Report Claims SCO Intends to Charge IBM with Fraud 377
An anonymous reader writes "Now it gets interesting. According to this report, it looks as if SCO is preparing to accuse IBM of fraud, and has even opened up a web site to counter the runaway success of Groklaw. SCO's expensive attorneys Boies and Silver are apparently going to file a motion asking the court to unseal most of the documents that are currently under seal, in the hope that certain of IBM's e-mails will be seen by the outside world to tell a story about AIX, Dynix, and Project Monterey that implicates IBM in, well to be blunt, fraud. Groklaw is certain to have its own distinct view about this latest development of course."
Can't treally blame them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can't treally blame them... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can't treally blame them... (Score:3, Funny)
btw, does he have any children to carry on his evil legacy? wouldn't want it to be a family tradition.
Re:Can't treally blame them... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Can't treally blame them... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, seeing that this guy is from Utah.....crap. It's going to be one biiiiiig family tradition.
Re:Can't treally blame them... (Score:3, Funny)
Well, seeing that this guy is from Utah.....crap. It's going to be one biiiiiig family tradition.
And sadly, their minivan gets lodged in a winter snowbank. The resulting horror replaces the Donner Party in popular memory with the McBride Party...
Re:Can't treally blame them... (Score:4, Funny)
Five hundred beeeeeeeeliiiooon dollars
Darl totally needs a minime too, if he does have children please let one of them be a midget.
Re:Can't treally blame them... (Score:3, Funny)
btw, does he have any children to carry on his evil legacy? wouldn't want it to be a family tradition. :/
Yes, Darl has a wife and children, which proves two things: Females can also be afflicted by bad judgement, and it doesn't take intelligence to procreate.
Re:Can't treally blame them... (Score:3, Insightful)
I will say though that if he has kids under the age of 18, then they should not be held accountable, but if they are 18+ and still benefitting from daddy's frivolities, then they are complicitou
Re:Can't treally blame them... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't treally blame them... (Score:5, Interesting)
yes, profitting off other people's work is the nature of capitalism. BUT, in a healthy capitalistic society, people are paid for their work. SCO is not trying to profit off the work of it's employees, it's trying to profit off the work of others, without paying them. Even that is ok sometimes (eg, redhat is allowed to make money selling the work of the linux kernel team), but SCO is trying to invalidate the GPL, steal ownership of the work from the people they haven't paid, and then make a profit off of it.
Re:Can't treally blame them... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's capitalism for you.
Re:Can't treally blame them... (Score:2)
It will be nice to tell our grandchildren about this company named SCO that tried to profit off of others work.
Should Read:
It will be sad to tell our grandchildren about one of the companies, named SCO, that profited off of others work and further catalyzed the explosive growth of IP lawyerism in the late 1900's and early 2000's.
The pump and dump worked. The SCO executives took a 2 dollar stock and sold many thousands of shares at over 10 dollars.
Insult + Injury (Score:5, Funny)
The least they could do (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The least they could do (Score:4, Funny)
Please Open Your Eyes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Please Open Your Eyes (Score:5, Insightful)
Fraud? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fraud? (Score:5, Informative)
Thats about the funniest thing I've read in a while. I had a heated discussion about this [slashdot.org] exactly a month ago. SCO spews drivel about copyrights to any news media that will listen to them anymore, then they have the gall to get up there in court and claim [groklaw.net] this has nothing to do with copyrights. Mcbride, the death bell tolls for thee.
Re:Fraud? (Score:5, Informative)
Money (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)
So we'll see two bankruptcies in Utah one day.
Re:Money (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)
>Where is SCO getting all this money to pay lawyers?
By defrauding investors into believing SCOX had a solid case, when in fact they didn't. Lying through their teeth about "owning UNIX", lying about the pedigree of Linux, lying about everything.
Behind closed doors they pitched this as an "investment opportunity". They probably showed the investors the Berkley Packet Filter code, maybe some standard headers (elf.h, etc). "Look! This is a slam dunk! And there are millions of lines more of that in linux!"
Oh, they really sold this "Linux Lottery" good.
Re:Money (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Money (Score:4, Informative)
Much of the money paid so far came from cash reserves as well as the Baystar/RBC dealings.
Validate (Score:5, Funny)
OH well.
I call fraud on SCO's website (Score:3, Funny)
Fraud! Fraud!
