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.
This is still going on? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is still going on? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is still going on? (Score:5, Interesting)
-Loyal
Re:This is still going on? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This is still going on? (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone with deep pockets; someone who would greatly benefit by Linux's demise.
Conspiracy theories aside, your deep-pocketed financier theory doesn't hold much water. Public companies have to make public their revenues and expenses. SCO's financial reports show no such income. On the contrary, they have shown that they are struggling to pay the mounting legal bills.
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>
Re:This is still going on? (Score:2)
IBM's lawyers are probably busy up in Armonk putting the finishing touches on Project "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" -- in which they countersue SCO for even more stuff than is in the countersuit already in the courts.
For damages, they ask for SCO. Not money -- the company. Darl goes with the deal.
When this happens, Phase II of "All Your Base Are Belon
Re:This is still going on? (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder what the board room meetings of SCO are like with the lawyers that have undoubtedly drained SCO's coffers of every red cent...
"Na guys, we're feelin good about this thing. The judge keeps giving me a vibe - I'm so gonna hit that. But back to the case, na, we're doing well. I'm feeling judgement for us, no problem. IMB is (what's that? oh, IBM) IBM is SO gonna pay through the teeth. Leanux is going down!
"Oh, um, here's your bill. Pay that whenever. No rush."
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:This is still going on? (Score:3)
Re:This is still going on? (Score:2)
That doesn't mean it couldn't be abused to a degree...
Re:This is still going on? (Score:2)
In the case of SCO, they have a whole trust fund set aside to pay themselves out of, in case the company goes bankrupt in a hurry. The employees may not get their retirement benefits, but by god the lawyers are going to get paid! (This is fairly standard practice, I should note.)
Nobody's Fool (Score:2)
Wirf: Sooner or later we'll wear the bastards down. The court is already starting to get pissed. You heard the judge.
Sully: He's pissed at you, Wirf!
Wirf: Only because he knows I won't go away.
Sully: I know how he feels.
Re:This is still going on? (Score:2, Funny)
Probably pretty happy since they have all drained SCO's coffers into their personal bank accounts.
Re:This is still going on? (Score:2)
now when they lose man that is going to teach someone.. (atleast i hope so)
Re:This is still going on? (Score:2)
"Your Honor, our firm has filed for chapter 11 procedings due to expenses incured litigating this matter, and we have not been paid for two months, I regret to infor you that we are adbanding the represention of SCO so that we may persue gainfull employment at an other law firm."
Re:This is still going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
This case dealt a near fatal blow to end-user linux in business. Over the last two years Microsoft made previoulsy unimaginable gains in server market share, and they are using it to increase their desktop lock. The vast majority of IT managers, CIOs, CFOs, and corporate legal departments are scared to death of the GPL. The FUD is made even worse by lawyers cashing in on those fears by telling people they need to pay for costly audits and license reviews.
So who lost again?
Re:This is still going on? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're forgetting that linux came from literally nothing, and has managed to gain the respect and share it has based on it's merits as an OS, and to a lesser degree on the free beer/speech stuff. Even in the astronomically unlikely event that SCO wins, and Microsoft goes on to world domination, linux will still be there, and will be active. Why? Because Microsoft is evil - it's their nature. That paradigm will live on as long as we have SCO & MS.
Remember the AT&T/B
Re:This is still going on? (Score:2)
Shouldn't the growth continue to change the world and help everyone use IT to benefit everyone instead of MS?
I just mentioned in this thread about a previous employer who has now grown skeptical of linux as a result of SCO. We did use SCO man moons ago and found out we used Linux and tried to send us threatening letters and invoices which we paid. Its cheaper to pay than fight in court.
We had to audit
Re:This is still going on? (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux is no longer simply the domain of CS students and hobbyists. Anyone who suggests otherwise is avoiding the truth. It may not be ready for "mainstream" desktop use, but for specialists in many fields, it's the best choice. I can't imagine trying to do my work on a Windows box; we use Linux because it's free, it's powerful, and it works. There's also usually a hobbyist in groups like ours who can admin the machines, and in my experience, a Linux cluster takes a lot less work to keep running than a bunch of Windows machines.
