Slashdot Mirror
SCO Accuses IBM of Destruction of Evidence
Udo Schmitz writes "According to an article at Forbes, SCO claims that IBM destroyed evidence by ordering programmers to delete copies of code that could have helped SCO prove its case. SCO's attorney Brent Hatch says that 'one IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying source code and tests' and that they didn't mention this in public, because it only became relevant now, and that 'the claim was part of a motion SCO filed in March 2006, which has remained sealed'." From the article: "IBM declined to comment, citing a policy of not discussing ongoing litigation. In her sharply worded ruling, Wells criticized SCO's conduct in the case and seemed to indicate she was annoyed with the company. 'I don't know if that's true or not, but that's a question I'm asking myself,' Hatch says. Hatch concedes the Wells ruling represented a setback for SCO. But he says SCO still has a strong case. "
Did they hack my machine to get it removed from there as well?
..starting to get a "flat Earth" vibe off these guys? I mean, Gawd, give it up, already.
I worked at IBM for a number of years as a sysadmin and developer. I can say with certainty that IBM isn't at all concerned with this case and never has been. In fact, the majority of IBM's employees aren't even aware that the suit exists, let alone that it's ongoing.
SCO periodically makes enough noise to get some new press, but beyond that the case is effectively dead. They really have no chance of actually winning, and the whole endeavor seems to be an elaborate pump and dump scam for their stock.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
We destroyed the evidence and now you cry
I am supposed to say something ambiguous and smart here. I'll leave that to everyone else...
Pot, I believe you know Kettle?
Sick of WoW? Try the thinking man's MMORPG: EVE Online
Next, I suppose, aliens from Planet Zontar in Zeta Reticuli will have stolen those very same computers from which the Unix and Dynix code was deleted.
"If the facts are on your side, bang on the facts.
If the law is on your side, bang on the law.
If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, bang on the table."
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
One would think, that if the code is destroyed, it won't be in Linux, and therefore no copyrights infringed, no?
You've lost. Face it. Liquidate the company and retire to your golf resorts.
So presumably the burden of proof in this case is laid upon SCO? How will they prove that IBM deleted source code?
It's certainly just another ploy to buy them more time in court, but to what end is this a means? It's got to be costing them an enormous amount of money, and we still haven't even had a complete list of all the alleged IP infringements SCO have accused IBM of in the first place.
He's Jesus, for Christ's sake.
Unless this work was done *perfectly* it would be really obvious to anyone going through the source tree history (which SCO has), and even then is easy to verify by compiling release trees and doing a binary diff against them (well, decompiling both then diffing might be better).
SCO are flat out lying, whether just to the public, or to their lawyers as well. The only reason I think IBM are continuing with this is to get each and every claim SCO has specifically and individually struck down so when the house of cards finally does crumble they have no way to try it again.
/* FUCK - The F-word is here so that you can grep for it */
1. Buy lots of SCO stock
2. Falsely accuse IBM of giving Linux SCO code - code that SCO themselves released under the GPL in the form of Caldera Linux (later SCO OpenLinux)
3. Dump some of your stock
4. Receive practically every scrap of Linux and AIX documentation, source code, marketing literature, test reports, design docs, etc. that IBM ever produced
5. Dump some SCO stock
6. Realizing that you've been called on your bluff, accuse IBM of destroying alleged "evidence"
7. Dump more SCO stock
(months later, after IBM and Novell are eating SCO's remains)
8. Have fun being Bubba's bitch in federal prison
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Ya know I wish there were some SCO shrills around to explain this.
SCO claims that IBM toke their code from SCO Unix, even if it was thru some long forgotten version of Dynix or AIX, into contributed into Linux.
But they have SCO Unix source and they have Linux source so simple show the connection and be done with it.
Did the SCO shares lose value again or why the sudden outcry?
Could be me, but I find it hilarious that SCO accuses another company of smoke-and-mirror tactics.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have a fantastic idea for a new company. I will sue Microsoft for allegedly having Linux code in Windows. Obviously this is going to cost a lot of money so please help by investing in my company. I don't actually have any evidence, but who cares I will just claim they destroyed it! This can't fail! Please donate investments to my Paypal account and if I win you will get a share of the settlement.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Is it just me missing the Monty-Pythonesque foot? :-(
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g
YTARY!
This is the strategy of SCO:
Hi, I'm Darl! I get paid $300,000 dollars each year the lawsuit continues- without doing any work other than a couple press conferences!
Basically, the people who run SCO get paid more the longer the litigation continues. It doesn't matter to them whether they win or lose- the longer the lawsuit continues the more
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=pr
The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.
Example:
I accuse you of doing something that I'm doing in hopes of getting you so flustered defending yourself, that you're not going to notice what I'm doing.
Wouldn't surprise me if it eventually turns out that the lawfirm handling SCO's lawsuit are actually undercover Linux-zealots with a cunning plan who managed to convince SCO that they could actually win the case, then proceeded to produce a MASSIVE amount of billable man-hours which they from the start knew would eventually lead to SCO filing for bankruptcy. When the lawsuit is over, all proceeds from the lawfirm will be donated to promote Linux. Hmm, I'd actually like that!
SCO has lost all self-respect and are acting like sore losers. My five-year older daughter behaves better than this. When will SCO's head fall at the feet of IBM, so we won't have to hear any more crying --it's getting old!
