Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Fails to Produce Evidence

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the gee-i-wonder-why dept.

BlueSteel writes "For those of you that need that daily SCO fix, Groklaw has the declaration of Ryan E. Tibbitts of SCO, stating why they haven't produced any evidence... and that they need recent AIX and Dynix/ptx code from IBM before they can comply."

3 of 651 comments (clear)

  1. Please Copy and Distribute prosecute-sco.html by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Please copy and distribute Let's Put SCO Behind Bars. It has a Creative Commons license.

    From the page:

    While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

    If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

    If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

    It also suggests complaining to the securities and exchange commission, which you're entitled to do if you've lost investment money as a result of any wrongdoing that SCO might have committed.

    Thank you for your attention.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  2. So they've never had specific proof ! by Performer+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is pretty amazing, since they've been claiming all along that Linux infringes and they have proof. When asked for proof they have now said in writing that they can't produce that proof without seeing code they don't have.

    In other words they've never had specific proof.

    So their whole case is apparently hinged upon their tenuous claim to ownership of IBM authored code which they claim they own, but have never seen. They hope they can claim ownership of that code on the basis of a very broad interpretation of derivitive works and that code IBM wrote into AIX was derived (by their incredible definition) from their copyright works (the missing link) and that they then moved this into Linux.

    IANAL but you can't run around claiming someone infringes on your copyrights and then go on a fishing expedition for the evidence, you need something evidence to present to the court in the first place.

    This bubble may burst much sooner than I had anticipated.

  3. Re:Summary by c1ay · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Somebody please tell me what I'm missing here. In an interview with CNET Darl Mcbride says, "We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code," In addition, he said, "We're finding code that looks like it's been obfuscated to make it look like it wasn't UnixWare code--but it was."

    Now Mr. Tibbits says they need recent AIX and Dynix/ptx code from IBM before they can comply.

    Have they identified offending lines in the kernel source or have they not. Darl claims they have already matched code to the Unixware code and now they can't seem to reproduce it for the court. What's wrong with this picture?

    --