Slashdot Mirror
SCO Spreads Rumors About IBM Lawsuit
yeremein writes "SCO says it has found a new smoking gun in its battle with IBM. This 'bombshell' was not found in a court document; instead it came from a reporter's interview at SCOforum. The scoop? 'SCO alleges that since 2001, AIX has contained code for which IBM does not have a license. Moreover SCO claims to have found internal IBM e-mails in which IBMers acknowledge this shortcoming.' With the announcement comes a hefty boost in SCO's stock price." SCO is also going to bundle its worthless linux licenses with its Unix operating systems.
IBM was making out with Linux in the bathroom!!!! YEAH, I know!
Those monkeys flying from Darl's sphincter lately will be shown to have been stolen from the Wicked Witch of the West. E-mails between the Lollypop Guild and the Lullaby League will prove it.
What would happen to the *Linux* case, if SCO would turn out to be right on this one?
At a glance, this seems like purely an AIX issue - so even if IBM should get into hot water with that one (I'm not saying they are going to be), what impact would it have on the linux case? (Say, besides the fact that SCOs war chest for their lawsuit would get a big refill)
Isn't this libel by SCO? Unless they can show substantial evidence, they are tarnishing IBM's reputation for personal gain. Even then, this is the type of thing that should be restricted to court. Would IBM be able to sue for wrongful damages?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Or perhaps I have it all backwards, but how can the stock go up 14% without this sort of thing happening?
>SCO claims to have found internal IBM e-mails
>
>This is a form of espionage which is illegal >without a court order.
Umm, RTFA, dude:
SCO says it discovered the e-mails in a mountain of documents IBM produced in discovery related to SCO's lawsuit against IBM over the Linux operating system.
Oh well, back to the code... :)
SourceHosting.net, LLC
Ready. Set. Code.
http://www.sourcehosting.net/
Shouldn't that be "... worthless linux licenses with its worthless Unix operating systems" ;-) ?
The boost is a 14.5% increase in their stock price (as of 11:30am). That's hefty indeed. Anyone who has been holding their stock in SCO has no idea how to invest. Those who have been buying it when it's low precisely for days such as this when SCO releases yet another batch of their FUD, are quite shrewd.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
This is a form of espionage which is illegal without a court order.
Except they found them in IBM E-mails turned over as part of the SCO vs IBM court case.
IBM bought a the rights long before SCOX even created.
SCO says they bought the rights to v3 and are using v4. If they didn't buy the rights to v4 I can acutally see SCO having a case here.
Remember, its important to read the article in full before coming up with reasoning as to why SCO is wrong
FTA
"SCO says it discovered the e-mails in a mountain of documents IBM produced in discovery related to SCO's lawsuit against IBM over the Linux operating system. "
No espionage involved.
It's all FUD tho.
"Indeed, SCO says the company's biggest investor, BayStar Capital, has been pushing SCO to drop its Unix business altogether and simply become a litigation machine, bringing intellectual property-related lawsuits. But SCO insists it remains committed to selling Unix software--when it's not busy fighting people in court."
The same Baystar that claims that SCO must return its investment as SCO has been misleading them?
"goatse? What's that? Anyone have a link?" - AC
SCO have discovered about 5 or 6 "smoking guns" and they never turn out to be anything. Still, it hasn't been groklaw'd yet so we can't be sure what's going on. ;-)
---
We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience
and I'm not familiar with laws on discovery ... but if I'd found the "smoking gun" that was going to win me my case, I'd keep it under my hat, and then reveal it (in true John Grisham style) just when it looks like my case was going down the pan.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
No RTFA. The emails were part of the discovery process with the current lawsuit.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Please, let this soap opera end for the love of God. If i wanted to see bad acting and finger pointing on a daily basis, I'd stay home from work and watch Guiding Light or Days of our Lives.
When will these dickless wonders get the information that their M$ backing is gone, and nobody wants them around anymore. Fuck off, SCO.
