back to article SCO slapped in latest round of eternal 'Who owns UNIX?' lawsuit

The SCO Group has suffered another reversal in its long-running attempt to squeeze some cash out of IBM for allegedly pinching its code and tossing it into Linux and maybe AIX too. The case has run since 2003, when SCO was called Caldera, and has survived SCO's bankruptcy and all manner of legal shenanigans. SCO keeps finding …

  1. IHateWearingATie

    Wasted talent

    Clearly SCOs lawyers are hugely creative - if only they hadn't turned to the dark side one wonders what they could have achieved.

    Sure, they wouldn't have a Porsche or a huge mansion bought from the legal fees, but they'd still ave their souls.

    1. billse10

      Re: Wasted talent

      "but they'd still ave their souls"

      That assumes they had them to start ...

      "I say we take off and nuke the entire lawsuit from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

      PS Groklaw? :-)

    2. Whitter
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Wasted talent

      I have some shadow of a memory that "SCO's lawyers" were related to SCO's owners and that this long, tortious legal work was a means to "legally" asset strip what remained of SCO's bank balance to another member of the family. Could be an urban myth though.

      1. james 68

        Re: Wasted talent

        You could be correct, I'm sure that I remember that the legal firm pumped cash into the SCO coffers to keep the holding company alive (after they had spent the Microsoft cash), don't know what they received in return though but I'd imagine it would be a fairly hefty stake.

        1. Paul Shirley

          Re: Wasted talent

          They bought into a bigger cut of the bazillions in a sure fire case, can't remember how they were paying for it. About 6 months later they noticed the impropriety of being parties to the case was being discussed too much in public and bought their way out of the deal with a fixed fee cap - $30mil+external costs to finish the case. I doubt BS&F were aware how dodgy the case was till they were firmly stuck with it.

          The case isn't finished, the money's long gone and they're still compelled to follow SCO's bidding, regardless of it's sanity. BS&F are believed to have burnt through the fixed fee before the case even went to trial.

      2. thames

        Re: Wasted talent

        @Whitter - SCO employed several law firms. One of the lawyers employed for minor tasks was the CEO's brother. I think he was being well paid for storing the case records or something like that. That CEO (Darl McBride) is now long gone from the scene, and I assume the brother is as well.

        1. Whitter
          Thumb Up

          Re: Wasted talent

          Thanks for filling in one of the many gaps in my memory!

      3. phands

        Re: Wasted talent

        IIRC, one of SCO's lawyers was Kevin McBride, brother of SCO ex-CEO, Darl McBride. It's all documented on the excellent Groklaw, and still actively discussed on the Investor Village SCOXQ.PK message board.

  2. ratfox
    WTF?

    Goddam

    It's been so long, I would have sworn that this had died already. I wonder how much was spent in total on this train wreck? By the parties, and by the justice system?

    1. Mad Chaz

      Re: Goddam

      I think "too much" should be about right.

    2. thames

      Re: Goddam

      @ratfox - I think that SCO spent about $100 million on the case. About 80% of that though was money from a certain large software company who wanted to see Linux dead, and most of the rest was from another software/hardware company who also wanted to see Linux dead. The details came out when an outside business consultant who was handling the transactions didn't get what he felt was the full commission he was owed, upon which somehow or other one of the emails outlining the deal got leaked.

      We can assume that IBM and Novell also spent a fair bit of change as well.

      In addition, SCOG also sued various retailers, manufacturing companies, utilities etc. over what they claimed were "Linux" issues, but were actually based on SCO Unix licensing claims (most of the trade press at the time could be counted on to reprint SCOG's bullshit verbatim). SCOG picked on former SCO Unix customers who had switched to Linux and sued them on alleged past violations of SCO Unix licenses. A number of these companies settled out of court because they couldn't afford to fight the claims. Chrysler fought them, and because the case ended up in a Michigan court instead of the very dodgy Delaware courts, SCOG had their arse handed to them by the judge in less than a week.