Fermilab even hosts its own distribution called Fermi Linux [fnal.gov]. It's Red Hat Enterprise with some changes, essentially.
In my opinion, Linux doesn't have to overtake MS or Apple to accomplish something in the world. Market share is silly to talk about with free software because the word "market" means something completely different. I don't care if Joe User runs Linux; I just care that I can. Joe User can't contribute anything back, so he's really almost irrelevant from a point of view that ignores marketspeak. If I can run Linux myself, then so can others, and there are enough like-minded people in the world who will help me write software for it and give it away for free. Therefore, if Linux so much as exists, it has accomplished quite a bit.
Re:This is still going on? (Score:3, Insightful)
You also have limited budgets and need results as well. Things like integration and lower support while increasing productivity is essential in the research domain as well. The difference is the market is alot more grueling and less tollerant to failure than the public or research sector.
Linux is hea
Re:This is still going on? (Score:2)
Re:This is still going on? (Score:2)
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 u
Re:This is still going on? (Score:2)
Perl is dual licensed, so you can use it under the Artistic license (which isn't one of the ones you listed as disallowed).
Re:This is still going on? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is still going on? (Score:2)
Re:This is still going on? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, this has damaged Linux in the office and Microsoft is gleaming as they charge us throught he roof.
FYI, the cost of the audit in the accounting spreadsheets is added to teh TCO of using Linux which makes MS look cheaper. After all we will have lower legal bills if we use Windows right?
Sigh
I want to deck these guys.
Re:This is still going on? (Score:2)
Re:This is still going on? (Score:3, Insightful)
So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:4, Funny)
Too bad Darl and friends have already made their millions from SCO's little stock kiting scheme, but it'll at least be a small comfort to see SCO finally begin to implode. I think I'll be checking the Salt Lake Tribune (I live here) for the eventual bankruptcy sale... maybe buy one of their logoed signs and mount it on a trophy plaque. (well, a man can dream, can't he?)
Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:2, Funny)
While you're dreaming, why don't you go for Darl's head on a trophy plaque?
Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:5, Funny)
>
> While you're dreaming, why don't you go for Darl's head on a trophy plaque?
Except that you misspelled "pike".
I want to live just long enough to see them cut off Darl's head and stick it on a pike as a reminder to the next ten generations that some things come at too high a price. I would look up into his beady eyes and wave, like this... (*wave*!). Can your associates arrange that for me, Mr. McBride?
- Vir "Flounder" Kotto, Sr. VP, IBM Empire.
Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:5, Funny)
Why would you put Darl's head on a fish?
Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:2)
He's talking about this guy. [google.com]
Or possibly this [ida.liu.se], but I don't imagine Darl's head would go very well on it.
Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:2, Funny)
Well, SCO has floundered about this long....
Fish heads, fish heads, eat them up YUM! (Score:2)
Wouldn't have to pay to get it in.
OH NO! Now it's in my head, too!
Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:2)
Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:2)
Thus giving rise, five hundred years from now, to the legend of Sam [wikipedia.org] the Impaler [wikipedia.org]
Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:2)
Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:2)
(JFGI, I don't think I need to paste the quote from IMDB to here)
Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:3)
Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:2)
Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:2)
Very Very Small Comfort (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Better yet, How about we get in line and call in McBrige's offer to take our best shot! You do remember is famous words: [crn.com]
"We're either right or we're not. If we're wrong, we deserve people throwing rocks at us."
Okay big-mouth Darl McBride. I'm ready! I'm waiting! It's time!Re:So FINALLY we'll see an end to it? (Score:2)
So, you're saying we should sentence Darl to death. . . .
Death by bukkake!!
And for those of you just tuning in (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And for those of you just tuning in (Score:2)
I usually try to be the loudest voice in the "Dupe Chorus", but the fact that Zonk admitted to his mistake and apologized for it impresses me. It would make my Republican heart go all fluttery if we Republicans had hearts. Zonk, you're OK in my book. (I'll still rag on you for dupes, though!) =)
Re:And for those of you just tuning in (Score:2)
Waste of time and effort (Score:3, Insightful)
This case was a complete waste of time and effort. Hopefully they will disappear into the woodwork never to be seen or heard from again. Quite pathetic that it went on this long.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]How did SCO get to sue IBM in the first place? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How did SCO get to sue IBM in the first place? (Score:4, Informative)
Not at the evidence part yet. (Score:5, Interesting)
And I agree it's sad that a co. can game the system this much for this long, without providing detail about the alleged wrongdoing. It's basically a Gitmo approach to suing.
