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.'"
Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:4, Interesting)
His solution was a simple edit distance program that checked every pair-wise set of homework assignment's source code. You could thus find the highest areas of similar work between two pieces of code or even documents. A simple algorithm [wikipedia.org]--it's the engineer way.
When I took a course in computational biology (or bioinformatics), I was enlightened to the BLAST [wikipedia.org] and FASTA [wikipedia.org] algorithms that could be useful in this case. Basically, you could search by global alignment or some form of local alignment (reducing and increasing complexity of the algorithm, respectively). These algorithms work already with protein chains and DNA so they are more than capable of large sets of data computed quickly and effectively.
The article lists SCO submitting 45,000 pages of evidence and materials--of which I assume is SCO's own work. What IBM could choose to do is have them scanned and provide the court with the alleged infringing documents to check against. The localized areas that score the highest could then be inspected by IBM and give their lawyers ample time to start a defense against points in the documents that will probably be areas of attack for SCO. In fact, it's entirely possible that SCO used this method to quickly identify what it thought to be points of infringement in code.
But of course, like most Slashdot posters, I'd rather just see the judge turn to SCO and say, "Bullshit, case dismissed..." and proceed to tell them off like Judge Judy giving a deadbeat father a taste of the back o' her hand.
Case dismissed???? NO WAY! (Score:3, Insightful)
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:5, Interesting)
My wife's writing style is rather uniform and predictable.
The database she works from is the same regardless of the calss she is taking, she writes papers and whatnot for her masters/doctoral work (I'm coding an indexing on-line library of reference documents that is more easily searchable).
This database of documentation is a superset of what she had when she was taking her BS degree classes (same data and sourcework, plus new sourcework and data, plus her previous papers).
She has been brought up for plagerism because her paper too closely resembled another paper turned into the same on-line system to detect cheaters, and a published work on the same subject. Problem is, the paper that was used as a reference was one of her bachelor papers, and the published work was also hers (thus no plagerism). Had the teacher not discussed this with her before talking with the dean, this could have turned out rather badly.
How are systems like this to defend against such issues, I for one do not trust that every teacher / prof / dean will do the right thing, and would rather rubber stamp a transcript with the expelled mark for plagerism rather than look at the possibility that the student is simply leveraging some of their previous hard work...
-nB
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:2)
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:3)
She did nothing wrong, and in fact the portion the computer highlighted were her critiques of legal documents, used as backup. The premise of the papers were entirely different.
Re-submitting a previous work is against the rules, yes. Leveraging your previous
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:4, Interesting)
I was a TA for an operating systems class, and we used automated tools to detect possible plagiarism, but this was only the first step. Human inspection revealed that some was in fact plagiarism, but there were also false positives. We weren't exactly surprised; it was assumed this was possible and that human investigation was necessary. We never considered "rubber stamping" the verdict of the program.
People who trust computers don't understand them. People who use computers to make decisions for them (rather than provide data to inform their own decisions) are lazy. Combine the two, and bad things happen.
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:2)
By doing exactly what they did--bringing in the original student and other actual people to determine the truth of the charges.
Of course not. Colleges have procedures for handling this kind of situation. I've never heard of one that's fully automatated, with no chance for the accused to r
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:2, Insightful)
For the teacher, yes. The dean would look at the name on the paper
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:2)
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.
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:5, Insightful)
As a defendant, their job is solely to disprove the other side's case.
SCO doesn't have a case. I don't mean that their claims have no merit, although they don't. I mean they have literally not actually made a case. They have refused to sit down and say 'This is our code, and this is where you illegally copied it into Linux.'.
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:5, Funny)
The case is a trade secret though. If they reveal it, then people will know they have no case, destroying the company.
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:5, Funny)
<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 (Score:2)
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:2)
Yeah, I love it on a TV court show when the prosecution goes on and on, finishes up, and the defendant's lawyer gets his turn, and just says, "The defense rests".
The best defense is not needing to defend yourself.
