Judge in SCO Case Notes Lack of Evidence
In a follow-up to yesterday's story, Allen Zadr writes "Computer Business Online has an article up today entitled 'Judge astonished by SCO's lack of evidence against IBM'. From the article: "Viewed against the backdrop of SCO's plethora of public statements... it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence..." This is exactly what Groklaw has been saying all along, and they have commentary on the news as well."
The real surprise is that their shares are not going down faster. It annoys me.
This is totally insecure, but very convenient.
Implications/Postmortem report at Groklaw
Attorney Reactions to the Kimball Order
The ticker symbol is SCOX
--fatboy
There's a couple of major differences between civil and criminal cases.
Things carry on longer in civil suits during the trial phase, but don't frequently take as long in the jury deliberations because of the differences in requirements. You can present most anything you think might help your case in the civil court. In the criminal court, if it's irrelevant or has too many doubts, you don't want to bring it forward, because it makes the prosecutor look desperate.
OCO is Loco
No, SCO, as a legitimate company, is already dead. My current project is a SCO OpenUnix -> Linux migration for, perhaps, the last major customer of SCO.
Real life is overrated.
He declined IBMs motions for now because he's a professional and he knows how to craft an airtight decision that will be impossible to overturn on appeal. IBM will have further opportunity later, after discovery is complete.
Also, technically it is too early for summary judgment. That can't happen until after discovery is complete.
Read this analysis by Marbux over at Groklaw.
Note to Zonk: If you're going to be an editor, it would be nice if you actually read Slashdot. At least glance through the stories of the past week before you post submissions.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.