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."

52 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. timing? by Coneasfast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Judge astonished by SCO's lack of evidence against IBM

    in other news, i'm astonished by the delay in reaction! didn't we all know this, hmm, i don't know, the day of $699?

    --
    Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    1. Re:timing? by superpulpsicle · · Score: 5, Funny

      In other news, the court transcript has been revealed.

      SCO: IBM did it.

      Judge: IBM did what?

      SCO: They stole our code.

      Judge: Evidence Exhibit A?

      SCO: My dog ate it.

      Judge: IBM do you have anything to propose?

      IBM: Can I buy all of you lunch?

      Judge: Case closed.

    2. Re:timing? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
  2. the real surprise by marika · · Score: 4, Informative

    The real surprise is that their shares are not going down faster. It annoys me.

    --
    This is totally insecure, but very convenient.
    1. Re:the real surprise by GigsVT · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look how thin the trading is. This is a stock that is well into penny stock land, volume wise. The only thing keeping the price up is that the people who have been suckered into buying SCOX haven't bailed out yet, waiting for a miracle.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:the real surprise by pete6677 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  3. Does it mean by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 5, Funny

    That my Linux license is worthless?

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
    1. Re:Does it mean by SlayerofGods · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
  4. Cue Nelson Munz by 93,000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ha-ha!

  5. Yeah, like Louis in Casablanca by The+I+Shing · · Score: 4, Funny

    Everyone's reaction sounds like Louis in Casablanca... "I'm shocked... shocked to find no evidence to support SCO's case!"

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
  6. I firmly believe by robslimo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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).

    Maybe he'll get caught beating his wife or something ... I can dream.

  7. Just another smoke and mirror generator from MS by JPyObjC+Dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lets face it. Some people can't see the truth.

    Microsoft knows that the bleeding will not stop, they just are putting duct tape (SCO lawsuite) to prevent a flow of their customer base. It gives them a chance to `change their strategies`.

    [: Only Sheeps Avoid the FireFox :]

  8. Some Implications of Judge Kimball's Ruling by anandpur · · Score: 4, Informative

    Implications/Postmortem report at Groklaw
    Attorney Reactions to the Kimball Order

  9. Here's what sad... by GPLDAN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People made money on what is clearly a pump and dump scam. Go to Yahoo finance, and put SCO in and look at the 2 year graph. People were fooled, there was no case, no evidence, no nothing. This was just Darl being instructed to attack through indirect VC funding, and my guess is he made out quite nicely. The next step is for the IRS and the SEC along with the Justice department to jointly open an investigation regarding this conspiracy. This is no different than organized crime running boiler room pump and dump, it just pretended to be legit.

    1. Re:Here's what sad... by fatboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      The ticker symbol is SCOX

      --
      --fatboy
    2. Re:Here's what sad... by Harlow_B_Ashur · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Here's what sad... by sfjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The next step is for the IRS and the SEC along with the Justice department to jointly open an investigation regarding this conspiracy.

      In a Republican-controlled government? Never happen.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    4. Re:Here's what sad... by morcheeba · · Score: 2, Funny

      and I thought you were kidding because I immediately read the "S" as "Sucks" and then read the rest of the letters together. But, nope, SCOX is the right symbol.

  10. Why do cases procede without evidence? by pavon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Why do cases procede without evidence? by Soko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      #include std_IANAL.h

      IF you RTFA, you would see that Judge Kimball is trying to have this case sealed tight at it's end. He doesn't want SCO turning into a legal zombie and winning a chance at appeal, even though it's really dead. He wants them in a hermetically sealed coffin and thrown into the bowels of the earth.

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    2. Re:Why do cases procede without evidence? by KiltedKnight · · Score: 4, Informative
      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!

      There's a couple of major differences between civil and criminal cases.

      1. Jury size
        • Criminal: 12 + alternates
        • Civil: 6 (8?) + alternates
      2. Evidence requirements
        • Criminal: very stringent; must be clear-cut
        • Civil: not quite as stringent; can have minor doubts; plaintiff only needs a preponderance of evidence
      3. Verdict requirements
        • Criminal: Jury must be unanimous
        • Civil: 2/3 majority of the Jury

      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
    3. Re:Why do cases procede without evidence? by Eslyjah · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're confusing your terms. I know you're not a legal geek yourself, so I'm not flaming. Just for educational purposes...

      Why are civil suits allowed to proceed at all without any evidence from the prosecutor?

      Civil suits don't have prosecutors, they have plaintiffs.

      [A]t no point did SCO provide any evidence what so ever of there charges.

      They did not provide evidence for their claims.

      By definition those are not frivolous lawsuits because the people were actually found guilty!