Hell, I did it one time when I was under investigation by the law. Serious nasty shit I did not do. They wanted me to come in and take a polygraph and chat and all that. I already told them honestly everything that happened,
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:3, Informative)
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:2)
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:2)
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:2)
I don't know how teachers solved that problem but as a uni student in economics (I'd know better now than to study something akin to astrology, but back then I still listened to my parents), my simple fix to the other student's pressing calls for help was "sure, here's a working sorted program for
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:2)
int add(int x, int y) {
return x + y;
}
Re:How obscenely over-simplified! (Score:2)
[yes, this is a joke]
int add(int x, int y, int *p_ans) {
int ans;
ans = x + y;
if (x >= 0) {
if (y >= 0) && (ans x || ans > y))
return -1;
*p_ans = ans;
return 0;
}
Now, if IBM "independently invented" that, y
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:2)
What about all the ERROR CHECKING!?
[yes, this is a joke]
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:2)
That's right: 33,000 pages were submitted regarding just one of those points and now they've dropped that one point anyway!
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:2)
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:2)
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/2_11 _04_n-sco.pdf [novell.com]
Novell retained a lot of rights under the APA, including the rights referenced in this letter. SCO is acting as Novell's agent with regards to SVRX..and Novell does not agree with SCO's position regarding AIX and Dynix. Novell has provided plenty of evidence in the letters linked to here, and earlier ones, as to why SCO is wrong about IBM's responsibilities...and SCO didn't even wri
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:4, Insightful)
What IBM could choose to do is have them scanned and provide the court with the alleged infringing documents to check against.
And here is IBM's point, that SCO has not, in fact, actually identified documents which they claim are infringing, leaving IBM the task of having to, essentially, do SCO's work for them by searching their entire UNIX codebase, all of it, looking for code that infringes.
And that's just not how it works. SCO, in order to make a claim, has to, well, actually make a claim. i.e. IBM did this and this here and here which infringes. IBM only has to answer to the claim and demonstrate its falsity with documents relating to the specifics of the claim; and only the specifics of the claim.
The court does not do any of this. It isn't any of the court's business. The litigants do this and their lawyers present their arguments to the judge and jury and only documents presented at trial have any relevance to actually deciding the case.
SCO is trying to play a liable until proven not liable game, making IBM do the work to produce the evidence against themselves. Against a nonspecific claim. The justice and logical problems involved in this are the very reason the founding fathers adopted the innocent until proven liable way of doing things.
SCO: Somewhere in the known universe IBM possesses an invisible pink something or other. We don't know what that something or other is though, until IBM produces it for us, but as soon as they do we'll claim it's ours.
IBM: We cannot show the entire universe to the court to demonstrate our non possession of an invisible something or other.
SCO is seeking liability on the part of IBM by the above argument.
IBM is simply saying that SCO needs to say exactly what they allege IBM possesses and where they claim it is to be found, along with their evidence supporting the allegation. Then, and only then, can IBM actually defend themselves against the claim by showing the court that SCO's presented evidence is false by presenting evidence of their own.
IBM is more than willing and able to apply the methods you outline, as soon as SCO legitimately identifies what code the test is to be made against.
Certainly IBM can be compelled to produce evidence for SCO's use, that's what this is all about, but you might want to go read the Fourth Amendment for the basic rules on the legal limits of such compulsion.
Think about it. How would you defend yourself against the claim that you had murdered, someone, sometime, we don't know who or when, but you did it?
The fact is you couldn't, unless you could account for your actions over your entire lifetime to a legal certainty.
Criminal and civil rules are different, but in this case they are close enough for hand grenades, as the rules for both are based on the same legal philosophy.
To wit, the accuser must present evidence supporting the claim before the case can even go forward to trial, and the accused need only defend themselves against that evidence. It is the reponsibility of the accuser to identify any evidence that may be held by the accused. The accused need only defend themselves against the claim, not be compeled to twist their own hanging rope.
KFG
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:2)
Man... I'd hate to be the inter that got that one...
"Hey, Tim. You've done some really good work lately. We really like where you're going. That's why we're trusting you to scan these ultra-important legal documents. Just let us know when you're done, and keep up the good work."
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:2)
This Edit Distance would work rather well for "breach of copyright" as what is protected is particular text and not general ideas or methods. If I lokked over your shoulder and saw a neat algorithm which I them implemneted myself this would not violate your copyright unless I did a line for line copy of you code.
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:3, Interesting)
First, it is not IBMs job to identify things that might be infringing. It is up to SCO to identify them.
Second, forcing IBM to waste its resources identifying "possible" attacks an
Re:Two Words for IBM--Edit Distance (Score:3, Interesting)
Grocklaw's take (Score:5, Informative)
Grocklaw's take here, and it makes good reading: [groklaw.net]
...
Discovery Phase & Burden of Proof (Score:2)
SCO actions... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets look at the facts here, SCO is filing lawsuits all over the place, being very vague on the specifics of the lawsuit, all of which ties the courts up and drags out the cases. There is a lot of publicity about how *NIX variants may be breaching all these copyrights, IP's, and licenses, which in the long term reduces confidence in *NIX since consumers can't be sure that the product they are investing money in may suddenly get pulled.
IMHO the money M$ has pushed towards SCO is entirely related to this case, by tying these vendors to the courts and reducing consumer confidence people are more likely to buy M$ products rather than face the risk of getting hurt with the outcome of these lawsuits.
I think these cases should all be thrown out, SCO has a fairly damning track record of lawsuits for the sake or lawsuits, regardless of the validity of the claims.
Explanation of SCO's actions (Score:2, Insightful)
-SCO is actually pretty indifferent to how the case (a contract dispute with IBM) comes out.
-This case exists for the sole purpose of making people worry whether there's something dangerous about using or contributing to Linux
-As such, its value is directly proportional to its duration in time, and has nothing to do with the outcome, which will be a dismissal or a summary judgment for the defendant
Re:SCO actions... (Score:2)
SCO being vague in their claims? (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
In related news... (Score:4, Funny)
It's the Ari Fleischer defense... (Score:2)
"I think the burden is on those people who think [IBM] didn't have [stolen SCO programs] to tell the world where they are."
what no groklaw link? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what no groklaw link? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:what no groklaw link? (Score:2, Funny)
Better end this now. http://www.groklaw.net/ [groklaw.net]
Re:what no groklaw link? (Score:2)
Wow 198 of 201 items without evidence. (Score:5, Funny)
*/
IBM Willfully copied these lines and should burn in hell.
Re:Wow 198 of 201 items without evidence. (Score:2)
{
}
and the smoking gun, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS AWAY IBM!!!!:
return 1;
Re:Wow 198 of 201 items without evidence. (Score:2)
Re:Wow 198 of 201 items without evidence. (Score:2)
I believe both of these things have been added to the newer C standard (C99?)
Re:Wow 198 of 201 items without evidence. (Score:5, Funny)
The other 3 items are now listed here in all their glory:
That must be valuable SCO IP. As soon as I removed all
Nasty tactics (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nasty tactics (Score:3, Informative)
You forgot their cell-phone spamming multilevel marketing scheme [slashdot.org].
Tactics backfiring... (Score:2)
The goal of SCOX's original filing was to annoy IBM enough to get a quick pay-off or buy-out to silence them, since they knew their business was sliding steeply downhill.
What they got instead was a "millions for defense, not one cent for tribute" response, that they now have to make their case against.
As well as a countersuit, and a suit from Red Hat claiming Lanham Act offenses, and from Novel
Re:Tactics backfiring... (Score:2)
Actually SCOX sued Novell, claiming Slander of Title, when Novell said that SCOX didn't own the copyrights.
Re:Nasty tactics (Score:2)
Re:Nasty tactics (Score:2)
But the near-instantaneous deconstruction of SCOX's claims in the tech press, Groklaw, etc., has only reduced the available avenues for FUD'g Linux by claiming infringement from UNIX.
You can tell this by MSFT's returning to their "Get the (non)Facts" nonsense, and Monkey-Boy's recent attempt to claim patent problems.
