07.08.10
SCO Still Wants UNIX From Novell
Summary: SCO appeals the latest decision too, which probably throws everything back into the endless loop
GROKLAW said that the SCO case was over, but the fat lady won’t sing just yet (as the famous saying goes). Groklaw says that SCO is appealing the decision again and cancelling the bankruptcy hearing scheduled for Monday.
They’re appealing everything, in short, or they’d like a new trial. Because three trials isn’t enough when you’re not having fun. Speaking of which, I confess. I’m so sick of SCO I could spit.
SCO has cancelled the bankruptcy hearing that was supposed to happen on the 12th…
The H has little more to add except background information:
Just a few days before its own liquidation hearings, The SCO Group has lodged an appeal against the judgement that pulled the rug out from under the company’s numerous ongoing legal battles. Groklaw reports that SCO now plans to appeal the judgement handed down by judge Ted Stewart. Stewart upheld a jury verdict made after oral hearings that Novell had retained the copyright to Unix when it sold its Unix business to The SCO Group (at the time operating as The Santa Cruz Operation). Stewart also rejected SCO’s application to have the case reheard.
How many times will Groklaw declare it the end of SCO? Seriously, this is like a case that’s stuck in a loop. It makes the legal system look like a game to be won by depth of pockets — one where patience and wealth override justice (SCO has provided no evidence in almost a decade). █
twitter said,
July 9, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Groklaw should not be faulted for declaring the SCO trial over, it should have been over each time. Reasonable people declared the SCO Unix copyright extortion a farce before it began. It disgraces the US judicial system.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
There’s no blaming here (except the existing ‘legal’ system). A friend of mine who’s a US lawyer is cynical because those who can file more motions often win the trial. It’s a rich man’s system and burden of proof falls on defendants.