Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Found No Source Code In 2004

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the dying-from-nor-surprise dept.

doperative writes "A consultant hired by SCO in 2004 to compare UNIX and Linux, with the thought he could be used as an expert at trial, says that, after days and days, his comparison tool found 'very little correlation'. When he told that to SCO, it paid him and he never heard from SCO again."

6 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. Wonder why he didn't speak up sooner? by quangdog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's probably due to some contract thing - but imagine how many fewer annoying articles about SCO and Darl would have been avoided had this guy gone public years ago.

    1. Re:Wonder why he didn't speak up sooner? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wasn't aware that non-disclosure agreements or contracts of any kind protected someone from revealing if they knew criminal conduct was going on. These guys knew full well that SCO's attorneys and expert witnesses were perjuring themselves, and should have come forward then.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. Isn't that what the Linux community said all along by grapeape · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No real surprise there, just verification. SCO got itself in a tight spot financially and was looking for a scapegoat, with many SCO contributors moving to linux at the time linux made it convenient to blame, the backing of big companies contributing to Linux made them perfect target to get money. Their entire case was based on the theory that if people who used to work on SCO were now working on Linux then they must copied code...it sounded feasible to them and I assume their hope was that it would be seen feasible enough to slip through without much investigation.

  3. Re:wow, a SCO story? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Read this part to understand why it is still relevent (there are, after all, still cases pending):

    So, my head is spinning, because what I'm thinking is: does this demonstrate that SCO knew there was no basis for their copyright infringement claims against IBM, Novell, AutoZone, and the world, at least by 2004? We'd have to do discovery on the matter to know for sure, but if they deliberately buried evidence, I would imagine it could impact damages due to SCO's victims, not just from SCO but conceivably from SCO's lawyers as well, should it be established that the litigation was frivolous and SCO knew it way back in 2004. I'm sure SCO's lawyers will have a long song and dance about it to deny it all, but it's certainly a huge red flag to me.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  4. Old news by thue · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has been publicly known since 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies#The_Michael_Davidson_E-Mail

  5. Re:wow, a SCO story? by nomadic · · Score: 5, Informative

    You do not have to produce your expert's analyses to the other side or the court under the Federal rules.