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

Judge Rules That IBM Did Not Destroy Evidence 163

Posted by Zonk
from the good-for-them dept.
UnknowingFool writes "From the latest in the SCO saga, Judge Wells ruled today that IBM did not destroy evidence as SCO claims. During discovery, SCO claims it found an IBM executive memo that ordered its programmers to delete source code, and so it filed a motion to prevent IBM from destroying more evidence. The actuality of the memo was less nefarious. An IBM executive wanted to ensure that the Linux developers were sandboxed from AIX/Dynix. So he ordered them to remove local copies of any AIX code from their workstations so that there would not be a hint of taint. The source code still existed in CVMC and was not touched. Since the source code was still in CMVC, Judge Wells ruled IBM did not destroy it. Incredulously, SCO's Mark James requested that IBM tell SCO how to obtain the information. IBM's Todd Shaughnessy responded that all during discovery (when IBM gave SCO a server with their CMVC database) SCO never once said that they were unable to find that information from CMVC. Judge Wells asked IBM to help SCO out in any way he could."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Rules That IBM Did Not Destroy Evidence

Comments Filter:
  • D'Oh! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Scott Lockwood (218839) * on Thursday January 18, 2007 @07:29PM (#17673198) Homepage Journal
    Pwned!

    Could anything happen at this point that even might help SCO? I really hope we get to move to the summary executions^Hjudgment phase here pretty soon...
  • by nonsequitor (893813) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @07:32PM (#17673248)
    This is great news for Linux, but is there even an end in sight for this case? I know if its not done right it could unleash years of appeals as well. Any Lawyers in the house have any idea when this case will wrap up?
    • by rewt66 (738525) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @07:40PM (#17673384)
      Define "wrap up".

      It will begin to wrap up in March, with the hearings on the partial summary judgment motions. Those will be ruled on eventually (maybe somewhere between May and August, but I could be optimistic).

      Final wrap up is when the Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal. Realistically (if SCO appeals it that far, which, according to current pattern they will), that will be in three to five years. It may not go that far, because of the near certainty that SCO goes bankrupt before then, and the probability that the trustee decides to stop throwing money down the legal rathole.

      Disclaimer: IANAL.
      • by viking80 (697716) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @08:24PM (#17673978) Journal
        ..and the probability that the trustee decides to stop throwing money down the legal rathole...

        This is not all SCOs money. SCO has an agreement with the attorneys that they not be paid by the hour. They will get a majority of the settlement against IBM instead.

        So far they have gotten nothing for years of work. They are probably fairly desperate, and willing to do anything.
        • by inode_buddha (576844) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @09:28PM (#17674818) Journal
          Not true. SCO's lawyers have been paid 30 million up front, the fees were capped.
          • by dbIII (701233)
            Not true. SCO's lawyers have been paid 30 million up front, the fees were capped.

            Not bad for a rookie lawyer that just happens to be the brother of the CEO of SCO. Perhaps it's a two man scam with the McBride brothers taking SCO for all it has by driving the company into the brick wall that is IBM.

            • Darl and Kevin probably made all their money in a pump & dump, when SCO's stock skyrocketed upon suing IBM and getting investments from that capital investment group that was acting as a front for Microsoft. SCOX stock right now is $1.06, but it hasn't always been. Anyone know for sure if and when Darl sold a bunch of shares?

              • Sorry to respond to myself, but I did a little research.

                Actually, it looks like Darl doesn't like to sell at all. Larry Goldfarb and BayStar Capital Group, however, had been selling thousands of shares every few days in late 2004.

                What could be really telling is who sold the most between March/April of '03 and February/March of '04, during which time the stock went from around $3 to around $17 and started to slide back down to around $8.
          • by walt-sjc (145127)
            OK, so since the lawyers were paid up front, probably with a contract that says that they must see this thing through to the very end, appealing as many times as they can, what does IBM do to recover it's costs once SCO has zero assets left and the case still continues?

            Can IBM request that the court order SCO to put IBM's legal costs in escrow or something (not sure if this is possible, IANAL?)

            It seems to me that a case could be made that SCO has very little chance of winning at this point.
            • by drinkypoo (153816)
              Can IBM request that the court order SCO to put IBM's legal costs in escrow or something (not sure if this is possible, IANAL?)

