Slashdot Mirror
SCO Lawyers Ambush IBM Witness
Mr. E. writes "In a sneaky legal maneuver, SCO's lawyers managed to ambush an IBM witness into having to give a no-holds-barred deposition in front of an unrelated court in another state. After SCO was limited in what they could depose Mr. Otis Wilson about by the Utah court, the company blindsided IBM with last-second subpoenas before a North Carolina court. IBM's lawyer was on vacation at the time, didn't give prior notice to big blue, and now they've won the right to ask him anything they want. They've asked him about whether he has a criminal record, about ex-wives, etc. and they have four hours in which to do so. According to PJ of Groklaw, 'I'd say [Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells] has thrown poor Mr. Wilson to the wolves in North Carolina and told him it's his own fault.' SCO, of course, is fishing for something — anything — they can use to stave off IBM's Motion for Summary Judgement which is fast approaching, and if they can somehow trip up Mr. Wilson, they might be able to do just that. However, there was at least one line of cold comfort in Magistrate Well's order '[T]he court wishes to note that its decision should not be viewed as any type of invitation to reopen the discovery process.'"
Seriously, SCO must be salivating at the prosect of this, its like a one last gasp hope.
One minor point though, how come IBM only have 1 lawyer, didn't they have a breeding program in the 60s and 70s?
liqbase
Sure he COULD get into trouble, in reality he wont.
And since when does IBM have one lawyer ?
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
SCO pulled a fast one and got away with it - this time. Doesn't mean that they'll win, but it sounds like they just might be able to drag it out a bit longer, unfortunately.
That isn't what the victim did in this case, but look at the nature of the maneuvering: "The problem, according to Judge Wells, is that Mr. Wilson submitted himself to the North Carolina court by submitting a motion to quash there." In other words, you can get yourself in trouble by saying "go away" in the same place that someone said "come here!".
If you ever get the idea that law is a logic system and you can handle a court case without an experienced and street-smart lawyer, remember that you might be up against dirty tricks from veterans who are on their home turf. Never fight a wizard in his keep. Always remember how bad it can be just to have your lawyer on vacation.
I think the real point is the quality of the US courts, which is IMO very poor if you actually have situations where people resort to these kind of tactics in order to stand a chance. The really disturbing part is that they can get away with all this in some cases, as proven many times in the past.
So... Because the husbands nephew wife's maid brother-in-law kitchenworkers bankrupt boss has said something bad with regards to paying alimony its becoming obvious that this husband has come into contact with negative influences regarding the alimony he needs to pay. And so, the poor crying blond woman (sob, sob ) simply has the RIGHT that he'd be put into custody right to the moment where has paid up in full extend PLUS the costs of procecution. Btw; did we ever mention the fact that the husband once visited Saudi Arabia? Well, if that isn't convinving evidence, I don't know what is.
If it convinces the jury its good.. I'm glad that in civilized countries people are tried by the law. Its one of the reasons this soap opera never got a stage overseas since it was laughed out of courtroom, accompanied with the threat of a major fine for slander if they tried something like this again without some solid facts to back it up.
I mean really, all SCO can do is be an ass to an IBM guy. I mean, they wouldn't need to pull something like this to ask remotely relevant questions, and since IBM isn't gonna settle to save this guy some embarassment, all SCO gets to do is what they always do: be petty, retarded dumbasses.
They haven't asked him anything yet, have they? The article seems to say they COULD ask him about anything. I would hope that ex-wives (if any) would be off the table - trying to personally attack someone for things not related to the issue at hand would strike me as a very poor use of the time SCO has been given. How would that help their case?
Let's wait for the outcome of this. I rather doubt we need to make too much of the "they can ask ANYTHING" part of this - if we do let's wait for the actual event. Certainly SCO has done enough to anger the geek community without us needing to throw any more fuel on the fire. Only pursue them for the poor behavior they have actually demonstrated - I can't imagine why we would need anything else.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Don't expect a real lawyer to give you a real opinion without getting hit in the pocket.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
My understanding from several legal professionals that I know is that you can safely ignore a defective subpoena and Mr. Watson may have been better off if he had ignored it completely instead of going before a NC court. He threw himself into the shark pool with no protection and the SCO attorneys swam in for the kill.
The SCO gang seem to be very skilled liars and even appear to derive great satisfaction while doing so.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
I don't see how they can get away with this. One federal judge made a ruling, no more depositions, so they went to another court and asked for something they shouldn't have asked for. Because the Courts can't/won't communicate about cases, the judge allowed the deposition "to be fair". This is just like being a little kid running to daddy when mommy says no to a cookie.. I can't believe that a federal judge would allow this.
You can refuse to answer questions that seem to be way out of line. For example, if at a deposition in an intellectual property case like this you are asked if you every had any affairs and with whom and when and all the details of what you did, you could refuse and insist that it go before the judge before you answer.
Personally, I'm a pain in the ass and would just refuse certain questions and if I had to go to jail on contempt charges, so be it, but you can be most assured it would not be in vain for there would be significant press coverage. Perhaps stupid in some people's view, but that is about the only chance I would have to create public awareness of a major problem in the legal system.