Ian Al
Guest
|
Authored by Ian Al on Feb 7, 2016 10:16:24 GMT
docket 1159 is online on Groklaw: Order granting docket 782 filed by IBM partial judgement on unfair competition claims. David Nuffer is my new favourite judge. This is 47 stonking pages that shine a light on all of the devious legal arguments of SCOldera. It is, in effect, a complete history of the case and makes clear that Caldera is not Santa Cruz and that Tarrantella is Santa Cruz. It also covers the disastrous history of Intel's IA 64 and the attempt by Project Monterey to produce a version of Unix to run on it. It is not a partial judgement. This is one dead turkey, overcooked to a cinder. I think Judge Nuffer has observed how the excellent opinions of Dale Kimball (look out for the references he makes to previous argument) have been rudely overturned on appeal and is trying even harder to drive a wooden stake through this one.
|
|
charlieturner
Veteran Member
Above ground, and still breathing.
Posts: 37
|
Authored by charlieturner on Feb 8, 2016 2:30:38 GMT
KABOOM!
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Feb 8, 2016 20:26:38 GMT
Holy... OK, that was worth waiting for. Happy Birthday to me (a few days early, but hey, I'm not complaining)! Thank you Judge Nuffer!
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Feb 8, 2016 23:23:59 GMT
That statement of fact makes it look like IBM deliberately hosed SCO. I think there's one thing the court hinted at, but didn't say outright - IBM had a good basis for judging that Itanium was never going to deliver, and that that IBM was hosed by *that*, because they had imported a bunch of code into Aix, and it was going to set them back two years (at least) to undo that and start over. So they performed their legally-required duties to get legal access to the code, even though they knew Itanium (and therefore Monterrey) was dead.
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Feb 9, 2016 17:23:21 GMT
Although it's marked as another 1158, docket # 1160 is now up as well - Judge Nuffer's grant of summary judgement on 783.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Feb 9, 2016 20:05:10 GMT
The hits just keep coming. I'd absolutely LOVE to hear PJ's commentary on these... (edit: both loved and was appalled by this comment from The Register's coverage: "Judge David Nuffer heard the case and last week issued a judgement dredged up by the indefatigable Groklaw, which now records some 1,159 incidents in the case.")
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Feb 9, 2016 20:28:15 GMT
And from a 22-Jan-2016 press release from Xinuos' site ( here): I must say that my initial comment was "good luck with that..."
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Feb 9, 2016 22:20:26 GMT
If my scorekeeping is correct, this ruling (1160) means that ALL of SCO's claims are gone. All that's left is IBM's counterclaims.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Feb 9, 2016 22:22:01 GMT
And from a 22-Jan-2016 press release from Xinuos' site ( here): I must say that my initial comment was "good luck with that..." The Register went downhill without Mike Magee. So did The Inquirer.
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Feb 10, 2016 9:04:32 GMT
And more! Docket # 1161, ORDER FOR BRIEFING ON RULE 54(b) CERTIFICATION: My emphasis, and oooh, it was good. Like finding a tree with a knot just exactly the right height and shape to scratch an itch on your back. And for PJ: red dress alert! (I fully imagine PJ's red outfit is more demure than Lady Gaga's superbowl attire - but for the occasion, that one would work, too.) And from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Ok, so I may be premature. Judge Nuffer is asking both IBM and SCO for their opinion on whether we're done. No arguing; just send your idea of how we can finish now, or why we can't. SCO just lost all their claims; and they have nothing left for IBM to make demands on. I don't think IBM could even get an apology, or any other sort of moral victory: SCO was morally bankrupt long before they ever got to Judge Gross's court in Delaware. And I so, so hope that PJ posts just one final article on Groklaw - not just to celebrate, but to show Groklaw, and what it represents, lives to throw the last shovel of dirt on SCO's grave.
|
|
Ian Al
Guest
|
Authored by Ian Al on Feb 10, 2016 9:11:59 GMT
Although it's marked as another 1158, docket # 1160 is now up as well - Judge Nuffer's grant of summary judgement on 783. I thought his last judgement shone a burning light on SCOldera's lack of good faith in court. I was wrong: it was candle light. Initially, SCO told the magistrate judge that they would detail the people and contracts involved by the due date. When they didn't, they responded with 'They know what they did. they must tell us'. Absolutely classic SCO. When Judge Kimball said, cough up and detail the damages and the details of how IBM caused that, SCO said that they knew the deadline had passed, but they fully intended to stump up the information at a hearing. At every stage, SCO objected, vigorously, against having to provide any information at all. More classic behaviour. At the hearing to provide all the missing facts, with Ryan Tibbitts, SCO’s general counsel, If you remember, that was after Judge Kimball had told SCO that it was the very last chance they had to answer IBM's interrogatories. A month after the absolutely final deadline, SCO produced a new response listing an even more expansive list of companies and organisations with even less factual content. Judge Nuffer proceeds to slice SCO's fact free rhetoric to shreds depending mainly on SCO's deposition and interrogatory responses. Case Napalmed, ploughed-in and the land salted. So, when is the appeal?
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Feb 10, 2016 16:34:13 GMT
Ian Al said:
OK, that makes me wonder: if SCO has the wherewithal to appeal, could IBM use that as evidence that SCO is not totally bereft of assets, and re-open their counterclaims?
On the one hand, that sounds like an interference with due process, and something the court would be unlikely to countenance.
On the other hand, SCO has used due process as both sword and shield enough times, that I would not see a problem with SCO being prevented from doing that to further damage IBM.
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Feb 10, 2016 17:16:56 GMT
If I recall correctly, IBM still has a Lanham Act counterclaim, and that one could pierce the corporate veil. So "SCO has no remaining assets" is not a bar. It depends on how badly IBM wants payback.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Feb 10, 2016 20:08:50 GMT
If I recall correctly, IBM still has a Lanham Act counterclaim, and that one could pierce the corporate veil. So "SCO has no remaining assets" is not a bar. It depends on how badly IBM wants payback. Ooooh... I wonder if Darl et al are regretting waking the sleeping Nazgul.
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Feb 11, 2016 0:52:21 GMT
Although it's marked as another 1158, docket # 1160 is now up as well - Judge Nuffer's grant of summary judgement on 783. Page 36: "Microsoft's conduct suggested that it might not guarantee BayStar's investment in SCO as it had promised to Mr Goldfarb. ..." Now why am I not surprised :-) Cheers, Wol
|
|