I mean... one developer deleted some files? Oh, the horror! But, um... I'm a developer, and I've been known to do that from time to time, not to destroy evidence, but just to clean up my drive.
We should also note that Forbes doesn't exactly have a great track record with respect to objectivity and accuracy on this case.
All in all, I think I'll refrain from assuming IBM's guilt just yet...
Here is the relevant excerpt from SCO's legal filing:
even after the Court ordered the source code to be produced, IBM failed to produce all versions of its AIX code, claiming that they cannot be located. Even more egregious was IBM's spoliation of evidence. Weeks after SCO filed its lawsuit, IBM directed "dozens" of its Linux developers within its LTC and at least ten of its Linux developers outside the LOC to delete the AIX and/or Dynix source code from their computers. (SCO Opp. Memo. (3/7/06) at 3.) One IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying Dynix source code and tests, as well as pre-March 2003 drafts of source code he had written for Linux while referring to Dynix code on his computer. (Id. at 3-4.)
SCO has access to every version of AIX and Dynix released in recent and not so recent history and they can't identify any infringement in them. So now they're saying that the same code that were copied or cached on the developers' workstation must have had the smoking gun in it. That's a really really desperate argument. Clearly they're just trying hard to raise arguments - any arguments - that may lead to this devastating ruling to be reversed. I suppose I can't blame them lawyers for not leaving a stone unturned.
Toward the end of its objection, SCO claims IBM deleted copies of two versions of Unix, called Dynix and AIX, which could have helped SCO prove its case.
Shouldn't the copyright holder keep, I dunno, copies?
Esoteric reference.
I note, with some amusement, that SCO shares, which have been hovering at the $4.50 mark for about 2 years, suddenly dropped to $2.50 about 10 days ago. Trading volumes are absolutely miniscule. I think we are seeing the end coming.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
You'll just create new evidence.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
First of all, I almost went blind and had trouble reading the article after seeing Steve Forbes' face pop up on my screen to tell me about how great he is.
FTA: Hatch, SCO's attorney, says SCO learned about the destruction of code when it took depositions from IBM programmers. This is the first time SCO has made the allegation in public, though Hatch says the claim was part of a motion SCO filed in March 2006, which has remained sealed.
Hatch says the allegation has become relevant now, because it helps explain why SCO could not meet demands to cite source code.
IBM declined to comment, citing a policy of not discussing ongoing litigation.
So, who here feels sorry for the SCO lawyers?
*Crickets*
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
SCOX was trading at $4 for a long time. Good news, bad news, no news it was still $4.
Then, SCO had most of it claims tossed out of court in a blistering ruling by Judge Wells. The judge called "BS" on most of their case.
Now the stock is down to around $2.50
Last paragraph of the article:
"You can't read big things into all these little wars," Hatch says. "It's like saying the North didn't win the Civil War just because a couple of battles were bad for us."
As Brian Hatch, an attorney working for SCO.
What a moron.
SCO in 2006: We cant find any stolen code because IBM deleted it!
Surely now that this is filed, IBM can kill off the rest of SCOs claims (the ones that survived the great claim purge of 2006) as they contradict this one.
Are they going to use the Boondocks "Rummi Gambit"? It's similar to the "Chewbacca Defense" from SouthPark. It goes something like this:
SCO: "Judge we can't find any evidence because IBM detroyed it."
IBM: "How could we destroy evidence when they haven't requested it or know what said evidence might be. Judge their case is totally without merit. They lack the evidence to proceed. We motion to dismiss."
SCO: "The absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence."
IBM Lawyer: . "Judge IBM has provided all evidence they have requested. How can we provide items that are not known even to SCO. They are on a fishing expedition. We request that SCO make their evidence requests known. We shouldn't be made to provide items that are not identified and unknown. It appears that what SCO wants is unknown to even themselves."
SCO: "There are known knowns, and there are known unknowns, but there are unknown unknowns. Things that we don't know that we don't know."
IBM Lawyer: "Motion to dismiss your honor."
Judge: "Motion granted. Case dismissed."
Linux fans cheered the Wells ruling, viewing it as a sign that SCO's case is doomed. Hatch says they're celebrating too soon.
"You can't read big things into all these little wars," Hatch says. "It's like saying the North didn't win the Civil War just because a couple of battles were bad for us."
Of course, what Hatch is saying is like saying that SCO is fighting to keep the war-torn Linux world as one Union of the people, by the people, and for the people, by suing the pants off Linux developers, threatening to charge license fees to corporate users of Linux, accusing Linux developers of plagiarism and copyright violation and now obstruction of justice. They've got General Sherman in their back pocket just waiting to pillage his way through IBM's case. I think he works as a mathematician for MIT. Also, IBM owns slaves.
"Weeks after SCO filed its lawsuit, IBM directed 'dozens' of its Linux developers...to delete the AIX and/or Dynix source code from their computers," SCO's objection claims.
"One IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying source code and tests, as well as pre-March 2003 drafts of source code he had written for Linux while referring to Dynix code on his computer," SCO says.
Come on, I thought the copyright infringement claims were going to show that parts of System V were copied into Linux. The argument that it's illegal for IBM to put their own code from Dynix into Linux has always been barely there. I guess if this destruction really happened, IBM will call SCO's bluff and say that they didn't know it was illegal to destroy their own code, because their legal department couldn't anticipate the need to preserve AIX and Dynix to prove SCO's wacky legal theory.
