Slashdot Mirror
IBM tells SCO to Put Up or Shut Up
Jeffrey Johnson writes "The whole SCO and IBM case is coming to a head with new filings from IBM accusing SCO of being 'grandiose' and saying it has 'effectively conceded' that it has no evidence of infringement. It asks for evidence to be produced or the whole case thrown out. According to experts this makes it make-or-break: either SCO has to outline exactly what the issues are with Linux or the whole sorry affair is over."
Why are we even still reading these things? I'll believe it when I see it.
Stick it to 'em, Big Blue!
SCO's actions, IMHO, have been absolutely abominable...I'm glad to see IBM fighting the bastards.
Not that I think it will bring the whole thing to a close, but....
...again
You'd figure with IBM's resources, their lawyers would have been on something like this within a month - not over a year.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
You would think that someone would have said 'Gee, do you guys have any EVIDENCE to support your claims?' and when they couldn't or wouldn't produce a single line of code they would have been tossed out of the courthouse on their butt. I suppose that's too close to being common sense for our over-lawyered justice system though.
Remember Lexington Green!
I'm no conspiricy theorist, but did anyone notice that IBM - effectively the Microsoft of the 80s - has become the geek hero of the age?
Sure, this has cost them lots of $$, but they are going to emerge the champions of tech geeks the world over.
It's because it has been a year that IBM's lawyers can go to the judge and say, look, these guys have no case and they are stalling and wasting your time and ours. So let's decide now, before they waste any more time, whether they have a shred of a case or not.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Just in slow motion. These things take time in the legal system.
The 'Gee, do you guys have any EVIDENCE to support your claims?' bit is what's called, in the legal world, "discovery". This is one of the first phases of the trial and that's what they've spent the last year on.
Since Discovery is coming to a close, the 'getting tossed out of the courthouse on their butt' is the next step-- it's what a court would call "summary dismissal" and it's exactly what IBM has just requested the judge to do.
That no matter what the activity, no matter what the field, it is always easy to be an armchair QB.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
This is only the beginning. This AC predicts that the SCO suite will be thrown out. Others will follow but will not be copyrite or license based. Something more sinister will be the basis. Patent infringment. It is only a matter of time. I think that Microsoft will directly sue major distributors and users of Linux rather than indirectly.
What ever happened to the "for hackers by hackers" mentality? I think that World Domination was initially just a joke. But you can not dominate the world without a big fight. Microsoft has billions at it's disposal so it won't be pretty.
...that no low is too low for SCO. (Ooo, strangely poetic that.)
Anyway what's the bet that they'll come out with some completly bullshit claims that are highly confusing to the average person who doesn't know much about linux, which sound faiguely plausible and are dificult to disprove legally without jumping through hoops. In the past SCO have proven to be masters of stalling with this sort of thing, I just hope they're running out of slimy tricks to weasel their way out of this sort of thing....
my $0.02
If it's this simple why has no-one done this earlier??
In other countries this was the first action taken! And it was successfull
US legislators (too often lawyers) have to be told to fix a system that seemingly only allows 'justice' for the (extremely) rich.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Well, this one actually is a bit different, and the headline is a bit misleading. What's been going on so far is that IBM has been saying, with varying degrees of politeness, that SCO needs to put up. The last couple of rounds have involved IBM getting the judge to say it for them. Now they're going to the judge and saying that since SCO has failed to put up, the judge should make them shut up. This is a big deal because it will decide the most important part of the case- SCO's allegations of copyright infringement- should the judge rule in IBM's favor. If IBM wins this motion, neither SCO nor anyone who buys their rights to UNIX will be able to sue for copyright violations in Linux.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Is that trials are not sports games. Reporting that one side 'slammed' the other with particular evidence is extremely inaccurate. Courtroom drama.. isn't.
A real courtroom is a place where the facts of the matter are compared in a careful, calculated manner. Each position is weighed calmly before any decision is made. The point of the system is to make sure a fair judgement is made, not to 'smack down' offenders with lightning speed.
Also, people complain about 'frivolous lawsuits' (such as SCO's), but a truly fair court there are no frivolous lawsuits - everything reasonable is considered. We may consider this whole thing to be stupid and frivolous, but SCO deserves their day in court. Otherwise we'd have another Your Rights Online story...
I'd rather have a world without IBM than IBM "saving Linux".
There is some truth there, If it weren't for suing IBM, I doubt SCO would have been able to raise any money. SCO investors are gambling on some sort of payoff , and I bet suing small companies or FSF just would not produce any significant income even if they won.
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
when all the principals and their cronies have cashed out their stock, leaving a bunch of clueless mutual fund holders and low-level employees holding the bag.
Until then, expect SCO to grandstand some more until they can drain the last little bit of value out of the company before they retire to their homes in the Hamptons.
