Slashdot Mirror
IBM Puts Pressure On SCO
inode_buddha writes "An article at Groklaw shows IBM's legal team dissecting the whole SCO thing professionally and thoroughly. I'm almost willing to bet the case gets dropped with extreme prejudice, especially now that Novell is getting involved. Is anyone taking bets as to when the case actually closes and how?" I suggest the MIT Technology Review add this one to their markets.
What I wasnt to know isn't whether or not SCO get's it's ass handed back on a silver platter in court but rather when McBride's gonna face charges of securities fraud. There just isn't any other way to explain SCO's recent actions. Pretty blatant pump & dump case, so where's the charges?
"Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
What I'm wondering though, it seems IBM is just trying to get the case dismissed here on the basis that SCO refuses to show just what it is they did wrong. Say the judge goes with IBM and dismisses the case, then what?
Given the recent slashdot article about paying Boies for his work, how much do they stand to gain if it came to this?
Thanks to Groklaw for keeping close tabs on the trial. I wish general media would be equally forthcoming rather than just spit out whatever drivel SCO shoves their way.
Cooper
--
I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
- Groo The Wanderer -
I allready paid my license to SCO, will they be returning my $699?
It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
The whole thing is funny. According to the article, SCO pulled up some 519 files which have around 300,000 lines of code, which might or might not contain tainted code. That is something like 1 percent of Linux kernel code. Rewriting the whole thing might take a month or two at the maximum, assuming cleanroom specs can be developed out of it.
If that is worth a billion, then is Linux worth 100 billions? Linus is then richer than Bill.
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
It's nice to see this clarity in IBM's statement. SCO you are so full of shit.
BTW the article wasn't Slashdotted. I had no problem getting the Grocklaw site.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
One of the things that I find interesting about this whole case is the fact that Boies used to be a partner in Cravath, Swaine and Moore -- the law firm that are handling the case for IBM.
You've got to wonder what Dave's ex-partners currently make of all this. I guess initially they might have been somewhat anxious, thinking 'Oh no, one of our own coming after us. He'll be tuned in to all our cunning strategies and will use them against us.'
Now though, they must be laughing their asses off, thinking 'Good job that dummy left before he did any real damage to our reputation.'
On the other hand, given his twenty percent of all new investment in SCO, Boies has already had one decent payday, but you've got to wonder whether that will be sufficient to compensate for the damage to his firm's reputation that their handling of this case must have done to date?
The trick, of course, is knowing the difference between a smart bet and a big one. This is why day traders go broke: to them, it's no longer investing, it's gambling.
This is not my sandwich.
Open source movement screws up again
Nice to see that the lawyers themselves understand this suit is nothing more than a way to harass a large company into paying off.
This is not my sandwich.
In the second World War the Japaneses disected prisoners alive for medical experimental purposes, for example.
And they ain't good..
Insiders are all selling. Keep in mind that they have complete and perfect information about their firm, and its future prospects.
Insider selling is usually a sign that management feels the shares they hold are over, not under, valued.
A message from our sponsor
Is anyone taking bets as to when the case actually closes and how?"
Can someone run us through how we would get rich by shorting this stock (SCOX)?
If IBM gets their case dismissed, the stock is going to drop to $Worthless. Ive never actually done a short -- what are the details?
I suggest a Slashdot poll. Seriously. Then we can look back and see whether or not Slashdotters in the aggregate can predict the future regarding something we clearly have a lot to say about.
Work in the field of large scale document productions, 100,000 pages is nothing. We work with cases involving 10,000,000 regularly. The trick is how to process productions of that size, which a good legal department should be able to handle.
7. As of the date of this submission, IBM has provided over one hundred thousand pages of production documents to SCO. IBM intends to continue rolling its production to SCO, despite the inadequate supplemental responses we have received from SCO.
Well, damn. Imagine having to review 100,000 pages for maybe a few lines that *could* be important.
SCO also argues that IBM's motion was filed prematurely. That is false. This case has been pending nearly seven months. IBM served its first set of discovery requests more than four months ago. IBM filed this motion only after giving SCO more than 3 months to meet is obligations.
Well, Darl's on his way to a full year of profitability. If SCO has been able to drag it out for 7 months already, another 5 won't hurt them... much
Anyway, SCO's going down. Hard. I wonder if they'll sell me the copyrights to UNIX in bankruptcy court... I wouldn't mind having them for their historical value.
IANAL, but IAAPW (I am a professional writer) and IBM's filings are superbly written. they have a good final edit team at work. Compared to them, the SCO lawyers are handing in the sort of incoherent work typical of term papers done at the last minute with the help of large amounts of caffeine.
This could easily be used in a "legal writing" course as "how to" and "how not to" write briefs, motions and memorandums.
IBM has a very interesting point that I have seen mentioned before. The below is from the Groklaw link
Interrogatory No. 1 asks for the identification of files and lines of code from Unix that SCO contends IBM has misappropriated. It is Unix software, after all, not Linux software, that IBM is alleged to have misappropriated.
IBM is basically saying, show us "your" Unix code that you think we took. This makes more sense then the arguement I've been hearing by the Linux community of show us the Linux code that you think infringes, although the Linux community has no real right to see the SCO Unix code, IBM should have that right as a member of the lawsuit. That would make things even harder as SCO may not be able to turn up such code as it probably does not exist. From a legal standpoint, it makes asks SCO to prove infringment of their code in that manner and takes away thier shotgun approach of ifs, coulds, and resembles.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
It was for sale and Novell stepped up to the plate. Sun didn't want it. IBM didn't want it. HP didn't want it. They knew what a disaster the thicket of licensing on the original UNIX was. Let it be someone else's problem. AT&T knew it and Novell found out shortly thereafter. Then they realized how much of a problem it was and went looking another sucker..er..buyer for the UNIX codebase. And SCO was dumb enough to think it was a good idea.
You can't open source Sys V. Too many confidentiality and licensing agreements are in place and those licensees would have to agree as a whole before that code could get released since all of them use some of that code in one form or another. I am sure that very little original SysV code exists in AIX except for compatibility purposes. SunOS/Solaris is based on BSD Unix so they probably licensed Sys V just to cover their bases.
Methods and concepts for Unix are already more or less in the public domain. The POSIX standard and the Open Group have that covered. Unix and Unix-like clones have been implemented and reimplemented so many times over the years and the ideas are so well known, who would want the Sys V code at all even for historical reasons? I'd sooner want to see the code to the PDP-11 than the Sys V codebase. At least the PDP-11 code has a rich history behind it that might bring back some fond memories for some. Plus, it's dead and gone. Unix is alive and kicking and if I want to see how Unix works, I need look no further than the Linux Kernel Whitepapers and Annotated Code guides.
Are you blind man? The reason that SCOX is trading at $17.50 (that's American dollars, not Italian Lire or EverQuest gold pieces, that's American dollars my man!) is that a whole bunch of people are betting!
NO!! It means that a few people are betting a LOT of money. And you don't exactly know WHY they are betting on SCO. It's entire possible that they expect to lose their bet on SCO but to recoup the money in other places.
For example, I happen to believe that MS and probably also Sun are happy to fund SCO's suicide because they believe that if they create fear, uncertainty and doubt in Linux along the way that they will recoup their investment in other places. Think about it -- if MS slows down Linux adoption by say 1%, they will more than pay for a $25 million loss.
At least have to courtesy to properly attribute the replaced parts analogy to Asimov! ;-)
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)