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
SCO is bitching because information relevent to a charge that IBM doesn't know about was destroyed?
Then fucking make it and stop clogging up our justice system!
If I understand this correctly, SCO is claiming their case is based on evidence they've never seen? Or do they mean they've actually seen it, but then it got destroyed so they can't present it as a part of the case? Oh wait.. wasn't this code neatly tucked on IBM developer workstations when all this began? So if SCO's case is based on it then they must've had access to it then! How is that possible? I'm too scared to even think about it.. Let alone mention it out loud when Darl might be around the corner ready to fire a subpoena at me!
"It's kind of hard for us to do that," says Brent Hatch, an attorney with Hatch, James & Dodge in Salt Lake City, "because we don't have it. It was destroyed before it could be given to us."
Does this mean that their backs are against the wall now due to lack of evidence to move forward? .
Just totally amazing. What a freak show.
If the code was copied into Linux, then it would be in one of the Linux releases. Since these are available from multiple sources, the fact that IBM deleted their copies wouldn't matter.
If it was code that never reached Linux, then what's wrong? Are they complaining that IBM didn't copy code into Linux?
If true, IBM discovered some coders copying from the Unix source, and says "don't do that", and removes the offending code before it ever got out. It apparently never made it to Linux, or SCO would be able to show it in the Linux listings. Sounds like they are complaining that IBM didn't allow the Unix source to be copied into Linux. It just sounds like the IBM code police were doing their job,
So, SCO's case now seems to be: They could have copied Unix code into Linux, but they didn't. Anyway, we want money.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
maybe we should accuse SCO of making up flase evidence
Cyberbite Networks - Web Hosting, Dedicated Servers & Colocati
Now that I have finally managed to stop laughing, let me see if I understood this correctly.
SCO had such a strong case and so much evidence of "millions of lines of code", and "truckloads" of code from their "deep dive" proving that "the DNA of Linux is comming from UNIX", etc. that they were "ready for trial" in 2003 and they "don't need any discovery".
SCO needs all versions of AIX. Not only that, but they also need every unreleased internal iteration of code from CMVC, all programmer's notes, etc., at great expense.
SCO could not disclose specific code for M&C because they couldn't know what code was in the minds of IBM engineers when IBM disclosed the M&C.
IBM destroyed the evidence. So SCO cannot show what code, or M&C was copied. This, even though SCO has access to ALL of the code, and Linux code is publicly available.
No doubt, it must somehow be IBM's doing that SCO is unable to answer IBM's interrogatory asking for SCO to identify lines of Linux code that SCO claims to own rights in.
So in the end...
Of the vague nebulous blob of M&C...
Because of IBM's unfair, unethical and illegal actions, SCO is unable to...
So in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen of this fine Utah jury, IBM is guilty. They did it. Trust us. Now do the right thing. Award Billions in damages to the plaintiff please.
Thank you.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
They have a strong case? Sine when?
They have had no case since the beginning of this fiasco.
I regularly delete code that doesn't work. So what is there problem?
-------------
Desperate people do desperate things.
Child: "Don't try to make your case. That's impossible. Instead, try to realise the truth."
SCO: "What truth?"
Child: "There is no case."
SCO: "There is no case?"
Child: "Then you will see, that it is not your case that changes, but only your argument."
Running Windows^H^H^H^H^H^H^H OSX and Linux in the home. (I don't have time for Solitaire any more.)
... I'm well aware that I'm responsible for the company's actions. Under criminal and civil law. I work hard to make decisions in good faith (at times to the detriment of my personal finances) for that very reason. Maybe some officers take their role lightly or don't take the law seriously, but some of us do. The only thing protecting executives is D&O insurance, which still only covers you if you were being ethical.
Well its more believeable :-)
Someone please correct me where I'm wrong:
SCO accuses IBM of stealing code. SCO refuses to specify which code IBM stole. SCO says that IBM needs to declare which code it stole. SCO told to suck it up and declare what code was stolen. SCO does puppy-dog-eyes thing. For months. SCO says "some guy" at IBM knows about the code and it was deleted, but this was in sealed documents from before. GOTO 10.
Am I following this?
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
I can't believe this story is being reported accurately, because if it is, SCO are just the most incredibley stupid asshats that ever filed a lawsuit - and given the frivolous lawsuits that we hear about filed in the US in The Rest of the World (nah, it's not really a country, but it might help some people to think of it that way), that is saying a lot.
Forbes reporting this might just be the typical, not-tech-savvy bad reporting that I've come to know and love from mainstream press, but places like this should know better and Just Fucking Ignore It so SCO can continue sliding off the face of the Earth. I don't want to hear any more about this case until some judge finally tells them to shut up and fuck off.
So if X files suit against Y, is it up to Y to bring evidence that prove X's case against Y? I should certainly hope not. I thought the burden of proof fell on X, not Y.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
It appears to me that SCO is, for whatever reason, attempting to delay the resolution of this case as long as possible. Discovery has finished, and I suspect this is basically an attempt to re-open discovery. If you make an accusation that evidence was destroyed, you have to *prove* it. How do you go about trying to prove it? More *evidence*!
Basically they want to get a new round of discovery aimed at demonstrating that IBM destroyed evidence. They probably won't be able to prove it, ultimately, but this allegation certainly appears that it would have the effect of halting the case while this claim is investigated.