Re:How did SCO get to sue IBM in the first place? (Score:2)
Wait a minute (Score:3, Funny)
I thought SCO lost a long time ago.
Well, that's not entirely true. (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO _have_ made their case. Specifically, they've effectively gone "our case is extremely weak and you should throw it out."
They can do this because their aim was to encourage investment in SCO (both via share buying and directly from coMpanieS willing to support anything that might weaken IBM), not to win a case.
If only all litigants were so forthright. Three cheers for these latter-day Washingtons!
Re:Well, that's not entirely true. (Score:3, Interesting)
Except I don't think it was quite that simple. While their case is extremely weak, they believed it was very strong. They've spent years now firing off one motion after another, trying to obfuscate, decalrify,and otherwise muddy a perfectly straightforward situation -- that they have no leg to stand on. They got some companies to settle with them, if nothing else to avoid the hassl
Re:Well, that's not entirely true. (Score:2)
Umm, no. They never believed their case was strong. It was a (very weak) bluff, designed to encourage IBM to buy them (hence the "buy-out" contingency in their original contract with BSF.)
They've spent years now firing off one motion after another, trying to obfuscate, decalrify,and otherwise muddy a perfectly straightforward situation
Exactly. This proves the point that they didn't believe their case was strong.
If their case was strong,
Re:Well, that's not entirely true. (Score:2)
Ah, but you're confusing the SCO with their lawyers. The SCO believes their case is strong; their lawyers know better, and so began a campaign to drag out and delay the ruling to a) cover up for the weak case, b) cause some people to give up and settle rather than fight it out (due to lack of resources), and c) to ramp up their billable hours. Never let it be said a lawyer would willingly pass up a gravy train. By the time t
Re:Well, that's not entirely true. (Score:2)
There are *many* tangible reasons why we should believe that SCOX knows that their case is bogus (Darl and Sontag's outright lies being first and foremost) and nothing but idle speculation to believe otherwise.
Re:Well, that's not entirely true. (Score:2)
I know from whence I speak, as it is exactly this kind of thing my wife is going through with her ex right now. Perhaps SCO does know the case is weak, but given their statements and the chest-thumping they do on a regular basis, it's more likely they have deluded themselves into believing they ar
Re:Well, that's not entirely true. (Score:2)
Re:Well, that's not entirely true. (Score:2)
The judge's analogy isn't quite right... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's more like a store manager stopping someone who owns a competing business leaving the store, accusing them of shoplifting with no proof of anything being stolen, and then giving them the catalog to sort it out simply to harass them and take up their time.
Re:The judge's analogy isn't quite right... (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought it a bit odd that a judge would leave something hanging like that - i.e that IBM were guilty, but that SCO couldn't prove it.
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:The judge's analogy isn't quite right... (Score:2)
So, we're still in the pre-trial motions phase of this saga.
Re:The judge's analogy isn't quite right... (Score:2)
Almost, but not quite right, if I understand the way courts work correctly (I'm definitely not a lawyer, but have tried to learn a few things). Before the case goes to trial, there is, I believe, one more phase to potentially enter, which I think IBM will want to enter with a vengeance.
That is dispositive
Re:The judge's analogy isn't quite right... (Score:2)
128 foot notes? (Score:2, Funny)
Coincidence? I think not...
aj.
It's like dealing with women.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Anybody here think that this resembles some guy dealing with his girlfriend/wife who is mad at him..
Him: What did I do?
Her: You know what you did, and if you don't know, I'm not telling you.
