Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Report Claims SCO Intends to Charge IBM with Fraud

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the case-building dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Now it gets interesting. According to this report, it looks as if SCO is preparing to accuse IBM of fraud, and has even opened up a web site to counter the runaway success of Groklaw. SCO's expensive attorneys Boies and Silver are apparently going to file a motion asking the court to unseal most of the documents that are currently under seal, in the hope that certain of IBM's e-mails will be seen by the outside world to tell a story about AIX, Dynix, and Project Monterey that implicates IBM in, well to be blunt, fraud. Groklaw is certain to have its own distinct view about this latest development of course."

17 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Hi... by leav · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Wasnt there a recent slashdot story saying that IBM did NOT have any sco code?

    i'm confused...

    -Leav

    --
    I own a pump action golf ball cannon. I made it myself.
  2. SCO is commiting Fraud by Omega037 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only one commiting fraud here is SCO. They are creating fraudulent lawsuits for no reason but to annoy IBM. Pretty soon SCO is gonna sue for wrongful death because IBM killed their company. I mean seriously, doesn't this kind of suit start to border on defamation? Shouldn't IBM have the ability to sue SCO for damages or at least to force them to stop all lawsuits?

  3. arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    i am wondering why the usa courts and judges dont stop this foolishness already? i mean sco is saying something for some years now and they fail to come up with proof? so how come this case hasnt been dismissed by now?

    on the other hand the judges dont end this shit if sco cant prove stuff and cant provide basic hints to their case.

    now here is what i dont understand. its either the us.a legal system that is completely rotten that u can make fals claims and accusations for several years without any proof or evidence, or there has to be something to sco's case actually, and the judges arent sure either, and ibm has something to hide too, no matter if its some shit that they did to linux, or whether its just their aix/dynix/whatever code they messedup and mixed with sco stuff...

    cany anybody actually enlighten me? is it the us.a legal system that is totally crap and unfair/illegal or does sco actually have some claims that at least tackle ibm/aix/dynix, even if not directly linux ...

    why dont the judges demand real shit by now, and why dont they hurry up the whole situation? why is this taking ages and not going anywhere soon? fuck, i dont understand this at all... the judges should be really embarrassed and blushing by now.... no matter if its the one or the other way....

    thanks.

    1. Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sure this is quite cut and dry to users of Linux but to laymen like myself and the judge in this case SCO has enough to go forward. That doesn't mean they'll win but I'd personally like to hear more. In every history of Linux I've read including The Cathedral and the Bazaar it's been explained to me that Linux came out of Unix. That alone leads me to believe that there is some Unix source in the Linux kernel. Please do not mod me down; I'm simply trying to answer the parent's question by explaining it from an outsider's view.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
  4. Roll mouse over timeline icons... by YetAnotherName · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...to see a summary of each document.

    Doesn't work with either browser I have installed right now. For a company whose motto is The Power of Unix, apparently you need to run IE6 on Windows to actually use their website.

  5. It's simple. by eddy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The SCOX crackheads are frustrated. They've been instructed not to embellish their case in the media. That's frustrating for someone like Darl, whose wet dream it is to mouth off at every opportunity.

    So SCOX do what they always do, they blame everyone else of doing the things they are in fact doing themselves. For instance, they'll claim that IBM (via Groklaw) is misrepresenting the case. Of course, the only people continuously misrepresenting the case(s) are SCOX insiders and their paided shills (the Endrools and Didiots of the world).

    I mean, how many times have we read Darl and Blake talking about the eV1L lUnix in the press? Then in the filings they'll say "this isn't about linux". Or the other way around. It depends on whichever would look the best for them at that particular point.

    There'll be a reckoning for you when this is over, Darl.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
  6. Not hard to fig. out the origin of theSCO donation by catwh0re · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Another step in the art of legal red tape.

    With rumours of the SCO donation coming from Microsoft, I would not be surprised in the least to discover that MS is giving the orders on this one.
    The goal of all this is to scare users away from open source software, as they might end up in an expensive court battle. However in the end, when IBM do eventually flatten this out, it's only going to create the legal president to make short work of future challenges to related software projects.

  7. Not suprising if donations are coming from MS by Savet+Hegar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since MS can't seem to get Longhorn out the door in a reasonable timeframe, they need to do whatever they can to stop corporations from adopting Linux on the desktop.

    Everyone keeps asking how SCO thinks they can win. I don't think they ever planned on winning. As long as they can create enough FUD until Longhorn gets out the door, Microsoft's investment paid off. Not to mention Darl's pockets are probably getting pretty full. I don't care if they don't make $1 in SCO Source licenses....SCO can keep paying Darl's salary until the company is bankrupt.

    --
    Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
  8. What legal difference does it make ? by richg74 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    So the story is that SCO is going to ask the court to unseal some of the evidence to show that IBM has been naughty and committed fraud.

    IANAL, but I don't think this would have any effect on the outcome of the legal proceeding at all. Evidence is evidence, whether it's under seal or not.

    It seems to me that this is just another example of SCO's lack of real interest in the lawsuit as a legal proceeding. Their real interest seems to be flogging their story through their paid shills and credulous members of the press. The only consistent thread in their legal filings seems to be a desire to drag the case out as long as possible.

    Can you say "pump and dump"?

  9. Re:Working link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Am I the only one who wonders, after reading this, whether Ms. O'Gara is capable of writing a coherent English sentence without massive editing? Just a couble of the curiously-worded tidbits that caught my eye:

    Supposedly sometime in the first half of 2000 IBM made a course correction to Linux and way from Monterey, which was the IBM-SCO-Intel initiative to move AIX to the Itanium, a project that Sequent and Dynix ultimately got bolted on to too.

