Slashdot Mirror
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."
that the whole thing is going to disappear. But not before it drags on for a while yet and we'll probably NOT get to see McBride and others charged with any crimes (which I would *love* to see, deserved or not).
... I can dream.
Maybe he'll get caught beating his wife or something
I have a question for any legal geeks out there. Why are civil suits allowed to proceed at all without any evidence from the prosecutor? This case hasn't even begun and yet the judge has cooperated with SCO in forcing IBM to spend thousands (if not millions) of dollars, requiring huge amounts of man labor which has drug on for almost two years, and at no point did SCO provide any evidence what so ever of there charges. I understand the need for all the evidence to be brought out during the fact-finding stage, before the actual trial, but why does the fact-finding stage even proceed if the prosecutor does not have any valid evidence to provide. Burden of proof is on them, so it seems to me that they should be required to have significant evidence for their accusations from day one.
Why is it that civil cases take so much longer than criminal ones? Even the OJ Simpson criminal case finished 16 months after arrest, and people were all up in arms about how long it was dragging on, and yet this case has been going on for two years and it hasn't even go to the court room yet!
<rant>
This is the sort of tort reform that we need, reducing the burden of frivolous law suits. Not some bullshit capping of damages. By definition those are not frivolous lawsuits because the people were actually found guilty! That isn't even tort reform at all - it is just changing the penalty on some particular offences, and passing off as a tort reform bill rather than a limited-liability asbestos bill.
</rant>
But this is a serious question. There may be consequences that I have not thought of, and I am really interested in hearing why we choose to give the prosecutor so much benefit of doubt.
Nope it got some value ;)
Consider it a free access pass to the class action lawsuit for fraud that will be filed against SCO.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
The reason for the low volume is that the shares are mostly held by company insiders, such as executives and the parent company Canopy. They will likely hold for a little while longer, but when they dump it will crash all at once. This is definitely not a good stock for a company outsider to hold, since there have been signs of manipulation for at least the last year and a half.
Is it even remotely possible for SCO to stop these shenanigans and drop this case at this point and still survive as a company for any period?
Any speculations on what would happen if SCO were to actually say "Oopsey!" at this point and try to just drop the whole thing?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
But if you read all of TSG's regulatory filings, you'll see that they consistenly characterize the chances of realizing income as begin slim to none. Caveat emptor.