Re:It's like dealing with women.. (Score:2)
I don't have a girlfriend. I just know a girl who'd be really mad if she heard me say that.
penalties? fines? anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:penalties? fines? anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:penalties? fines? anything? (Score:2)
Re:penalties? fines? anything? (Score:3, Funny)
Main Entry: ingress
Pronunciation: 'in-"gres
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin ingressus, from ingredi
1 : the act of entering : ENTRANCE
Main Entry: egress
Pronunciation: 'E-"gres
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin egressus, from egressus, past participle of egredi to go out, from e- + gradi to go -- more at GRADE
1 : the action or right of going or coming out
So, technically the initial dilation happens on ingress. Then, followed by the customary egress, ingress, egress,... cycle.
Re:penalties? fines? anything? (Score:2)
Re:penalties? fines? anything? (Score:2)
Summation of the PDF (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO also claimed that "methods and concepts" do not need source code to back them up. However, the Judge decided that this was incorrect and that methods and concepts could, in the most basic of terms, be boiled down to source code. Even the SCO technical witnesses attested to this, and furthermore SCO repeatedly requested the SAME LEVEL of specificity from IBM when requestiong source codef regarding AIX, LINUX and other products throughout the trial.
Basically the Judge finds it unacceptable that even though SCO has had since 2003 to substantiate it's claim with LINE, FILE and VERSION numbers for each claim, it has failed to do so.
Re:Summation of the PDF (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Summation of the PDF (Score:2, Insightful)
No, mostly what they've done is to highlight emails from IBM employees to the linux kernel mailing list, among others, telling them to use certain techniques or not to use certain techniques to accomplish certain goals.
What a feeble attempt at defrauding the court. If this were a legitimate case, all the evidence would be a
Hold The Board Accountable (Score:3, Insightful)
In my mind, this strategy of theirs fits right in line with the same kind of covert accounting strategies that Enron/Worldcom/etc were investigated for, where the EXECUTIVES themselves were held accountable to the tune of big $$$ and jail time.
Die SCO DIE!!! (Score:2, Informative)
Do the math:
SCO = (SUCK)!
Shoplifting (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's as if you walked out of Neiman Marcus, a security guard accused you of shoplifting, and then refused to tell you what you shoplifted.
Then, the guard pulls over his buddy, respected Yankee Group Laura Didio. She looks in your bag, then looks at the Neiman Marcus catalog, and announces on national media that you have stolen something from Neimann Marcus but she won't say what it is [computerworld.com].
Three years later, during trial, the guard is still unable to explain what you stole from the store.
Mmm... I smell bacon.. (Score:2)
The Real Tragedy (Score:3, Insightful)
So I applaud the Judge in this case (I think) and IBM for having the backbone to stand up to the SCO thugs. But we're all losers here.
SCO executives and possibly even the goddamned shareholders should do jail time for fraudulent use of the courts.
See I told you so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Laura is such a two-faced windbag! She spends months berating Linux and IBM -- hell, she's seen the supposed evidence, and now she's doing an about-face so she can proclaim that as an industry analyst, her forcasts are "spot on".
The Yankee Group (and especially Laura) wouldn't know their own asses from a hole in the ground.
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:SCO's mistake (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:SCO's mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:SCO's mistake (Score:2)
Re:SCO's mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck off, troll.
Since nobody outside SCO except perhaps the MoGTroll [slashdot.org], Didiot, and a few people who were paid to look at it, have seen it, I call bullshit - or should I say backinfullforce-shit.
Re:SCO's mistake (Score:2)
I guess I don't understand the strategy of not actually using the "mountains of evidence" in the *only* circumstance that would matter, as opposed to disclosing it to random clueless Anonymous Cowards.
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
Re:SCO's mistake (Score:2)
The one example I remember is SCO claimed that
Re:I've had it with SCO and Microsoft ! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I've had it with SCO and Microsoft ! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So when will SCO get sued? (Score:2, Interesting)
That's already happened.IBM counter-sued them to get them to say that IBM doesn't infringe. Red Hat sued to get them to say that Red Hat's customers don't have to pay SCO's licensing fees. And Novell sued them for 95% of their revenue. Amongst other things.
It lied. It got some fools to pay for their Linux licenses, which might be fraudulent.
It tried. SCO refused to sell the licenses once people stepped forward to buy one. Well, except for Microsoft an