And I am, of course.
Even so, I must confess some amount of pleasure in the blow dealt to SCO in its perennial lawsuits against IBM and Novell this week, when (as reported on Groklaw) U.S. District Court judge Dale Kimball affirmed previous court rulings that dismissed many of SCO’s claims against IBM. To quote from the documents (many thanks to Groklaw’s Pamela Jones for making this available),
Having thoroughly reviewed and considered the briefing related to IBM’s Motion to Limit SCO’s Claims, the briefing related to SCO’s objections, the underlying previous discovery orders, and the arguments made at the October 24 hearing, the court finds that, even under a de novo standard of review, the Magistrate Judge’s June 28, 2006 Order is correct. The court finds that SCO failed to comply with the court’s previous discovery-related Orders and Rule 26(e), that SCO acted willfully, that SCO’s conduct has resulted in prejudice to IBM, and that this result–the inability of SCO to use the evidence at issue to prove its claims– should come as no surprise to SCO. In addition, the court finds that neither particularized findings on an item-by-item basis nor an evidentiary hearing is required to make these determinations. The court, therefore, affirms and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s June 28, 2006 Order in its entirety.
In other words, SCO hasn’t provided any substantive evidence (as required by the court) of IBM’s improper use of its intellectual property, and therefore, many of SCO’s claims are summarily dismissed, buh-bye.
Given that SCO has behaved appallingly throughout all this protracted mess, it’s hard for even the most impartial observer to watch the company’s setbacks without applauding. (Of course, partial observers, like those who work for Microsoft, are undoubtedly dismayed by this court order.)