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.
Let's wait till tomorrow... seems the stockmarket hasn't caught up yet :)
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
....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.
I think that sums it all up.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
One can only wonder what kind of good news SCO can/will make out of this... So far they've been very able to turn bad news into good news with lame excuses.
If "the U.S. adopts a 'loser pays' court system similar to the UK" small parties can be bullied into submission even easier : [company to the suing private person] "I've got more money than you, and you will be paying my expenses too, so who do you think will win, and who will be left with a debth he will not be able to pay of for the rest of his life ?"
:-)
Actually, both systems have their ups and downs
I think IBM can make a good case for a appeal on discovery to the 10th Circuit based on this ruling. They can even use the judgement to strengthen the case against this fishing expedition.
Got Code?
In a loser pay system, wouldn't it be possible for SCO to spend all they have, lose the case and simply close shop?
They're dead anyway. Might as well go out with a bang so they will be remembered in Econ text books on what a last ditch effort for funding should be.
Grump
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
It seems the judge is very angry with SCO at this point but is also trying to remain impartial. It is suprising that in recent days, SCO stock has seen a rally. Why is this?
You can sue for legal costs. My mother's accounting firm is doing so with the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency for dragging on a fraud investigation for years, when there was no fraud to begin with.
But apparantly, some judges are taking some action against frivolous lawsuits already.
Web Design Tips
It is pretty standard for both complaints and cross-complaints to include a prayer to award costs. SCO's complaint and IBM's response both did that. Even if IBM had no cross-claims, after winning on the merits of the current suit, they could use a malicious prosecution suit to recover their costs.
I don't know why they're doing this, but I've tended to agree with others and wonder if:
(a) SCO started this because they thought they could get IBM to buy them, making all of the SCO executives rich, but then
(b) when IBM clearly signalled it wasn't going to fall for that old trick, SCO had to keep making a strong public appearance of a credible case in order to avoid getting sued -- or worse, SCO executives jailed by the SEC for some form of stock fraud. I.e., if they lose to IBM in a fair trial the executives can claim they honestly thought they had a case. If they simply give up and admit they never had a case, then what kind of legal attacks from shareholders or the SEC might they they open themselves up to? At this point, mayby Darl is just trying to avoid personal liability and an assault on his own personal assets.
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
Wrong. It will punish those who may actually have a ligit case, but could not win because of a technicality or some other reason. If the suit is found frivolous, there's nothing right now to stop IBM from suing SCO to recover legal fees. Lawyers don't typicially take a case they are pretty sure they will lose.
Not all cases lost are frivolous, and that's the major flaw in your arguement. (Lets also remember that this would apply to the state as well...so it might chill cases against criminals.)
Sure they can try. But that would be an in the form of an appeal to the Federal Appeals Court. Which, btw, is not an easy task. You kinda of get an idea of Judge Kimball's attitudes when you read his legal briefs. And from the way he writes and thinks, he is a pretty tough judge. I would be intriqued to find out how many of his cases have been reversed on the appeals level. Also, when their is so much evidence to support the censor, I wouldn't worry. If there was a whole bunch of evidence, then unfair bias could be alleged, but not when SCO keeps saying there is a mountain when there isn't. Besides, this could actually be seen as an attempt to over SCO the chance to recover their case. By "warning" SCO to come up with something substantial on which the basis of their claims lie, the Court is allowing SCO the chance to actually get it "day in court." If SCO had been playing fair the entire time, SCO provided sufficient evidence and the evidence supported the claims, then I could see the case being moved or getting started up in another venue. But you have to remember, Utah is home to SCO. So finding a better home might be a little difficult.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
By allowing this case to proceed to a final conclusion he's making sure it will be SCO's final resting place; the coffin will be nailed, screwed, glued and welded shut. IBM's countersuit for expenses will be swift and merciless.
John
....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.
This is pretty much beside the point, but I read that statement carefully, and I'm not sure it actually means anything. How do you "create a disputed fact"? How do you create any fact, for that matter?
I understand and agree with the point, but the wording is weird. Maybe the judge was misquoted.
Evil is the money of root.
Actually that's probably closer to the truth than you care to admit. Most Judges take great delight in telling the government where to get off.
Ahh the joys of a decent (mostly) independent legal system.
CJC
Eh? Golden goose? Federal judges get a salary whether they hear one course or a thousand.
Judge Kimball for reasons that appear clear, wants to see this thing go to trial. My suspicion is that he wants to make sure SCO has been given every reasonable chance to present their evidence and have it heard. This would leave them little or nothing to appeal on if (when) things don't go their way. He doesn't want to get reversed and probably won't given how careful he's been so far.
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
How does the UK system keep me from going broke when $GIANT_CORP sues me for no reason and I lose because, despite being right, I can't afford to mount a good defense against their team of lawyers? I get to pay for their lawyers in addition to my own fees, even though I did nothing wrong?* I think it should be more like "if you sue someone _and lose_, then you pay" kind of thing, with some kind of limit for david-and-goliath cases.
* don't know how it is in the UK, but here, being right does not guarantee a victory in court.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Unfortunately the US doesn't recognise the ICC, let alone an international civil court. But there is a simple answer! They can sue in the courts of the sort of country that really appreciates the kind of thing that SCO and co. bring to the table, and has the kind of lawyers and officials that really understand the problems of people like McBride. North Korea, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Iran - I'm sure they'd love to host SCO vs United States of America.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Even more interesting is what this says about Darl's repeated assertions that there's compelling evidence before the court that the public just can't see. He and other SCOX execs have repeatedly told the press that their case only looks bad because we can't see all of what the court sees.
I guess he's seeing something that the Judge missed?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.