February 29th, 2016

SCO Is Undeniably and Reliably Dead

On Friday, IBM and SCO filed an agreement with the US District Court in Utah to accept a ruling of dismissal of the last remaining claims by SCO against IBM.

It appears as if SCO’s case against IBM, which began as a blustering tornado back in 2003, finally died with a whimper last week. The death notice came in the form of what is essentially a one page agreement between SCO and IBM which calls “for certification of the entry of final judgment on the Court’s orders concerning all of SCO’s claims….”

SCO LogoThe agreement goes on to state: “There is no just reason for delaying SCO’s appeal from such Orders, as the final resolution of SCO’s claims may make it unnecessary, as a practical matter, for the Court to decide the several pending motions concerning IBM’s counterclaims, given SCO’s bankruptcy and its explanation that it has de minimis financial resources beyond the value of the claims on which the Court has granted summary judgment for IBM.”

In other words, there’s no reason to continue since SCO is bankrupt and the only assets it has left are its claims against IBM, which have already been pretty much ruled as off the table.

The agreement keeps IBM’s claims against SCO open should IBM ever decide to move forward with them, which is doubtful.

This agreement wasn’t unexpected, and in fact, came down right on deadline. On February 10, I reported that Judge David Nuffer with the US District Court in Utah had ruled to dismiss a couple of interference claims SCO had filed against IBM, and had ordered both parties to reach an agreement on whether to accept the dismissal by February 26, which was Friday.

In all likelihood this is the last we’ll ever hear from SCO as its current owner, the California based software company Xinuos which now owns and markets many of SCO’s old products, will probably remove what’s left of SCO from life support.

Ding-dong! The witch is dead.

We’re currently in the midst of our 2016 Indiegogo fundraising drive. Your support is crucial. Won’t you please visit our fundraising page and make a contribution to support FOSS Force?

The following two tabs change content below.
Christine Hall has been a journalist since 1971. In 2001, she began writing a weekly consumer computer column and started covering Linux and FOSS in 2002 after making the switch to GNU/Linux. Follow her on Twitter: @BrideOfLinux

15 comments to SCO Is Undeniably and Reliably Dead

  • UncleEd

    I wasn’t sure I was going to live long enough to see this. Wait! There’s still a chance… Those dead horses um…

    Wonder if Pamela Jones is having a night on the town. I’d buy her a drink, if I could.

  • ff

    Huge win!
    Although..
    One dead horse has finally been flogged..
    Some problem with the ones still alive :-S
    This will make it nothing but easier though i guess..

    Sending thanks for everyone involved!

    We still are a bunch that thinks computing is fun and should be free!

  • John Kerr

    Let this be a lesson to to the software patent trolls

  • John Kerr

    Hey Pamela!!!!

    Put on that red dress you have been saving for this day!!!!

  • Stuart DeGraaf

    God I miss GrokLaw and Pamela Jones! Who’s going to slay the new “kinder, gentler” (parasitic) Mega$loth? This is good news, but it is beyond pathetic that it has taken this long. Who reimburses IBM for the enormous waste of time and money? When does Darl go to jail? When does BillG or SteveB go to jail? Meanwhile, everyone in Boies family is driving a Porsche 918. Thanks for everything you did, Pamela. Without you, this would have ended badly. Please come back!

  • Harold Ramis

    Darl can suck it.

  • chris

    How about the reputation of those “journalists” for the professional ass polishing rags? Not only should those rags have a reputation that is worthless but hose journalists shouldn’t be able to write obituaries for the local pets in Hooterville. Who is keeper of the list?

  • clm

    “No no sir. it’s not dead. It’s resting!”

    “Resting?”

    “Yeah, remarkable OS, the Santa Cruz, beautiful kernel, innit?”

  • LinuxUser

    Well done,that man. Well done.

  • Paul

    If all of you actually knew what this was all about, you would be saddened by the outcome. Yes, Darl was a completely arrogant Ass, and went about boasting to the high heavens about the fraud.

    Yes – the agreement between SCO and Novell was flawed regarding the copyrights. But if you read the contract. you’ll find other language that is clear, SCO purchased UnixWare Lock, Stock & Barrel.

    The central issue was completely overlooked. IBM and a very large hardware company wanted some SCO code, and also wanted SCO out of the picture. Competitively, OEM Computer hardware manufacturers only wanted 2 operating systems to support – Windows and one alternative. That alternative was Linux. SCO was just a bother to them. But the Linux community needed SCOs code that allowed application software (that SCO Created) so that programs that ran on SCO, could also run on Linux. That is truly all that IBM and the big hardware company wanted.

    The whole IBM offer to SCO for UNIX 64, disguised bringing UnixWare into the 64 bit world. That intent was never there, but wealthy IBM would through any amount of money to get the code they desperately needed, and they did. The scope was so large of the scam that the application compatible code was so tiny by comparison – it all got lost in the shuffle.

    Get the code, get rid of SCO – was the name of the game.

    Nobody seemed to get that. So this is just a big FYI that hopefully puts IBM in the true light of a ruthless giant who always gets what it wants. Hell, Novell didn’t have a clue about the real issue here.

  • Mike

    @Paul,

    Linux didn’t need or use SCO’s code. That’s a load of crap.

    Microsoft wanted Linux out of the way and funded an indirect attack against it.

  • Paul

    I wasn’t even talking about Microsoft. As IBMs AIX was loosing ground, and they wanted to conserve dollars, they decided to go with Linux – their Linux, as well as ‘give back to the community,’SCO Code’ that would make all applications written for SCO, as well as other UNIX OS promoters able to use these applications.

    Of course Microsoft didn’t want any part of Linux – that is not in dispute. It was the Hardware OEMs that wanted to give their customers an option – Microsoft, or Linux (or the most popular alternative)

    I know that Linux is a religion – so be it. I use it too, but I’m just a realist about why it works so well.

  • Mike

    “their Linux, as well as ‘give back to the community,’SCO Code’”

    Again, that’s BS.

    Linux is not a religion, it’s an operating system kernel. It sounds more like SCO is your religion.

    SCO’s attack wouldn’t have happened if Microsoft hadn’t propped them up, funded them, and pointed them like a loaded gun at Linux.

  • @Paul Here’s a reminder of just a bit of Microsoft’s involvement from Wikipedia. BTW, Paul, were you even around during the SCO fiasco?

    “In October 2003, BayStar Capital and Royal Bank of Canada invested US$50 million in The SCO Group to support the legal cost of SCO’s Linux campaign. Later it was shown that BayStar was referred to SCO by Microsoft, whose proprietary Windows operating system competes with Linux. In 2003, BayStar looked at SCO on the recommendation of Microsoft, according to Lawrence R. Goldfarb, managing partner of BayStar Capital: “It was evident that Microsoft had an agenda”.

    On April 22, 2004, The New York Times reported that BayStar Capital, a private hedge fund which had arranged for $50M in funding for SCO in October 2003, was asking for its $20M back. The remainder of the $50M was from Royal Bank of Canada. SCO stated in their press release that they believed that BayStar did not have grounds for making this demand.

    On August 27, 2004 SCO and BayStar resolved their dispute.

  • Paul

    Christine:

    “BTW, Paul, were you even around during the SCO fiasco?”

    Since 1989 thank you very much.

    As to SCO and Microsoft – Microsoft and SCO were partners. The first dealing with MS was when they sold the rights to SCO for the MS code named “Xenix,” a UNIX derivitave. That’s what MS used to create Windows I believe. Secondly, MS sold SCO the rights to UNIX System 3 to SCO. From That came OpenServer 5, OpenDesktop, and such.

    And please, every large corporation has an agenda – mostly a hidden one. That’s why they are a large Corporation.