Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Demands Linux 2.7 Information

Posted by Zonk on from the not-so-fast dept.

dr_d_19 writes "According to Groklaw, SCO is now demanding IBM to turn over 'all documents concerning IBM's contributions to the Linux 2.7 kernel, including development work'. Of course, there is no 2.7 kernel and no plans at all to create one."

7 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Okay . . . by failure-man · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SCO does not, and has never had a firm grip on reality. This is news?

  2. Maybe not as a big a deal as the article says? by conJunk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Sure, it's funny. SCO is caught looking like fools. Ha ha. But maybe not such a big deal.

    Document requests in discovery are governed by Rule 34. One of the provisions of this rule is that the respondant has 30 days to answer the document request.

    IBM will say "sorry, we don't have any of the documents you've requested because they don't exist"

    Sure SCO looks bad, but i don't think this is a case of everybody "laughing so hard we won't be able to hear you if you mumble" as TFA suggests.

  3. Still damaging by Vlijmen+Fileer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To most of us, SCO has been purely laughable for a long time already.
    But as long as it can stay in the news, it will keep damaging Linux's reputation; other pepole keep hearing the general news of "Linux being under attack".
    The big question, and what we should hope for is: when will SCO's whining /ever/ stop?

  4. Re:But when it comes out... by failure-man · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No court on earth would ever buy that. Judges do understand the fact that reality changes over time.

    (Although, if SCO does push the "Linux 2.7" thing, which they may be stupid and/or high enough to do, it would be some nice smartassitude to jump a version number to piss them off.)

  5. coupla thoughts by Quadraginta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IANAL, but I've seen the inside of the Courtroom, alas.

    First of all, the Court generally allows very wide latitude in discovery, certainly including such wild speculative fishing trips as this one. The principle is that the parties should have maximal access to any information that could even conceivably help their case. Not just in the interests of justice, that is, so that the parties can make the best case they can, but also in the interests of finality. You don't want the loser appealing the judgment or otherwise coming back to Court again because they can argue some sliver or other of information wasn't available, and if it had been it might've made all the difference, blah blah blah. You want people to believe the Court gave the losing party every conceivable imaginable chance to make their case -- and they just couldn't.

    IBM knows this, too, of course, and that is why they cooperate in the discovery, and why they won't settle. They want the SCO lawyers to make the very best case that can possible be made, so that after SCO loses, this issue is dead, dead, dead and no one will even think about bringing another case like it ever again, and no Court will ever entertain it. IBM does not hire stupid lawyers.

  6. Re:So embarassing by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, but this doesn't make America great at all. Things that were done in the distant past are not a reason to respect something or someone today. Yes, America's founders were wise men with great ideas, but guess what? That was over 225 years ago. Rome had some great achievements too, but you don't see anyone talking about how great the empire of Rome is now do you? Or what about the Greeks? They sure did some amazing things too, several thousand years ago.

    What's important today is what America is doing today. What great things has America done recently (as in the last 10 years; usually people want to talk about WWII for some reason, which was over long before they were born)? As an American, I can't think of a whole lot.

  7. Re:More like... by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 4, Insightful
    SCO HAS demanded access to information/code that a developer (who may have existed) may have written on a computer that may not have been uploaded to a server because it may have been in a "sandbox" and THAT code may be the code necessary for SCO to "prove" its case.
    Because maybe that maybe developer may have done something that may not have been allowed under a contract that may have covered what that maybe developer may have done on a machine that might have existed, in a sandbox that might have existed, that may not have any other record.

    You know, at times, you almost have to feel some sympathy for the lawyers and judges trying to cypher this crap out. I mean, Jesus Christ, that nearly made my head explode.

    --

    I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.