    ... with due reverence for Cravath, Swaine's abilities to move the ball even you're look plum at it ...

    In fact, given the sloppy writing throughout the piece, I find it hard to believe this columnist managed to survive anything higher than freshman-year English, let alone to take anything she says seriously. Or am I being too picky?

    -H

  10. Argh shit, where's my "Edit" button? by Tonik,+the · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok so I go to http://www.caldera.com/ibmlawsuit/ and see the two rows of icons titled "2003" and "2004", with a comment: "Roll mouse over timeline icons to see summary of each document. Click on icon to view document."

    I hover the mouse over the icons, but wtf? Nothing happens? I take a peek at HTML source (made easy by Firefox's excellent "view selection source" feature) and what do I see?

    These idiots think that if "alt=" pops up a description in Internet Explorer, then so it does in other browsers. (No it does not, HTML standards says you need title= for that)

    Now this is the website of the company who thinks it owns Unix.

  11. Re:Can't treally blame them... by Bayleaf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it just me who finds it ironic that IBM, for whom the phrase Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt was coined for, now being portrayed as the good guys?

    --
    I might not be a wit, but at least I am more than half way there.
  12. Losing Streak Recently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "Boies is one of the best litigators in the country."

    Hmmm he lost the Gore recount case in Florida. Before that he did poorly in the Microsoft federal monopoly case. Now hes losing in the SCO case.

    Seems like one of the worst litigators in the country if you ask me.

    1. Re:Losing Streak Recently? by StormReaver · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Before that he did poorly in the Microsoft federal monopoly case."

      Actually, Boies enjoyed a slam-dunk victory against Microsoft in Microsoft's antitrust case. He won nearly every single argument he made. It was the judge hearing the case, who found Microsoft guilty on most counts, that bungled the case and turned the Boies victory into a resounding loss.

      Microsoft lost every legal battle, but won the war on a technicality.

  13. Cheerleading Against SCO by tabdelgawad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On almost every topic that's discussed on Slashdot, the comments will generally reflect opposing points of view. Even Microsoft, Real, Spammers, and the anti-Apple crowd get a hearing, notwithstanding that opinions are skewed against them 99:1.

    Except in the case of SCO. Here, the comments are 100:0. There is no discussion, only exhortations to the faithful, followed by a large chorus of 'Amen', all modded +5. Visiting the site that's supposed to provide serious legal background, Groklaw, is like visiting a very learned religious site inquiring about the existense of God: long, incomprehensible, philosophical discussions invariably concluding that God indeed exists based on incontrovertible evidence, that all doubters' motives are suspect, and that they'll probably all burn in Hell anyway.

    I'm writing this comment from frustration. Not because I want SCO to win (my homebrew server is running Linux, after all), but because I want to be informed. I want to get a somewhat balanced view generated from opposing opinions. I don't really know what to suggest. Maybe mods shouldn't be so quick to tag any vaguely pro-SCO comments as trolls? Are there even any pro-SCO comments to begin with?! Maybe a Slashdot Interview with a SCO rep?

    If SCO wins in any of its legal claims, I don't want to sit there blaming the stupidy of the US justice system and impugning the motives of the presiding judge. I want to know where such a SCO victory could come from. I can't be the only one who believes that there are at least two sides to every issue, even if they're not equally reasonable.

    OK. Enough of this 'I want' 'I don't want' 'I want' post. Let the flames begin, if this even gets noticed!

    --
    Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    1. Re:Cheerleading Against SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm a non-linux advocate (don't run it, don't care.) I am interested in keeping up with technology so I poke around of various sites, including slashdot. But I'm more interested in legal disputes. Since this is such a public one it has drawn my attention.

      I think the thing is that if you take the time to read the legal docs (I've read most of them) you'll find that SCOX's claims are patently ridiculous. They just don't have a case, it's all built on bluff and bluster. I've seen the post here and on groklaw saying "let's give these guys a chance" but SCOX has had many chances to back up their talk with proof, yet had come up with zip, zero, nada. Remember that that this has been going on for well over a year. At first there was a real question about whether SCOX had a case, now their claims have been exaustivly examined and it is well established that they don't. It seems entirely obvious to even the casual observer (like me) that the motivation for bringing this case was something other than victory on it's merits. A pump and dump stock scam, an attempt to be bought out, a MS paid for smear attempt or just plain old blackmail seem to be leading candidates.

      So posts that seek to legitimize SCOX's legal case or treat it like it is legitimate are going to reap scorn because there just isn't any legitimacy in it. If their case did have any merit you would probably see more actual discussion about it here and on Groklaw. But the time for taking it seriously is over. It's bogus, so all you see is cheerleading. Yes, like real cheering, it's somewhat pointless, but fun anyway.

      True, there may be evidence that we don't know about or future developments. Rest assured that if anything comes up that is legitimate it will be taken seriously.

  14. Re:Can't treally blame them... by Feztaa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's a totally different situation than you describe, though.

    yes, profitting off other people's work is the nature of capitalism. BUT, in a healthy capitalistic society, people are paid for their work. SCO is not trying to profit off the work of it's employees, it's trying to profit off the work of others, without paying them. Even that is ok sometimes (eg, redhat is allowed to make money selling the work of the linux kernel team), but SCO is trying to invalidate the GPL, steal ownership of the work from the people they haven't paid, and then make a profit off of it.