Re:I call fraud on SCO's website (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Validate (Score:5, Funny)
"Your honor, those idiots don't know their ass from a title attribute."
Re:Validate (Score:2)
Re:Validate (Score:3, Funny)
I figured the documents had been parsed to show the meaningful statements SCO has made so far, and then filtered to only display the statements that help their case.
Re:Validate (Score:3)
Even if IE is your browser of choice (*gasp*), every competant web developer should know the impact and difference between ALT and TITLE tags. Apparently "competant" and "preferring IE" are mutually exclusive...
Re:Validate (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
SCO is commiting Fraud (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCO is commiting Fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be ideal to have a karma system for companies who want to sue. You get some accusation points, but if the outcome of the trials determines accusations to be false, the company wouldn't get more points for a long time.
So the damage a "bad" company can do is limited.
I've seen a similar system used in a web site, wish I recalled the url...
Re:SCO is commiting Fraud (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO is commiting Fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SCO is commiting Fraud (Score:4, Informative)
I believe that here in Canada, there's a lot fewer frivolous lawsuits, since it's far easier to get losing sides to pay defendant's costs.
"The most common scale of costs is called partial indemnity, which means the successful party will receive approximately 40-50% of its legal costs from the unsuccessful party. Where one party's behaviour has been particularly egregious, the court may award a higher scale of costs, called substantial indemnity, which is in the range of approximately 70-80% of the actual costs incurred."
The courts also have the discretion to NOT award costs, particularly if they feel that the losing claim was legitimate but failed on technicalities, or if there is substantial economic disparity. In the case of SCO, I'm fairly sure that IBM would ask for substantial indemnity.
For more details, check this [blakes.com].
US legal system is #1 (Score:4, Funny)
Under 'loser-pays', the RIAA could hound innocent file-sharers into submission just by imposing legal expenses that could never be reimbursed! Oops, I got confused: that's what happens under the US system now. Never mind, the US system is still the greatest thing on Earth.
To see just how valuable and attractive the US 'easy to sue' and 'everyone pays' system is, just consider all the other countries that have adopted it:
Roll mouse over timeline icons... (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't work with either browser I have installed right now. For a company whose motto is The Power of Unix, apparently you need to run IE6 on Windows to actually use their website.
Re:Roll mouse over timeline icons... (Score:5, Funny)
It's simple. (Score:3, Interesting)
The SCOX crackheads are frustrated. They've been instructed not to embellish their case in the media. That's frustrating for someone like Darl, whose wet dream it is to mouth off at every opportunity.
So SCOX do what they always do, they blame everyone else of doing the things they are in fact doing themselves. For instance, they'll claim that IBM (via Groklaw) is misrepresenting the case. Of course, the only people continuously misrepresenting the case(s) are SCOX insiders and their paided shills (the Endrools and Didiots of the world).
I mean, how many times have we read Darl and Blake talking about the eV1L lUnix in the press? Then in the filings they'll say "this isn't about linux". Or the other way around. It depends on whichever would look the best for them at that particular point.
There'll be a reckoning for you when this is over, Darl.
The question is (Score:2)
It's Boies Schiller (Score:5, Informative)
As a side note, I'm a law student and Boies Schiller is an interesting firm. They are one of the three highest paying firms in the country, with a first year starting salary of 140,000 per year as opposed to 125,000 for the majority of large law firms. They are headquartered in Armonk, NY as opposed to New York, NY.
David Boies is the premier partner. He left another high powered firm, Cravath, to start his own firm (Cravath is strangely enough representing IBM in this case). Since then, some say that Boies Schiller has become the cult of David Boies (hyperbole). I think that both his sister and brother have high management positions in the firm.
Regardless, from what I hear, Boies is one of the best litigators in the country. Cravath has good litigators too. This case will be well argued - and that is a good thing.
Re:It's Boies Schiller (Score:2)
By everyone but SCO at any rate.
Re:It's Boies Schiller (Score:4, Informative)
+5, troll (Score:3, Funny)
(with apologies to Samuel Beckett)
No, it's Mr. Silver (Score:5, Informative)
This case will be well argued - and that is a good thing.
Not so far -- it's turning into a textbook case in "1001 ways to ruin a case." BSF has contradicted itself not only in its filings in different courts, but even in its filings before the Utah court. It's misrepresented the orders and findings of the Magistrate Judge to the District Judge, with the Magistrate's assistants present.