Read the only personal Runyon page out there.
SCO claims IBM didn't have a license to use SCO's SVR4 product, which it obtained during the abortive "Project Monterey," to enhance its [Linux][AIX] offerings. SCO says it will be able to prove this through IBM's own internal documentation consisting of [records of contributions to Linux][e-mails concerning AIX licensing].
Did you notice that all of the related articles about Linux have a negative slant? They also didn't link to IBM's reply to the charges. The article is surprisingly useless.
Maybe, just maybe, they're jerks. (girlish giggle)
The only reason for SCO to release this info to the public now is to help the battle for public opinion, and if you want to do that, you should start with a source a bit higher up the chain then SCOforum, such as, say, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, or some other well reputed paper.
Their Lanham Act counterclaims in the lawsuit that SCO filed are directly referring to this type of behavior.
This has nothing to do with Linux, although I'm sure SCO will try to make it sound as if it does.
It'll be interesting to see how this turns out, if it's anything, since my understanding is that during discovery you have to stick to what you're looking for. In other words, it's not a fishing expedition. This is definitely fishing.
But I'm not a lawyer, although I'd have little trouble standing up to SCO's lawyers in court...
Do you have ESP?
They are doing so well legally, that the Daimler-Chrysler case got tossed, except that they are allowed to try the claim the response took too long. The judge in the Novell case told them he saw no evidence the copyrights were transferred to SCO in accordance with federal law. The 'Millions of lines' of SCO code copied verbatum into Linux has deteriorated into some bizzare 'non-literal copying' legal theory which means IBM's motion to declare there is no SCO copyrighted code in Linux appears to have a very real chance of being granted. Just where is this heap of evidence Darl? The only heap produced by SCO seems to fall under the catagory of fertilizer.
"Who put wrote that code here? It's just as shitty as SCO's system!"
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Wake me up when SCO actually says it in court. What they say to the press is so disconnected from reality that I refuse to bother worrying about "what if" this one happens to actually be true.
Great article at Groklaw about this very thing. Note it's from a year ago.
Seems to me that this is a nice end-run for SCO to allow them to claim that they have "sold" a whole bunch more of those Linux licenses (as part of a "package deal") in order to give that license some additional, but false, credibility.
Believe it when you see it in court, and nowhere else. If we took them at their word, we'd (most of us I suspect) all be $699 poorer by now. To my recollection there has not been a single release from SCO which has not been spun or otherwise doctored the straight goods into something more palatable for current and potential SCO investors (if there's such a thing).
Actually, this is a big deal, and here's why:
1) SCO received those emails under a court order.
2) SCO only licenses IBM to distribute AIX code on Intel platforms, not PPC platforms, and that is the crux of this announcement.
3) The reporter's forum is where this came out, not where this originated.
4) The fact this is AIX not Linux is interesting. Essentially, this has nothing to do with SCO patent claims against Linux.
M
I think the most insightful, or at least amusing, thing I've read about this case lately was found at the bottom of the forbes article:
Indeed, SCO says the company's biggest investor, BayStar Capital, has been pushing SCO to drop its Unix business altogether and simply become a litigation machine, bringing intellectual property-related lawsuits. But SCO insists it remains committed to selling Unix software--when it's not busy fighting people in court.
This may not matter if the Novell-SCO litigation goes in Novell's favor. But here's the points:
1. Contrary to some above misinformed posters, SCO didn't have to commit espionage to get internal IBM e-mails. The discovery process in a lawsuit like this involves both sides turning over mountains of documents and e-mails. I'm sure this is where SCO found this information.
2. Novell claims they still own UNIX. Novell says that SCO only has a (revokable) license to license UNIX to others. Novell has already exercised their right to revoke SCO's UNIX-licensing powers as regards IBM, back when SCO claimed to be revoking IBM's license. Novell effectively said, "We run the show here, SCO, and IBM is legitimately licensed in our book."