              IBM sues for legal costs, which will be astronomical. SCO has nothing but a couple of assets, like some rights to Unix. IBM will get them, and consider itself a winner for turning SCO into a smoking hole in the ground. It's like putting heads on the wall of the city...

              • by walt-sjc (145127)
                From what I understand, Novell is claiming that it did NOT sell the rights to Unix to SCO, only the right to sell additional licenses, of which Novell gets a part of the revenue. Of course, this is still in court too, and Novell wants a chunk of SCO's remaining cash (read "all of it".)

                It wouldn't surprise me if IBM spent over $50M at this point. It can never recover that amount of money, as the entire value of SCO is considerably less than that. I don't think the stockholders of IBM will really be satisfied
                • by Tanktalus (794810)

                  I don't think the stockholders of IBM will really be satisfied with just bankrupting SCO.

                  Well, given that there are about 1.5 billion shares outstanding (according to google's finance report on IBM [google.com], market cap divided by current price is about 1.5 billion shares), I'd say that there's a lot of variation possible. Based on human nature, I'd say about 40-60% just don't care, as long as stock price goes up. Some of us (disclaimer: yes, I own some shares, but not enough to count towards anything - somewhere

                  • by drinkypoo (153816)
                    And it's probably cheaper than actually marketing the IBM brand name to the Linux community.

                    IBM is doing that, too. There's absolutely scads of IBM Linux commercials out there. IBM is the single largest commercial Linux vendor on the planet today. They sell machines WITH it, and they've made it possible to run it on their mainframes (in some cases in place of, in some places under, and in some cases alongside the legacy OS.)

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by adrianmonk (890071)

          SCO has an agreement with the attorneys that they not be paid by the hour. They will get a majority of the settlement against IBM instead. So far they have gotten nothing for years of work. They are probably fairly desperate, and willing to do anything.

          Surely even the lawyers representing SCO, despite their apparently exiguous technical knowledge, are at least smart enough to be familiar with the concept of a sunk cost [wikipedia.org].

          I suppose you can argue that caring whether it's a sunk cost requires rationality

          • by Alsee (515537) on Friday January 19, 2007 @02:44AM (#17677450) Homepage
            representing SCO calls into question whether they are acting rationally

            Considering that they have collected a 30 million dollar paycheck for doing it, I would dare say that dancing around naked to the song Don't Worry Be Happy while wearing a jello toupee would qualify as "acting rationally".

            I would assume that the contract between SCO and their lawyers pretty much requires them to continue the case at least far enough to get a ruling. A legal obligation to finish it, lest that paycheck be forfit. My guess is that once they get a ruling, they won't fight on with an appeal without pay. Of course it's quite possibile that someone might arranging to fund an appeal just to drag this mess out.

            -
            • by geobeck (924637)

              ...dancing around naked to the song Don't Worry Be Happy while wearing a jello toupee...

              Damn you and that mental image!

      • by rbanffy (584143) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @09:16PM (#17674682) Homepage Journal
        I will be satisfied when Darl McBride or other SCO senior execs rats his friends at Redmond (who are behind the financing SCO got from the Canopy Group) in exchange for a couple years less worth of jail time and they get indicted for whatever conspiracy they took part in.

        Of course, the MS Astroturf Unit will mod down this into oblivion.
        • by fuzzix (700457) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @11:43PM (#17676236) Journal
          Of course, the MS Astroturf Unit will mod down this into oblivion.
          Lucky for you I read at oblivion... *prepares modpoints*

          Wait... did I just post in this thread? Shit! Sorry, buddy!
        • by Duhavid (677874)
          If he rats them out, then any scenario involving Darl becoming
          an employee of Microsoft would go right out the door. Not saying
          I know anything, but I would be far and away less than suprised
          to find him working there after all the dust has settled.
          • by rbanffy (584143)
            I too suspect he is pulling a Rick Belluzzo. The only way he would rat his puppeteers would be confronting him with a credible threat of incarceration.