But, as others have stated, it's ultimately all pretty irrelevant in my opinion. If IBM improperly contributed code, or methods and concepts, to Linux, you should be able to find the code, or code that implements the method and concept, in the Linux source trees. I find it mind boggling to suggest that IBM could improperly contribute something to Linux without there being anything in the Linux source code that you could point to as evidence. It is my understanding that, not only is there a complete history of the Linux source, but also a complete history of who contributed what. So, if there is an implementation of a SCO method or concept in Linux, go find out who contributed it. Either it was IBM or it wasn't.
Now, I suppose SCO could put out the allegation that IBM 'proxied' the contributions through other developers - IBM developer explains the method or concept to the Linux developer, developer codes it, and then contributes it. The only problem is, SCO has to *prove* this happened to have a case. If the IBM communication was via LKML, I believe there are complete archives of LKML available. If it was through another channel, well, good luck SCO - if IBM *is* destroying evidence, SCO has to prove it.
They have an exact copy of my if statement
"if(i=0;i100;i++) {"
I DEMAND THAT THEY PAY ME 100 Million Dollars!!!!
IBM declined to comment, citing a policy of not discussing ongoing litigation
Maybe SCO could learn a thing or two, hmm? Given the endless stream of prejudicial statements, including disclosing things that were originally filed under seal, IBM at this point could ask for a gag order, but I guess they figure that as long as SCO keeps digging, IBM may as well let them keep their shovel.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
SCO: You're a thief!
IBM: Huh? Are you on crack? What did I steal?
SCO: You know what you stole... our Unix code, that you put into Linux! Now turn it back over so I can prove you stole it!
IBM: Why do you think that?
SCO: We know you stole code from us because *WE* invented Unix, and Linux was written by a bunch of hackers and wannabe's... And yet somehow in less than a decade, doubtless with *YOUR* help, Linux managed to progress from a barely usable hacker kernel to something that is entirely practical in many areas include schools, businesses, embedded systems, and many others. This wouldn't have been possible if we hadn't invented Unix first, so you must have stolen code from us! So, give us back what you you stole... we can prove that it was ours!
IBM: Uhmmm... I don't know what you are talking about... Linux is open source, can't you show us from what's in the Linux source base?
SCO: While we could find code that was taken from us in Linux, finding it in the open source codebase wouldn't prove that you stole it.
IBM: Can you tell us where to look?
SCO: No... because if we did that, you'd destroy the evidence before this got to court. Just turn over what you stole.
IBM: If nobody here knows what code we allegedly stole how do we turn it over?
SCO: It's not our fault if your company doesn't keep records of where it gets stuff from. Just hand it over.
IBM: Like I said before, I don't know what you are talking about... can you show us if we give you everything we got?
SCO: (eyes light up like kid in a candy store) Yes! Yes! That will do fine! Give us everything you have!
IBM: Uh... okay. Here you go.
(much later...)
SCO: Hey! It's not here!
IBM: What's not there?
SCO: What you stole from us! You must be withholding something!
IBM: Uhmmm... nope. Do you want to search our place to see if we missed anything?
SCO: Yes, please. We'd like that very much.
IBM: Okay... come in (rolls eyes).
(later...)
SCO: Okay, what did you do with it?
IBM: Do with what?
SCO: The code you stole!
IBM: We didn't steal any code!
SCO: Yes you did!
IBM: Why do you still believe that when you've seen for yourself that we don't have it?
SCO: Because you must have destroyed it when we first asked to see everything!
IBM: Uhmmm... do you have any evidence to support that supposition?
SCO: Ah hah! You *ARE* admitting to destroying evidence!
IBM: For cryin' out loud man, get a grip! All we're saying is if you can't find any evidence for your claim, it really seems like a waste of effort to continue to pursue it. Although at this point I suppose it doesn't matter, because you know full well that we're going to sue your asses into the dust for this harrassment when the court finally rules that you are wrong.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
From 09 June 2003 What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL.
The latest twist: Buried in a new filing from SCO (nyse: SCO - news - people ) is a claim that International Business Machines (nyse: IBM - news - people ) destroyed evidence by ordering its programmers to delete copies of software code that could have helped SCO prove its case.
... ... it is the first, then. We never had the code, but you're baaaad. Veeery baaad. And because you can't find the code of one OS of maybe 1000 (with the different versions), so you're hiding something.
... and we couldn't think of anything else.
Yeah... there are 2 options:
1. We never got the code, yet somehow we *KNOW* you're infringing our rights with it.
2. We had the code, but we lost it, so YOU must provide it.
SCO alleges this happened in 2003, yet the company has never talked about it in public before.
However, an attorney for SCO says the code deletion is one reason why the Lindon, Utah, software maker has been unable to comply with a demand that it produce examples of allegedly stolen code.
"It's kind of hard for us to do that," says Brent Hatch, an attorney with Hatch, James & Dodge in Salt Lake City, "because we don't have it. It was destroyed before it could be given to us."
Toward the end of its objection, SCO claims IBM deleted copies of two versions of Unix, called Dynix and AIX, which could have helped SCO prove its case.
Soooo
SCO claims the move was "egregious" and represents "spoliation of evidence," a potentially serious charge.
"Weeks after SCO filed its lawsuit, IBM directed 'dozens' of its Linux developers...to delete the AIX and/or Dynix source code from their computers," SCO's objection claims.
Claims, claims...