The point then is that if Novell wins their SCO case, then this "smoking gun" is actually a wilted flower. Novell can provide IBM with a license for AIX, if they actually need one, and any damages IBM might owe could be paid to their buddy Novell, not SCO. (This part I'm less certain about, and depends on the extent to which Novell wins their case.)
Anyway, as others have pointed out, this doesn't affect Linux at all, and as I'm pointing out, it may not even affect IBM's use of UNIX. Nothing to see here... Move along...
Like Digital Freedoms? Then donate to EFF before they're gone.
This tactic sounds soo familiar.. Where did I hear that again? .. Umm....
.. Oh yea.. they went to court and had NOTHING.
OH YEA.. It was when they claimed their 'smoking gun' with the millions of lines of code they discovered that were exact copies with the headers changed/removed.
Now, remind me again what happend with all that?
I now firmly believe that Darl and his cronies are sitting in his office each week betting on wether Darl can inflate the stock price or not for a given time period. I can think of no other explination...
bork bork bork!
The article is surprisingly useless.
What do you mean useless? Lyons did his job as a paid shill for SCO and made sure the stock got pumped today.
While the lambs are buying into SCOX on the recommendations of SCO-paid shills like Lyons and The Enderle Troll (who just a few days ago called SCOX a great investment), the insiders and big holders are having a nice little lamb slaughter unloading their stock.
Note how SCO didn't go to court with their "new hot evidence", they went to a paid shill. Now, why is that?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I used to work for IBM. There are plenty of pissed off temporary staff and contractors (and even full timers) who would be quite happy to cut and paste from Notes to Hotmail. Mark
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
Well, IBM unfortunately mentions some taken over features explicitly on their own website:
t ry .html
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/aix/overview/indus
"About AIX 5L
[...]
This release also contains UNIX System 5 Release 4 (SVR4) standard components such as the SVR4 Print Subsystem.
"
If IBM indeed doesn't have a license for those, then I would doubt they would be allowed to include them. But in that context, IBM would also have been pretty stupid touting these features in public...
And as for this:Nope. He didn't reveal any information that was released in confidence -- he revealed that they have such information. That's a completely different thing.
That's exactly what the original complaint was (ie, misuse of SCO code into AIX), so they're well withing their rights.
SCO has really screwed the pooch here. Darl is going to be found in contempt.
Bet?
AIX has run on PowerPC chips since 3.2.5, circa 1993. This was the PowerPC 601, in the RS/6000 7011 Model 250. (Earlier models of the 7011 used the truly awful RSC (RISC Single Chip) CPU, which was the 7-chip (or was it 9?) low-end POWER CPU wedged onto a single die.) Development of a certain OS from Cupertino was done with the aid of both POWER- and PowerPC-based RS/6000 systems from IBM, including IBM's compilers and a cross-linker to generate Mac executables with AIX.
Version 4 of AIX allowed AIX to run on non-Microchannel PowerPC machines, both RS/6000 and Personal Computer, as well as Microchannel POWER, POWER2 and PowerPC. Modern POWER3 and POWER4 CPUs are really high-end PowerPC designs with the POWER brand-name.
Version 5 of AIX is the 3rd version to run on PowerPCs. (Version 1 ran on Microchannel i86 machines (PS/2), and Version 2 ran on RT/PC (IBM's first RISC machine).)
If they did find stuff like that, it would not matter in the Multi-Billion dollar lawsuit at all.
They would have to start another lawsuit with this claim. The current MB lawsuit is about misappropriation of code to linux, not about AIX at all.
So THIS smoking gun, means nothing to the lawsuit they are elluding to. AFAIKT
Scott Carr
IBM has already asserted that SCO's code contains some violations of IBM patents, so if SCO pulls out this gun, IBM may well pull out a cannon.
Sure, of course SCO got emails. But do they say what SCO says they say? How do we know this? SCO says a lot of things
2) SCO only licenses IBM to distribute AIX code on Intel platforms, not PPC platforms, and that is the crux of this announcement.
