SCO vs IBM update

[bigtomrodney]

Groklaw has an update on the SCO vs IBM case....
It seems almost the entire case has been limited leaving only a few elements behind. I'm not a lawyer so I won't summarise or describe what happened, check the link out. This pretty much hung SCO out to dry, I don't think there'll be much more to this case.

[oz]

It's been interesting to say the least but I'll be glad when it's totally done and hopefully SCO won't have any tricks up their sleeve.

[d38dm8nw81k1ng]

i've sent this link to Paul Murphy who might be a little interested. not that i intend to start a flamewar (that was taken care of in the talkback to his blog which is still good for a laugh).

[bigtomrodney]

I wonder if he'll respond well to that, start clutching at straw arguments or just go silent.

[benjamin20]

what does sco actualy do as a buisness. i know that they own the leagal rights to the unix code, and that they have been sueing left and right over code copyinh. and i know that they weren't the creators of unix nor have they done any major developmnets that would associate themselves with unix.

[techieMoe]

what does sco actualy do as a buisness. i know that they own the leagal rights to the unix code, and that they have been sueing left and right over code copyinh. and i know that they weren't the creators of unix nor have they done any major developmnets that would associate themselves with unix.

They're supposed to sell Unix software, but I've never personally used any of it. They have some server products like SCO UnixWare if I'm not mistaken. Lately though you're right; they've basically become a litigation company.

[d38dm8nw81k1ng]

techieMoe: you missed out that they sell their own webserver package called the SCAMP stack. whether anyone buys it...

bigtomrodney: i'm still waiting to see if i'll get an email back. if you regularly read the site (and that article in particular) you'll notice a troll that seems to think that the facts of the case are merely the opinions of other posters. zdnet is a strange place indeed.

[benjamin20]

do they realy own the leagal rights to unix? from wikipidias article about them they seem to own a version of unix that they bought from someone esle, but who owns the original AT&T unix code?

on a side not, sco doesn seem to be of any size at all. the entire company employs only 166 employees as of 2005 according to wikipedia. there are more people working at the grocery store that i work at than that. red hat has about 1200 employees according to wikipidia. not that number of employees shows how big you are, but for a company of 166 people to try and take down linux doesnt seem like it was the smartest moe on there part.

[techieMoe]

do they realy own the leagal rights to unix? from wikipidias article about them they seem to own a version of unix that they bought from someone esle, but who owns the original AT&T unix code?

I seem to remember there being some press about Novell actually owning a lot of the rights to SCO's Unix. I could be mistaken though.

[benjamin20]

sco's previous name was caldera, and they were very supportive of linux software. they sold some workstation based of linux. they joined with many other major linux companies of the time to make some sort of linux union. it wasnt until the ceo of caldera left and the new ceos changed the name to sco that they abandned linux and started assaulting it.

novell used some form of unix for there platform back in the old days. this may be where they have some unix pattents, but things were a little weird back then. just because it was unix didnt mean it is AT&T unix. bsd and sunOS(solaris) were all unix (and i think technicly still are), even midrosofts zerox (i think thats what it was) was unix. novell has pattents to there unix, but i dont know if that has anything to do with the original AT&T code.