7 years of malicious slandering of volunteers may finally be over

[Spartacus]

and a transparent extortion attempt fails, shot down in flames.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...829622#c837156

Some think this entire lawsuit was an MS backed anti-Linux fight.

the names "the SCO Group", "Darl McBride", "Ralph Yarro", "Chris Sonntag", "Ed Cahn" and their lawyers, Brent Hatch and Boies Schiller Flexner will go down in ignominy in many a tech workplace and geek enclave.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: 7 years of malicious slandering of volunteers may finally be over

and a transparent extortion attempt fails, shot down in flames.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...829622#c837156

Some think this entire lawsuit was an MS backed anti-Linux fight.

the names "the SCO Group", "Darl McBride", "Ralph Yarro", "Chris Sonntag", "Ed Cahn" and their lawyers, Brent Hatch and Boies Schiller Flexner will go down in ignominy in many a tech workplace and geek enclave.

This here geeky cow sure hates their guts. It seems like it was almost a decade ago (less than 8 years actually) that I first swore the name SCO in vain. The time line of events in this fiasco can be found at SCO-Linux lawsuits and controversies (Wikipedia).

[aaron]

Re: 7 years of malicious slandering of volunteers may finally be over

Time flies! Wasn't this just yesterday?

Thanks for posting this article. I remember how upset I was. I am glad it went the "right" way.

[Spartacus]

Re: 7 years of malicious slandering of volunteers may finally be over

thanks for the comments, Python & Aaron.

the most telling thing: Darl McBride and all the pro-SCOG folks claimed for 7 years they wanted their day in court, and by implication saying a jury would back him up all the way, the jury took less than one day [0] to reach the verdict.

After the verdict, the current ruler of tSCOG said "we're disappointed ... juries are unpredictable "

I read this completely as an admission that tSCOG knew the entire time they had no case, and were just looking for a payout based on the bad reputation that juries have earned from some seemingly bad calls.


[0] 2 half days - after judge's instructions, jury met after lunch, verdict came in after lunch the 2nd day. Give them an hour to figure out logistics & get introductions out of the way, I say less than 6 hours, ABSOLUTE MAX to decide against the SCO Group. The trial had 3 weeks of testimony.

EDIT: corrected "6 weeks testimony" to 3.

[shiny!]

Re: 7 years of malicious slandering of volunteers may finally be over

Finally some good news in this crazy world. Thanks for posting!

(written from my cr*ppy Windoze computer at work)

[GRG55]

Re: 7 years of malicious slandering of volunteers may finally be over

thanks for the comments, Python & Aaron.

the most telling thing: Darl McBride and all the pro-SCOG folks claimed for 7 years they wanted their day in court, and by implication saying a jury would back him up all the way, the jury took less than one day [0] to reach the verdict.

After the verdict, the current ruler of tSCOG said "we're disappointed ... juries are unpredictable "

I read this completely as an admission that tSCOG knew the entire time they had no case, and were just looking for a payout based on the bad reputation that juries have earned from some seemingly bad calls.


[0] 2 half days - after judge's instructions, jury met after lunch, verdict came in after lunch the 2nd day. Give them an hour to figure out logistics & get introductions out of the way, I say less than 6 hours, ABSOLUTE MAX to decide against the SCO Group. The trial had 3 weeks of testimony.

EDIT: corrected "6 weeks testimony" to 3.

Whenever you come across the phrase "day in court" you can be assured, even before the trial and verdict, that the case is weak.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, with a strong case ever wants it to end up in court. A settlement on the courthouse steps is usually better than going inside.

Why? Because as any decent lawyer will point out [yes, there are some decent lawyers out there ] once you stop negotiating a settlement and enter the courtroom the outcome is no longer under your control.

Unless the parties are acting irrationally, it is always the party with the weaker case that wants to take it inside...