SC O's little problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nasty tactics (Score:2)
Their mistake was in going after IBM with the obvious goal of gaining a quick money settlement, which IBM wasn't about to pony up. Yet another bad decision from McBride & the gang
Re:Nasty tactics (Score:2)
> going to consume it's last resources.
How much is SCO really spending on the case?
It doesn't take a lot of effort to let IBM does all the work of trying to "prove their innocence" while SCO sits back and says "I'm not satisfied, show me more, it's obvious you're guilty of something but I won't tell you what it is because I'm too lazy to spend any resources to make my case."
It's one of the key reasons for the assumption of
Re:Nasty tactics (Score:2)
IBM's stance (Score:4, Insightful)
What I find really enjoyable is the more-aggressive stance IBM's lawyers have taken in recent filings.
Not trying to call them pansies for their actions in the past, and clearly they understand the US court system far better than I ever hope to; but I know I'm not the only one that has been frustrated by all the shenanigans that SCO's lawyers and management have been allowed to pull since this thing started three freekin years ago.
But IBM hasn't pulled any punches lately, going for the jugular with this reply memo and its requests for discovery (asking for details in SCO's relationship with Baystar is gonna reveal beaucoup scummage, imho).
Anyone have a deathwatch-type clock running for SCO?
Re:IBM's stance (Score:4, Insightful)
They knew SCO didn't have a case so step one was to cooperate with the judge and be as easy to work with as possible. This puts them into the Judge's good graces early. They didn't need to play hard ball from the start so they built up good will while SCO built up bad will.
Step two. Now that the Judge is good and ticked at SCO and happy with IBM DROP THE HAMMER. IBM can now so their anger at SCO for all hoops that they tried to put IBM through and the Judge is now on IBMs side. The Judge will now actually be glad to see IBM take charge.
IBM turned the David vs Goliath battle into a battle between a spoiled brat of child and a wise old man.
Re:IBM's stance (Score:2)
Good luck. This has been going on for 3 years. I don't think this will end anytime soon. SCO will still find a way to delay/bog down the trial. I ultimately believe SCO will go down in flames. I just don't think it'll be as soon as we think.
Re:IBM's stance (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever studied Aikido? [usaikifed.com] It's a martial art that stresses defense, and specifically using the attacker's energy against them. In Aikido you let the attacker attack, as hard as they can. Only when they become off balance, often by attacking too hard, do you "help them" to the ground.
In this light the IBM strategy makes perfect sense: let SCO do as much as possib
Re:IBM's stance (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever studied Aikido? It's a martial art that stresses defense, and specifically using the attacker's energy against them. In Aikido you let the attacker attack, as hard as they can. Only when they become off balance, often by attacking too hard, do you "help them" to the ground.
I was thinking more of hard Aikido (where you occasionally punch the other guy) or Ninpo, where you actively control the space and manipulate the other guy into beating themself down.
Re:Re - your sig (Score:2)
Re:Re - your sig (Score:2)
In other words, don't sweat it, it's just baaaad writing.
Bad Faith For Dummies (Score:3, Insightful)
"....SCO tells the court that it has provided 'color-coded illustrations', 'line-by-line source code comparisons' and 'over 45,000 pages of supporting materials' ...
... 33,000 of those pages concern item 294, which SCO abandons in its opposition brief ....
....while the Final Disclosures include color-coded illustrations and line-by-line source comparisons, they do not do so with regard to any of the 198 items at issue."
I don't want to be "piling on" but if IBM is correct in its analysis of SCO's, it would seem that SCO is writing the book on how to look like they are acting in bad faith.
Do they really think IBM would not notice and point out to the judge these glaring gaps?
Trial delays for fun and profit. (Score:2)
That part doesn't matter.
...someone... who will pay to fund SCO's legal battle ... and possibly slow the Linux migration rate.
SCO isn't in this to win a judgement against IBM.
SCO is in this because:
#1. Pump-n-dump SCO stock. Almost every SCO executive has dumped all of their SCO stock.
#2. Make money from
#3. McBride gets more media attention.
When you look at that way, every one of their steps makes sense.
Re:Trial delays for fun and profit. (Score:2)
>If I remember correctly: BSF was paid partially in SCO shares. That would make BSF interested in the financiall well being of the company. If they are not acting in the best interest of the company (like a pump and dump scam) there could be some trouble for that law firm. Let alone the possible corporate veil piercing
Hmmmmm.....
If so, a shareholder lawsuit, with recourse against the lawfirm, may be a logical step.
I wonder who's selling malpractice insurance to that law firm?
Re:Bad Faith For Dummies (Score:2)
I think that's probably irrelivant. It wouldn't be if your goal was to win. If, however, your goal is just to get rich and maintain stock prices then it doesn't matter. The only important thing to SCO management in that case is that you managed to keep a case going for three years without showing a shred of real evidence.
In the mean time, more and more of McBride's stock options are vested and free to be sold.
Indictment of the US "Justice" system (Score:5, Insightful)
How can it be possible to put a corporation to tens of millions of dollars of direct legal costs and hard to estimate indirect damages without ever needing to demonstrate any evidence of a case to answer? Judge Kimball, himself, stated in his decision on summary judgment (over 18 months after the case was originally initiated) that it was "astonishing" that SCO had provided no evidence, in spite of all their public pronouncements, but then said it was premature to render a decision because SCO might still be able to find some evidence somewhere of some wrongdoing through the discovery process. This has been explained as necessary to avoid the risk of SCO later making a successful appeal.
It seems to me that the US legal system is designed to make money for lawyers and the interests of the parties themselves is purely secondary. I fear comparison with the 19th century British system lampooned so sucessfully by Dicken's Bleak House is not kind to the current US legal system.
Re:Indictment of the US "Justice" system (Score:2)
Congratulations!
You have successfully introduced the hammer to the head of the nail with sufficient velocity.
You have demonstrated a keen and piercing insight into the U S Legal system that depressingly few Americans posses.
Re:Indictment of the US "Justice" system (Score:2)
Re:Indictment of the US "Justice" system (Score:2)
Re:Indictment of the US "Justice" system (Score:2)
No, SCOX will be dead by the time IBM's counterclaims are heard. The Lanham act claims are a slam-dunk, and they are worth more money than SCOX has had in the past few years.
They may even go after the corporate officers personally, who have been profiting from this insane lawsuit.
Not to mention BSF - who have a clause in their contract stating that they get a large sl
Re:Indictment of the US "Justice" system (Score:2)
How can it be possible to put a corporation to tens of millions of dollars of direct legal costs and hard to estimate
Herculean? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps Sisyphean: "Of or relating to an endless and ineffective task." is more appropriate.
Re:Sisyphusean. (Score:2)
(links go to answers.com, but the OED [oed.com] agrees)
Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
Wait a second.... who ever said that SCO knows what its claims are?
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
SCO did!
Oh wait... I'm an idiot huh
Innocent until proven guilty. (Score:4, Insightful)
Innocent until proven guilty is one of staples of US justice system. You can't walk into the court and say 'My neighbor stole something from me' and then leave it to the defendant to prove that everything in his appartment was actually purchased and owned by him, not you. You kinda need to say 'My neighbor stole my TV. Here's the warranty for the said TV I bought, with my name on it, and with serial of TV that's now on my neighbor's shelf.' Admittedly, the above example is vastly simplified, yet I think it would apply just fine to any copyright / patent infringement lawsuit. You can't just say you own patents to 'some of the code' in someone else's software, and then expect them to prove they own all the code - you have to specify which of the code in defendant's software is, allegedly, protected under the patents you hold.
No proof, no case.
Re:Innocent until proven guilty. (Score:2)
This fact is (or at least, should be) basic high-school civics stuff, not something you need a JD for, people. Get it right.
