Slashdot Mirror
Judge Slams SCO's Lack of Evidence
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.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=SCOX
pre-trading says it's down 5%
The Judge is not doing what Jackson did. He is not talking to the media, he is writing this in his order. Where as Judge Jackson was having meetings with media people. So this is completely different.
SCO complained to the magistrate that they needed complete unfettered access to ALL versions of AIX and DYNIX. That is billions of lines of code.
The judge even doubts that SCO has any evidence and stated that quite bluntly in his decision.
As for efficient use of lawyer time read the history of this case. SCO has consistenly asked for and received delays. In my not so humble opinion SCO is trying to get bought out and IBM's NAZGULS are saying no we want your head on our stake.
Panic now, beat the rush!
- for IBM, defending against the US Govt: lost
- for the US Govt, against Microsoft: lost
- for Al Gore, against George Bush: lost
- for SCO, against IBM: on the way to losing
So it seems like he's lost both for and against IBM, and for and against the Government. That's pretty good!four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
YANAL, but YACS (you are correct, sir). In order for a question to get to the jury, there must be a disputed, material fact. If your complaint (as in the motion starting the lawsuit) states no claim, it can be dismissed right off, but it's safe to say that SCO has crafted a valid complaint. So now the danger to SCO is summary judgment, which is a process where one side (here, defendant IBM) makes a motion for summary judgment and the court decides whether to grant it.
Summary judgment works like this: on the basis of all the pleadings and evidence the court has so far, is there a dispute to a material fact? If not, then the undisputed material facts will form the basis for the court's ruling as a matter of law, sans jury. SCO has to create a dispute as to a material fact, and then it can get to the jury.
It sounds to me like the judge is getting impatient with SCO.
...is that there is still going to be a case. The judges statement was in response to IBM's request for a summary judgement which would have put an end to all this. The simple fact that the judge denied IBM's request means that this case is far from over.
d odges_b ullte/
TheRegister gives a more newsworthy story here:
http://www.theregister.com/2005/02/10/sco_
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
Firstly, the judge can refuse to award costs, or can award them such that the winner pays all; if a big company tries a trick like you're suggesting, a judge will probably use this flexibility. Note that under a loser pays system, the judge has to explain why they didn't award costs, or awarded them in a "winner pays" fashion.
Secondly, if you've got a strong case, you can get a good lawyer to work for you for minimal expense; typically, they demand an up-front payment of £500-£1000 (maybe as much as $2500) to touch the case, but then works in the hope of winning the case and getting a big costs award (courts normally award your standard fee schedule, plus credit-card rate interest).
The result is that anyone faced with a case they are likely to lose is going to settle. Where it's genuinely unclear, the courts revert to pay your own costs, and where you have an abusive but technically victorious litigant, they still pay everyone's costs.
I appear to have a blog. Odd.
This stock is very narrowly held, for the most part by funds playing the "lawsuit lottery". If you track the trades, they're "laddering" small-lot trades among themselves to make it look like somebody's actually interested in this pile of steaming sewage. There's been a consistent work-up early in the trading day, followed by a slideoff and then flatline in the afternoon.
It fell to $4.00 in pre-open trading, then promptly jumped up to around 4.60 at the opening bell, expect a close around 4.25 today. It's been consistently following this pattern the last coupla weeks.
It's a legal concept. In the introductory stages of the trial, which is where the trial is now, the plaintiff has to show that there is a real disupte over the facts of the case. An undisputed fact is one which both sides accept to be true, and for purposes of the case is assumed to be. A disputed fact is one which is to be decided by the trial. The judge is saying that SCO hasn't presented any information or evidence by which they can make a reasonable claim of copyright infringment.
He successfully dragged out the case for decades until it became irrelevant and DoJ gave up.
for the US Govt, against Microsoft: lost
He won the case. He was not involved in the appeal, which was still won, despite Bush administration's best efforts. But that didn't stop DoJ from settling with MS on really ridiculous terms.
for Al Gore, against George Bush: lost
Yeah, he lost when 5 republican-appointed supreme court judges outnumbered 4 democrat-appointed judges. What exactly can a lawyer do about that?
for SCO, against IBM: on the way to losing
You're kidding, right? He (or his associates) have managed to drag the case out for two years without a shred of evidence. Think about it, he is handling a case in which there is no chance of winning on merits, even the judge is saying that SCO has no evidence, and yet the case drags on. To SCO delay = win, so in that sense, he is winning.
Make no mistake, SCO has some of the best lawyers.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
1. SCO wanted a dismissal of IBM's 10th counterclaim. Flatly denied, the court says it's relevant to the main case and will be covered.
2. IBM's 10th counterclaim for a finding of non-infringement. Denied, and this one has the "SCO's shown no evidence yet" language. The only reason covered is that discovery's not done yet. The judge doesn't even use the word "deny." He says "the court cannot grant summary judgment to IBM given the posture of this case at the present time. However, IBM is free to renew or refile its motion on its Tenth Counterclaim after the close of discovery."
3. A SCO motion relevant to the 10th CC was rendered moot.
4. IBM trying to strike the motions of Sontag, et al. This one is a loss for IBM, but it's not relevant to the case itself. The judge's ruling indicates that they're relevant only at this point in regards to the recent discovery motions. They have no relevance to the actual facts of the case.
5. & 6. IBM looking for PSJ on the 8th counterclaim and SCO's breach of contract claim. Again, like the 10th, "many of the claims and counterclaims are dependent on the resolution of other claims and that judicial economy is not served in this action by entertaining dispositive motions prior to the close of discovery." No comment as to the validity of the argument.
I count there one minor loss for IBM, one minor loss for SCO, one thing ruled irrelevant, and 3 items delayed. That's a push at worst. Add in the actual text, and it's very clear SCO's in a lot of trouble unless they come up with something in the extended discovery.