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.
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/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.
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.
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.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.
The quote isn't quite right either. She said someone 'accused of shoplifting'...
I thought it a bit odd that a judge would leave something hanging like that - i.e that IBM were guilty, but that SCO couldn't prove it.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
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
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.
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.
No, mostly what they've done is to highlight emails from IBM employees to the linux kernel mailing list, among others, telling them to use certain techniques or not to use certain techniques to accomplish certain goals.
What a feeble attempt at defrauding the court. If this were a legitimate case, all the evidence would be available now. At this point, SCO is getting closer and closer to the borderline of being nothing more than a patent troll.
Yes, but that's not the correct term as SCO have no patents. Vexatious Litigant? Frivolous lawsuit?
-Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
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.