IBM Denies Destroying Evidence in SCO Case

Rob writes "IBM Corp has denied claims made by SCO Group that it destroyed evidence relevant to their ongoing breach-of-contract and copyright case, maintaining that SCO has had the evidence in question in its possession since March 2005. SCO, which believes IBM breached a contract by contributing Unix code to the Linux operating system, accused IBM of destroying evidence in a July 2006 court filing, claiming that "IBM directed 'dozens' of its Linux developers within its LTC [Linux Technology Center] and at least 10 of its Linux developers outside... to delete the AIX and/or Dynix source code from their computers.""

Comments

Ever heard of Groklaw?

[nadamsieee]

This was reported a week ago on Groklaw (in much greater detail).

Deleting a Sandbox -- Not the Repository

[gtwilliams]

This is old news.

IBM instructed developers to purge their sandboxes. This, of course, has nothing to do with the source code in IBM's source control systems. It's just working copies on developers' machines.

Re:What cojones!

[TubeSteak]

So, IBM prudently directed developers who were going to work on Linux to get rid of the AIX and Dynix source on their machines prior to beginning Linux development work. Now SCO wants the court to interpret this attitude of respect for AT&T/Novell/SCO/TSG IP as bad-faith destruction of evidence.

Except that isn't what constitutes bad-faith destruction of evidence.

The two really key parts of TFA are:
1. "Despite SCO's dogged efforts, it can identify nothing that has been destroyed."
2. "IBM also maintained that SCO did not show that IBM acted in bad faith or that SCO suffered any prejudice, and that SCO agreed in March 2006 that there were no disputes between the two parties over discovery evidence."

Basically, SCO can't prove shiat and even if they could, it's too late; since SCO already said that there were no evidentiary problems.

As others have said, Groklaw goes more indepth, but those two facts are all you really need to understand the issue.