SCO Accuses IBM of Destruction of Evidence

Udo Schmitz writes "According to an article at Forbes, SCO claims that IBM destroyed evidence by ordering programmers to delete copies of code that could have helped SCO prove its case. SCO's attorney Brent Hatch says that 'one IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying source code and tests' and that they didn't mention this in public, because it only became relevant now, and that 'the claim was part of a motion SCO filed in March 2006, which has remained sealed'." From the article: "IBM declined to comment, citing a policy of not discussing ongoing litigation. In her sharply worded ruling, Wells criticized SCO's conduct in the case and seemed to indicate she was annoyed with the company. 'I don't know if that's true or not, but that's a question I'm asking myself,' Hatch says. Hatch concedes the Wells ruling represented a setback for SCO. But he says SCO still has a strong case. "

Re:Except...

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

SCO are flat out lying, whether just to the public, or to their lawyers as well. The only reason I think IBM are continuing with this is to get each and every claim SCO has specifically and individually struck down so when the house of cards finally does crumble they have no way to try it again.

Also, the longer this mess goes on, the more money it bleeds from SCO. Even the stock market is finally reluctantly starting to realize, years after Slashdotters, that SCO doesn't really have any ground to stand on. SCOX is currently valued at $2.51 a share, having lost about $1.50 or so in the past month. One source says that SCO is down to $18 million in cash. I think IBM is just trying to get them to run out of money by the time this is settled in IBM's favor so they won't be in a position to launch endless appeals of the verdict.

relevant excerpt

[avdp]

Here is the relevant excerpt from SCO's legal filing:

even after the Court ordered the source code to be produced, IBM failed to produce all versions of its AIX code, claiming that they cannot be located. Even more egregious was IBM's spoliation of evidence. Weeks after SCO filed its lawsuit, IBM directed "dozens" of its Linux developers within its LTC and at least ten of its Linux developers outside the LOC to delete the AIX and/or Dynix source code from their computers. (SCO Opp. Memo. (3/7/06) at 3.) One IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying Dynix source code and tests, as well as pre-March 2003 drafts of source code he had written for Linux while referring to Dynix code on his computer. (Id. at 3-4.)

SCO has access to every version of AIX and Dynix released in recent and not so recent history and they can't identify any infringement in them. So now they're saying that the same code that were copied or cached on the developers' workstation must have had the smoking gun in it. That's a really really desperate argument. Clearly they're just trying hard to raise arguments - any arguments - that may lead to this devastating ruling to be reversed. I suppose I can't blame them lawyers for not leaving a stone unturned.

Re:Classic projection

[smbarbour]

For future reference:

In general, when providing a definition and example, you must use the word you have defined... in the example.

Re:Anyone else...

[ILikeRed]

Orrin Hatch has a decent challenger from what I hear - you (or anyone else) can vote to get his challenger extra campaign funds here [ga4.org]. Vote for Pete Ashdown (UT) to get the campaign funds. (I'm a libertarian - but I'd vote for just about anyone or anything if it meant getting rid of Orrin Hatch.) Use an email address you can get rid of or filter, because it will go into their database.

Re:Anyone else...

[Phydoux]

Pete Ashdown owns XMission [xmission.com], which is Utah's largest ISP. He understands technical issues very well and would represent the technology crowd very well.

Re:Anyone else...

[ClamIAm]

Most importantly, Ashdown is one of us. What, you say? Well, another poster mentioned he owns XMission, an ISP (which is also the host of Maddox). He is also apparently a Technocrat [technocrat.net] reader. He sounds like a semi-sane person, at least when it comes to technology.

Re:This Brent O. Hatch is Sen Hatch's son

[ryusen]

Sen Hatch is also largely responsible for the DMCA and all of those other industry protectionist bills disguised as things to fight piracy... he and P Leyhey (D) are those bills greatest supporters, and irnoically enough to of the biggest recievers of soft money from entertainment...