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.
You can see lots of insightful comments in the other story about this.
Depends on what you mean by "getting started." This case is still in the "getting started" phase - discovery and pre-trial motions. Essentially, other than confusing the terms "defendent" and "plaintif," you're correct. The plaintif does have to provide some evidence, and the fact that SCO didn't is exactly what led to this decision.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
No, the judge is spot on.
SCO has accused IBM of shoplifting a good many different items, so to speak.
The judge has not yet ruled on whether or not IBM shopifted anything. What she has said is that SCO has failed to provide evidence even to warrant such a ruling regarding the alleged shoplifting of most of the items, and dropped those counts.
However, there are a few items left of which IBM remains accused of taking (to continue with the "shoplifting" analogy).
For the judge to appear to have decided on IBM's "guilt" or "innocence" with regard to any of the remaining items at this point in time would be improper because that evidence has not yet been given a full hearing. IBM does in fact remain accused by SCO - nothing more, nothing less - and that's what she must say if she is to appear impartial.
The next step is for the remaining counts to be presented, along with evidence, in court. Only after that happens will IBM's "guilt" or "innocence" of the (remaining) charges brought by SCO be determined.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I agree.
A company (large, reputable) that I finished a contract for bans all free software, and especially all software licensed under any form of GPL, Apache, Mozilla, or Creative Commons licenses. The only exception that they will make is for embedded tools (such as Perl being used in certain commercial applications). The CIO and CFO have to sign off on this use, and the vendor providing the software must contractually promise to indemnify the company against any and all lawsuits stemming from the use of the embedded software.
The company does this solely out of fear of lawsuits.
Using unauthorized GPL, Apache, Mozilla, or Creative Commons software on any corporate system or in connection with any corporate project was grounds for immediate dismissal. Statements to that effect were present in the IT acceptable use policy distributed to every employee and contractor.
SCO's financial reports show no such income.
Umm, yeah, except for that $16,000,000 cheque that MS wrote them for something MS had already paid for, and the $50,000,000 "gift" from the PIPE fairy, which was brokered by MS.
<sarcasm>
No, no such income at all.
</sarcasm>