"One IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying source code and tests, as well as pre-March 2003 drafts of source code he had written for Linux while referring to Dynix code on his computer," SCO says.
One guy working for IBM said, that he delete some code of some old obscure UNIX implementation. So what?
Hatch says the allegation has become relevant now, because it helps explain why SCO could not meet demands to cite source code
Hatch concedes the Wells ruling represented a setback for SCO. But he says SCO still has a strong case.
So, pigs do fly?
"You can't read big things into all these little wars," Hatch says. "It's like saying the North didn't win the Civil War just because a couple of battles were bad for us."
Couple of battles? Come on, every semi-intelligent being can see their case is just hot-air.
And most of all, the judge cannot rule this in their favor for one simple reason:
They have to proove that IBM did this for the purpose of winning the case. So what? Someone in your organisation deletes some code when you're under litigation. You're charged with "destruction of evidence". Just because you destroyed some evidence, doesn't make you guilty. The destruction have to be on purpose.
Unless there is sufficient proof of their guilt, their claim is just bullsh*t, or put otherwise, good-ol-FUD.
So, SCO are claiming that IBM have effectively destroyed their evidence. If this is such pivotal evidence, then why didn't SCO have it before they filed the case? SCO is just throwing a massive lawsuit at IBM and hoping they will find something. Too bad for them that the judge can see through this and is now getting annoyed by it.
Furthermore, SCO are saying that IBM have destroyed key Linux source code. The key point about Linux is that it is OPEN SOURCE. If IBM added such key source code, and then made the version public, the source would be public too. All SCO have is a developer saying he deleted DRAFT source code that MAY have been based on Dynix and/or AIX. Even if that is the case, it was draft code, and it would have been purely for internal purposes, and never saw any kind of public release (otherwise SCO woould have the evidence by now). That's hardly a smoking gun.
Of course, all of this is based on the assumption that SCO does own the patents/copyrights on UNIX. As far as I know, that has yet to be determined. At this time I'm more interested in the SCO vs Novell case, as the result from it would blow the SCO vs IBM case out of the water, and sink SCO completely.
Is Brent Hatch related to Senator Orin Hatch?
Pot? This is kettle. You're black.
--
This is simply a last-ditch desparate effort of SCO to divert the attention from their pathetic selves and delay this tired and drawn-out leagal action.
Some advice for SCO - Roll over and expose your soft underbelly in a show of submission while IBM humps the air over you.
Your tactics are old and busted and everyone's tired of hearing about you.
SCO? I hear your momma calling. You better run home now.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
n/t
Bush: They have weapons of mass destruction Iraq: No we don't Judge Hans Blix: Motion dismissed Bush: Destroy them! SCO: They have the source code! IBM: No we don't Judge: Motion dismissed SCO: Nag nag nag! SCO: Destroy them! Oh wait! GAAAAH! We're broke! HEEEEELP!
And I'm sure that SCO is prepared to present evidence to prove this latest claim that is every bit as compelling as all of the evidence to support all of their other claims they have made so far... Yawn...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
but we are pretty sure that the deleted files proved our case.
From reading the redacted objection to Judge Wells' opder, SCO sees the case this way.
1. Sequent and IBM licensed SYS5.
2. Sequent invented NUMA and put it in Dynix.
3. IBM invented JFS and put it in AIX.
4. IBM bought Sequent.
5. IBM contributed NUMA and JFS to LINUX.
SCO says step 5 is illegal because NUMA and JFS were originally in derivatives of SYS5, and the non-disclosure contract for SYS5 forbids contributing anything from a SYS5 derivate to LINUX.
Novell (who probably still owns the SYS5 copyrights) disputes this, saying 5 is legal because the non-disclosure only covers SYS5 code. But this is why SCO is trying to claim they don't have to identify any SYS5 code in LINUX. They claim they just need to show AIX or Dynix code, or even just alogorithms from AIX or DYNIX, showing up in LINUX to prove IBM broke the non-disclosure agreement.
I think they are all wet!
Then, even if IBM has deleted some documentation of how it got in there, the code should still be THERE, in linux, and therefore available and identifiable by SCO. The end result of the process was a public release of the code. All the cards are on the table. Use them to identify the problem or shut up.
If SCO can't or won't specifically identify code in linux that is supposedly infringing, then guess what? Whether IBM did or did not delete something during the process is irrelevant. It's like complaining about something someone else's invisible friend did.
Well, okay, it might still be a contract issue between SCO and IBM, but it is irrelevant to the broader question of SCO's claims about linux.
You have to question the accuracy of the article, since they could not even get the stock symbol correct. What would happen if stock jockeys discovered FORBES was writing about measley companies who lost their Stock Market ticker symbol because of failing to file SEC reports in a psycho-pseudo-timely manner, and still have the taint of the "x" after 1 1/2 years.
"If the judge had thrown out the case, that would be a real downer..." Hatch says. Yeah. I'd be all kinds of bummed out, dude.
That was exactly what I was thinking. IBM wanted to make sure its own house was clean, so it told its Linux developers not to have any versions of the UNIX source trees on their machines.
As far as deleting "draft" linux code, that might have been a case of playing it safe and making sure that nothing written by a developer with concurrent access to UNIX was contributed to their Linux projects (i.e. oh, you had access to UNIX source? Sorry we can't use your patches, please get rid of them and don't come back until UNIX is off your box.)