Do we know this? SCO says so, but they say a lot of things
4) The fact this is AIX not Linux is interesting. Essentially, this has nothing to do with SCO patent claims against Linux.
This has never been about Linux, had it been, SCO would have nickled and dimed at smaller more edible Linux companies, not IBM.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
That makes scox current price attractive for short sale. currently my message from etrade is that they can't find any shares to borrow:
Your sell short order cannot be processed. Short sales in this security are not allowed, as we were unable to borrow the shares. hmmm the market isn't as entirely clueless as most of us think.
this sig is deprecated
i wanted to mod some of these so bad, but there are a few things that need to be posted.
1. TSCOG claims that they are using source code that IBM never had a licence for.
well, if SCO never made them agree to a license, then why did they give them the code(if they did at all).
2. the wording makes it sound like they still have a valid licence for the older code.
Though, now that it's gone above $5, it's possible to short it again.*
*PLEASE don't take this as investment advice, or an offer to buy/sell, or a solicitation of any services. If you do then you're a frickin' retard.
Which begs the question... if it is on IBM's website, why did SCO have to find this through discovery? Why go through all those documents when you could just tell the judge to point their browser to IBM's page?
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
"Nevertheless, you cannot go on fishing expeditions through discovery documents for alleged infractions that weren't part of your original complaint."
Sure you can. That's the whole point of discovery. That's why you have the power tio amend your suits after discovery.
Why is uninformed tripe like this modded at 4, Informative? Any frickin' law student would know better.
He didn't reveal that they have such information, he claimed they have it--just like ownership of UNIX, BIGNUM lines of infringing code, etc. Certainly no one would ever accuse Darl of actually releasing information. ;)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
The problem is IBM was exposed to the code through a joint venture. To then prove that they came up with it on their own even though they saw SCO's code isn't easy to prove. Or in most cases beleivable. I'm flashing back to how Vanilla Ice was trying to explain how his rif was different from other songs that he copied.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
bit-torrent?
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
It is in the process of being groklaw'd already.
... and furthermore
Most likely it is not baloney. SCO and IBM were mixing things up pretty good for many years. IBM may have missed an i dotting/t crossing and may have realized it later. I would guess that SCO has some sort of grounds to go after IBM on this mix-up. I doubt that it has ANY relavency to linux or any of their other cases.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Read the Project Monterey Agreement - the limitation on specific archetecture applies to SCO, not IBM!
IBM was free to use "SCO's" code on any platform they choose, but SCO was not allowed to do the reverse. The rights of each party are explicitly spelled out separately. IBM gets to use SCO's code on any platform they choose (including PowerPC), SCO can only use IBM's code on i386.
There is no corresponding paragraph in the section entitled "License to IBM of Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work"
There is a healthly discussion on this over at Groklaw. After reading through the Montery contract it was SCO that was limited to only using IBMs work on platforms other than x86.
On top of that it says that both parties license extends beyond the end of the project, and is irrevocable.
SCO's claim against AIX based on the inclusions of SVR5 code is only valid if it's SCO's to license. While SCO does have the right to issue SVR4 licenses, it seems quite probable, and is likely to be made final by a court soon, that SCO does not/i> own SVR4 copyrights at all. Novell retained them. So if there is an aggrieved party with a cause of action against IBM, it's Novell. But if Novell decides that there's no problem, then SCO is SOL.
And that of course assumes that SCO's claims are otherwise valid, which is fairly unlikely given their record of mendacity.
"In regards to the AIX code, yes we do"
Umm, no we don't. Just because Project Monteray was focused on a 64-bit Unix doesn't mean that IBM was restricted by a license to keeping AIX on a single platform. A number of the licenses are buried in Groklaw's "Legal Docs" link. I could go look, but it would surprise me greatly if the license refered to a hardware platform rather than the use of Unix System V for general IBM development purposes of AIX.
