RJack <u...@example.net> writes: > SCO lost its meaningless copyright suit with Novell yesterday. > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622
Well, it was a "slander of copyright" suit. AFAICT, the jury decided that SCO did not get the copyrights in the first place, so that puts a rather heavy damper on the slander theory. I don't consider it likely they'll go for "attempted slander" instead, like "everybody believed we had the copyrights, including Novell, and they are certainly as surprised as we are that they _did_ retain them", but you never know with them. However, what they still want to see the judge decide is whether they _should_ get the copyrights. >From Groklaw: Update 5: And now we hear from SCO's attorney, Stuart Singer, that SCO will ask the judge to give them the copyrights, despite the jury's verdict: "Obviously, we're disappointed in the jury's decision," said SCO trial lawyer Stuart H. Singer. "We were confident in the case, but there's some important claims remaining to be decided by a judge." SCO will ask U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart to award the copyrights to SCO "even if we didn't have them before," he said. "It's a setback, but it's not over." They really are inventive about keeping the mill rolling and the money burning. And if they manage to annoy the judge enough to cause him to omit dotting one i, pop, there goes the next round of appeal. They'll manage to burn through all money until they have to declare bankruptcy. Wait, they already did. And they _still_ manage to keep burning through their creditors' money. They really turn this into an art form. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss