Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Calls SCO On Lack of Evidence

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the like-it-is-judge-like-it-is dept.

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.

6 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. How did SCO get to sue IBM in the first place? by DRM_is_Stupid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  2. The judge's analogy isn't quite right... by brother_b · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.'

    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.

  3. Not at the evidence part yet. by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Merits are not under consideration yet. This ruling is strictly on the fact that SCO did not specify what exactly they are claiming IBM did wrong. IBM has spent three years saying "What did we steal/contribute unlawfully? What code? What 'methods and concepts'?" It'll be later this year that they say "No, we didn't do that stuff."

    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
  4. Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? by yo_tuco · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "maybe buy one of their logoed signs and mount it on a trophy plaque. (well, a man can dream, can't he?)"

    Better yet, How about we get in line and call in McBrige's offer to take our best shot! You do remember is famous words:

    "We're either right or we're not. If we're wrong, we deserve people throwing rocks at us."

    Okay big-mouth Darl McBride. I'm ready! I'm waiting! It's time!
  5. Summation of the PDF by a_karbon_devel_005 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:This is still going on? by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Normally you'd be right. However, I still think the parent has a point. Several things SCO has done make it appear that the whole purpose of the lawsuit was to slow the uptake of Linux. In other words, a trial in the court of public opinion. It's a though there's someone pulling SCO's strings. Someone with deep pockets; someone who would greatly benefit by Linux's demise. However, I can't imagine who that might be.

    -Loyal

    --
    I aim to misbehave.