SCO was dealt yet another blow in court today when District Judge Ted Stewart rejected the company's motion requesting a new trial or judgement of law. In a ruling issued today, Judge Stewart sided with a jury that issued a verdict against SCO in April, finding that Novell was the rightful owner of the UNIX SVRX copyrights. According to Judge Stewart, SCO failed to demonstrate that the jury's verdict contradicted the evidence presented in the case.

SCO's campaign against the Linux operating system began in 2003 when the company claimed that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX. On the basis of that claim, SCO sued IBM and threatened litigation against hundreds of other companies that use Linux. The conflict took a major turn when Novell stepped up and said that it owned the relevant intellectual property and had never sold it to SCO, meaning that SCO did not have standing to bring any lawsuits regarding alleged infringement in the first place. This led to a lengthy battle in the courts between Novell and SCO over the ownership of the UNIX SVRX copyrights.

SCO claims that it obtained the rights from Novell in an asset purchase agreement. The actual documents that describe the terms of the agreement, however, do not include the UNIX SVRX copyrights. The copyrights are only referenced in a term sheet that was drafted during an earlier stage of the negotiations. In an initial bench trial where the agreement was reviewed, Judge Kimball ruled in Novell's favor and ordered SCO to pay Novell millions of dollars. SCO fell into bankruptcy shortly after, but continued trying to fight the ruling.

SCO eventually got a jury trial, but lost that, too. In April, the jury ruled in favor of Novell after independently concluding that SCO never received the UNIX copyrights.

In a last-ditch effort to evade defeat, SCO filed a motion contending that it was entitled to a judgment of law or a new trial because the jury's verdict was simply wrong. In order to justify tossing aside the verdict in favor of a new judgement, SCO had to demonstrate that the jury's conclusions blatantly contradicted the evidence. Judge Stewart disagreed with SCO's assessment.

"SCO argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the 'verdict cannot be squared with the overwhelming evidence and the law.' The Court respectfully disagrees," Stewart wrote in the decision. "The jury found Novell's version of facts to be more persuasive. This conclusion is well supported by the evidence. There was substantial evidence that Novell made an intentional decision to retain ownership of the copyrights."

Because the verdict was sound, Judge Stewart sees no need to grant SCO's motion for a new trial.

"The Court finds that the verdict is not clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence. Therefore, SCO is not entitled to a new trial," the ruling says. "ORDERED that SCO's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial is DENIED."

The ruling almost certainly means that SCO v. IBM will never go to trial. Without ownership of the UNIX copyrights, SCO has no legal standing to bring copyright and misuse of IP claims."The Court finds that Novell had the authority under Section 4.16(b) of the APA to direct SCO to waive its claims against these SVRX licensees, that Novell had the authority to waive such claims on SCO’s behalf, and that SCO was obligated to recognize such waivers," wrote the judge.

SCO has managed to stay alive for years despite its consistent losses in court, leading one bankruptcy judge to compare SCO's plight to Samuel Beckett's famous play Waiting for Godot. It's unlikely that the bankruptcy courts will allow SCO's charade to continue now that two judges and one jury have all concluded that SCO does not own the SVRX UNIX copyrights on which its litigation is predicated.