Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Files for Partial Summary Judgement vs SCO

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the you-look-good-in-your-legal-briefs dept.

Armchair Dissident writes "The Register is reporting that IBM has filed for partial summary judgement against SCO. Groklaw also has the story, and is saying that SCO was still offering the disputed code for download as recently as August 4 2004. If this is true, then - according to Groklaw - SCO's case must surely be scuppered. Again."

3 of 367 comments (clear)

  1. scuppered ... again? by SABME · · Score: 5, Insightful
    With all due respect to Armchair Dissident, this is the first time I'm aware that IBM has refuted all of SCO's assertions on a point-by-point basis, and called into question SCO's motives in bringing this case to trial. So it's hardly the case that SCO is "scuppered again." It's just that the wheels of justice turn slowly, in the interest of giving all parties a fair hearing.

    According to Groklaw, this is nowhere near the end of the case, since SCO still has the opportunity to rebut IBM's motion, IBM then can refute the rebuttal, etc. etc. But it may be the beginning of the end.

    The previous "scuppered again" reports from Groklaw (and other sources) are the results of developments in other trials as well as independent investigations (outside the courtroom) into the merits of SCO's claims. Based on the linux community's technical consensus (again, outside of any trial) that SCO's claims are meritless, I think we've known SCO's case was doomed all along. We're still waiting for it to play out in the courts, though, which is where it counts.

  2. Re:Even if they offer a "download" by bloggins02 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, this is not the argument given in the Request for Partial Summary Judgement (and yes, I read the whole thing, I was bored last night).

    The argument given by IBM is that SCO cannot on the one hand sue IBM for breach of contract and damage done by said breach and on the other hand knowingly continue to offer (and through advertising, tout the benefits of) the "offending" code in question.

    The key word here is knowingly. IBM claims (and I think claims correctly), that since the code (Kernel 2.4) is still available on their website after they knew about it, SCO waives their right to sue for breach of contract on the code in question.

    If the judge agrees, then game over for SCO.

  3. A text-book case. by biendamon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That logical critique of Enderle's keynote belongs in a text-book. It is systematic and devastating. Nothing I can say will do it justice, so I'll just recommend that Slashdot readers interested in logical argument construction (and deconstruction) read the piece. It's long, but well worth it.