Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Denies Destroying Evidence in SCO Case

Posted by Hemos on from the i-sincerely-doubt-it dept.

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.""

10 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. What cojones! by swillden · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What's really funny about this particular SCO accusation is that they're basically accusing IBM of being careful not to accidentally put SCO's (alleged) IP in Linux, and trying to spin it as a bad thing. IBM didn't want its developers to inadvertently use AIX or Dynix code in their Linux development work, because IBM didn't want to risk revealing AT&T's trade secrets and violating their contract. 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.

    I guess I have to admire their chutzpah.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    1. Re:What cojones! by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:What cojones! by orkysoft · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Basically, SCO concocted this weird "your code becomes mine if it rubs against mine" infringement argument because they couldn't find any copied SVR4 code.

      Wow, talk about your viral licences!

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  2. What a mess! by udderly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I simply cannot believe how long this has gone on. What a staggering waste of time and resources. This is probably as good an example as any of why the West is probably going to fall. While China is ramping up production and making huge economic strides, we here in the US are arguing over lines of code as our manufacturing base continues to crumble. Changing over to a "service economy?" Please.

    How many hours have been wasted on this type of crap? What useful item has been produced out of this or any of the other spurious "copyright" or "intellectual property" cases?

    Trial lawyers giving money to politician lawyers, who make laws so trial lawyers can argue cases against rival trial lawyers in front of judge lawyers. So, what's the common denominator and who benefits? Follow the money.


    1. Re:What a mess! by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, but you miss the point. When the Exxon Valdez spilled its oil over the coast of Alaska, the money spent to clean it up counted towards the GDP.

      Likewise, lawsuits, dollar for dollar, count just as much towards economic growth as manufactured goods.

      Edward Abbbey once said, "Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell." In a country where monthly economic figures are cited in election debates, is it any wonder that our system favors fast growing tumors?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  3. Ever heard of Groklaw? by nadamsieee · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  4. Deleting a Sandbox -- Not the Repository by gtwilliams · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Garry Williams
  5. I deny all sorts of things also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really hate the use of "deny" in headlines as it seems to imply that something is true and it is being denied for some nefarious reason.
    If something is simply not true, guess what? I'm going to deny it.
    The headline should be "SCO accuses IBM of destroying evidence"
    (eg: the party making the accusation should be the subject of the sentence)

    TDz.

  6. Re:The Disappeared Ones by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's funny they don't seem to crop up anymore

    Their bosses at MS told them to work on the Novell story spin and let the SCO thing go since everyone saw through that ruse.

    I'm not joking. Astroturf is real and is happening.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  7. The problem is by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 5, Funny

    All of those things would infringe on SCO's intelectual property.