Meanwhile, the SEC and the Justice Dept. probably have armies of agents pouring over the finances of Oprah Winfrey and Cheech Marin.
As has been explained (undoubtably better) before by many people, the GPL doesn't need to be tested in court. Reason? Imagine a company is being sued for breach of the GPL (for example, they redistributed a binary of something with no source). One of two things must be true - the GPL is valid and the defendent accepts this, or the GPL is not valid. In the first case, they accept the GPL is valid but have broken it's terms, thus they are guilty. In the second case, they must abide by the regular rules of copyright (which have been tested in court many, many times). Regular copyright says you may do NOTHING with the material in question without EXPLICIT permission from the copyright owner. The only thing which grants you those permissions is the GPL, which the defendent says is invalid, therefore they are guilty. QED.
In short - because of this either/or, the GPL has not been tested in court, and essentially never will. You either accept it and abide by it, or deny it and pay up.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
I just hope that the SEC seeks criminal cases against SCOX board members over this one. That would do everyone well for the long term.
Not likely. They all have their golden parachutes on, ready to jump out the window while laughing at the investors all trying to get a piece of the business.
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
This is actually quite a wrong analysis.
If IBM weren't around, SCO still could (and almost certainly would) have picked on smaller players such as Red Hat, SuSE, etc. These small players don't have a great deal of money with which to defend themselves, and SCO could have probably bankrupted some of them before the fight was even over, and possibly even won one or more injunctions against the distribution use of Linux.
Fortunately, IBM was around, was promoting Linux in a big way, and SCO was foolish enough to take on the 600 pound gorilla and think it could win or at least be bought out at a handsome profit for its investors and executives. Too bad for SCO it turns out the 600 pound gorilla believes it can win and set a precedent and never have to worry about this again. As a result, IBM will seek to make an example of SCO, and make Darl rue the day he first heard the words "law suit."
Then, when it's over and SCO is in ruins, IBM may buy SCO anyway for pennies on the dollar and have both the court precedent and the IP in hand, rendering IBM and all of us safe from a repeat attack on Linux. It will probably also render IBM safe from being sued by anyone else, over anything, for a long time to come because they have demonstrated their willingness to fight instead of settle.
IBM's not actually saying "Put Up Or Shut Up". That's sort of what they said with the request for a Declaratory Judgement.
This request for a summary judgement is more, "You've been claiming for a year to have evidence. You've been told twice by Judge Wells to produce evidence. You've signed avidavits that you've produced all the evidence. But you still haven't produced any evidence." The point to produce evidence or to shut up has come and gone but you haven't produced any.
At some point the judge has to decide whether IBM violated the copyrights or not. SCO hasn't shown and evidence and they've sworn that they showed everything they have. Either SCO is lying or IBM hasn't violated their copyrights...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=2y&l=on&z=m &q=l&c=
Last trade was 4.754. Hard to believe it peaked at 22.29, and with no real difference in strategy or product. The stock market is a strange and wonderful place...
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Prison rape isn't funny. It's a tragic human rights disaster.
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
The wheels of law grind slowly, but they do get the grinding done eventually.
The American legal system is broken. Look at the treatment SCO got in Germany: one court application to put up or shut up, and they had to do it or else. Sanity prevailed.
In America, insanity prevails.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I hope IBM sues the hell out of the officers (not just the corperation) for libel or whatever they can. It's just not enough for these assholes to wave a gun around and then laugh it off when we find it's not loaded. They have caused a lot of people a lot of trouble and the _individuals_ who pushed this need to be appropriately punished. It should be made clear that it's not worth it to play these frivolous lawsuit games.
Cheers.
Isn't it terrible how it's just tolerated?
You shouldn't have to worry about being beat up, killed, or raped in prison. Being in prison is punishment enough.
I think the powers that be prefer prison to be a terrible, terrible place because they think that it's a deterrent. Too bad these people haven't learned anything in the last... recorded history of man..
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Was the criminal intrested in my rights of freedom when he robbed me at gunpoint? Invaded my privacy when he broke into my house? Tortured through rape? No? Then I don't care about him.
Those who say nasty prisons don't work forget to add that nice prisons don't work either. Holland is about as liberal as you can get with communisties being sentenced to being serviced by rapists. (I am still waiting for pedofiles being told to help out at their local school) AND CRIME IS NOT GOING DOWN. In supressed reports it is even said to be going up. We are approaching america in hard crime (murder) and passed it in the lower (theft) stuff.
So fuck you. Don't want to raped in jail? Don't be a criminal. Human rights == Human duties.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You think small businesses don't exhibit "impersonal, dehumanising treatment of their employees, the surrounding community, even their customers"?
What planet are *you* living on?
So, even though IBM has changed "after being visited by the three spirits", you still don't give them credit?
Bias agains corporations, pure and simple.