            It shouldn't be that hard - this lawsuit was doomed from the beginning and a minimum amount of source-code comparison should have shown that - and exactly this information would have been believed to be the basis of the lawsuit, so he should have no hope of saying he didn't know. Any attempt by him to misrepresent it in any other way to SCO's shareholders cou
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by femtoguy (751223)
        The end actually began significantly before then. It began when SCO's lawyers started to require payment for service in addition to their percentage of the final award from the judgment. When your own lawyers don't believe that you are going to win, its over.

    • by cyphercell (843398) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @07:42PM (#17673396) Homepage Journal
      This will end when SCO freezes over.
    • by Chris Burke (6130) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @07:42PM (#17673402) Homepage
      Well, if the most dire estimates of global warming are cozy understatments, and we seriously ramp up industrial production, then earth may become uninhabital for humans in a hundred years. Which wouldn't get rid of the lawyers, of course, and maybe not even the people paying them. We won't be around to see it though, which is close enough. I leave my car running in the parking lot, just to do my part.

      Nuclear war is also promising. I think Iran and North Korea are as desperate to seeing this case end as we are.

      Barring that, the Sun will turn into a red giant in about 5 billion years, and that will certainly end things.

      Or SCO could run out of stalling tactics, but seriously, that seems far-fetched.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by CCFreak2K (930973)
        ...the Sun will turn into a red giant...

        Sun already turned into a giant [wikipedia.org].
      • by armb (5151)
        > Barring that, the Sun will turn into a red giant in about 5 billion years, and that will certainly end things.

        No, apparently there's a one in 2 million chance [oklo.org] the earth will have been captured by another passing star before then.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18, 2007 @07:45PM (#17673480)
      SCO will soon be bankrupt. That moves out Darl and co. and moves in the bankruptcy trustee. The trustee will not spend a penny more on litigation. The trustee and the creditors (Novell and IBM) will agree on terms and all the issues will be settled pretty much to IBM/Novell's satisfaction.

      The issues probably can't raise their head ever again, no matter who is found to own the Unix copyrights. In particular, Novell is forestalled from raising them because it has argued against them in court and there's a rule about not saying contradictory things in two different courts. So, when it's over, it's over.
      • by plover (150551) *
        the issues will be settled pretty much to IBM/Novell's satisfaction.

        Except IBM won't actually be satisfied until they've won their counterclaims and recovered their legal fees. SCO won't last that long, and they won't have a penny for each dollar IBM's spent fighting these greedy fscks.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Alsee (515537)
          IBM won't actually be satisfied until they've won their counterclaims and recovered their legal fees. SCO won't last that long, and they won't have a penny for each dollar IBM's spent fighting these greedy fscks.

          Oh, I think IBM will well get their money's worth even if they don't collect a cent from SCO.

          You know those annoying Jehova's witnesses and other trolls that go around knocking on your front door? Imagine you pulled out a machete, whacked one's head off, and nailed the skull to your front door. I th
    • by E IS mC(Square) (721736) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @07:51PM (#17673568) Journal
      True. Today they asked how to use CMVC. 3 months later, they will say that IBM did not tell them how to open the file, or did not provide a text editor to read the files.

      I am sure these @$$holes already have a list of such trivial technical stuff lined up to delay this as far as they can.
      • by stevesliva (648202) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @08:17PM (#17673900) Journal
        True. Today they asked how to use CMVC. 3 months later, they will say that IBM did not tell them how to open the file, or did not provide a text editor to read the files.
        In disclosure, like 87 years ago, IBM provided them with a physical server with CMVC installed so that they could browse the code in all its versioned glory to their hearts content without even having to install CMVC. And that's good, because installing CMVC is probably as easy as playing wiffleball in a hurricane. But the point is that SCO has had access to this information for years-- they just didn't care to go looking for it.
        • by SpaceLifeForm (228190) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @08:50PM (#17674366)
          Not only did they provide a server, they also provided documentation, and even some simple scripts.

          Link [groklaw.net]

          • I figure SCO has no techs left at this point; it's all lawyers and executives. There's nobody left who could even follow simple instructions on how to log on to a box.

            Chris Mattern
        • by DrXym (126579)
          Slightly off-topic, but CMVC was a lovely source control system (to use). I'd probably think it was antiquated if I used it today but 10 years ago it was extremely advanced and much better than even some systems today. The CMVC client was a bug system and source control system in one, meaning tight integration. Somebody would raise a bug and you would check files out against the bug and check them all in as a single discrete package. Much better than the "b=123456" hacks you have to do with comments on CVS
          • Much, much, much better than that travesty known as Clearcase (+ Clearquest) which perversely probably killed CMVC when IBM bought Rational out.

