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.
more judges should do this and perhaps people would think before they sue
What is this word "evidence" you speak of?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=SCOX
pre-trading says it's down 5%
I'm almost beginning to think that SCO is making this whole thing up.
Until the U.S. adopts a "loser pays" court system similar to the UK, these types of exploratory frivolous lawsuits will continue.
Imagine if on the other hand SCO had to pay for IBMs entire legal defense to their frivolous lawsuit after they lost. This lawsuit never would have seen the light of day.
I'm a big tall mofo.
But they don't need to end up that way. In many cases, they should end up pretty negative towards one party. That's the basis for judgement.
All dislike is not prejudice. Some is well founded.
A little verbal smackdown won't do it. Instead if lawyers start getting disbarred for acts of senseless sophistry, lying and embezzeling. That will force a little forethought into the profession.
"Liar, liar, pants on fire!"
--
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.
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.
I think a judge has to make these sorts of remarks to withstand appeal of summary judgement. First IBM asked, and received naught. Now the Court is asking. If it receives not, then summary judgement or dismissal with prejudice becomes warrented. IANAL
Do not blast the litigants until the trial is over.
This isn't quite the same thing. The thing that Judge Jackson got in trouble for was "blasting" Microsoft in an interview outside the courtroom. He was provoked, but the things he said in that interview crossed the line. Judge Kimball is simply doing his job at this point: he's ruling on motions and actually doing SCO a favor by saying that, if they don't produce more evidence, they'll soon be finished. While this was a "blasting" of SCO, the blasting was done where it should be done: not behind the litigant's back where they couldn't reply. It was done in a ruling based on the evidence presented.
I suppose you could say that it is showing bias, but it's bias towards the truth.
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
In this case, losing the lawsuit will bankrupt the company, no matter who pays the cost. If you accept bankruptcy as inevitable, and you get all of these benefits with a frivolous lawsuit, where is the deterrent? Unless the SCO gets the royal smackdown from the SEC and a whopper shareholder lawsuit, Darl and his buddies will parachute to safety.
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
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!
I am not even a paralegal, but these seem pretty strong words to make by a judge before he has decided a motion. Sounds like starting to count down the K.O.
"What is this word "evidence" you speak of?"
Judge (in the voice of Inigo Montoya): "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."
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."
- 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
I have always believed that SCO was well aware that the merits of their case, in terms or real evidence (not just a handful of "similar" header files), was not sufficient to win in court.
Darl McBride and his minions decided to go for the gambling "long-shot" that so many litigants see as an ample victory: getting the defendant to, in a cost-benefit analysis, decide its better to settle out of court.
In SCO's case, their gamble had a nice silver lining: not only could IBM decide to settle, but in doing so (or if others believed they would do so), SCO could then easily extract miliions upon millions in licensing fees from Linux installations during and perhaps after the suit. Clearly, they tried to do this and from the numbers, failed miserably.
So, SCO put all it's money on black to get in the black, and their number is increasingly looking red which of course will put them in the red, and effectively out of business.
That's what happens when you gamble without a whit of common sense.
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.