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. "
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!
"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?
IBM time traveled and destroyed the mountain of code they blathed on and on about. How else can you explain it?
I am supposed to say something ambiguous and smart here. I'll leave that to everyone else...
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...
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.
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.
Maybe we need to read what IBM might have done a little more carefully than SCO's lawyers have. The claim in that quote isn't that IBM got rid of big chunks of its codebase, but rather that it told its Linux programmers not to have or refer to the Unix source codes. I.e., if you're working on Linux, please don't look at the AIX version of what you're coding, and get it off your hard drive so you aren't tempted to look. That could have been a reasonable response to the original suit -- make sure that old Unix code doesn't leak into Linux accidentally (like the way George Harrison got the tune for My Sweet Lord). Also, even if all versions of AIX are under subpoena, it doesn't seem illegal to tell some of your employees to delete their personal reference copies, but that's a lawyer question.
SCO will stand for Smoking Crater Organization (formerly and once again Caldera), and perhaps SEC Comin' Over as well.
IBM has more or less bet the company on the viability of Linux, and their reputation for following contracts and respecting copyrights must remain ironclad for them to be credible as an organization enterprises can entrust with their most vital data.
SCO has no case, and there are many signs that the lawsuit is a suicide attack to buy time for the release of Vista, but IBM is making absolutely sure there will be no stain on Linux going forward, no matter how implausible.
Since IBM purposefully destroyed evidence, SCO wants a ruling in their favor that it's ok to purposefully manufacture evidence. That would balance things out, right?
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
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.)