            I am a very casual user of CMVC through scripts written by folks who know what they're doing, and it is as you describe in regards to levels attached to bugs... but from my little experience with it, the database of versioned files seems to be a bit removed from the filesystem metaphor that everyone is used to. It's a little harder to flip a switch and go browsi

            • by DrXym (126579)
              I think if I looked at CMVC now I would consider it arcane, but at the time it was just an amazingly powerful, mysterious way of managing source code.

              By contrast Clearcase should be amazingly powerful, but it is just so demanding of hardware and so fragile to administer and use that I wonder why anybody bothers. Our company operates out of several offices, and each site needs to replicate the same source control databases because CC works terribly over a WAN. Which means every site has several clearcase a

    • by EvanED (569694) <evaned@gmailPASCAL.com minus language> on Thursday January 18, 2007 @07:55PM (#17673622)
      The Exxon-Valdez oil spill trial is still ongoing, and that happened in 1989.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by jalet (36114)
        Your missing the fact that Exxon is not short on money...
        • by 6031769 (829845)
          I think you're missing the fact that Exxon, like IBM, is the defendant. IBM is not short of money either.
          • by swillden (191260) *

            I think you're missing the fact that Exxon, like IBM, is the defendant. IBM is not short of money either.

            At this point, IBM is the defendant in name only. SCO's complaints are nearly gone, and there's a good chance they'll be entirely wiped out in summary judgements over the next few months. What is left, mostly, is IBM's counterclaims.


        • Neither is Valdez. Juan has deep pockets, and they're full of coffee beans...
    • Expect that regardless of 'how its done' or the outcome. The attorneys make more money that way.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      IANAL, but I watch them on Groklaw.

      I wouldn't call this "great news" - I think the spoilation claim was always a long shot by SCO, and was more a distraction than anything else. It is a victory in a very minor battle. (There was also a defeat in a very very minor battle. I'm not sure why they cared enough to fight it.)

      Good news was when 2/3 of SCO's "evidence" was thrown out for being, well, non-evident. Great news is what we're hoping for from the summary judgement motions.
      I'm expecting a large portion (80
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by samkass (174571)
      "Any Lawyers in the house have any idea when this case will wrap up?"

      I suspect you'll get the obvious answer from the lawyers: when the money runs out.
  • by rewt66 (738525) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @07:35PM (#17673290)
    ... Which way did they come in?
  • by cyphercell (843398) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @07:37PM (#17673318) Homepage Journal
    SCO had the memo that said the code was on the CMVC server. They were handed the CMVC server, and apparantly never looked or verified the contents of the memo before claiming it as evidence of deleted code. SCO was trying to pass yet another one over on the Judge, this is painfully idiotic.
    • by IgLou (732042) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @08:21PM (#17673940)
      No doubt! And are you as distrubed as I am that this tech company has no idea how to use a software repository product like CMVC?? C'mon! I work in Config Mgmt and have used about half a dozen products to date it's not rocket science on how to use. Basic functions are about the same across the board.

      To be fair, I imagine this is more that the lawyers don't know how to get the information they want... but still.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Kjella (173770)
        Actually, I think SCOs logic is even simpler: We didn't find any evidence on our fishing expedition, so clearly we must have been too inept to use this tool because obviously, the evidence must be in there somewhere *rolls eyes*. This is almost as silly as watching those get caught sneaking on the tram and start rifling through their pockets "It's gotta be in here *somewhere* (Why won't you believe me and go away)"
  • by Darlantan (130471) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @07:37PM (#17673322)
    I think Judge Wells sees what is going on and is giving SCO pretty much whatever they want, just to make sure they've got no grounds to appeal when he slaps them down (hopefully soon). Giving them all the rope they want to hang themselves with, as it were. Let's hope it works.
    • by stevesliva (648202) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @08:13PM (#17673852) Journal
      I think Judge Wells sees what is going on and is giving SCO pretty much whatever they want, just to make sure they've got no grounds to appeal when he slaps them down (hopefully soon)
      I agree. Except she's a not a he.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by nuzak (959558)
        Judge Brooke Wells: she
        Judge Dale Kimball: he

        Judge Wells is actually the magistrate judge appointed by Kimball to do the majority of pretrial work. She can and has made partial summary judgements from the bench, but it's ultimately going to be up to Judge Kimball to throw it out summarily. And that's looking more and more likely.