When Judge Kimball asked Mr. Frei (SCOX Counsel) to explain the contradictions between their filings in Delaware and their filings in Utah, he tried to change the subject. The Judge then pointedly demanded a responsive reply, whereupon Mr. Frei deferred to Mr. Silver as the expert on the Delaware case.
At this point Mr. Silver woke up, tried to change the subject, and finally simply declared that there was no contradiction -- not, as you may imagine, a response calculated to reassure a United States District Judge who'd already commented on those very contradictions himself.
Re:I get it (Score:3, Insightful)
They then go to the appeals court and try to claim that they were prevented from carrying out essential discovery and see if they can tie the case up in discovery for the next five years.
Re:Losing Streak Recently? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, Boies enjoyed a slam-dunk victory against Microsoft in Microsoft's antitrust case. He won nearly every single argument he made. It was the judge hearing the case, who found Microsoft guilty on most counts, that bungled the case and turned the Boies victory into a resounding loss.
Microsoft lost every legal battle, but won the war on a technicality.
Help me understand this (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks at least in part to the failure of Monterey (and the fact that Caldera helped IBM have a contingency plan that worked) Caldera was able to pick up the Santa Cruz Operation's Unix business at a discount.
Because they got it at a discount, they're going to sue IBM for conspiring with themselves to save them acquisition costs?
Re:Help me understand this (Score:2)
This seemed fairly obvious to me also, even as a non-tech, slighly geeked out nurse. How could a journalist actually print something this absurd, and ever be considered credible again ?
Excited Me (Score:3, Funny)
Working link (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46384_p.htm
Re:Working link (Score:2)
Not hard to fig. out the origin of theSCO donation (Score:3, Interesting)
With rumours of the SCO donation coming from Microsoft, I would not be surprised in the least to discover that MS is giving the orders on this one.
The goal of all this is to scare users away from open source software, as they might end up in an expensive court battle. However in the end, when IBM do eventually flatten this out, it's only going to create the legal president to make short work of future challenges to related software projects.
Not suprising if donations are coming from MS (Score:2, Interesting)
Everyone keeps asking how SCO thinks they can win. I don't think they ever planned on winning. As long as they can create enough FUD until Longhorn gets out the door, Microsoft's investment paid off. Not to mention Darl's pockets are probably getting pretty full. I don't care if they don't make $1 in SCO Source licenses....SCO can keep pay
SCO's IBM lawsuit page is not new (Score:5, Funny)
Sales Call! (Score:3, Funny)
So this is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well done. I'll sure they'll keep giving voice to such trash as long as they make money on it.
By this point, who cares about fraud? (Score:2)
Hello, SCO, this is the little boy calling...I would like my crying wolf back.
Re:By this point, who cares about fraud? (Score:2)
Hello, SCO, this is the little boy calling...I would like my crying wolf back.
Just in... SCO reports they have the copyrights on crying wolf and will charge licensing fees to whoever attempts to cry wolf.
Fraud? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really. So IBM develops a product and promptly decides to kill it in favor of a new product they would rather persue. Apparently, SCO believes IBM was supposed to have had a brain wipe before moving onto their next project. Didn't SCO wind up with a copy of AIX-on-Itanium that they could have run with? This is fraud? I'm thinking that SCO was looking forward to merely riding along while IBM did all the difficult work of developing Monterey into a usable product. When the cache of IBM's name was no longer associated with Monterey, SCO finds they don't have the ability to make the new OS a standard. And then Darl comes along years later to cry foul.
And, so would it be fraud, I guess, to use the fairly common practice of Company A buying competitor B's software product and then raising the license fees to levels that effectively kill it off in favor of Company A's product. Or lifting the guts of B's (now A's) software and incorporating it into Company A's product. Then leaving Company B's former customers with a product that they are unable to use on newer releases of operating systems (as Company A has no intention of keeping it up to date) and leaving them no alternative but to use Company A's product (which they never wanted in the first place).
This happens all the time. The only difference is that most of the time it's the end-users of the software that get the short end of the stick. In Monterey's case, there weren't any users to get screwed. Only a corporation. But corporations have lawyers, end-users don't.
