Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera IBM Government Software The Courts Linux News

SCO Asks Court To Reconsider IBM's Dismissal 139

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the not-so-fast dept.
VE3OGG writes "The SCO Group — the litigation firm currently in dispute with, among many, IBM, over supposed copyright infringing code in Unix — has quietly asked the courts to reconsider IBM's request to toss the case out. SCO argued that the court's November decision was procedurally and substantially flawed and they say 'the rules of procedure do not support such a result under the circumstances of this case.' If allowed to reopen the case, the SCO Group argues, that new evidence would present itself through the deposition of several IBM programmers who had previously been interviewed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Asks Court To Reconsider IBM's Dismissal

Comments Filter:
  • Errr... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tom (822) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @12:03PM (#17348244) Homepage Journal
    Wait, didn't the court just tell them that no, you can not introduce new evidence into a case years after discovery is over? And then tossed their case out saying they have no leg to stand on? And now they say "if only we were allowed to add this new evidence, there would be a case" ???

    Are they trying to pull a Microsoft here - annoying the judge until he says something stupid and they can get him replaced? Or are they simply dumb and hard of hearing?
  • by Samari711 (521187) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @12:21PM (#17348328)
    That is correct. SCO's argument is that because that's the only evidence that they have to support those claims, the court is effectively throwing out the claims because they're throwing out the evidence. They ignore the fact that the "millions of lines of infringing" code never materialized, that the evidence they did disclose by the deadline was incomplete by the standards they were holding IBM to and the standards the court specified, and that they later tried to slip evidence in expert reports after fact discovery was closed so IBM couldn't do anything about that evidence.

    Since /. is so slow on this, it should be noted that Judge Kimball rejected the request on a technicality that they filed as a request what should be a motion. Armchair analysis seems to indicate that the rejection might be his way of saying "You really don't want to do this" to SCO. This request basically calls the judge a liar or too incompetent to understand what a de novo review is. It's like SCO is trying to get found in contempt...

  • by pla (258480) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @12:37PM (#17348394) Journal
    Except that they're not the defendants in this case.

    I don't know - What about the counterclaims? SCO may have bankrupted itself fighting this battle, but IBM still plans to rape the corpse.


    Which is too bad since their twisted and distorted delusional logic would certainly support such an argument.

    Fortunately, I don't think corporations can plead insanity.

    I say "fortunately", because by their very raison d'etre, corporations very much exhibit antisocial PD (what people normally mean by the phrase "criminally insane"), as defined by the DSM-IV (having three or more of the following traits):
    1. Failure to conform to social norms (have no meaning to a corporation)
    2. Deceitfulness, manipulativeness (if they can get away with something...)
    3. Impulsivity, failure to plan ahead (beyond the next quarter's earnings)
    4. Irritability, aggressiveness (if threatened, sue)
    5. Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others (OSHA exists for a reason...)
    6. Consistent irresponsibility (...so does Sarbanes-Oxley)
    7. Lack of remorse after having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person (pay 'em off and call it a day)


    Letting corporations plead insanity would amount to giving them carte blanche to rape, pillage, murder, and burn the planet.
  • by hey! (33014) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @12:54PM (#17348462) Homepage Journal
    This is an example of the Casablanca Dilemma, which works like this.

    You're in Casablanca. If you are not out of Casablanca on tommorow's flight, you're a dead man. You have your tickets, but you need Captain Renault to provide you with papers. Louis charges a thousand francs for this "service",and you can only raise five hundred.

    The only way to double your money overnight is to win big a Rick's roullette tables, which would be very unlikely at an honest table -- which Rick's decidedly are not. Sometimes Rick has been known to take pity on a hard luck case, but there's no special reason for him to help you out of all the other desperate folks. You beg Rick for help, but it's no use. He's already helped one hard luck case tonight, and for some reason he is too distracted to pay attention to anything you have to say.

    So you put down your bet at Rick's crooked table, knowing that you are almost certainly a walking dead man. But it's better to keep playing than to stop, and remove all doubt.
  • Re:Errr... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mysticgoat (582871) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @02:08PM (#17348790) Homepage Journal

    Are they trying to pull a Microsoft here - annoying the judge until he says something stupid and they can get him replaced? Or are they simply dumb and hard of hearing?

    It seems that way, doesn't it?

    SCO's legal team seems to be way out on a limb on this one. I can't help but wonder why any of them keep at it, when at this point it is going to be a highly publicized loss that will follow each of them for the rest of their careers. The usual behavior for lawyers in this situation is to tell the client that the case is lost, and focus on looking for new clients, but something seems to be overriding this normal response.

    It makes me wonder if the legal team has something more important than their client's interests to protect. For instance, if there was a possibility that continuing this fiasco would lead to exposure of evidence implicating the lawyers themselves in a conspiracy with SCO and perhaps others to defraud the courts through pushing a frivolous suit... well, that would be criminal wouldn't it?

    The SCO lawyers are fighting this thing as if their continued careers in law depended on it not going forward. And maybe that is the case.

  • by Dilaudid (574715) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @08:07PM (#17350486)
    Hey you took all of that from that film "The Corporation". To quote their website [thecorporation.com]: the film puts the corporation on the psychiatrist's couch to ask "What kind of person is it?.

    I always found it particularly ironic that the film was made by Big Picture Media Corporation, according to their website - a subsidiary company of British Columbia Film. I think BC's Annual Report [bcfilm.bc.ca] speaks volumes:

    Economic Impact: Film and television production has emerged as a global industry with a worth of approximately $50 billion annually. Almost every country around the globe now competes for a share of this growing and very lucrative market
    I think it's really good to see that an American Corporation has helped meet the niche needs of slashdot users, to give them some nice ideas to put in their posts, while at the same time turning a healthy profit ($4.5m) for the Canadians. Capitalism at it's best.

"Well hello there Charlie Brown, you blockhead." -- Lucy Van Pelt

Working...