By the way, Project Moneterey didn't die in negotiation. It actually produced tangible code that IBM simply didn't release.
Lastly, if you read the court filings by SCO you will discover that they could win a court case against IBM for contract violation(VERY doubtful) and still lose the war. Nothing in SCO's lawsuit with IBM has anything to do with SCO's property rights vis-a-vis Linux. They never filed a copyright claim against IBM(with regards to Linux), they dropped their trade-secret claim, and they have never filed any patent claims. In other words, every word uttered out of SCO's mouth with regards to IP violations in Linux is completely and absolutely FALSE.
But you don't have to believe me, just read the court filings, they're (almost) all there on Groklaw.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
Who on earth cares what McNugget tells a paid stooge of Lyon's caliber? So now its AIX that contains....
'millions of lines of line-for-line copied code'.
Paint up the stock price and dump those shares, boys. See any insiders buying this turnip?
BFD.
SH
Buzzz! Wrong. PPC = an implementation of IBM's Power architecture. AIX has run on the Power architecture since the late 80s. (I first used AIX on a Power RT system in 1990.)
Project Monterey was intended to port Unix to Intel/HP's Itanium processors. Project Montery actually ran for several years; it fell apart when IBM realized that the Itanium processors were (1) not going to arrive on time, and (2) weren't going to have the power that Intel predicted.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
That's a very good point. It would be really rather funny if someone like Novell or AT&T could prove they own SRV4, and then gave IBM a perpetual, irrevocable license to match their other one.
Whats most interesting about this story (and I'll reserve ANY judgement until I see it in court - I'm still waiting for SCO's copyright claims to be filed since Dec 2003, and that was promised in open court!) is whats NOT being talked about. What happened to Linux? In this instance certainly, and more generally all during SCOForum, SCO has been talking about Unix, and ignoring Linux. I think this is a great show of their final admittance that their Linux claims/cases are bogus. In regards to the "smoking bullet", they just didn't "find" this stuff today, they have had it for a while I'd assume, and I haven't seen any amendments in court. Not to mention, discovery is almost finished, and I would bet there are contradictory documents (affidavitts, deps) SCO has certified that say nothing of this. Didn't IBM ask SCO already (and they replied) regarding violations of SCO code in Linux, Dynix, and AIX?
This Groklaw report from SCOForum conference came down the pipes of one of the LUG mailing lists I belong to. Apparently they mentioned the IBM/AIX "bombshell" in private interviews during the same conference. I wonder why they didn't announce it on the stage?
-R
This has nothing to do with Linux, or IBM's motion for a preliminary injunction. IBM has asked the court to find that SCO has found no UNIX in Linux. SCO's "smoking gun" says they found UNIX in AIX. Gee, big surprise. That's why IBM pays licensing fees for AIX. All SCO is claiming is that they should have paid more. Of course Forbe's -- impartial reporters that they are -- can't resist a gratuitous jab at "Linux zealots", but Linux just is not involved here.
Nothing to see here, just SCO blowing their usual smoke.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
SCO and IBM teamed up to work on a 64 bit version of UNIX for 64 bit Intel processors. IBM backed out of the deal and in doing so SCO claims IBM also backed out of their licensing agreement for SVR4 code.
Except that:
1) SCO has never claimed any such thing in any court filing. Their court filings don't make anything approaching clear claims that A didn't receive a license for code B from C or anything else you would expect in such a claim.
2) IBM already had a license for SVR4 code at the time of montery
3) SCO didn't have rights to sell such a license in any meaningful sense
Now, IBM developers have been contributing a lot to the Linux kernel. Who do you think they got to write the kernel code? Probably a good chance that it was people that were familiar with AIX.