Re:Innocent until proven guilty. (Score:2)
My point is, to establish guilt, you need evidence to support the accusation. No evidence, no case. That's really an old one. Defendant isn't supposed to provide evidence
Re:Innocent until proven guilty. (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO's claim is not necessarily that IBM stole code that they have a patent on. SCO's claim revolves around a contract that SCO and IBM have, and that IBM breached that contract by submitting code IBM wrote to Linux, and that IBM was contractually bound by SCO to not do that. SCO is not claiming (at least, from what I read) that IBM didn't write the code, just that IBM did not have the right to release the code to a third party without SCO's "approval" or licensing.
Yes, I agree SCO is being a bunch of ninnys, and I think that this is the crux of this motion by IBM.
That being said, this case isn't as simple as you make it out to be. SCO is saying, in essence, that "IBM violated our contract by submitting code that [contractually] we own to Linux". Part of SCO's "evidence" of this wrongdoing is the contract itself: what does the contract say? What are the terms? What constitutes "submitting" and "violation", in the framework of the contract?
Because this is not "simple common law" we're talking about here, it requires a certain amount of arbitration.
The system is working. I have no doubt that when this is all said and done, not only will IBM be victorious, but it will resolve once and for all the "legal questions" involving Linux and Open Source software generically.
This is partially why I don't believe there is any real Microsoft-SCO conspiracy.. because the last thing Microsoft really wants is a clearly defined court case that resolves the IP issues involved with Linux.. and for that matter, with the whole AT&T/BSD "who really owns UNIX" issue entirely.
SCO's initial claim may seem preposterous to us in the Open Source "community", but outside of our knowledge of the way things work, things are a bit murky. By the time this is done, the waters will be clear.. trust me. IBM wouldn't be fighting it if it wouldn't.
Re:Innocent until proven guilty. (Score:2)
Bullshit.
SCOX has yet, to this day, refused to state what their claims are.
That is what IBM is saying here: SCOX was orderd (three times) to specify what their claims are. To date, they haven't. That's the problem.
Re:Innocent until proven guilty. (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you overall, but I do take issue with this point. In the beginning it wasn't certain that there would be a clearly defined court case. Most Linux supporters felt that since development was done in the open it would be difficult if not impossible to get improper code accepted into the Li
Re:Innocent until proven guilty. (Score:3, Insightful)
The system is working.
Only for sufficiently small values of working. As far as I can tell, SCO has done little but compell IBM to spend millions of dollars over several years. The system SHOULD have a way to tell such a plaintiff to "put up or shut up" early in the game, but it doesn't.
In the process of spewing truly monumental amounts of crap, SCO has managed to implicate themselves in copyright infringement themselves including continuing to offer Linux under a licence they claimed to be 'unconstitu
Re:Innocent until proven guilty. (Score:4, Insightful)
Once you keep in mind that the law firm SCO hired (BSF) is there to wear people down and force them to settle out of court, all of their tactics make sense. IBM on the other hand has been playing a very clean, very professional game and has been methodically boxing off SCO's avenues of attack over time. I beleive the issue at hand as to how the two sides are conducting their suits comes down to this: SCO is trying to chisel some money out of IBM. IBM is out to win.
Re:Innocent until proven guilty. (Score:2)
Re:Innocent until proven guilty. (Score:2)
Isn't it one of their policies to sue people without any real basis because most people will simply settle rather than pay large legal fees?
These people are brilliant (Score:3, Interesting)
Now...let the ship sink. Should have gone down long ago.
Re:These people are brilliant (Score:2)
Only works for Mothers (Score:3, Funny)
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:The propagandists in civics class (Score:2)
Correction; there is no shortage of lawyers who would be willing to bleed you dry for a non-case. Having enough money to pay them beyond the first day may be an issue though.
Also missing from your plan was the fact that you really want to be a publicly traded company and own a bunch of the stock. That way when your stocks skyrocket your plan to sell off your personal stock portfol
Smoke Crack Often? (Score:2)
Re:Forever Wars (Score:2)
50% Offtopic
30% Interesting
20% Flamebait
BaitFlaming TrollMods say "Offtopic". I say the topic is the endless lawyering of total lies into whole industries of destruction.