Slashdot Mirror
Judge Calls SCO On Lack of Evidence
Rob writes to mention a CBR article on Judge Wells' assessment that SCO just hasn't made its case against IBM in the well-known and long-lasting legal battle. The magistrate called the lack of evidence inexcusable. She further likened their claims to a shoplifter being handed a catalog for a store after being stopped, and being told 'what you took is in there somewhere, figure it out.' From the article: "In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put 'all the evidence... on the table' ... given SCO's own public statements... it would appear that SCO had more than enough evidence to comply with the court's orders." Groklaw has coverage of the decision, and the complete text from the judge. Update: 06/30 15:14 GMT by Z : This story bears more than a passing resemblance to this one from Wednesday. Sorry about that.
This case was lost in the public court of opinion long ago, I'm kind of surprised it's even still going on. Apparently the judge is of the same mind.
Too bad Darl and friends have already made their millions from SCO's little stock kiting scheme, but it'll at least be a small comfort to see SCO finally begin to implode. I think I'll be checking the Salt Lake Tribune (I live here) for the eventual bankruptcy sale... maybe buy one of their logoed signs and mount it on a trophy plaque. (well, a man can dream, can't he?)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
You can see lots of insightful comments in the other story about this.
This case was a complete waste of time and effort. Hopefully they will disappear into the woodwork never to be seen or heard from again. Quite pathetic that it went on this long.
http://religiousfreaks.com/I thought that US law requires the defendant to provide reasonable amount of evidence in order to get a court case started in the first place.
This case is still going on?
I thought SCO lost a long time ago.
Technoli
SCO _have_ made their case. Specifically, they've effectively gone "our case is extremely weak and you should throw it out."
They can do this because their aim was to encourage investment in SCO (both via share buying and directly from coMpanieS willing to support anything that might weaken IBM), not to win a case.
If only all litigants were so forthright. Three cheers for these latter-day Washingtons!
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
These two companies are so irritating that it's not even funny anymore.
No, it's more like a store manager stopping someone who owns a competing business leaving the store, accusing them of shoplifting with no proof of anything being stolen, and then giving them the catalog to sort it out simply to harass them and take up their time.
Name the source/header files involved.
Seeing SCO capsize, dozens (hundreds?) of competent if obsolete UNIX hackers thrown out of work, with yummy parachutes for all the top-level blokes who dreamed up the Awesome strategy of trying to sue Linux out of existence, or at least make it look like a platform with hairy legal issues attaching to it. I hyperbolize only a little bit when I say this is almost an Enron-type scam.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
What you may have missed is that SCO's parent company released a lot of source code under the GPL- and once released they can't 'unrelease it' later. As a result it was perfectly legal to use a lot of those files in Linux. Besides, don't you think that SCO would have shown this source code to the Judge if they had a case at all?
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
People would switch to BSD before submitting to SCO.
And I agree it's sad that a co. can game the system this much for this long, without providing detail about the alleged wrongdoing. It's basically a Gitmo approach to suing.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
(snicker) YHBT!
Fuck off, troll.
Since nobody outside SCO except perhaps the MoGTroll, Didiot, and a few people who were paid to look at it, have seen it, I call bullshit - or should I say backinfullforce-shit.
-
Both SCO and Linux can legally take anything they want from the BSD code base - so they would have the exact same comments, etc.
-
The LKP module that SCO had to yank is a good indication that copying went from Linux to SCO Unix, and not vice versa;
-
Header files? Sure, for things like POSIX, they WOULD be the exact same. No copyright infringement.
-
Those "millions of lines of code" in Blepp's suitcase seem to have disappeared.
Stock scam. That's all it ever was, after the extortion attempt failed.128 foot notes? Curious.
Coincidence? I think not...
aj.
Anybody here think that this resembles some guy dealing with his girlfriend/wife who is mad at him..
Him: What did I do?
Her: You know what you did, and if you don't know, I'm not telling you.
So if even the court believes that SCO has abused the legal system for unfair gains - will there be any punishment for that? Can the judge declare such punishment or does it have to go through a seperate case? Does the court system even have a way to send the message that it doesn't like being abused?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
In quick summary, SCO did not provide line number, VERSION and FILE information for many of it's claims. Some of their claims they did not even find source code for (roughly 2/3rds of claims). IBM warned them very early on that if they didn't receive these specifics, they would seek court intervention.
SCO also claimed that "methods and concepts" do not need source code to back them up. However, the Judge decided that this was incorrect and that methods and concepts could, in the most basic of terms, be boiled down to source code. Even the SCO technical witnesses attested to this, and furthermore SCO repeatedly requested the SAME LEVEL of specificity from IBM when requestiong source codef regarding AIX, LINUX and other products throughout the trial.