Actually that is explicitly not the case. There is a Chinese wall between the AIX group and the Linux group to avoid certain really copyright problems (none of which involve SCO BTW). Communication between them is controlled.
my point is that everyone should try and look at what's going on objectively because there is a lot at stake
Look at the threads from 2 years ago when this started. People here did look at SCO's filings very carefully. After many many repeated inaccuracies and lies in SCO's comments to reporters and inaccuracies which show an extreme lack of knowledge in their court fillings people rightfully treat their factual claims as false until proven otherwise. Similarly their legal claims have been nonsensical.
There is nothing at stake. Imagine if SCO had filed a wrongful death suit against IBM and everyone could show the supposed victim was till alive. Obviously SCO would get their day in court but no one would pretend there was any merit to the case; which is the proper way of dealing with this type of nonsense lawsuit.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=SCOX
56% of SCO's float is shorted. That's a very high number; indicating a very large number of people believe SCO is entirely full of sXXX. Further that float being so small indicates big buyers have sold SCO.
Correct. Project Monterey.
IBM backed out of the deal
Correct.
SCO claims IBM also backed out of their licensing agreement for SVR4 code.
Also correct - but that doesn't make the claim accurate.
AIX is now an SVR4 Unix and there is no licensing agreement for it.
INCORRECT. Read the Project Monterey contract - it says that either party may terminate the agreement, and if they do, that they keep the license: to wit:
This new claim is just the latest twist in a tangled story that began in March 2003 when SCO sued IBM, claiming IBM's programmers stole code from Unix, to which SCO holds some copyrights
It's funny how it went from "SCO owns UNIX" in the beginning of the lawsuit to "SCO holds some copyrights".
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
SCO only licenses IBM to distribute AIX code on Intel platforms, not PPC platforms, and that is the crux of this announcement.
Actually, if you read the Project Monterey agreement, you'll find that it's SCO who was only licensed to use IBM's code on Intel. IBM was not restricted to any platform at all.
SCO got it wrong *again*.
this has nothing to do with SCO patent claims against Linux.
I'm sorry, but WHAT PATENT CLAIMS?!?!? SCO doesn't even *HAVE* any patents, let alone made claims against Linux.
Except that everything SCO has said, at least up to this time, has been bogus!
Note that SCO has claimed since the start that they have a "mountain of evidence", yet they have yet to provide any of it to IBM, which is why in IBM's cross-complaint(effectively a counter suit), they are filing for a Declaration that they did NOT infringe on any of SCO's copyrights vis-a-vis any of IBM's work with Linux. The truth is shocking isn't it? With regards to IBM's Linux work, SCO NEVER filed a copyright claim against IBM, they never filed a patent claim against IBM, and they've dropped their trade-secret claim. In other words, SCO's whole case rests on a nebulous and purile reading of a contract. Which will very likely be thrown out soon after the judge gives IBM the win in their Summary Judgement on their copyright cross-complaint.
Secondly, the "news" article is sooo chalk full of mistakes that the reporter should be ashamed of himself. He's fallen for SCO's story hook, line & sinker. Note how he calls it a suit against IBM over Linux, well as I've pointed out above, SCO never filed any suit over Linux per-se, they filed a suit over a contract claim with AIX.
Furthermore, the story claims that the SCO suit was filed over code that SCO claimed was "stolen". The facts of the filing couldn't be further from the truth! SCO has never claimed ownership or ownership rights over any code IBM has contributed to Linux, at least in the court filings. They've made all kinds of statements in public.
So this latest claim is just more of the same. First, it could easily be falsely represented information from SCO. Nothing they have said in public has been true. If you can find one schtickel of evidence for SCO's public claims I'm sure they would love to have it because they have shown none themselves. You don't need to believe me, just go read the court filings. IBM would not have asked for Summary Judgement regarding their copyright claim if SCO had handed them ANY evidence of copyright violations. What was SCO's answer to the request for Summary Judgement? "We need more time, and we need more discovery." In other words, SCO knows they are royally screwed on the copyright claim.