      SCOG was solvent at the time they went into bankruptcy. It was simply a tactical move because a judge in Utah was about to hand down a ruling which would have flattened SCOG entirely. However, a couple of days before that was due they filed for bankruptcy in Delaware (the state is to dodgy corporate registration in the US what Liberia is to decrepit oil tankers in the shipping industry). Bankruptcy court trumps all others, so that put a freeze on the counter suits while letting SCOG continue to sue world + dog while being granted immunity from counter action. They then proceeded to piss away all their money on lawyers in a series of hopeless cases.

      1. Justin S.

        Re: Goddam

        An admirable summation, thames.

        SCOG is the gift, above all others, that just keeps giving-- it's kind of like herpes, in that respect.

    3. a_yank_lurker

      Re: Goddam

      The only reason this fiasco has been going on is the feral courts are trying their best to maintain shyster full employment and wealth. If any of the judges ever involved had a pair SCO mismanagement, their shyster buddies, and bankrollers would have had a multi-year visit a Club Fed.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    “why do SCO's backers keep it alive?”

    Any idea who those backers are?

    1. Mike Pellatt

      Re: “why do SCO's backers keep it alive?”

      David Boies' law firm undertook to carry on (this part of) the litigation until its conclusion for a fixed fee, and, if I remember correctly, a share in any settlement. So they're contractually obliged to the "trustee"-in-bankruptcy to carry on this farce.

      But that was for legal fees, not expenses. Which is why things are now moving at a glacial pace. Boies et al know the chances of profit!!!! are very low, so they really are doing the bare minimum.

      So the answer to the question is - it was all paid for up-front a decade or so ago. You'll note that Microsoft had some involvement in one round of funding back then. Allegedly.

      1. Velv

        Re: “why do SCO's backers keep it alive?”

        "carry on (this part of) the litigation until its conclusion"

        How many conclusions in court against SCO does it take to say the case is concluded

        1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

          Re: How many conclusions

          I think the conclusion would be a letter from SCO's bankruptcy judge that lets BSF's lawyers escape further pointless court appearances. So far the price of that letter has been more than BSF is willing to pay.

          1. Mike Pellatt

            Re: How many conclusions

            Yabut.... The esteemed Trustee in Bankruptcy swore blind to the Delaware Bankruptcy court that there was a really, really good chance of winning against Novell. Despite utterly losing that case, I guess he can't backtrack on the rest of the litigation's chances.

            1. Paul Shirley

              Re: How many conclusions

              " I guess he can't backtrack on the rest of the litigation's chances."

              You forget SCO and their lawyers were caught telling different courts contradictory things. Sadly not caught by the courts though :(

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: “why do SCO's backers keep it alive?”

        "But that was for legal fees, not expenses. Which is why things are now moving at a glacial pace. Boies et al know the chances of profit!!!! are very low, so they really are doing the bare minimum."

        There should be a change in the law that forbids lawyers from doing this sort of thing - some sort of conduct obligation - so if they're found to be deliberately dragging out a case then they should either lose some of the final settlement, be fined up front or simply have their licenses revoked. Is the only way to stop this nonsense and free the court system up to be used for its intended purpose.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: “why do SCO's backers keep it alive?”

          "There should be a change in the law that forbids lawyers from doing this sort of thing - some sort of conduct obligation - "

          there should - and there should also be personal liability for the other side's costs (including any damages / loss of earnings etc) on lawyers who sign "no win no fee" and lose.

          Not going to happen while the people who draft the law are mostly ...... lawyers

      3. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

        Re: “why do SCO's backers keep it alive?”

        > So they're contractually obliged to the "trustee"-in-bankruptcy to carry on this farce.

        Are the penalties so egregious that they can't break the contract?

        1. Captain DaFt

          Re: “why do SCO's backers keep it alive?”

          "Are the penalties so egregious that they can't break the contract?"

          Right now the firm is probably passing off the paperwork to a couple of unpaid interns as "experience".

