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."

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

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

  8. 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.

  9. 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 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
  10. 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!
  11. 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?

  12. 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:

  13. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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?

  16. 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)

  17. 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?

  18. 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.