SCO Found No Source Code In 2004

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."

Re:wow, a SCO story?

[mysidia]

That's all well and good, but all this would prove is that SCO knew that one guy they contracted couldn't find a basis for their claims, not that they knew the lawsuit was baseless.

I think the point is the guy they contracted found evidence that there was no correlation between contents of SCO and Linux source trees.

It's not a matter of him not finding anything; it's a matter of him finding something; that is, evidence that would have been beneficial to their adversary in court, that they did not provide to the court.

In other words, legal misconduct. When you are subpoena'd for evidence, you have to make all evidence available, not just evidence that favors your viewpoint; if you had intentionally destroyed records/evidence because they don't favor your viewpoint, then that's misconduct that could increase their liability.

Old news

[thue]

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

Re:wow, a SCO story?

[nomadic]

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

Re:Wonder why he didn't speak up sooner?

[Gutboy]

And what criminal conduct did he know about? Did he read transcripts of the trial and see where they had taken his report and lied about it? He is/was not qualified to comment on the reports from other so-called investigators unless he'd actually read their reports. All he knew was that his study didn't support what they were saying, but that doesn't say anything about other studies that may have been conducted.