          Cheaper than fighting the automatic lawsuit that'd happen if they broke the contract.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Judge David Nuffer ...

    ... haven't he had 'nuff already?

    1. Ole Juul

      Re: Judge David Nuffer ...

      I was about to say nuffer that.

      1. Mpeler
        Coat

        Re: Judge David Nuffer ...

        Yeah, and SCO just keeps filing briefs, one after a Nuffer...

        If only those SCO Nuffer uckers would just go away.....

  5. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    WANTED - URGENT : Vampire hunter with gatling holy-water crossbow to end useless sucking

    Could somebody please finally put a stake through all SCO stakeholders ?

    Why can't a judge just say "effin' eff off already" and condemn SCO for contempt of everything ?

    1. Dazed and Confused

      Re: WANTED - URGENT : Vampire hunter with gatling holy-water crossbow to end useless sucking

      Mr Slant is a zombie not a vampire, don't you need fire to deal with them?

      It is usually reported that he became a zombie as he wished to pursue the financial disbursements involved in conducting his own defence at the trial that lead to his execution.

      1. Joe User

        Re: WANTED - URGENT : Vampire hunter with gatling holy-water crossbow to end useless sucking

        A bullet to the head is usually sufficient for a zombie.

    2. Robert Halloran

      Re: WANTED - URGENT : Vampire hunter with gatling holy-water crossbow to end useless sucking

      Let's do this properly; stake through the heart, beheading with a silver dagger, stuff the mouth with garlic and sew shut, boil in holy water before cremation at a crossroads and scattering the ashes in running water. None of this halfway shite.

      (Sorry, too many Hammer horror flicks in my misspent youth...)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: WANTED - URGENT : Vampire hunter with gatling holy-water crossbow to end useless sucking

        You forgot the communion wafer in the mouth with the garlic. And yes, my Mother (thankfully!) inflicted all manner of Hammer films on me as a youth.

    3. Bakana

      Re: WANTED - URGENT : Vampire hunter with gatling holy-water crossbow to end useless sucking

      Ay of the Judges involved in this case over the years Could have done that if SCO's lawyers had managed to ANNOY him/her enough.

      It's a Legal "Nuclear Option", though so very few judges allow themselves to get That Annoyed.

  6. CAPS LOCK

    Clearly The Law is a ass...

    ... for allowing this kind of misuse.

    1. Ole Juul

      Re: Clearly The Law is a ass...

      But, especially in cases like this, it creates a lot of jobs and is a renewable resource.

      1. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: Clearly The Law is a ass...

        An American company once tried to pull these sort of stunts in the UK. I can't quickly find the link of the Law Society Gazette, but my recollection is that the last Judge to deal with one of the cases got slightly fed up with it. They received a systematic kicking in the court judgement, the Judge stating that he considered that the cases brought were entirely without merit and only intended to waste the target companies time and resources defending their actions in the Criminal Justice system to allow the American company to gain a commercial advantage. He went on to say that the only criminal conduct involved was the abuse of process committed systematically by the people bringing the case.

        The American company ended up paying not only the defendants costs, but exceedingly punitive damages. The Barrister who represented the company was repeatedly raked over the coals by the Judge, facing an interrogation as to why he had failed to inform the Americans that abuse of the British criminal justice system to gain commercial advantage would not be tolerated. He was pretty badly humiliated by the court over it, then referred to his governing body for disciplinary proceedings (which IIRC fined him more than he'd gained from the cases, and gave him a nasty ticking off about bringing the profession into disrepute.

        The legal media dryly observed that American style court actions were neither welcome nor worthwhile in British courts. US courts could do use their powers in the same way if they wanted to. The question is why they don't.

        1. asdf

          Re: Clearly The Law is a ass...

          Pretty rich using the term American to refer even to companies headquartered here considering most of them pay almost all their tax over there (EU). The UK readership I have noticed still insists on assigning nationalism to corporations. Guess many over there haven't went full multinational yet where they choose where and how much to pay tax and will sue your country if the laws hurt their shareholder value. Don't worry its coming.