Brent Hatch: Admit it you stoll the code. We have depositions from people that deleated the code.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
"It's kind of hard for us to do that," says Brent Hatch, an attorney with Hatch, James & Dodge in Salt Lake City, "because we don't have it. It was destroyed before it could be given to us."
This goes back to the derivitive works issue.
How can IBM delete something that SCO claims to own? If IBM wrote something and released it into Linux then that should be all you need -- deleted copies of something that was never released is moot. Deleted code created by IBM, if this indeed even occurred, wouldn't be owned by SCO anyway.
As Wells' order stated, "The court finds SCO's arguments unpersuasive. SCO's arguments are akin to SCO telling IBM sorry we are not going to tell you what you did wrong because you already know."
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Is that you Baldrick?
Your Captain,
Blackadder
SCO is still around? They haven't been on my news radar since, uhm ... uuhhhhh .... I think .... uh since before the invasion of Iraq. SCO is a lot like the Bush administration. The Bushites looked for the WMD's and didn't find them. SCO is still looking for the infringing code and not finding it. At least SCO doesn't steal elections, invade countries on false pretexts, detain people without trial, and then torture detainees. No SCO is just a bunch of litiginous bastards. SCO should have hired Jack (abram)Off while they still had a chance.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Listen, IMHO, I would say that this may have happened, and in fact, should have happened.
If, during development, someone accuses you of stealing code, you stop using what ever they are accusing you of stealing from to avoid further damages. You try to look at what you are accused of stealing, and if you see that you did, in fact, steal something, or there is the appearence of legitimacy, or even the possibility of infringement, you remove it to stop possible damages from accumulating.
Daniel Lyons, once again, is just trying desperately to find any imagined silver lining to distract the public (or at least whatever part of the public might be reading forbes.com) from how bad things are getting for SCO. SCO's been making this claim about destruction of code at random for awhile, before Lyons picked it out of their last huge filing and decided to make a big deal out of it. I don't seem to remember the judge ever being nearly as impressed with it as Lyons had. I also don't seem to remember there ever being any reason to believe that SCO's allegations about IBM destroying evidence-- much like the central allegations of their case, actually-- were backed up by anything except wishful thinking.
Throughout this case there have been two consistent trends. One, IBM gives everything the court asks of them and goes to enormous lengths and expense trying to produce materials that SCO sometimes doesn't even seem to have wound up using, while SCO drags their feet and refuses to provide either what IBM requests or what is explicitly ordered of them by the judge. And two, this whole time, SCO rants ceaselessly in the press, usually through mouthpieces like Daniel Lyons, that IBM is refusing to provide what is ordered, IBM is obstructing justice, IBM is dragging their feet. (IBM, for some reason having decided to try their case in the courts rather than the media, tends to remain silent.)
At this point Forbes may be the only thing that still qualifies as a media source where you can read the news about SCO and get any impression except that things are going disastrously, one-sidedly bad for SCO.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
SCO's case is certainly a sorry last swing in a losing battle but to me, this whole debacle says more about what a pathetic situation the justice system is in than SCO's necrotic flailing. Anyone who has used SCO products for any period of time (back to Xenix for me), could see clearly they have been on their way out for many years before the 2003 death rattle. The sadder tale in this is that the justice system can now so easily be used more as a tool for capitalism then a tool for justice speaks of an animal so encumbered by it's own gross weight that it cannot even get away from itself. This is truly a pathetic story. Put this case in front of Judge Judy where it belongs and get it out of the real world. It'll be over in half and hour (minus time for commercials).
"How the HELL did that crack get in my shoes! Those aren't even my damn shoes - they're my friend's shoes! I've never even seen those shoes! How'd those shoes get on my feet! Those aren't even my feet!"
At least this is legal strategy intended for use with law enformcement personnel. May not work as well in a court:
1) "Deny deny deny"
2) "Delay delay delay"
3) "Lie lie lie"
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
What is with Forbes? I have only seen pro-SCO articles despite a mountain of evidence indicating the lawsuit has very little merit (possibly only in a contract dispute context), seems fishy.
Forbes and Daniel Lyons are staunchly anti-Linux and anti-Open Source zealots.
Notice that nowhere in this story does he point out that 1) SCO has the source code to Unix and 2) Anyone can get the source code to any version of Linux since it is all publically available on the internet.
What other source of information does SCO need to provide proof of their claim that IBM took code from Unix and put it into Linux? How is it that a "jounalist" misses such obvious questions again and again? Has Daniel Lyons or the editorial board of Forbes ever done a full disclosure as to their financial dealings with SCO or their various related corporations? If so, I've never seen it.
Oh, I can't wait to see PJ light these guys up. I keep hitting reload and waiting for it. This will be fun.
SCO. They give so much yet have so little.
Hilarious :-)
.1 * 100,000,000 = 10,000,000, not 1,000,000.
So, in the classes I've taken on working on large software projects there was one thing hammered home. Don't scratch your nose without using version control.
With this in mind, what are they claiming? Are they saying that J. Random Coder wiped the offending dynix/aix code from his workstation? In that case, the code is still in the Version Control history. Or is SCO claiming that IBM ordered developers to remove revisions of the offending code from the Version Control history?
Assuming that IBM *wanted* to do so, is this even possible for a good Version Control tool? I'm no CVS/SVN guru, but i thought the tools were specifically built to make this not possible.
/me grabs occam's razor...