SCO continues to fail... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're going down in flames in every court they're fighting a legal battle, and they somehow think public opinion is either:
- going to change in their favor
- going to matter at all after Lindon Utah is reduced to a smoking crater, salted, and plowed under
just because people get to read some emails from IBM that (in SCO's opinion) kinda look bad.Actually, the way SCO's research has been going, they've totally misunderstood the meaning of the emails and as soon as they're made public SCO will have made complete and utter fools of themselves, once again...
t_t_b
More bluster from SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
What legal difference does it make ? (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL, but I don't think this would have any effect on the outcome of the legal proceeding at all. Evidence is evidence, whether it's under seal or not.
It seems to me that this is just another example of SCO's lack of real interest in the lawsuit as a legal proceeding. Their real interest seems to be flogging their story through their paid shills and credulous members of the press. The only consistent thread in their legal filings seems to be a desire to drag the case out as long as possible.
Can you say "pump and dump"?
I believe we should do this... (Score:2)
Re:There are no taxpayer costs (Score:2)
You may think that just because someone sues someone else that there is no penalty to the common man involved in the outcome, but it takes more money then the average cost of court to put on a three ring circus for that.
Can SCOX add Fraud charges? Simple test. (Score:2)
1. Was the Monterey contract between IBM and Caldera?
2. Did it include a Change of Control clause?
3. Did control change from Caldera to The SCO Group?
4. Case closed.
Hmmm lets see... (Score:2)
1) A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
Hmm , now given 2 companies , IBM and SCO
I know! I know! (Score:4, Funny)
The Bush Administration?
Sorry, couldn't resist. Go ahead and mod me to oblivion.
Sounds like another publicity stunt to me (Score:2)
2. SCO asks court to unseal record.
3. Court quite properly refuses.
4. SCO bleats to press about this vast blue-wing conspiracy which, alas, they can't offer any evidence for because the nasty tricksy court won't let them.
5. SCO stock blips up a bit the way it always does on SCO publicity, no matter how bad.
6. Profit! Or, perhaps more accurately, slightly mitigated loss for a day or two.
Film at 11.
The story at linuxworld (Score:5, Funny)
at linuxworld
was very
difficult
to read
all the
way
through.
What
were
they
thinking?
SCO'S next lawsuit will have a pretty good chance (Score:4, Insightful)
Cheerleading Against SCO (Score:4, Interesting)
Except in the case of SCO. Here, the comments are 100:0. There is no discussion, only exhortations to the faithful, followed by a large chorus of 'Amen', all modded +5. Visiting the site that's supposed to provide serious legal background, Groklaw, is like visiting a very learned religious site inquiring about the existense of God: long, incomprehensible, philosophical discussions invariably concluding that God indeed exists based on incontrovertible evidence, that all doubters' motives are suspect, and that they'll probably all burn in Hell anyway.
I'm writing this comment from frustration. Not because I want SCO to win (my homebrew server is running Linux, after all), but because I want to be informed. I want to get a somewhat balanced view generated from opposing opinions. I don't really know what to suggest. Maybe mods shouldn't be so quick to tag any vaguely pro-SCO comments as trolls? Are there even any pro-SCO comments to begin with?! Maybe a Slashdot Interview with a SCO rep?
If SCO wins in any of its legal claims, I don't want to sit there blaming the stupidy of the US justice system and impugning the motives of the presiding judge. I want to know where such a SCO victory could come from. I can't be the only one who believes that there are at least two sides to every issue, even if they're not equally reasonable.
OK. Enough of this 'I want' 'I don't want' 'I want' post. Let the flames begin, if this even gets noticed!
Re:Cheerleading Against SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
However, if SCO does win a legal claim, I'm sure it'll be documented and discussed.
However, as of right now, no one seems to have enough information to conclude that any of SCO's claims are on solid ground. That's likely why the public's opinion is about 98 to 2 against SCO. If SCO had produced and released some solid evidence, then I'm sure opinion here would change significantly.
The courts are where cases are decided, not on slashdot. If you want to read the pro-SCO comments, feel free to look at the "0" and "-1" posts, and moderate them up if you think they're fair. I will too. but not here, cause I already posted and am ineligable to moderate here and now.
Re:Cheerleading Against SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all Groklaw mainly just reports on the court documents, you can read them and draw your conclusions just as PJ does and draws hers.