      They would be found liable, not guilty.

      With regard to your rant, no one is proposing to cap damages. The Administration has proposed capping non-economic damages, which is just one type of award. This would mean that if you were injured, and you were forever unable to return to work, you would still be able to claim damages for your salary for the number of years you had left before retirement, plus any medical bills you incurred, plus extra for legal fees. It would just cap awards beyond those economic damages.

      With regard to your original question, I think the sibling has it right--the Judge doesn't want this case to be reopened on appeal.

      Oh yeah, IANALBIAMTO.

    4. Re:Why do cases procede without evidence? by Homology · · Score: 2, Informative
      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?

      I'll think that you'll get much better informed answers elsewhere. The major focus of Slashdot is to sell advertisement, and this is very evident in the tabloid style stories. Groklaw.net quite simply wants to inform and have thoughtful threads,

    5. Re:Why do cases procede without evidence? by cfulmer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First of all, it's 'Plaintiff,' not prosecutor.

      As a policy matter, we've decided that it should be pretty easy to sue somebody -- as long as you can say what you think the other side did wrong, you can get through the door. Once you've gotten through the door, you get the legal power to find stuff out by subpoenaing information, questioning the other side, etc.... That's where things are right now. In general, once this process called 'discovery' has finished, you'd better have something. If you don't have enough information that would allow a jury to conceivably find for you, you're finished. In fact, if the judge determines that there was never anything to your case all along and you were just trying to harass the other side, he can impose sanctions.

      Sanctions for SCO would probably be futile, though -- they're betting the farm on this case. If they lose, there won't be anything left to take.

      Also, previous poster was wrong -- in a civil trial in federal court, jury decisions must be unanimous unless the parties agree otherwise. FRCP 48.

      My guess is that discovery will continue for a while, SCO will try to stretch it out by continually asking for more or complaining that IBM isn't being forthcoming enough. Eventually, discovery will close and the judge will find that no jury would be able to find for SCO, and the case will be closed. SCO will appeal, but the appeals court won't hear it and that will be the end.

    6. Re:Why do cases procede without evidence? by n8ur · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another important reason is that there's a constitutional right to a speedy criminal trial. Criminal matters take priority over civil ones as a result.

      Civil cases are often have more complex evidence to deal with (OJ notwithstanding) so they tend to have a longer schedule. Add to that getting bumped by the criminal docket, and you can see how civil cases take longer.

    7. Re:Why do cases procede without evidence? by Yankel · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you misplaced your tags:

      <body>
      <rant>

      three screens of text

      </rant>
      </body>

      --
      --- Dan
    8. Re:Why do cases procede without evidence? by iabervon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Civil suits are never dismissed by judges without a motion by one side or the other. This case hasn't been dismissed because IBM hasn't moved to dismiss. IBM could say that they want the case over, and SCO would have to present some argument against it, which would have to include some sort of evidence of something. On the other hand, this would lead to the case being dismissed without prejudice (since IBM hasn't demonstrated that SCO doesn't have a case, simply that SCO hasn't presented a case), so SCO (or SCO's successor in some interests) could refile the case later.

      Essentially, if the case were terminated at this point, the issue wouldn't be resolved. IBM doesn't want the issue remaining to be fodder for FUD in the future. SCO is obviously not going to drop it. The case can't end until someone in it complains, and that hasn't happened.

  11. Yeah, well.. by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is exactly what Groklaw has been saying all along, and they have commentary on the news as well."

    It's called due process, and it's something I find vastly amusing.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  12. Standard SCO stock oscillation maneuver by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Betcha SCO is overjoyed. For real! Here's what'll happen next.

    Upon hearing the bad news, SCO's stock will begin to tank. Again. And once it gets low enough, SCO-friendly folks will buy a pile of it.

    And then Darl will release some outlandish press release, saying that they own the rights to American Cheese or the number 6, and the stock will rise again. After all, they just can't make these claims without something up their sleeve, can they? Three days later, everybody sells. And then waits for the next bit of tangy pseudo-bad-news-for-SCO goodness.

    What I want to know is when some judge will finally step in and put and end to this fraud.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Standard SCO stock oscillation maneuver by sconeu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, Darl may just shut up.

      Judge Kimball took official judicial note of the difference between their press releases and their statements in court.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  13. Re:DUPE by dubdays · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm not sure. Could this be it?

  14. Re:Can't we go 24 hrs at least by prockcore · · Score: 4, Funny

    How fucking stupid does one have to be as an editor to dupe the same story albeit different articles in a 24 hr period....

    About as stupid as you are for duping a comment made 10 minutes earlier in this same thread.

    Can't you be bothered to read the comments before posting?