"It may just be that there is something fundamentally unworkable about government itself" -H. Beam Piper
Instead of the SCO icon we should lift the one used on Fark for these stories.
Programming: Its not just a job - its an indenture.
Ha! This is even better than Judge Wells analogy.
Its like being stopped by the security guard who claims you stole something. When you ask what, he says "You already know and I'm not going to tell you!". When they check your stuff and can't find anything they still persist: "The reason we can't find what you stole is because you musta ate it!".
Teacher: "Where's your homework!" Student: "My dawg ate it".
SCO, just go back home to your mommas you little whiny bitches.
Who at IBM did the directing?
What are the names of these LTC developers?
What are the names of the outside developers?
What is the name of tne one IBM Linux developer?
In what context and to whom did he 'admit' things?
How did SCO come across this 'evidence'?
"written for Linux while referring to Dynix code on his computer"
If SCO has at least one IBM developer who 'admits' to copying Dynix code into Linux then why not produce him.
"Weeks after SCO filed its lawsuit, IBM directed 'dozens' of its Linux developers...to delete the AIX and/or Dynix source code from their computers," SCO's objection claims.
"One IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying source code and tests, as well as pre-March 2003 drafts of source code he had written for Linux while referring to Dynix code on his computer,"
davecb5620@gmail.com
An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan. -- George Patton
http://www.google.com/finance?q=SCOX
Choose the 3 month graph. I have been waiting for this slide.
BTW the capcha == secret
Developer code is deleted all the time, sometimes just because it is not good enough to include in a live distribution. Was it R&D, proof of concept? Hey, they don't even say in the article what the code was that was deleted. It could have been an algorithm for an embedded system that removes bubblegum from under students chairs. And everyone knows that realtime embedded Linux would be better at that than AIX/Dynix!
The Brent O. Hatch that is representing SCO in this lawsuit is the son of Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. Another son of Senator Orrin Hatch, Scott D. Hatch, is a lobbyist with Walker Martin & Hatch.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has suggested that people who download copyrighted materials from the Internet should have their computers automatically destroyed.
Group intelligence is multiplicative when idiots are involved - combining a half-wit with another half-wit does not result in a full-witted person, it results in a quarter-witted person (1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4). Combining a full-witted individual with a half-wit still only yields a half-wit. The more of these "half-wits" you have involved in the process, the worse things get.
So, in the case of SCO, the multiplication effect has been carried out to an awe-inspiring degree. Assess the number of people in SCO management, determine what portion are half-wits, then do the math.
I think we can safely assume that the majority of SCO management personnel are half-wits.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
IBM says that Orrin Hatch destroyed the evidence as part of his widely-known campaign to destroy the computers of copyright infringers after he was notified by his son that IBM computers contained Unix code in violation of SCO's copyrights.
The name was SCOX. It was changed to SCOXE when they missed their paperwork, and then to SCOX again when they got back in good graces.
Search for scoxe to confirm.
they'll say anything to get over a setback. I (partially) quote hunter s. thompson that SCO's actions resemble "... junkies trying to assemble a rocket to the moon, because they heard the craters were full of smack."
which might be fun to watch from a distance, but don't rely on 'em.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
It is humorous to me that all this is going on, yet we still don't have a ruling in Novell v SCO - claiming that SCO doesn't even own the rights to the code that they are suing over. If Novell is correct, this is all a moot point anyway. And everything that has been seen so far seems to indicate that Novell is indeed correct here.
Which IBM is probably aware of the facts in that case as well - which is yet another reason to make them even more unconcerned about SCOs case.
Is not the existence of evidence a precursor to the destruction there of?!
Get your FRAG on!
..."We have no evidence. We never did. Because IBM deleted it all. Yeah, that's the ticket."
How has this case been allowed to go on for so long?
-R
I have a law suite for seven Billion dollars that can't fail. The problem is that I'm short on cash to get it going. If you donate a few hundred million I'll give you 70% of the settlement.
Please make the cashier's check payable to the Nigerian National Law firm.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Back in 2003 SCO held a media event called the SCO forum where then CEO Darl McBride said this:
"They have found already a mountain of code," he said. "The DNA of Linux is coming from Unix."
That and this next quote came from a CNET News article from August 2003 which also goes on to describe some of what Chris Sontag, head of the company's SCOsource effort had to say:
"I can understand one or two lines being in common," said Sontag, who is charged with maintaining the company's intellectual property rights surrounding Unix. "But when you're talking about this level of variables being the same...the comment sections all being the same, it's problematic."
Sontag then showed, in a series of slides, Linux code that he claimed has been literally copied from Unix. He said numerous comments, unusual spellings and typographical errors had also been copied directly into Linux.
So, if any of that was really ever true, then why doesn't SCO just show the judge the mountain of evidence which they angrily told the media about back in mid-2003? Instead, according to the Forbes article, they are now complaining that "code deletion is one reason why the Lindon, Utah, software maker has been unable to comply with a demand that it produce examples of allegedly stolen code."
"It's kind of hard for us to do that," says Brent Hatch, an attorney with Hatch, James & Dodge in Salt Lake City, "because we don't have it. It was destroyed before it could be given to us."
Cause then IBM is going to sue the whole management team for liable and billions of dollars of lost sales. This will see to it that no one tries this crap again.
http://www.kernel.org/
If the developer is only "referring to" Dynix code, that is not verbatim copying. Their claim would only be relevent if their interpretation of the contract is true (and it doesn't seem to be a reasonable interpretation).
