Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

IBM's Counterclaim 10 Outlines 5 Ways SCO's Wrong 121

ColonelZen writes "My article at IPW reads: But, however slowly, the wheels of justice do grind on. The discovery phase of SCO v. IBM is now complete, and as per the court's schedule the time to raise Summary Judgment issues is now. And IBM has indeed raised them ... such that it is very possible that all of SCO's claims against IBM could wind up dismissed piecemeal in those motions. ... Yesterday, IBM's redacted memo in support of CC10 hit Pacer. ... This is 102 pages detailing five independent but overlapping, direct and powerfully detailed reasons why SCO's claims of Linux infringement against its code are nonsense."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM's Counterclaim 10 Outlines 5 Ways SCO's Wrong

Comments Filter:
  • the US system (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Sunday October 15, 2006 @01:09PM (#16444397)
    Very sad that european courts can deal with utterly absurd claims so very quickly in corporate cases (and have done so for SCO's), while the SCOX vs. IBM and SCOX vs. Novell still drag on even though by the judge's comments it's clear they know the thing is a farce.
  • Re:Claims? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Generic Guy ( 678542 ) on Sunday October 15, 2006 @01:29PM (#16444523)
    My guess is SCO didn't expect it'd go this far. They were hoping they'd get settlements...

    And this I believe is why IBM decided to take their time, go through the entire court process, despite the increased costs involved -- this time -- to make an example out of SCO. Otherwise, IBM would be inviting multitudes of other lame and unsubstantiated lawsuits from all sorts of "IP" firms with no products. IBM is spending the time and cost now grinding SCO into salt to send a clear message to anyone else in the tech/patent business -- Don't mess with us!

    It actually shows a long-term kind of thinking which is sorely lacking in most of the corporate world today.

  • Re:the US system (Score:5, Insightful)

    by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposer.alum@mit@edu> on Sunday October 15, 2006 @01:59PM (#16444709) Homepage

    Your general point is well taken, but I doubt that the SCO case will establish a precedant of much interest since as far as I can see there are no interesting legal issues at stake, just an essentially fraudulent complaint.

  • by Mateo_LeFou ( 859634 ) on Sunday October 15, 2006 @02:14PM (#16444791) Homepage
    No, MS only bought "piece of mind". The SCOSource license was a hilarious bit of salesmanship: buy this just in case something we're suing about turns out to have evidence backing it up.

    Here's a similar license: []

    BTW I think MS might deserve a refund, having not got the "piece of mind" they were buying. That is to say: this maneuver backfired big time; IBM's response has laid waste to years worth of FUD, and Linux has 5 times the mindshare it used to.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15, 2006 @02:34PM (#16444907)
    The problem with the previous argument is that SCO isn't suing Linux, it's suing IBM. For SCO's claims to survive Summary Judgement, they have to prove that:

    1. IBM contributed the code
    2. The code is protected
    3. SCO owns the code

    The reason their claims have been cut down from 294 to a mere handful is because they couldn't point to code they owned and code in Linux at the same time. Also, in your example, the sample text is VERY similar to the Harry Potter books. If you read IBM's exhibits supporting their motion, you'll see that even the code that is in both SRVX and Linux is less than one tenth of one percent. A more accurate example would be J.K Rowling suing another author because he used the word "The"...
  • by zymano ( 581466 ) on Sunday October 15, 2006 @02:57PM (#16445029)
    Lawyers including judges need it that way.

    What the hell happened to quick and speedy trials ?
  • Re:Claims? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Sunday October 15, 2006 @03:48PM (#16445379) Homepage
    Wait, so SCO actually had claims?

    Of course they did.

    SCO claimed that that had claims.

  • Re:the US system (Score:4, Insightful)

    by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Sunday October 15, 2006 @04:11PM (#16445545)
    To me the main problem is that the judge can't ask questions. In a better "justice system" I would see a conversation like this.

    SCO: They stole our code.
    IBM: Did not!.
    Judge: SCO, what code did they steal?
    SCO: Huh? Wha? We don't know. Did we say they stole code? No, they did not steal code, we meant they broke a contract.
    Judge: Which contract did they break?
    SCO: Well we don't really know and the contract wasn't signed with us.

    Judge: Case dismissed.
  • by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Sunday October 15, 2006 @04:15PM (#16445579)
    IBM requested full discovery of all documents that mentio MS and SUN. There will be more lawsuits that IBM can initiate against MS from that pile. This gives IBM an excellent tool to leverage against sun and MS in the future.

    This suit was a huge tactical mistake by MS. They already regret funding it and they will regret it even more in the future.
  • Redacted (Score:2, Insightful)

    by glas_gow ( 961896 ) on Sunday October 15, 2006 @06:34PM (#16446817)
    The rebuttal is pretty comprehensive, barring the section about the lines of memory allocation code, which is sort of passed over quickly (if I remember correctly, when the case started, Linus Torvalds had something to say about some malloc or other). Other than that, what matters now, and what the trial will probably concentrate upon, are the previous agreements between the parties, most of which are redacted from the summary.
  • Umm... What you've quoted says 'SCO is not entitled to enforce them'. What your PP said is the penalty for misuse is that the holder does not '[get] to enforce for as long as the misuse continues'. Those two statements are entirely harmonious. SCO doesn't get to enforce them. IBM have not said that SCO loses them. They've just said they can't enforce them.

    Perhaps there's more in the document you don't link to that actually does agree with what you're saying, but if you're going to contradict and insult someone, it's common practice to actually use evidence in your favor.

    (PS: I don't know anything about which side is true. I just have good reading comprehension. You might be right, but if you are you should actually have said why instead of selectively presenting evidence in favor of your PP's claim.)
  • Re:the US system (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rumblin'rabbit ( 711865 ) on Sunday October 15, 2006 @07:23PM (#16447241) Journal
    It could be that both parties want (or at least don't mind) the slow pace.

    SCO wanted discovery to drag on so they could continue fishing for evidence to back an improverished case.

    IBM might not mind the slow pace because they know they'll win a battle of attrition since SCO has limited funds. Also, IBM couldn't buy this kind of good publicity amongst IT managers.
  • Re:the US system (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15, 2006 @11:48PM (#16449005)
    But the questions have been asked, it's been IBM that's asked them. So, the way it has proceeded is something like this:

    SCO: They stole our code.
    IBM: We doubt it, tell us what we stole.
    SCO: They stole our code. Lots and lots of it.
    IBM: Judge, make them tell us what we stole.
    Judge: SCO, tell them what they stole.
    SCO: Huh? Wha? We don't know. Did we say they stole code? No, they did not steal code, we meant they broke a contract. Of course, you didn't really want us to tell IBM exactly what code is affected, did you?
    Judge: Yes, I did.
    SCO: Er, uh...
    (IBM delivers summary judgement motions)
    IBM: All your base are belong to us.

    Ideally, the next step is the judge rules in favor of all of IBM's summary judgement motions.
  • Re:the US system (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday October 16, 2006 @08:37AM (#16451397) Homepage Journal
    but I doubt that the SCO case will establish a precedant

    Nor should it. In a common law system, setting a precedant where citing a previous one would do is usually a bad thing.

    In fact it's such a bad thing, it's usually preferable to keep paying out rope for one or other of the parties to hang themselves with, which I think is the point of the GP post.

    The basic operating principle of the US system is this: the courts interpret, and the legislature corrects that interpretation. It's a pretty good system, or would be if not for the power of wealth to gain unfair access to either branch.

"Oh my! An `inflammatory attitude' in alt.flame? Never heard of such a thing..." -- Allen Gwinn, allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM