this to
show that IBM was in the wrong.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- MOD PARENT UP - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:04 PM EST
- You make no sense ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 02:44 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 04:03 AM EST |
By wanting the Novell case to be tried first, I think SCO wants a quick death.
On the other hand, which case should be tried first is a moot point since SCO
will get killed with either case.
Thus, SCO's change of mind may be just another attempt to buy it time by
causing confusion or more lawyer time in the court.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 04:38 AM EST |
If something has drastically changed in the recent times it is Novell.
Remember, a company strategy is as volatile as its CEO. If Novell is now in
collaborative agreement with Microsoft, and Microsoft is behind the SCO scam,
it is impossible to be sure that no agreements have been found between Microsoft
and Novell concerning the Novell-SCO case. 384M$ is a lot more than the Novell
Linux revenues.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 04:57 AM EST |
That is actually the easiest question to answer. They always want what they
think will annoy their current opponent the most. The fact that that is bad for
their own case elsewhere or overall is totally irrelevant. This case was always
about causing the maximum nuisance and aggravation to their intended target in
the expectation that that would cause the opponent to settle. Since they only
ever had one strategy they cannot change to another one just because the first
one is a total failure.
In any event it is possible that their backers are going to do this again very
soon with another patsy and as such they need all victims to know that win or
lose they will be badly hurt. Many species of bee die after stinging, poisonous
caterpillers are just as dead as the animal that ate them and so forth.
Evolution determines that these strategies work however for the species if not
the individual, the SCOfflaws are now fighting for their species, the Rattus
Legallis.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Dark on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 05:04 AM EST |
When the IBM case was their main source of delay, they wanted to stay all other
cases to wait for it. But now that IBM is looking like it might resolve
something after all, they want it to be delayed until all their other cases are
resolved, which should take another couple of years.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 06:10 AM EST |
The issues to be decided at trial are quite simple
Does Sun have the right to
give away Java, source code and all ?
Does Bill Gates have the right to
retire as CEO of Microsoft, and swap lifestyle to head man at the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation ?
Does IBM have the right to say how Amazon shall or
shall not go about their mail-order business ?
Does AT&T have the right
to enter any business except long-distance phone service ?
Now, the answers
might be more complicated. But those are the issues. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 06:23 AM EST |
From past experience, I would guess there are SCO insiders with planned stock
sales pending, looking for any way to provide a short term rise in stock price
to correspond with the planned stock sale date.
---
This message sent from a laptop running Fedora core 6 with Intel wireless
networking.
Everything works....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 08:05 AM EST |
.... because Vista has gone to production and is ready to ship!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 08:58 AM EST |
"The big piece that is missing for us onlookers is: why has SCO changed its
mind?"
PJ, I would think that's obvious - same reason as always, it will
yield yet another
delay and rescheduling. This is their entire game, pretend
they want to move
quickly and then act such that things get delayed again and
again. I'm amazed
the judiciary is falling for this. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 09:58 AM EST |
PJ, it's really very simple.
No matter which schedule changes, it's
never to move any dates forward. Every change is an additional delay in
one of the cases.
So, first it's "IBM goes first" -- which delays
Novell, then it's "Novell goes first," which delays
IBM.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Before you know it, Judge Kimball is
retiring and both cases have to be delayed while a new judge gets up to speed
with the case history etc. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 10:50 AM EST |
If the IBM trial is delayed because of this manuvering, the Red Hat case may go
active, adding a *third* active front to SCO's war.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 11:01 AM EST |
Pure speculation of course, but here goes nothing:
When Novell filed it's motion asking for $25 million, they realized it could
bankrupt them in an instant. Their only slim hope for survival was to win some
money from IBM, and use that to pay Novell's bill.
Now that they have read and studied IBM's summary judgement motions, they
realize that they are going to get nothing from IBM, they are likely to lose all
their claims against IBM, and end-up with a trial where SCO is entirely on the
defensive on their counterclaims. Therefore, they now want Novell to go first,
as with the important proviso that they don't want to pay $25 million now, there
is a chance that they might make it to SCO v Novell trial where both parties
have claims against each other.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 11:27 AM EST |
I think, as someone else pointed out, that this might be tied to Microsoft
and the MS/Novell agreement. MS wants to continue it's FUD campaign, which'll be
harder to do if IBM gets it's issues solidly settled by the judge. SCO's
executives have, in all likelihood, got their money from the stocks. So SCO has
the Novell case go first, fall on their sword there and get bankrupted by the
royalty monies, then abandon the IBM case because they can't afford to continue
and let the bankruptcy trustee come to a settlement. MS can then claim that any
settled issues in the IBM case aren't really settled because it wasn't truly SCO
that made any admissions and they were forced into the settlement and admissions
anyway. Novell gets their money from MS, not SCO, but the new CEO might care
more about the fact they've got it than where it came from and SCO's dead so
that problem's solved too. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Zak3056 on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:21 PM EST |
As you will remember from the October 24th hearing in SCO v. IBM,
the IBM trial date has been postponed from February of 2007 because there was no
way to get the summary judgment motions heard in time for that date to be
realistic, and both sides were asked by the judge to get together and come up
with a new schedule. Novell here suggests a date of September for both cases, so
that dispositive motions can first clarify the
issues.