They claim that IBM can't use "methods and concepts" because that's as bad as verbatim copying in their eyes.
Does any one know, is there an actual tech company at SCO, or is it just a bunch of lawyers now?
I ask because I need some new hardware and I figure there ought to be a killer auction when that ship finally goes under.
I would say "flash evidence" -- the kind that is destroyed before it's evidence, and then the lack is evidence of evidence...
And then my head explodes in a flash.
Let me TRY to make sense of this...
SCO claims that, even though no evidence of direct copying can be presented, SCO material in the way of CONCEPTS and METHODS made their way into Linux. To ensure that this CANNOT happen, IBM may have (or did), order Unix, AIX, Dynix removed from machines. The existence of this source code may have (somehow) proven that the CONCEPT or METHOD were migrated to Linux (how? it must have been test code on AIX or Dynix to evaluate the CONCEPT or METHOD -- otherwise it would be much clearer). Of course, IBM did the correct thing to mitigate any damages; but, based on the migration (somehow) of the CONCEPTS and METHODS, removing this code (obviously never released) broke the chain of thought, and is thus "egregious" destruction of evidence. Sorry, destruction of evidence of a thought process.
All I have to say is: WHY THE FUCK IS FORBES BOTHERING TO REPORT THIS?!?
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
This technology is confidential and property of IMB Research. We will now go back and erase your comment. And poke you with a stick so that you never wrote it in the first place.
nope, sry, just a "dead mans chest".
Aren't you supposed to have some evidence of wrongdoing BEFORE you file a lawsuit? SCO is now effectively saying "We know they infringed our intellectual property, but we can't prove it because they destroyed evidence after we filed a suit against them!" If SCO didn't have any evidence in the first place, on what basis could it file a suit? Also, isn't SCO effectively claiming that they are incapable of recognizing their own intellectual property? The only reason old copies of AIX or Dynix would be relevant is if you beleive the preprosterous claim that SCO owns all changes made to ANY Unix derivate -- even changes SCO doesn't know about.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
A fly on The Wall
FalconShould there be a Law?
recent examination has revealed that a lack of reflectivity between 420 and 700 nanometers is currently present.
Please audit all systems to verify this condition is not present
The management
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Does anyone else see a similarity between the SCO/IBM battle and Monty Python's Black Knight/Arthor battle? They both have seeming antagonists that refuse to let the battle end.
And in a really odd way, we might owe SCO a big thank you once it's all over. Seriously. Here's why I think so:
There will be no settlement, and all avenues of appeal are being asphyxiated through a rigorous campaign of I-dotting and T-crossing.
You are absolutely correct. This entire case has taken many years, and once it's over the rigor with which it has been handled will pretty much close the door on any future attacks of this sort against Linux.
So, we have SCO to thank for bringing Linux out of legal limbo and squarely having it defined by legal people as rock-solid. You can now tell your PHB that Linux is 100% ok to use. IBM and the courts say so.
And it doesn't hurt that SCO are a bunch of idiots, too. A well financed team of people with even half a clue would have been much harder to deal with. This has been a lot like watching Pee-Wee Herman take on Mike Tyson. "I know you are but what am I?" *PUNCH*
BTW, awesome Caldera reference. I often wonder if advertising people actually know the meaning of words sometimes. I once worked on a project called "Nemesis". Don't these people even read?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
All released versions of Linux are plainly and openly available for the taking for anyone who cares to. ftp.kernel.org makes that exersize trivial.
They have repeatedly and publically claimed that the 2.6 Linux-kernel contains "thousands of lines of code, we're not talking a function or two" "literally line-for-line copied" from their code. They've also publically claimed "people can use 2.4 kernels, we don't have an issue with that." so the only code in question is that added after 2.6 was started.
So, where is that code ? It's been more than 2 years now. Clearly IBM can destroy none of this evidence, even if they wanted to, and even if it existed in the first place. There's literally tens of (if not hundreds of) millions of copies of the Linux kernel source-code out there in literally hundreds of jurisdictions. It'd be an exersize in futility to try to somehow eradicate any evidence that lives in this code.
...but you do realise it was just a joke, I hope...?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
"if you contribute to Linux, you can expect a msft sponsored bogo-lawsuit."
Even if IBM wins, the lawsuit will have cost IBM about $100 million. The lawsuit also will provide msft with five years anti-linux fud.
IBM can afford a $100M bogo-lawsuit, but what about companies that can not afford that? Or, what about companies that are not as commited to linux?
I will bet that a lot of companies have decided not to contributing to linux, due to the scox-scam.
Msft wins again.
Any people still working there surely should know by noe the stinker of a company they are working for.
There is a point when you can't keep pretending you don't have some responsibility in your employers actions. It has been 3 years since this charade started, by now ny decent people should have jumped ship.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What is the point of harrasing a former employee "divulging" non confedential information?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Hatch says. "It's like saying the North didn't win the Civil War just because a couple of battles were bad for us."
He's from Utah. The state of Utah didn't even exist until more than 50 years after the civil war.
Hatch is "us" in the civil war in much the same way SCO's copyrighted code is in Linux - nonexistance notwithstanding.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"WHY THE FUCK IS FORBES BOTHERING TO REPORT THIS?!?"
Because Forbes is written by an accomplished player of the pink oboe.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.