Judge Calls SCO On Lack of Evidence 187
Rob writes to mention a CBR article on Judge Wells' assessment that SCO just hasn't made its case against IBM in the well-known and long-lasting legal battle. The magistrate called the lack of evidence inexcusable. She further likened their claims to a shoplifter being handed a catalog for a store after being stopped, and being told 'what you took is in there somewhere, figure it out.' From the article: "In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put 'all the evidence... on the table' ... given SCO's own public statements... it would appear that SCO had more than enough evidence to comply with the court's orders." Groklaw has coverage of the decision, and the complete text from the judge. Update: 06/30 15:14 GMT by Z : This story bears more than a passing resemblance to this one from Wednesday. Sorry about that.
And for those of you just tuning in (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How did SCO get to sue IBM in the first place? (Score:4, Informative)
Die SCO DIE!!! (Score:2, Informative)
Do the math:
SCO = (SUCK)!
Re:This is still going on? (Score:3, Informative)
So at this point, there's no more monetary motive for the law firm to drag the case out.
Re:The judge's analogy isn't quite right... (Score:5, Informative)
No, the judge is spot on.
SCO has accused IBM of shoplifting a good many different items, so to speak.
The judge has not yet ruled on whether or not IBM shopifted anything. What she has said is that SCO has failed to provide evidence even to warrant such a ruling regarding the alleged shoplifting of most of the items, and dropped those counts.
However, there are a few items left of which IBM remains accused of taking (to continue with the "shoplifting" analogy).
For the judge to appear to have decided on IBM's "guilt" or "innocence" with regard to any of the remaining items at this point in time would be improper because that evidence has not yet been given a full hearing. IBM does in fact remain accused by SCO - nothing more, nothing less - and that's what she must say if she is to appear impartial.
The next step is for the remaining counts to be presented, along with evidence, in court. Only after that happens will IBM's "guilt" or "innocence" of the (remaining) charges brought by SCO be determined.
Re:SCO's mistake (Score:3, Informative)
In the next stage, the summary judgement phase, IBM may ask the judge to toss out more. However the bar for summary judgment is pretty high (the "facts" are not in dispute), but that doesn't mean we can't expect more of the instances of alleged misuse to be axed at this step too.
Anything remaining would then be left for a jury to decide.
At least that's how I understand the process.
Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:1, Informative)
Because he can't afford a frickin' shark.
Re:This is still going on? (Score:3, Informative)
I agree.
A company (large, reputable) that I finished a contract for bans all free software, and especially all software licensed under any form of GPL, Apache, Mozilla, or Creative Commons licenses. The only exception that they will make is for embedded tools (such as Perl being used in certain commercial applications). The CIO and CFO have to sign off on this use, and the vendor providing the software must contractually promise to indemnify the company against any and all lawsuits stemming from the use of the embedded software.
The company does this solely out of fear of lawsuits.
Using unauthorized GPL, Apache, Mozilla, or Creative Commons software on any corporate system or in connection with any corporate project was grounds for immediate dismissal. Statements to that effect were present in the IT acceptable use policy distributed to every employee and contractor.
Don't read the CBR article. (Score:3, Informative)
The judge did not throw out any evidence. The judge threw out a bunch of SCO's claims against IBM because SCO did not provide IBM with what specifically IBM did that caused SCO to bring those claims agains IBM. IBM asked what version, file, and line of code SCO was claiming IBM used improperly, and SCO did not tell them. So, the judge said you cannot litigate those claims against IBM because IBM cannot defend themselves without knowing exactly what you are claiming they did.
There is another set of motion practice going on to get some parts of SCO's expert reports stricken due to them bringing up supposed misconduct that was not part of what SCO has in their pleadings or that SCO mentioned during discovery. This could result in much of those expert reports being stricken which could properly be called throwing out evidence vs throwing out claims.
Re:This is still going on? (Score:5, Informative)
Umm, yeah, except for that $16,000,000 cheque [zdnet.com] that MS wrote them for something MS had already paid for, and the $50,000,000 [zdnet.com] "gift" from the PIPE fairy, which was brokered by MS.
<sarcasm>
No, no such income at all.
</sarcasm>