IBM Says SCO Willfully Failed To Detail Evidence 188
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.'"
Grocklaw's take (Score:5, Informative)
Grocklaw's take here, and it makes good reading: [groklaw.net]
...
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know how effective the program is as I don't cheat, but I do know a few students in the department that have nearly been suspended.
However, your last statement is spot on, the judge should throw them out of court
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nasty tactics (Score:3, Informative)
You forgot their cell-phone spamming multilevel marketing scheme [slashdot.org].
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:3, Informative)
It is plaintiff to make a case, and submit proof for it (evidence).
Then the defendent gets to disprove the case (if there is one to disprove), you know, show how all the evidence is a whole lot of BS, or provide counter-evidence.
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:4, Informative)
Simple as it is (IBM even writes several tools to do such a thing and markets them to various niche markets), it wouldn't be helpful in this case. SCO no longer maintains that there is any "SCO" code in Linux. They now claim that certain "technological concepts" related to UNIX were improperly used, but they make the assertion without clear explanation of what they mean by that.
Searching for plagiarism would be cake... some ambiguous intellectual abstraction? Now that's hard!
If you look at the claims SCO started with, and what they are now attempting to argue in court, there's no relation. How the case has played out so long without being thrown out is anyone's guess.