        So the first thing SCO will do, as they always do, is go over Judge Wells's head and go to Judge Kimball to ask him to review the decision ... and he'll be about as sympathetic as
        • by rm69990 (885744)
          Ummm, Judge Wells never once ruled on a Summary Judgment motion in either IBM or Novell. Furthermore, it is Judge Kimball who heard the Summary Judgment motions at the beginning of 2005, and the ones in March are scheduled to be heard before him. Please provide a link backing up your statement.
          • by nuzak (959558)
            I was incorrect about the PSJ, I thought it was heard by Wells. I stand corrected. Confrontational much?
        • by rbanffy (584143) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @10:03PM (#17675224) Homepage Journal
          They are lawyers and they were paid to do it, so, they will do it. They will appeal everything that's not in accord to their client's interest and they will do whatever they can to act according to the instructions received from their client.

          And they should not do any different because they are good lawyers.

          It's only sad they have an evil client.
      • Judge Wells asked IBM to help SCO out in any way he could.
        According to this sentence, IBM isn't a huge international company at all. In fact, it looks like IBM is just one guy.
    • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @08:27PM (#17674038) Journal
      Giving them all the rope they want to hang themselves with, as it were.


      There's the BIG reel of rope, hung from a pipe. Judge Wells is holding up one end of the pipe and IBM's legal team is holding up the other.

      The trial isn't over yet solely because there's still some rope left on the reel. The judge and IBM want SCO to unreel it all. That way, when SCO goes to the appeal judge(s) and claims they didn't let SCO unreel it all and see if it was all the same color, they can hold up the empty reel. Then the appeals judge(s) can laugh them out of the courtroom, rather than winding all the rope back on the reel and sending them back to Judge Wells' court to do it over. B-)
  • sooo... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by User 956 (568564) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @07:38PM (#17673352) Homepage
    From the latest in the SCO saga, Judge Wells ruled today that IBM did not destroy evidence as SCO claims.

    So when can we expect the SEC investigation of SCO misconduct? I mean, they're all over Apple over some minor options backdating, the least they could do is deal with the huge pump-and-dump fraud going on in plain sight.
    • Re:sooo... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @07:48PM (#17673516)

      So when can we expect the SEC investigation of SCO misconduct? I mean, they're all over Apple over some minor options backdating, the least they could do is deal with the huge pump-and-dump fraud going on in plain sight.

      There's no such thing as "minor" options backdating, it's illegal. SCO's crap, while it's obvious to us that it's a shakedown-gone-wrong turned pump-n-dump sceme, proving that is another matter. Put another way - what would the SEC hit them *for*, and what would the proof be? And could they prove fraud as opposed to incompetence?

      • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @08:44PM (#17674268) Journal
        So when can we expect the SEC investigation of SCO misconduct?

        SCO's crap, while it's obvious to us that it's a shakedown-gone-wrong turned pump-n-dump scheme, proving that is another matter. Put another way - what would the SEC hit them *for*, and what would the proof be? And could they prove fraud as opposed to incompetence?


        While SCO has plausible deniability for the claims in court, SCO executives mad a lot of public statements (such as about finding numbers of lines of infringing code) that would tend to inflate their stock price, were demonstrably false, that that the SCO executives in question either knew were false, or should have known, had they done their due diligence before uttering them. There ought to be plenty of meat there.

        I'd expect that the SEC and the shareholders are holding off pending the resolution of the suit. After that, if there's anything worth going after and/or anyone left standing on the SCO side, you might see some action.

        Some SCO executives ended up with money in their pockets. Some shareholders ended up losing bundles. Don't be surprised if, once SCO v. IBM is over there's another one, leveling anything left of SCO and turning the execs into imprisoned paupers.

