4 ms·

At some point there should be a limit on suing the same entities over and over again for the same infringement

by olliej 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago
> At some point there should be a limit on suing the same entities over and over again for the same infringement There is, and it is applicable after the first time: as a general rule, a claim on which a final decision has been reached by a court between two parties cannot be relitigated between those parties. That’s the principal of res judicata.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Right, but that doesn't apply here, for two reasons. First, the original SCO v IBM case was never completely resolved. It's still, 18 years after filing, still theoretically alive. Second, Xinuos isn't SCO. Xinuos is the outfit that bought SCO's remaining assets when they declared bankruptcy. At that time, SCO was suing IBM for essentially the same claim. I don't know exactly what the rules are, but I strongly suspect that only one of them can have the right to sue for those actions.
  - olliej 6y ago
    That's why I said the same infringement, not that the originating party had to be the same, just the victims. Otherwise you can (as is happening here) simply sell the "assets" along and the new owner gets to start yet another law suit until eventually the legal costs of defending are so egregious that the victim has no meaningful choice but to settle.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > First, the original SCO v IBM case was never completely resolved. It's still, 18 years after filing, still theoretically alive. Unless I’m misreading the history, not as would matter for res judicata; SCOs case was ultimately dismissed with prejudice, which would prevent refiling the claims (only a dismissal without prejudice would not have that effect.) There seems to be some aspect of an appeal still active, but until and unless that reversed the dismissal with prejudice and resulted in a dismissal without prejudice, the same claims couldn’t be made by SCO in another case. > Second, Xinuos isn't SCO. Xinuos is the outfit that bought SCO's remaining assets when they declared bankruptcy Xinuous’s basis for a claim is purchase of the underlying rights on which the action is taken from SCO, as such, they are in privity with SCO and would generally be bound by res judicata the same as SCO would be; res judicata doesn’t require identical parties, but includes various relationships where parties are asserting the same legal rights (not separate rights of the same character), such as agent-principal, other control relations relevant to the first litigation, and—relevant here—where one party’s claim arises because it is the successor to the interests asserted in the earlier suit. Of course, res judicata doesn’t stop you from filing a suit, its just grounds for the other party to love to have it dismissed. And if Xinuous has even half-competent counsel, they arr aware of the previous case and have an argument ready as how this involves interests that weren’t litigated in that case, but that they have an argument doesn’t mean its going to be a successful one.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Here's my read of the history. On March 1, 2016, SCO's remaining claims against IBM were dismissed with prejudice in federal court in Salt Lake. On March 29, 2016, SCO appealed to the circuit court in Denver. On January 24, 2018, the circuit court notified the Salt Lake court that SCO had won the appeal overturning summary judgment, and that there would need to be a trial on the misappropriation claim. On May 14, 2018, the federal court in Salt Lake removed a previous stay, so that the case could move forward. And as far as I can tell, that is the last thing that has happened in the case. It has sat there, ready to move forward but not actually moving, for almost three years. If you know of anything more recent than that, please, tell me - I would love for this miserable excuse of a case to be over.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        no, it looks like your right and the case is currently active in the trial court.
        AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        Rats. This must be the first time that I desperately wanted to be wrong...

At some point there should be a limit on suing the same entities over and over again for the same infringement

by olliej 6y ago

At some point there should be a limit on suing the same entities over and over again for the same infringement

> At some point there should be a limit on suing the same entities over and over again for the same infringement There is, and it is applicable after the first time: as a general rule, a claim on which a final decision has been reached by a court between two parties cannot be relitigated between those parties. That’s the principal of res judicata.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Right, but that doesn't apply here, for two reasons. First, the original SCO v IBM case was never completely resolved. It's still, 18 years after filing, still theoretically alive. Second, Xinuos isn't SCO. Xinuos is the outfit that bought SCO's remaining assets when they declared bankruptcy. At that time, SCO was suing IBM for essentially the same claim. I don't know exactly what the rules are, but I strongly suspect that only one of them can have the right to sue for those actions.
- olliej 6y ago
  That's why I said the same infringement, not that the originating party had to be the same, just the victims. Otherwise you can (as is happening here) simply sell the "assets" along and the new owner gets to start yet another law suit until eventually the legal costs of defending are so egregious that the victim has no meaningful choice but to settle.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > First, the original SCO v IBM case was never completely resolved. It's still, 18 years after filing, still theoretically alive. Unless I’m misreading the history, not as would matter for res judicata; SCOs case was ultimately dismissed with prejudice, which would prevent refiling the claims (only a dismissal without prejudice would not have that effect.) There seems to be some aspect of an appeal still active, but until and unless that reversed the dismissal with prejudice and resulted in a dismissal without prejudice, the same claims couldn’t be made by SCO in another case. > Second, Xinuos isn't SCO. Xinuos is the outfit that bought SCO's remaining assets when they declared bankruptcy Xinuous’s basis for a claim is purchase of the underlying rights on which the action is taken from SCO, as such, they are in privity with SCO and would generally be bound by res judicata the same as SCO would be; res judicata doesn’t require identical parties, but includes various relationships where parties are asserting the same legal rights (not separate rights of the same character), such as agent-principal, other control relations relevant to the first litigation, and—relevant here—where one party’s claim arises because it is the successor to the interests asserted in the earlier suit. Of course, res judicata doesn’t stop you from filing a suit, its just grounds for the other party to love to have it dismissed. And if Xinuous has even half-competent counsel, they arr aware of the previous case and have an argument ready as how this involves interests that weren’t litigated in that case, but that they have an argument doesn’t mean its going to be a successful one.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Here's my read of the history. On March 1, 2016, SCO's remaining claims against IBM were dismissed with prejudice in federal court in Salt Lake. On March 29, 2016, SCO appealed to the circuit court in Denver. On January 24, 2018, the circuit court notified the Salt Lake court that SCO had won the appeal overturning summary judgment, and that there would need to be a trial on the misappropriation claim. On May 14, 2018, the federal court in Salt Lake removed a previous stay, so that the case could move forward. And as far as I can tell, that is the last thing that has happened in the case. It has sat there, ready to move forward but not actually moving, for almost three years. If you know of anything more recent than that, please, tell me - I would love for this miserable excuse of a case to be over.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      no, it looks like your right and the case is currently active in the trial court.
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        Rats. This must be the first time that I desperately wanted to be wrong...