          1. W. Anderson

            Re: Clearly The Law is a ass...

            Commenter asdf is ignorant to the fact that references to many International court cases of US companies il-legal manoeuvres in Europe and elsewhere do reflect on the US "national" attitudes against other countries in a pejorative sense.

            There are countless recorded cases of such nasty tactics. Take the case of European Union against Microsoft for illegal browser installation and preference, where the company was eventually fined over $1 Billion and "admitted" to wrongdoing, "after" their stupidity of getting the US State Department to unethically intervene - against International Trade regulations, which further pissed off EU.

            1. asdf

              Re: Clearly The Law is a ass...

              Keep thinking there is such a thing as a US company with over 100 employees. Said original company above probably does at least a billion dollar of business in the UK/EU and more than likely it was their subsidiary in the UK involved in the legal action. Also keep believing your legal system can't be bought. The US system is just more transparently corrupt to corporate interests.

      2. Mark 85

        @Ole Juul -- Re: Clearly The Law is a ass...

        But, especially in cases like this, it creates a lot of jobs and is a renewable resource.

        It also uses up resources for all the paper generated. Maybe the only way to stop it is to get some tree-hugger Greenpeace types up in arms about bit.

  7. Nick Kew
    Devil

    Dickens understated it

    Jarndyce and Jarndyce finally ended when the legal fees devoured the entire Jarndyce estate.

    SCO vs world+dog appears to go on long after death.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Dickens understated it

      "Jarndyce and Jarndyce finally ended when the legal fees devoured the entire Jarndyce estate."

      Yes, but that was real fiction, not even a legal fiction.

      1. Mike 16

        Re: Dickens understated it

        One possible case that Dickens was probably aware of:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennens

        Settled after over 100 years when all the estate had gone for legal fees.

        Not fictional.

  8. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    This could be a thing, a national holiday or something, with cake and gift cards and ritualised spankings of law students.

    1. Shadow Systems
      Coffee/keyboard

      @allthecoolshortnamesweretaken, re: spankings.

      Damn it, you owe me a new keyboard! I heard your post & then heard my mind offering up the spanking scene from the Castle Anthrax Nuns. You bastard! =-D Hahahahaha

  9. John Sanders
    Holmes

    It is clear to me

    That SCO is a zombie, it will keep coming back unless it is properly shot in the head.

  10. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    time for IBM to get angry

    And make SCO go to Chapter 7. They've been in Chapter 11 for around about 6 years.

    Not having to fund these lawyers will save them a packet.

    For those new here go to www.groklaw.net for the gory history of why SCO (or their shyster lawyers) keep flogging this dead horse.

    1. Mike Pellatt

      Re: time for IBM to get angry

      I thought they were already in Chapter 7.... <clickety-click>.... Yes, converted 24 August 2012

      http://groklaw.net/pdf3/SCOGBK-1439.pdf

      1. MiguelC Silver badge

        Re: time for IBM to get angry

        Chapter 7, chapter 11... I can't wait to see ~The End~

        1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

          Re: time for IBM to get angry

          >Chapter 7, chapter 11... I can't wait to see ~The End~

          But it moved from chapter 11 to chapter 7. So I think it will finish with "the beginning". Probably a new universe will be created, or something.

          1. Mpeler
            Pint

            Re: time for IBM to get angry

            Big Bang Burger Bar? Milliways?

            So long and thanks for all the fees?

  11. Anonymous Coward
  12. BongoJoe

    Back to the Nineties

    Decades ago I really liked SCO and I thought their Unix running on my 386 desktop was absolutely brilliant and I thought that the sun shone out of their dev/nuls even thinking that the name itself was cool.

    But that was then. And by the end of that decade I had started to dislike them and then this, or others like it, started up and I liked them less and less.

    Now I am wondering if I am looking into the future at what could befall any of the other computing giants of today.

    1. Gordon 10

      Re: Back to the Nineties

      to be fair SCO <> Santa Cruz Operation (or only by the slight of hand transfer of some dubious IP)

      Rather like HP <> HP (real_HP = Agilent)

      1. Mpeler
        Mushroom

        Re: Back to the Nineties

        Sad to say, Agilent has been parted out, and the HP Way disappeared somewhere along the, erm, way.

        I fear that the likes of Bill and Dave will never be seen again. Indeed, I don't think HP could have been founded in today's shark-tank environment (no offense to SJ Sharks fans...).

        Maybe have IBM buy SCO, and let Gini "the hatchet" Rometty lay off the lawyers, and whatever else is left of SCO...

      2. Mike 16

        Oh, you mean Nancy

        -- Rather like HP <> HP (real_HP = Agilent) --

        Real_HP = Agilent = Keysight

    2. thames

      Re: Back to the Nineties

      The current company is actually "SCOG" (SCO Group), which is not the same company as the original SCO. The history went something like this:

      * SCO and IBM entered into a joint venture to develop and sell a version of proprietary Unix. This version was supposed to cover the market from the small x86 box sector up to large RISC servers. IBM would contribute the large system expertise, and SCO would contribute the x86 box expertise (including marketing channels). Both parties hoped this would establish their joint brand of Unix as the industry standard.

      * Meanwhile, Linux was starting to make inroads into the unix market, particularly at the lower end. Companies involved in selling and supporting it included Red Hat, Suse, and Caldera.

      * SCO eventually saw the writing on the wall with regards to Linux, and decided to give up on the joint venture with IBM. They sold their unix business off to Caldera, who planned on converting the SCO Unix customers into Caldera Linux customers.

      * When SCO pulled out, IBM exercised an option in the contract which let either party terminate the joint venture if the other party sold its interest. SCOG's current lawsuits against IBM revolve around this event.

      * SCO sold themselves to Sun, who wanted them for their remaining software products. Sun of course were later bought by Oracle.

      * The dot-bomb hit, tech stocks collapsed, and Caldera couldn't get free money from the stock market any more. Meanwhile Caldera was also not having a lot of luck selling their brand of Linux to their new customer base. Customers were opting to switch to Red Hat instead. They decided they needed a new business strategy. At some point in this Caldera themselves came under new ownership in circumstances which are as hazy and odd as their subsequent behaviour.

      * Caldera renamed itself the "SCO Group" (SCOG), brought in new management, and went on a sue-world-plus-dog campaign using financing from certain companies who had an interest in seeing Linux dead.

      * SCOG represented themselves as "owning" Unix. Novell, who in fact did (and still do) own Unix, having bought it from AT&T, disabused them of that notion in court. SCOG was just another Unix licensee like IBM, Sun, HP, etc. They also had a contract with Novell to act at the outsourced agent for collecting license royalties from the other licensees, and it was this role which they tried to use to represent themselves has having legal standing to sue others. Novell took them to court over this issue.

      SCOG's lawsuits with IBM revolved around several issues.

      * One was the termination of the above mentioned joint venture. This is still active.

      * Another was over IBM's JFS file system, which although written and owned by IBM, SCOG claimed that IBM could not put this into Linux because of "wave hands and shout loudly" reasons. Unfortunately for SCOG, there were two different versions of JSF. The one which went into Linux actually came from OS/2, not AIX. This was the closest which any of SCOG's cases came to actually involving Linux, and it was something which would have had little impact outside of IBM even if SCOG had somehow won.

      * IBM counter-sued SCOG over various issues that I can't remember, other than that they were narrow technical matters that would have been open and shut cases that would have been difficult to dodge if they came to trial.

      As a footnote, when SCOG declared bankruptcy, they had to list all their creditors. Imagine the amusement we had when one of these creditors was a well known "independent industry analyst" who had been in the lead of trumpeting how solid SCOG's case was, and how Linux was doomed.

