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. "

Comments

Riiiiight...

[Stephen H-B]

Pot, I believe you know Kettle?

Oh. Good. Grief.

[Rinzai]

Well, I guess we all knew it was just a matter of time before SCO intro'd the "dog ate my homework" excuse.

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.

It's actually all a cunning plan...

[miataninja]

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!

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

[hey!]

You don't pay laywers the big bucks to argue like that. They should be able to keep the near corpse of this case running a few more years at least.

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."

Judge: "But you can't sue without evidence. That's what absence of evidence is."

SCO: "Yes, but you can sue in the absence of evidence if you have evidence of evidence."

Judge (frowning): "Run that by me again?"

SCO: "Absence of evidence is prima facie evidence if there is evidence of evidence."

Judge (frowning counting on his fingers): "But absence of evidence in the face of evidence of evidence is evidence that the evidence of evidence isn't errr... really evidence."

SCO: "No, absence of evidence in the face of evidence of evidence is not evidence of absence but evidence of malfeasance"

Judge (to IBM laywer): What do you say to that?

IBM Layer: Oh, I agree.

SCO(Trimumphantly): See! He admits it.

Judge: Admits what?

SCO: That they destroy the evidence of whihc the evidence of evidence was evidence of.

IBM: I admit no such thing.

Judge: What? You just said you agreed!

IBM: I agreed that absences of evidence in the presence of evidende of evidence evidences malefeasnce.

Judge: Isn't that the same thing?

IBM: No, because as my learned colleage is no doubt aware, I have not stipulated whether the evidence of malfeasnce pertains the to absence of evidence, or the absence of evidence of evidence.

Judge (working it out): Hey! What exactly is the evidence of evidence we've been talking about

SCO (looking at his feet): mumble

Judge: Pardon?

SCO: I said, they destroyed that too.

Judge (to IBM): What do you say to that.

(IBM is a bit preoccupied and does not respond)

Judge (to IBM): Excuse me, counsellor, but I asked you what you though of plaintiff's assertion that the absence of evidence of evidence is your fault?

IBM: I beg your pardon your honor. I was measuring another fathom of rope for my learned colleague.