Secondly if you can find anything, anything at all which leads you to believe SCO may have a genuine case and might win it then please post here and we can discuss it, the fact that as yet no one on
You'll notice that most reports in the media now are simply reporting what SCO said and no positive comments on SCO except for journalists like Maureen who write opinions based on a seriously flawed analysis of what ever it is that has happened they are reporting on.
It seems like you are not classing Maureen O Gara's comments as a sensibly balanced opposite point of view yet she and her ilk are the only people painting SCO's chances in a positive light which is in itself an interesting comment on the case.
Re:Cheerleading Against SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cheerleading Against SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, SCO has not helped itself by issuing numerous public statements [groklaw.net] that contradict their representations in court [groklaw.net].
As far as Groklaw goes, as a lawyer I cannot emphasize enough how innovative and unique that website is. Sure, Pamela Jones has a distinct bias, but at least you know up front where she stands so you can evaluate her opinions accordingly. The real value of that site is the sheer comprehensiveness of the public statements and filings organized in its database. A resource like that would cost someone tens (or possibly hundreds) of thousands of dollars to compile privately, and yet here it is offered to the public for free. It's like open source litigation, and I hope that Groklaw or sites like it continue in the future for other legal/political/social issues (software patents anyone?).
I think that these stories on SCO are so one-sided because after more than a year on this story, it has been thoroughly exposed to the point of ridicule. It's sort of the way that the public responds to other types of lawsuits that seem frivolous [power-of-attorneys.com] at first glance; it's possible that a seemingly frivolous lawsuit may have have merit, but that doesn't stop the public from being highly sceptical.
SCO's problem is that they decided (highly unwisely from a litigation viewpoint) to spin their action in the press. This is completely contrary to standard practice when it comes to lawsuits ("No comment, the matter is before the courts"). All of their ill-informed, contradictory and bombastic press quotes are coming back to haunt them, as you can be sure that IBM will use any prior inconsistent statement to cross-examine and impeach their evidence now.
Re:Cheerleading Against SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
But...Groklaw doesn't just provide slanted analysis. The legal documents--filings, affidavits, memos, motions, as many as t
Sco Source FAQ (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't this going to anger the open source community?
It shouldn't. We haven't formulated all of our plans for SCOsource yet, but it's important for people to know that SCO is not interested in chasing individual open source developers to collect $149. We want vendors and large commercial users to comply with our IP licenses. The individual open source developer performs a great service to all Linux vendors and customers. We appreciate that and we want them to continue unabated.
It's important to remember that the UNIX shared libraries, owned by SCO, are not Linux products. They are not open source software and they are not covered by the GPL. The shared libraries are UNIX intellectual property, which SCO has owned for years. They are proprietary, licensable intellectual property that we sell. Many Linux environments have been using SCO's UNIX shared libraries because they are a superior product and they make these environments more productive. But until today, there were two ways for users to get the shared libraries:
1. Buy a SCO UNIX or Linux product that included the shared libraries as part of the bundled offering. This is legal.
2. Copy the shared libraries from a disk or through the Internet. In this case someone has unbundled the shared libraries from the SCO offering and opened them up for copying. This is illegal. It is this behavior that we will stop through the creation of SCOsource and today's announcement.
SCO's UNIX shared libraries are not open source code available for free use.
Is SCO going to sue Linux vendors?
SCO is a Linux vendor and a member of United Linux. We have no interest in suing Linux vendors. While we haven't formulated the details of our new SCOsource effort, we're confident that we can work together with other vendors to clear up IP issues in a fair and amicable way.
Two weeks ago an industry publication headlined a story saying SCO was threatening to sue Linux vendors.
The story was wrong. SCOsource is now one day old. We haven't made any plans to sue Linux vendors, and we certainly haven't threatened any vendors. This story was damaging to the Linux community and made assumptions that were incorrect.
But isn't hiring Boies, Schiller and Flexner a clear signal that SCO is getting ready to sue people?
Not at all. SCO is working with BSF for their expertise at dealing with complex legal problems. Resolving intellectual property issues does not automatically mean litigation.
Judge Kimball is starting to get impatient (Score:5, Informative)
That's pretty clear. Judge Kimball is clearly telling SCO's attorneys that they need to present unambiguous evidence of copying, and soon. He's hinting to SCO that unless they come up with something good, he's going to grant IBM's summary judgement motions. He's giving them one last chance to do so.
