Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Puts Pressure On SCO

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the compelled-to-discover dept.

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.

6 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. Fraud by fiftyfly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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"
  2. How about that. Legalese for the layman by Cooper_007 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    That's a first. A legal document that uses terms I can understand. Go IBM!

    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 -

    1. Re:How about that. Legalese for the layman by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >ay the judge goes with IBM and dismisses the case, then what?

      Then the IBM countersuit goes forward. Oh, SCO will still have some explaining to do.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  3. When thieves fall out... by dipipanone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:When thieves fall out... by arth1 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Lawyers almost always benefit, no matter which side of a case they're on.

      That's an unfortunate side effect of how the US constitution has been interpreted (by lawyers, I may add). Having the right to councel is interpreted as the right to the best councel your money can buy. It's apparently not unconstitutional, though, to have one side with a court-appointed $500 overworked defense lawyer who hasn't even had time to talk to you before the trial, while the other side has a $5 million staff of dedicated experts. That's considered a fair trial...

      What would be more fair was if both sides paid what they thought the case was worth to a common pool, who was then split equally between court-appointed attorneys. Then you're entitled to as good a defense as your adversary, and if you're in the right, and contributed enough to cover basic fact-finding for both parties, that should mean you will win, right?
      Oh, but the lawyers would lose...

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
  4. Re:Clarity of response by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "IBM does not resort to the use of (semi)abusive language but stays focussed and follows avery clear pattern of logic "

    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.