      1. Citizen99
        Linux

        Re: Back to the Nineties

        Around the time I was just getting involved with Linux, Caldera (before the SCO shenanigans) was quite a nice magazine-cover-giveaway-cd distro.

  13. Stevie

    Bah!

    I remember when SCOwas a real company. For yes, I have used Unixware.

    Oh how the mediochre have fallen.

  14. sisk

    Honestly I just can't fathom how SCO is still moving about. This case is like one of those rare funerals where the dead guy sits up and belches.

    1. phands

      It isn't really moving about. The successor company to some bits of the carcass is a tiny outfit called Xinuos, who have a small office in Berkeley. They still try to sell the joke that is Unixware and Openserver. The rest is as dead as SCO's case.

      ETA: there can't really be a case any more anyway, as at some point as it spiraled down into the farce it now is, SCO asked for, and got, permission to destroy all their carefully collected, rocket-scientist vetted "evidence".

  15. soup

    Absurdities and Reality

    Judge "You're not fooling anyone, you know."

    SCO: "I feel fine!"

    Who says the Monty Python is not more absurd than reality?

    "How can you tell they own Unix?"

    "As you can seem Novell isn't covered in sh!t, are they?"

    Even writers of fantasy try to maintain some sense of consistency for realism.

    As you can easily tell, reality, however, is under no such constraint.

    -soup

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Absurdities and Reality

      Judge "You're not fooling anyone, you know."

      SCO: "I feel fine!"

      Who says the Monty Python is not more absurd than reality?

      Hmm .. but which Python: "tis but a flesh wound!", or .. are they made of wood?

  16. ecofeco Silver badge

    What?

    This is still a thing? WTF? I thought this was settled years ago?

  17. Sam Liddicott

    "indefatigable groklaw"?

    "Indefatigable groklaw"?

    Groklaw fatigued in 2013.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Never liked SCO anyway

    Even in the 1990s, having to pay extra for all the "good bits" meant that one ended up with a price tag not far short of an entry-level Unix workstation. And there was no point to that, because Unix workstation hardware was _so_ much better than PC kit.

    Linux was the obvious choice for "fractional Unix at a fractional price". And a least one friend went to Linux (circa 1998)for a project at work because Unixware was such a pain, even on a branded PC.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Groklaw shut down in 2013

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175

    1. Mike Pellatt

      Re: Groklaw shut down in 2013

      As a blog, yes.

      But the timeline and document repository from the various cases (in practice, SCO vs IBM) continues to be updated.

  20. Citizen99
    Coat

    Reminds me of the joke about roadkill, lawyers, and the absence of skidmarks.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Trips to Santa Cruz in the late 90's

    Oh hi^Happy days...

  22. duncangareth

    SCO had some pretty decent operating system products in the early days, when it was still owned by Larry and Doug Michels. I used to work for their distributors, running the technical support department.

    Their support team worked closely with the developers and the whole channel was run pretty well. Obviously, the fact that the software ran on crappy Intel-based PC hardware was a bit of a problem, but even so, setting up a SCO UNIX system worked out much cheaper than Windows NT Server with the same number of users. It was also much more stable. For example, a point of sale system at a major hotel complex consisted of 260 tills connected to two Pentium Pro machines with 128MB RAM each, running Open Server 5. There were actually 130 sale points, each with two tills, one connected to the one host and the other connected to the other host.

    The same application was also ported to Windows NT Server, and the vendor struggled to get more than 30 tills going from a 256MB RAM Dual processor Pentium Pro machine.

    Of course, the advent of stable Linux blew the PC UNIX distributions away, at least those which were proprietary and commercial. For me the end of the line for SCO was when I was called upon to migrate an entire university's administrative system from SCO Unixware to SUse Linux. (I had long since left the SCO support channel, but I still supported many SCO clients on a freelance basis.)

    Doug Michels sold out at the right time, in my opinion. The clowns who bought him out deserve everything bad that happens to them, considering what absolute bastards they were towards the technical staff.

    For me, the end of the line was when I was asked to migrate a

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like