  15. Dupe by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Slashdot Online has an article up today entitled 'Readers astonished by Slashdot's repost of SCO's lack of evidence against IBM'. From the article:

  16. Re:DUPE by MarkGriz · · Score: 5, Funny
    "I don't care if it ref's a previous atricle, it's still enough of a dupe to not be on the front page."

    Apparently, you didn't get the memo.
    In an effort to quell the angry masses who insist on yelling "DUPE", Slashdot editors will prepend
    "In a follow-up to yesterday's story," to every story.

    Looks like it is having a minimal effect however.
    --
    Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  17. And in more SCO news... by All+Names+Have+Been · · Score: 5, Funny

    The company I work for used to do a lot of business with SCO, and we still get holiday cards and whatnot from them from time to time. This past Christmas, we get a nice generic corporate Happy Holidays!-type thing from them. Except get this -

    It came postage due.

    I kid you not. It's hanging on the wall.

  18. Re:Shock! by cooley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was just thinking that I feel pretty old now. Anybody else been geeky long enough to remember when IBM was the big bad bully?

    --
    Just then the floating disembodied head of Colonel Sanders started yelling Everything You Know Is Wrong!-Weird Al
  19. Is simply dropping the case even an option for SCO by mark-t · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Title says it all...

    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?

  20. Re:Is simply dropping the case even an option for by (H)elix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    They can drop their case, but IBM already did a full retaliatory patent based counter strike. If they drop, they have nothing to negotiate with later... Not that they stand much of a chance anyhow. (and not that it matters, the SCOX execs have already done a huge pump and dump and it looks like they got away with it)

  21. Where's the case?!? by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Despite their public pronouncements, SCO's case against IBM seems to have evaporated down to a claim that IBM continued to distribute AIX after SCO revoked their Unix license. To which IBM is replying "You had no right to revoke our Unix license, you morons!" Did SCO actually have legitimate grounds for revoking the license, or is SCO going to get bitchslapped by the judge for revoking a license they had no right to revoke? It's beginning to look like SCO's legal strategy was concocted by an 8 year old kid! Doesn't making claims in press releases that cannot be substantiated in court invoke the ire of the SEC? SCO executives appear to be on the express train to federal prison. They made ridiculous unsubstatiated claims, and now they can't back down from those claims, because doing so would only be used as evidence that the whole thing was an ill-conceived "pump-and-dump" scheme in the first place! McBride's best case scenario now is that he drags the whole thing out long enough so that he dies before he gets sent to prison...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  22. Pattern matching software... by raddan · · Score: 2, Funny
    At its SCO Forum event in August 2003, for example, the company said that using pattern recognition matching technology it had identified 1.1 million lines of code from 1,549 files of derivative works that had been donated to Linux by Unix licensees.

    In other news, SCO will be moving forward using its pattern-matching software to identify travellers' faces during airport screening...

  23. Here, because IBM doesn't want the case to end YET by Rimbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You ever see any action movies? Usually the movies will have some scene where the chief good guy/bad guy/bad guy's Top Thug will get challenged by some stupid thug/underling/rent-a-cop, usually spurned on by alcohol/his friends/basic stupidity. We then get treated to a scene where the principal character goes above and beyond what is necessary to deal with the situation. They go further than they need, to demonstrate to other minor characters and to the audience: This person is a badass.

    IBM is betting the farm on Linux. This is a new business model if you're younger than about 40 years old; to IBM, free software that sells the service and equipment is how they got big in the first place.

    SCO unwittingly played right into IBM's hands. IBM waited for a good six months until SCO had made a ton of public statements (and Groklaw had started really building up a database -- "open-source legal" if you will -- that helped them in this regard). Then, IBM brought forth the counterclaims.

    The counterclaims are not geared towards destroying SCO, but they will have that effect. The counterclaims are designed so that IBM can use this opportunity to create a substantive legal precedent for the new license that represents the old business model.

    (Editorial comment: It's worth noting that the GPL and FSF are essentially reactionary; Stallman's not so much trying to create a New World Order as to restore the way things were back in the good old days. That's why I say that this new license represents IBM's old business model.)

    What's happened with Wednesday's ruling is that IBM is more than they dreamed to get from this case: Not only is the judge clearly siding with IBM, but the judge is so pissed off with SCO that he will now guide the case towards a substantive legal precedent that not only rescues Linux developers and users from this current legal threat, but will stand the test of appeals and time.

    Much as fair-use advocates go back to the Sony vs. MPAA suit, Linux businessmen in the future will go back to this lawsuit to show why it's perfectly sound and justifiable to use Linux without any worry. This is our Betamax suit.