Basically the Judge finds it unacceptable that even though SCO has had since 2003 to substantiate it's claim with LINE, FILE and VERSION numbers for each claim, it has failed to do so.
Welcome to TWO YEARS AGO!!! ... ... ...
No wait... they really did wait that long to state the obvious!
I guess I don't understand the strategy of not actually using the "mountains of evidence" in the *only* circumstance that would matter, as opposed to disclosing it to random clueless Anonymous Cowards.
I would now like to see the SEC and/or the major SCO stockholders (non-MS obviously) hold the executive team accountable for this major company loss of money, business, and most of all CREDIBILITY in the technology market. Those Linux-using companies that SCO intimidated into buying indemnity licenses should further pursue legal action to get their costs back, with punitive damages to boot.
In my mind, this strategy of theirs fits right in line with the same kind of covert accounting strategies that Enron/Worldcom/etc were investigated for, where the EXECUTIVES themselves were held accountable to the tune of big $$$ and jail time.
Let me introduce you to my very own DMCA-protected encryption key: BC 1B 64 4A 8D DE 49 E8 C3 7D CC EE 1A AD EE
Don't go away mad. Just go away.
Do the math:
SCO = (SUCK)!
Is that a SCSI connector or are you just glad to see me?
The shoplifting analogy isn't quite there.
Actually, it's as if you walked out of Neiman Marcus, a security guard accused you of shoplifting, and then refused to tell you what you shoplifted.
Then, the guard pulls over his buddy, respected Yankee Group Laura Didio. She looks in your bag, then looks at the Neiman Marcus catalog, and announces on national media that you have stolen something from Neimann Marcus but she won't say what it is.
Three years later, during trial, the guard is still unable to explain what you stole from the store.
So when will SCO get sued for what it's done? It wasted others' time and money with frivolous lawsuits. It lied. It got some fools to pay for their Linux licenses, which might be fraudulent. SCO needs to be buried for all this sometime soon.
sco, eggs and toast.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
The real tragedy here is that a gang of crooks are able to game the legal system and drag on a bogus lawsuit for years and years. How many small business owners or private individuals could afford to defend against a legal claim - any legal claim - where the opponene, even though his case had no basis in fact, was ready to litigate for YEARS.
So I applaud the Judge in this case (I think) and IBM for having the backbone to stand up to the SCO thugs. But we're all losers here.
SCO executives and possibly even the goddamned shareholders should do jail time for fraudulent use of the courts.
Jeeesuuss? the sheer amount of "mind reading" that you'd have to do to keep *that* sucker stable!!!
Laura is such a two-faced windbag! She spends months berating Linux and IBM -- hell, she's seen the supposed evidence, and now she's doing an about-face so she can proclaim that as an industry analyst, her forcasts are "spot on".
The Yankee Group (and especially Laura) wouldn't know their own asses from a hole in the ground.
A girl judge just told SCO where they could stick their source code, and she did it with a sports metaphor!
Yay! And... Huzzah!
Debian
I have nothing to say.
They may have. There were many items in the "Final Disclosure" that IBM did not challenge as being insufficiently described. Meaning they probably did have line numbers, file and version listed. Since the actual list is under seal, none of us know for sure. This was just the first stroke of the axe, cutting out all alleged instances of misuse that have not been sufficiently specified.
In the next stage, the summary judgement phase, IBM may ask the judge to toss out more. However the bar for summary judgment is pretty high (the "facts" are not in dispute), but that doesn't mean we can't expect more of the instances of alleged misuse to be axed at this step too.
Anything remaining would then be left for a jury to decide.
At least that's how I understand the process.
You just put an old Captain Beefheart song in my head that I hadn't heard or thought about in DECADES.
"Fish heads, fish heads, eat 'em up, yum"
Like I said, thanks >=(
It reminds me of a quote from the movie "Nobody's Fool" with Paul Newman
Wirf: Sooner or later we'll wear the bastards down. The court is already starting to get pissed. You heard the judge.
Sully: He's pissed at you, Wirf!
Wirf: Only because he knows I won't go away.
Sully: I know how he feels.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
- which is what I have been saying for quite some time ..
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually from what we could read in the IBM experts declaration in support of this motion, NONE of the claims actually met the degree of specification required - FVL (File, Version, Line) for origin (SCO product) and destination (Linux). IBM just let the 101 claims slide because they didn't care so much - either they could identify the source for the SCO product as being outside of SCO's control, or they could prove where the code that was in Linux originated.
