IBM Says SCO Willfully Failed To Detail Evidence

Robert wrote to mention a piece on CBR Online where the latest volley in the SCO case is covered. IBM is now accusing SCO of having acted in bad faith when they opened the trial against IBM, by being purposefully vague in their evidence. From the article: "All in all, according to IBM, SCO's evidence filing makes it impossible for the company to defend itself. 'By failing to provide adequate reference points, SCO has left IBM no way to evaluate its claims without surveying the entire universe of potentially relevant code and guessing ... Since only SCO knows what its claims are, requiring such an exercise of IBM would be as senseless and unfair as it would be Herculean.'"

SCO being vague in their claims?

[onallama]

In other breaking news, water is wet.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Wow 198 of 201 items without evidence.

[LiquidCoooled]

The other 3 items are now listed here in all their glory:

//

/*

*/

IBM Willfully copied these lines and should burn in hell.

IBM's stance

[Anonymous Coward]

the SCO sucks as much as mr. Slooby.

Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance

[Dr. Evil]

The case is a trade secret though. If they reveal it, then people will know they have no case, destroying the company.

Huh?

[Dachannien]

Since only SCO knows what its claims are, requiring such an exercise of IBM would be as senseless and unfair as it would be Herculean.

Wait a second.... who ever said that SCO knows what its claims are?

What's left?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently if the judge accepts the motion, the only
case SCO has left is over someone at IBM calling Darl a poo poo head.

Re:Wow 198 of 201 items without evidence.

[(H)elix1]

The other 3 items are now listed here in all their glory: // , /* , and */


That must be valuable SCO IP. As soon as I removed all //, /*, and */ references from the code, and most code will not compile anymore. Fortunately, it would seem my coworkers are not using any of this infringing IP.

In related news...

[Spy der Mann]

Rumour says that SCO has given IBM a reference book [amazon.com] to help find the copyrighted material.

Re:what no groklaw link?

[Lord Bitman]

How can you have a comment complaining about a lack of a link to Groklaw and not link to Groklaw??

Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance

[sconeu]

In other words,

<STEREOTYPE version="female">
SCO: You know very well what you did, and if you don't, I'm certainly not going to tell you!
</STEREOTYPE>

Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance

[Anonymous Coward]

However, if it follows the male/female discussion pattern:

After much argument...
<STEREOTYPE version="female">
SCO: Here. Here is the code. And I hope you are proud of yourself!
</STEREOTYPE>
<STEREOTYPE version="male">
IBM: Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Can we have sex now?
</STEREOTYPE>

Only works for Mothers

[DeanFox]

My Mother use to get away with this all the time when I was a kid. I'd come home from school and with a "look" she'd say, I know what happened today at school." After 5 minutes defending myself I'd usually find myself grounded. It took years before I figured it out.

I doubt this same strategy will work with IBM. SCO says, here's a list of files. You know what you did wrong. Go to the developers, discuss it amongst yourselves and come back with your defense.

It isn't going to work. IBM is all growed up.

-[d]-

Re:what no groklaw link?

[BigCheese]

How can you have a comment complaining about a comments lack of a link to Groklaw and not link to Groklaw??

Better end this now. http://www.groklaw.net/ [groklaw.net]

Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance

[Rorgg]

With the tags and everything? Cool!