[clug] the 2003 SCO case is finally over. Linux seems now clear of legal entanglements.

[steve jenkin]

Link of the last few docs on Groklaw [large page, may take a while to download, relevant text & links included]
Final Judgement proposed 26-Feb-2016, agreed and case over 01-mar-2016.

<http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20031016162215566#ref1161>

> [1162]	26-Feb-2016	Joint MOTION for Judgment under Rule 54(b) and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed OrderProposed Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)) (Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
> 
> [1163]	01-Mar-2016	ORDER granting [1162] Motion for Certification under Rule 54(b). Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 2/29/16 (alt) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
> 
> [1164]	01-Mar-2016	CLERK'S JUDGMENT that pursuant to the orders of the court entered on 7/10/13, 2/5/16, and 2/8/16, judgment is entered in favor of the defendant and plaintiff's causes of action are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by ALT, Deputy Clerk (alt) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
> 
>  	01-Mar-2016	Case stayed per [1163] Order(alt) (Entered: 03/01/2016)

<http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/IBM-1161.pdf>
<http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/IBM-1162.pdf>
<http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/IBM-1163.pdf>
<http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/IBM-1164.pdf>


report from ZDnet, 04-Mar. Didn’t rate this highly.
<http://www.zdnet.com/article/scos-legal-war-against-ibm-and-linux-comes-to-an-end/>

> In ordinary language, SCO had no funds, no case, and neither company has any reason to continue any legal action.
> In short, stick a fork in it, it's done.

El Reg report on 29-Feb, worth a read.
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/29/sco_vs_ibm_over/>
> Or in plain English, SCO is broke and the only asset it possess of any value is its claims against IBM, and now it doesn't even have those because it just lost a court case about them. 
> That leaves SCO in no position to carry on.

But they added a little:
> Our legal friends therefore reckon this document is probably the final full stop in the long, long, case over whether or not IBM pinched bits of code and used them in its own operating systems.
> 
> We're not so certain there's zero possibility of footnotes being required, because the document doesn't mention costs which are yet to be sorted out. But this does look like legal argument in the SCO vs. IBM case is done and dusted. Probably for all time.

--
Steve Jenkin, IT Systems and Design 
0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915)
PO Box 48, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA

mailto:sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin