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. "
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 */
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.
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.
Hatch, SCO's attorney, says SCO learned about the destruction of code when it took depositions from IBM programmers.
So, they don't have the code. But they claim they have depositions from IBM people that show the code existed. TFA says nothing about SCO bringing the depositions to court, but I assume that would be the next step, which would be interesting - if it actually took place. We'll have to wait and see, I guess. Most likely we'll start hearing "we lost the depositions" or something like that.
No, this is just more of SCO purposefully not understanding how software development works.
To do otherwise would be the exception, not the norm.
Just an aside, Brent Hatch appears to be the son of Senator Orrin Hatch. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/i s_20030601/ai_n11398911 would seem to bear that out, unless there is another Utah lawyer named Brent Hatch who isn't Sen Hatch's son.
Not sure if it means anything, but I thought it was interesting.
I am no longer an IBM employee, and am bound to no contracts with them. I am bound by NDA only against discussing information marked as confidential of which I became aware during my tenure. Anything I may find out now, or anything that was not confidential, or even anything that I have surmised based on non-confidential information, is fair game.
My statement is based upon observations I've made of employees' attitudes, information I've discovered since I quit, and logical evaluations of the situation at hand.
You'd be surprised how little many employees there know about how IBM fits into the outside world or what's going on tech-wise beyond their own development. Out of sight/out of mind is one thing, but I was shocked by the sheer level of indifference they had.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
SCO is in this so deep they cannot keep their lies straight. Here in the peanut gallery I am anxiously awaiting the moment where IBM lawyers get to dissect SCO's line of reasoning from beginning to end and put that miserable company out of existence, then watch Novell's actions when they go after SCO execs for libel and breach of contract. The whole SCO situation is far more entertaining than most of today's drivel on television (which is a sad statement of what passes for entertainment today).
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
So if I whipe the powder mustache off of my upper lip before the cop taps on the window, that means I never snorted?
No, you missed his point entirely. If IBM deleted this code from their source tree, it wouldn't matter since if it infact is part of the linux system then any other source code copy in the wild would still have it. IBM may have in actuality deleted obsolete or unused code from their dev tree, SCO is trying to point to that and say "Aha! destroying evidence!" but they could easily prove if the deleted materials were the smoking gun they were looking for by simply grabbing the supposed Linux build that the code would have been part of from some archive somewhere. And if no such copy of Linux exists - or hell even if it *was* SCO code but never made it into a Linux release - then there still isn't any copyright infringement because it was never copied into any product!
To fix your analogy, if you wipe the powder mustache from the powdered donut you were eating that you got from the bakery down the street and the cop taps on your window, then it doesn't matter if you snorted powdered sugar or not because it's demonstrably not an illicit substance. You can't prosecute someone for copyright infringement (SCO's point with the case) if they didn't actually, y'know, make any copies!
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
This is very true. I learned this just two days ago at my former employer.
I've always worked as a consultant, and the last company I was with roped me in full-time about a month ago, even though my manager knew I wasn't thrilled about it (my contract was up, but I wanted to complete several additional projects); I asked him what he wanted me to do, and he said to take the position, but look for something else in the meanwhile. So last week I updated my resume and posted it online to a few places. Wednesday morning I am called up to HR and summarily terminated. The reason (as best as I could decipher from HR-Speak) was not so much the resume itself, but they found the two sentences I had written about their company to be "hurtful".
Now as a consultant, I view my jobs as problem/solution: a company has a problem, they bring you in to solve it. So I had stated the reason why they had brought me in: they were a rapidly-growing organization whose IT infrastructure was not designed for scalability. And then I bulleted the things I had done to remedy this. To me, this seemed perfectly innocuous; I didn't speak poorly of the company, I simply stated my professional opinion of their network. And I didn't state it as if they didn't know/care about the problem, since that's why they brought me in. Still, they didn't see it like that and fired me on the spot.
So I definitely agree that you must be very careful when speaking about your employers, past and present. What you may think is just a statement of personal opinion, or some flippant comment, they may see as something much more.
Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff tha-- MICRO$OFT IS THE DEVIL!!1