Secondly, even if SCO has found evidence of License violations by IBM over AIX 5L. This in NO WAY affects Linux. Note that SCO's public statement isn't that they found code that IBM copied to Linux, it's a claim that IBM didn't have a License to use SVR4 in AIX 5L. SCO still hasn't presented any evidence of SCO code in Linux, and this new statement doesn't indicate otherwise.
In fact SCO has so tried to twist everything into a pretzel shape of their liking that I don't believe a single word they say. This article is very likely more of the same and the writer made himself part of the scam by publishing an article that completely misrepresents the original case and derides both IBM and "Linux zealots".
By the way, if you don't believe me that SCO has absolutely NO evidence go to Groklaw and follow the "Legal Docs" link. Than read the court filings by both IBM and SCO. While we aren't privy to the evidence submitted under seal, it is clear from the back and forth of the filings that SCO has shown no evidence of wrong doing by IBM.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
The problems with that notion are:
this is civil and not criminal law;
even in criminal law, you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself--but if you do so the evidence is still generally admissible unless extracted under duress. Leaving a thumbprint on a gun or screaming "Oh my God, I shot my wife!" are both forms of self-incrimination, but generally both are valid evidence.
SCO isn't allowed to use discovery as purely a fishing expedition in the faint hope that they find some evidence that IBM has infringed their copyrights or breached their contracts. However, if SCO uncovers evidence of additional misdeeds as part of legitimate discovery, they're allowed to sue for the new stuff, too. (Again drawing an example from criminal law--for illustrative purposes only--if a cop pulls you over for speeding, then sees that you have a bag of cocaine on the seat beside you, then he can charge you for possession, too. On the other hand, generally the cop isn't allowed to randomly pull people over and search through their trunks on the off chance he might find some cocaine.)
In order to get to discovery, SCO has to demonstrate to a court that it has some valid reason to believe that IBM may have done the nasty things that SCO claims. The court then can compel IBM to release documents related to that issue. Usually this is a pretty low hurdle.
As an aside, SCO doesn't have to prove IBM breached their contracts. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities. The court looks at the evidence and takes the side that it finds most plausible--neither side must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt; that test is only applied in criminal law.
~Idarubicin
One of the reasons for this is that by talking, you're providing your opponents with ammunition to shoot you with. A couple of times now IBM lawyers have presented the judge with public statements by Darl McBride to support their own case.
Darl just can't keep stop talking. I can understand why - he's got his company share price to promote - but making detailed public statements about ongoing court cases has and will continue to bite him on the ass.
If he had half a brain, Darl would let his lawyers do the talking. That's what they are paid for.
...until I see or hear it come from someone who isn't Daniel Lyons. That guy has consistently been on about how "Linux-loving crunchies" should "wake up" because "these guys in Utah are no dummies"... "What SCO wants, SCO gets"... "SCO is on to something"... etc., etc., ad infinitum... As far as I know he has only once briefly entertained the possibility that SCO might be anything but a bunch of shining, white knights, and as far as I'm concerned his copy is of absolutely no value. Unless, that is, you have caged birds or want for toilet paper.
Making the world a better place, one psychotic episode at a time.
Barratry, fraud, libel -- there are a few terms for what new-SCO likes to pull.
What Darl and his crack pipe forget, as per usual, is that AIX5L is AIX + Linux compatability. Monterey was specifically related to an x86 port of AIX, which as far as I know was never done.
I seriously, seriously doubt that IBM's lawyers allowed AIX5L to be released without addressing the engineer's notes about any IP issues. It's perfectly normal to flag potential issues to management, and hardly a "smoking gun."
Anyone who has ever dealt with IBM's legal team knows damn well they cover all their bases. If someone mentioned the possibility of a problem, I am quite comfortable assuming IBM's lawyers followed up on it before proceeding.
Will somebody please just shoot SCO's "lawyers" already? There has been more than enough damage to the industry over their bullshit, and it's far past time for them to prove something, shut the hell up, or be arrested on barratry and worse.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.