This is a U.S. District Court judge. He has many other cases, most of them criminal. Here's his court schedule for the week. [uscourts.gov] Sentencing hearings, plea bargains, and a few civil cases. He's not there to listen to SCO's lawyers stall forever. Federal civil procedure doesn't allow that.
Any Lawyers Out There? (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't fraud a criminal act? Doesn't a District Attorney, Attorney General, or some other jurisdictional attorney have to press such charges? If SCO is indeed planning such a charge, don't they have to first convince someone in the *criminal* justice, and wouldn't that be a completely separate process?
Sure it might be a tactic in the current contract dispute to claim fraudulent behavior, but isn't that far from *charging* IBM with fraud?
Just when you think it can't get any dummer (Score:3, Funny)
These guys are either taking their marching orders directly from Redmond or they're the biggest bunch of idiots to ever ride into the technology circus tent. Wait, now that I think about it that's the same thing.
Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (Score:5, Informative)
You are implying that Linux was somehow built on the Unix source code, back in the really old days. This was simply not the case, and even SCO seems to stay away from saying otherwise. Linux has always been an independent development, merely inspired by Unix/POSIX. SCO has been saying that Unix sourcecode was introduced into the Linux kernel between version 2.4 and 2.6 (to improve multiprocessor scalability). This is very recent history and has nothing at all to do with the origins of Linux, more than 10 years ago.
Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (Score:3, Informative)
That issue was already settled in the early 1990s, when the previous owners of Unix tried to block the University of California, Berkeley from releasing BSD as open source. The BSD developers had access to the Unix source code throughout its development; Linus Torvalds did not. So that should have been a much stronger case.
However, the case was settled, with BSD remaining as free software (after the elimination and replacement of a couple of disputed source files).
Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (Score:4, Insightful)
U.S. judges often give a seen-by-them-to-be-losing side LOTS of room to maneuver to avoid giving valid grounds for an appeal. A successful appeal is a professional 'you screwed up' opinion, and judges don't like that on their resume'.
Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (Score:2, Insightful)
And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the more deliberation and time that is allowed the plaintiff in the case, the less likely an appeals court will even hear the case if judgement is declared against the plaintiff.
Having said that: the US is in desperate need of tort reform, specifically in the area of class-action lawsuits, as well as some kind of de
Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (Score:5, Informative)
Dismissal is when the suit is structurally flawed to begin with (e.g.: SCOX sued Novell for "Slander of Title" but didn't even allege one of the requisite elements for SoT.)
What you're talking about would be summary judgment: there's not even enough evidence that a jury would be needed to weigh it. Since it can take a while to develop evidence through discovery, motions for summary judgment generally wait until the case is well-developed.
IBM now is proceeding to file motions for summary judgment, based in large part on the fact that SCOX hasn't even tried to identify specific facts that would support a charge of either copyright infringement or contract violation.
Slow, frustrating, but like Juggernaught's Carriage it gets there eventually and regardless.
Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the real problem - if SCO had attacked a smaller company that couldn't afford to defend itself they might have won by default years ago.
There is no justice when the difference between winning and losing is the amount of money you can spend on lawyers.
Jury not just for criminal trials (Score:3, Informative)
Juries aren't reserved for criminal trials; all SCO need to get one from where they are now is some "facts in dispute." SCO's goal for a long time seems to have been just that--muddy the waters enough that they can demand a jury, and hope to win by snowing them.
The problem is, they don't seem to have anything that raises a question of fact, just wild unsubstantiated claims and bizare legal theories (which, as I understand it won't get you a jury,
Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Go to a bookshop, and pick-up a book on running a small business, and read the chapter on going to court...
There is a reason why public faith in the legal system is at an all time low.
Re:Hi... (Score:4, Informative)
Argh shit, where's my "Edit" button? (Score:2, Interesting)
I hover the mouse over the icons, but wtf? Nothing happens? I take a peek at HTML source (made easy by Firefox's excellent "view selection source" feature) and what do I see?
These idiots think that if "alt=" pops up a description in Internet Explorer, then so it does in other browsers. (No
I agree (Score:3, Informative)
IBM and SCO agreed to share and develop. If the agreement said either side could pull out at any time (what appears to be the case) then