Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Slams SCO's Lack of Evidence

Posted by Zonk on from the look-before-you-leap dept.

An anonymous reader writes "News.com has reported that the federal judge overseeing the SCO Group's suit against IBM has voiced loud skepticism about SCO's case. "Viewed against the backdrop of SCO's plethora of public statements concerning IBM's and others' infringement of SCO's purported copyrights to the Unix software, it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities," said U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball." Commentary available on Groklaw as well.

8 of 317 comments (clear)

  1. Oh great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    More trouble for Linux? Go windows my friend.

  2. SCO ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    ... where the big O stands for zero!
    As for the other two letters - just add your own swear words in.

    May they die a slow death ... like BSD ???!!

  3. Re:YOU FAIL IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter

  4. Lets do a slight modification of that by Ironsides · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Until the U.S. adopts a "loser pays" court system similar to the UK, these types of exploratory frivolous lawsuits will continue.

    Replace that with "If the judge deems the lawsuit sufficiently frivilous, the plantif pays". That would be enough to deter these lawsuits. As for loser pays, if the plantif wins they are already paying something so their is no point. If the plantif loses, there lawsuit may not have been frivilous.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    1. Re:Lets do a slight modification of that by Daengbo · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      Wow. Five misspelled words and two incorrect, though different, uses of "there/threir/they're" in four sentences. That has to be a record...

      --
      Put identity in the browser.
  5. Re:wow by turbosk · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "No way! I mean, SCO has been totally honest from the start. Millions of lines of code, MIT experts and of course the code they showed at SCOForum. So you mean they lied to create FUD?? Can I get my $699 back?"

    This is really creepy when you compare it to the case for the "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" made by the Bush administration, circa winter 2003. Except in that scenario, the role of the court was played by the UN, who had no power or authority to smack down the US. Hopefully this time truth and justice will win, creating a smoking black crater in Utah.

    pax,
    fred

  6. flamebait??? by turbosk · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    WTF?? I am making a legitimate comparison/analogy, NOT baiting or trolling. The two situations are almost IDENTICAL. You've got two groups of megalomanics who are hyping trumped-up cases where there is obviously an agenda to push, and no grounds to go forward, so they're relying on Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to try and bully the masses.

    FFS!

    Make an argument to disprove me, I'm willing to listen to reason.

  7. Re:Loser should pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait
    It's subtly different; the court's assumption is that the loser will pay. In exceptional circumstances, the court can change this, but it's usually very easy to win an appeal against any costs order that doesn't result in the loser paying.

    Compare and contrast the current situation in the US; usually, you pay your own costs, but in exceptional circumstances, the loser ends up paying. If the difference is too subtle for you to comprehend, go ask the Indian who's taken over your old job; he'll be bright enough to explain it to you.