The one example I remember is SCO claimed that IBM gave Linux the SCO code to interface with certain Intel MBs. In the motion, IBM referenced an Intel developers guide as having the exact code that's in both Unix V5 & Linux kernel 2.4. A lot of these things are like that. One I like is that SCO is claiming that the JFSv2 code in Linux - developed by IBM for first AIX, then seperately from the ground up as JFSv2 for OS/2 & backported into AIX to replace JFSv1, and for which IBM has a couple of patents - was not IBM's to place into Linux because it was originally developed for AIX. Remember, this is the same company that says that the GPL is a viral liscense.
I also like some of the few claims that did make it through, they are claims on negative-know-how. Yep, they have not only made claims of proprietary methods and concepts in materials they admit to having no trade secrets, they also claim that they own the knowledge of what won't work as a method or concept - of everything that ever touched UNIX.
You can take a fish head out to a movie
Wouldn't have to pay to get it in.
OH NO! Now it's in my head, too!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
SCO made a terrible mistake by taking on IBM over the Monterey issue. They should have pursued the Linux kernel developers - THAT is where code was being stolen wholesale. Code, that by any interpretation of Novell / SCO deal (BS fanboy sites like groklaw aside), was owned by SCO. I have seen the code that SCO is referring to - same comments, same code, same EVERYTHING. Header files copied in their entirety.
They blew it with the IBM case. Had they played their cards right, TiVo owners, Linux router owners, Linux desktop users - EVERYONE would be paying licensing fees to SCO.
Laura, get out of bed, put your clothes on and take a long walk. i know you can't respect yourself right now (having done all that nasty., nasty, NASTY stuff), but, just maybe, tomorrow will be a different day.
but you have to TRY...
The SCO Lawyers must have learned a thing or two from Lionel Hutz:
"Don't worry, Mister Simpson! I saw Matlock in a bar last night. The sound wasn't on, but I think I got the gist of it."
About the only thing it gets right are the things quoted from teh ruling. So, read the Groklaw article.
The judge did not throw out any evidence. The judge threw out a bunch of SCO's claims against IBM because SCO did not provide IBM with what specifically IBM did that caused SCO to bring those claims agains IBM. IBM asked what version, file, and line of code SCO was claiming IBM used improperly, and SCO did not tell them. So, the judge said you cannot litigate those claims against IBM because IBM cannot defend themselves without knowing exactly what you are claiming they did.
There is another set of motion practice going on to get some parts of SCO's expert reports stricken due to them bringing up supposed misconduct that was not part of what SCO has in their pleadings or that SCO mentioned during discovery. This could result in much of those expert reports being stricken which could properly be called throwing out evidence vs throwing out claims.
Duh. SCO themselves distributed Linux under the GPL. Doesn't matter WHO put WHAT WHERE. But SCO wants to sue man + dog? Stoopid.
Fuck off, troll.
It is not the judge they were worried about. It was IBM since if they gave IBM time to look over the code before trail IBM would have been able to do the research to show it was covered under the BSD agreement. Or, it was IBM owned code and SCO had no claims.
What is ironic is that by not showing any specific code, SCO may have shot themselves in the foot. IANAL but my understanding is that with code, even if it were very weak that it was actually misappropriated, could have got those claims in front of a jury. And, in the end that is SCO's only hope to get their claims infront of a jury of lay people who may not understand IBM's presentation of why that code is in Linux perfectly legally.
IBM, Novell, and Redhat need to go after her for libel. :)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Can you imagine being in a lesbian relationship?
/.'ers, I think :o)
Yes, regularly! (just like most
Which is kind of ironic, given that Darl McBride accused Linux exactly the same thing
This has never been about SCO, and stolen code, but instead this is just Darl, and his goofy cronies making money. I believe that I read some e-mail where they stated that they were rich, so if you were them, and you had no scruples, and you just wanted to keep the money from all these "investors", you'd just keep whaling away at the courts, and make blanket accusations, and not bother with the consequences because you're getting paid, and that folks, is what is really going on!
I was bored this morning so I read the Court Docs. Did you know there's an error on page 32? Who can find it? Who else is bored?
We are most certainly larger and as reputable, and have Linux and free software all around the place.
The difference?
Our lawyers do their homework I suppose.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If you are going to troll or astroturf you have to at least give your comments a passing resemblance with reality.
My company (is up there, one of the most recognizable in the world) has hundreds of Linux destops deployed in a help center, and many hundreds more as servers.
From former colleagues in the same industry and other industries, I know that the situation is similar elsewhere. ANd if that we add all the hoobbyists and students (like if that was small change) then we can assert the future of Linux is bright and more prominent.
Poor Billly, we know you wished the world was one way that it currently isn't. It must be frustrating, but lying about it will not make it happen.