Hrmm. Doesn't this set off the Delaware judge in
the redhat case? Can we (finally!) expect to see some movement there? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Nope - Authored by: tangomike on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 02:21 PM EST
- Nope - Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 05:26 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:22 PM EST |
Money. More specifically, the money they got from Microsoft. Microsoft wants
it back. Novell is now in league with Microsoft. SCOG knows it is going to
lose both cases, so by losing Novell first, Novell (a.k.a.
"Microsoft") will get whatever money SCOG has left, instead of IBM.
If the money disappears they're hoping the money trail will too, making it
harder for IBM to follow the stench to Redmond and go after Microsoft.
This was a shakedown from Day One. Money is the driver.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:58 PM EST |
First of all, even without things like the Baystar deal,
the SCO execs have
been showing all the signs of people who
made a deal with Microsoft. They
started out with dreams
of sugar plum billions dancing in their heads and they
are
now facing bankruptcy, ruin, and perhaps even some jail
time.
Computer
security usually consists of overlapping layers of
protection. A cautious
sysadmin will not totally rely on
one single layer. Microsoft used a similar
strategy in attacking Linux and FOSS. The SCO fiasco was
just the first layer
of offense. Their second layer of
attack will be patent wars. The MS-Novell
deal is related
to the patent attack but it is not the lynch pin.
As others
have already said, this sudden about-face by SCO
is an attempt for SCO to fall
on their sword in order to
protect Microsoft. SCO has become more of a
liability
than an asset in two different ways. First,
IBM's "greatest
hits"
not only devastate SCO's entire case, they also
devastate SCO's credibility and
hence their ability to
spread anti-Linux FUD. Any further publicity about the
SCO
case is going to be helpful to Linux and hurtful to
Microsoft.
Second,
the SCO vs. IBM case poses an additional risk to
Microsoft. It may be a long
shot, but it is certainly
possible that IBM could pursue the links between SCO
and
Microsoft, perhaps proving in court that Microsoft was
behind SCO's
actions and hence partially liable. That
would be huge, not just because
Microsoft could possibly
lose billions of dollars, but because Microsoft has
already
been convicted of illegal monopolistic activity. The
recent American
Congressional elections do not bode well
for Microsoft's grey/black ops. In
two short years they
may well lose their "get out of jail free" card.
Microsoft
is also facing a lot of anti-monopoly pressure from the EU.
One of
their worst nightmares must be to be caught with
both their hands in yet
another cookie jar. Especially one
so highly publicized and charged as the SCO
cases.
Vista (nee Longhorn) is finally rolling out and the patent
wars are
finally ramping up. SCO has served its purpose:
slandering, FUDing, and
slowing Linux. It is now in
Microsoft's best interest to have SCO dry up and
blow away.
Expect a big (but veiled) effort to make things end quickly
now.
Don't expect the IBM case to ever go to trial.
--- You just can't win
with DRM. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: reddsman on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:00 PM EST |
Look at the dates of the letters from SCO and IBM. It was the 24th and 31st of
October. Novell and M$ didn't announce anything until the 2nd of November. At
the time, Novell did nothing to upset the Community.
Yes Novell has changed but not before the SCO/IBM letters were already sent to
Judge Kimball. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: enigma_foundry on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:40 PM EST |
If Novell wins first, won't they get first dibs on the money left over from
TSCOG? Perhaps their licensing deal with Microsoft influenced TSCO's judgement
here?
---
enigma_foundry
Ask the right questions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 02:07 PM EST |
IMO SCO's lawyer took a good look at IBM's evidence and
realized that, regardless of Novell's result, they have
no chance against IBM. So they decided to postpone that
disaster to some other day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: YetAnotherSteve on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 10:18 PM EST |
(pure speculation)
Is it possible that the two BSF teams are fighting each other for the priviledge
of going second?
If the first case bankrupted SCO, the second trial might be cut short.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: HockeyPuck on Friday, November 17 2006 @ 08:39 AM EST |
Could this be a tactic to stall the court on Novell's push to freeze funds?
Would the court step away from holding SCO money if they thought SCO wanted to
proceed faster?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|