    SCO (and if you follow the money, Microsoft) really, really shot themselves in the ass with this lawsuit. In attempting to extort money from IBM and give them trouble, they ended up giving IBM the opportunity to get exactly what they wanted. The more that lawyers like Groklaw's marbux and others in the media look at the ruling, the more they realize that not only is SCO about to be destroyed, but Linux and the GPL will soon be ironclad.

    When this court case is done, Linux and the GPL will be bulletproof.

    That's why this particular frivolous lawsuit is taking so long: Once IBM made those counterclaims, it no longer became frivolous. And the price for the frivolity will be dire not just to SCO, but to every company that supported them.

    Over the past year every company remotely connected with SCO has done what they can to distance themselves from them. EV1 apologized for buying Linux licenses. Another company that won Linux licenses as part of a settlement deal had to go on the public record denying that they paid for those licenses. Baystar, the company that put money into SCO on Microsoft's recommendation, backed out and asked for its money back.

    Doesn't sound very frivolous any more, does it?

  24. Re:DUPE by thejuggler · · Score: 3, Funny

    Even though there is ample evidence of this story being a Dupe, SCO's lawyers will claim it is their original story and claim Slashdot is violating their copyrights to the story.

  25. Re:Is simply dropping the case even an option for by dabadab · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  26. Re:No one goes after boiler rooms by doublem · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well of COURSE your vote was counted. You're not from Ohio

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  27. Re:In Solidarity With The Rest Of The /. Morons... by Wavicle · · Score: 2, Informative

    I can't wait to see how Rob Enderle and Maureen O'Gara and Laura Didio are gonna spin this one in the trade press...

    Read and laugh: http://www.linuxbusinessweek.com/story/48199.htm.

    --
    Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
    Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
  28. Re:All I can say is... by Wavicle · · Score: 2, Funny

    Personally, I'm surprised at the dupe.

    You must be new here.

    --
    Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
    Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
  29. Re:BFD by fishbowl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "So why the hell is this case STILL dragging on?"

    SCO have rights, IBM have rights, and the People have rights, and all those rights must be meticulously preserved, especially the right to due process of law. You know SCO have no case. I know SCO have no case. IBM know it. Judge Kimball knows it. But if he rules with prejudice, the case will have simple grounds for appeal, because rights to due process of law will have been abridged. IBM do not want this, and neither does Judge Kimball. Do you want the current case to run its course and be the last word on the subject, or do you want it to drag on for years and years in appeals because Judge Kimball was careless?

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  30. Re:about time... by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Interesting


    "I sure hope IBM sues SCO for Libel, slander, and defamation of character."

    If Judge Kimball would go a bit further, he could already hold SCO liable, on behalf of the People, for damages to IBM's reputation, in addition to requesting that the attorneys for SCO be disbarred and their witnesses charged with perjury.

    They have made false representations regarding evidence, under oath, in a Federal court, intentionally to the detriment of the reputation of a party to their lawsuit.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  31. Re:dupe? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  32. Re:Shock! by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > I was just thinking that I feel pretty old now.
    > Anybody else been geeky long enough to remember
    > when IBM was the big bad bully?

    Oh don't worry. They will be again some day.


    No. It's probably going to be google. It's not the obvious villains one must be wary of. It's those villains that act the part of ally who should worry you more.

    Once the founders of Google are dead, some new executive type will come in and see the potential for profit. Then, presto-chango, you've got the internet's version of Walmart. Starting out as the good guy. Change of leadership. The descent into evil.

    --
    Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
  33. You must be new around here by shanen · · Score: 2, Informative
    Well, you got replies, but no one seems to have answered your question very directly. The ^H is used to create a kind of visible "Freudian slip", usually as a kind of joke. Usually there is a recognizable word before the string of ^H pseudo-characters, so the idea is that the writer made a mistake, backspaced over it, and finally corrected it with the next word. Of course, the real intent is usually to make a joke by contrasting the "mistaken" word to some more polite or diplomatic expression.

    The replies you got mostly addressed the historical usage, though they don't talk about the really ancient days when you did it yourself. I actually think the first <Backspace> keys may have simply been hardware shortcuts for ^H.

    These days in HTML you should use the strikethrough tag for the same effect, but it doesn't seem to be supported here on /. (per my limited testing).

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  34. Re:Class action for fraud by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Fortunately, that's not the way the law works. Read what you wrote. You want to punish them and make an example of them, even if they are innocent. You want a witch hunt.

    I'm not saying that the SEC shouldn't investigate. I wrote to the SEC over a year ago on this matter, urging them to look into manipulations of the stock market.

    Your wish to pervert the process of justice to go after Darl puts you on the same level as Darl, I'm afraid. Please rethink your position.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.