IBM Subpoenas SCO Investors, Analysts

Bigfishbowl writes "Forbes has an interesting article about IBM sending subpoenas to large SCO investors in an effort to compel discovery. An IBM spokesman says IBM is frustrated by SCO's reluctance to produce proof of its allegations. '"It is time for SCO to produce something meaningful. They have been dragging their feet and it is not clear there is any incentive for SCO to try this in court," he says.'"

Comments

SCO Gives Filenames

[emacnabber]

This is a little OT, but SCO told the names "offending" files in a court doc at groklaw. They don't say what parts of the files are "theirs", but they've narrowed it down to about a 1/5 of the kernel. :-)

Re:SCO Gives Filenames

[darnok]

Is there something in the US legal system that actively prevents SCO from claiming every single file in the kernel as their own? I mean, if they're claiming a huge chunk of the kernel anyway, why not claim it all and be done with it?

Presumably the court would have to investigate every single file to establish the veracity of SCO's claims. Can you imagine weeding through every single .h file, many of which are going to look identical on any Unix system, and trying to establish the one true inventor of the file? I'd bet the original creator of a lot of those files is lost in time.

SCO would claim ownership, nobody could dispute it, and SCO could conceivably table some obscure document saying they created blah.h on some vaguely appropriate date. It doesn't have to be truthful - it can be manufactured just like all their other claims. If someone eventually comes forward and says "No, I created blah.h and here's proof", SCO would say "Fine, now let's look at blah2.h...".

Meanwhile, time would pass & SCO execs would be that much closer to their bonus payouts for keeping the stock price going upwards.

Other than the cost of doing things in this very long drawn out fashion, and I suspect SCO could find external funding for their legal costs from one or two sources in order to keep the anti-Linux FUD alive, is there anything in the US legal system preventing them from doing this?

I'm thinking all SCO's execs need to do is waste the court's time until they've got their 4th quarter of stock price rises, then bail out with big final paycheques and leave the remaining investors with whatever's left.

Re:This is about calling SCO's bluff about code

[antiMStroll]

A better theory, IBM is cutting off SCO's funding by using SCO's tactics against them. SCO expended most of their energy so far badgering corporate Linux users with threats of IP transgression and 'offers' or ridiculously priced licenses. The obvious intent is to make corporate users think twice before adopting Linux.

It's no coincidence that IBM's move came soon after the RBC and BayStar announcements. It's a warning to other potential investors, invest in SCO and endure the gaze of IBM's army of lawyers. With Worldcom and Enron still fresh in their memory, watch them blink first. Anyone care to bet on another anonymous mass purchase of SCO licenses?

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, SCOX was at .70 before this all started and was off everyone's radar. It's not totally crazy that the stock doubled after they announced a $3 billion dollar lawsuit against a large competitior.

However, the people recommending Buy when the stock is at $20 are probably the same folks pumping money into SCO so they can keep the bubble from deflating. Even if it's an honest recommendation, it's based purely on high-risk speculation and not on any fundementals or facts.

Contrary to the slashbots, I think it's highly unlikely that this market manipulation is SCO, Canopy, Microsoft, Sun or anyone else. It's probably just independant brokers who know a goldrush when they see one. Just like VA Linux, etc.

Congressman Barney Frank (D Mass.) on SCO suit

[hqm]

When SCO was going around threatening end users, I sent a letter to my congressman, Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Here is his response:

====

September 26, 2003

Dear Mr. Minsky,

I share your view that the suits being brought by the SCO Group
against the users of the Linux system are an entirely inappropriate
use of the legal systems for broader corporate purposes. While I have
note been able, obviously, to examine these in detail, the suits do
not appear to me, from what I have read, to have any merit, and in
fact seem to be motivated, as I said, by an effort simply to prevent
the use of Linux for competitive reasons.

There is, unfortunately, a very limited role for Congress here. I
agree with those who would like to see us "stop SCO from punishing
innocent consumers to inflate its other legal claims." But under our
separation of powers doctrine, Congress has no role whatsoever to play
in the pursuit of particular cases. We can pass laws which prevent
certain types of suits from being brought, but it is very, very
difficult to pass those in a way that would be retroactive - that is,
that would apply to existing suits. And the problem with this suit is
not that it is of a sort of legal claim that is inappropriate to
bring, but that it is totally unjustified on the merits. In other
words, the remedy here is for these suits to be dismissed on their
merits and Congress has no role, as I have said, in doing that.

I am prepared to join in expressions of extreme disapproval of what
SCO is doing, and I will be consulting with my colleagues to see if
there is a movement to do that. I hope that will have some impact on
them. All of these lawsuits brought against individuals will of course
be dismissed but I realize that is of little consolation to people
who have had to go through the trouble and expense of defending against
them. It may be that at some point a judge will act decisively enough
in this regard to prevent this proliferation of suits, and while, as I
said, our Congressional role is very limited here, I will be
encouraging anything we can do along these lines.

Barney Frank