        Meanwhile, if the banking regulators are on the ball, they'll be watching the assets of the people in question, to see if they start moving into out-of-country money-cleaning-and-storage operations. B-)
        • by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @11:00PM (#17675810)

          While SCO has plausible deniability for the claims in court, SCO executives mad a lot of public statements (such as about finding numbers of lines of infringing code) that would tend to inflate their stock price, were demonstrably false, that that the SCO executives in question either knew were false, or should have known, had they done their due diligence before uttering them. There ought to be plenty of meat there.

          We shall see. The question is if this can become a criminal issue, and I have to say I don't think so. Certainly it could be a matter of a class-action shareholder suit, but since there's going to be no money left when all's said and done, there'd be no point. For criminal, you'll have to prove that Darl knew they didn't have jack but pumped it anyway.

          I'd expect that the SEC and the shareholders are holding off pending the resolution of the suit. After that, if there's anything worth going after and/or anyone left standing on the SCO side, you might see some action.

          Right, but I'm assuming that all that'll be left of SCO at the end is a smoldering crater. If there's a few dimes left, I'm sure it'll find its way somehow to the insiders or the legal team, and good luck getting it back.

          Some SCO executives ended up with money in their pockets. Some shareholders ended up losing bundles. Don't be surprised if, once SCO v. IBM is over there's another one, leveling anything left of SCO and turning the execs into imprisoned paupers.

          I don't think you can hit the execs with civil suits. Not a lawyer, but I don't think the company's liability extends to the individuals that comprise it. As for criminal, I really think they'll need more evidence than actually exists, and it'll have to show malfeasance as opposed to stupidity.

          Meanwhile, if the banking regulators are on the ball, they'll be watching the assets of the people in question, to see if they start moving into out-of-country money-cleaning-and-storage operations. B-)

          Sadly, I don't think they'll need to. It pisses me off, but I think these guys fall back to earth on some rather golden parachutes. We shall see. Believe me, I hope you're right. I hate it when a shell corporation buys up a formerly good company to perpetrate bullshit like this.

  • by mandelbr0t (1015855) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @07:40PM (#17673380) Journal

    Judge Wells asked IBM to help SCO out in any way he could.
    ROFL! This is legalese for "I'm sorry your opponent is incompetent, but we do have to get through the trial." I wonder if they get to send SCO a bill for consulting services rendered.
  • by smellsofbikes (890263) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @07:43PM (#17673440) Journal
    Mark James was certainly not incredulous. Judge Wells probably was. Anyone who reads about it, probably is.
    Incredible: hard to believe. Incredulous: a person who finds something hard to believe.

    I know I shouldn't be harping on about these kinds of things, but it's a common error and maybe someone will learn something.
  • by BoRegardless (721219) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @08:04PM (#17673724)
    Unfortunately the lawyers are now running SCO "till death do us part".

    It would be far better for everyone if the judge just gave a summary judgement to IBM and told SCO to just commit suicide and be done with it.
  • by eclectro (227083) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @08:06PM (#17673748)
    So I can download Linux legally.
  • Question for lawyers (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @08:31PM (#17674090) Homepage Journal
    OK, law school teaches that there are two sides to everything and that you should be able to switch to arguing the other side before the professor calls on the next student. There wouldn't be trials if the facts were obvious, you have to hear both sides in detail, etc.

    That said, there is a difference between vigorous advocacy and pig-headed dishonesty.

    The question for professionals out there is, what does an attorney or a firm need to do in order to get sanctioned?

    A followup question would be, if any of us ever winds up in court, can the attorney(s) on the other side get away with acting like the ones for SCO have?

    Of course I realize that the answer is "it depends". What does it depend on, and where do typical judges draw the line?
    • by terwilliger jones (1053192) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @10:10PM (#17675292)
      In 35 years before the bar, I never met a "typical judge". Each judge has his or her own limit of BS they'll tolerate. On a wider scale, though, it's plain from the SCO dodge-and-weave that they got nut n' honey. The judge is clearly no fool, but does not want to wallow this pig twice. IMHO, at this point you're seeing her accommodate SCO's pride, allowing them to vent the last of their spleen before granting Summary Judgment. The case appears to be over. The judge is now doing damage control.
  • I wish a judge would rule that SCO is a whining nuisance that should dry up and blow away. But that's just me. IANASCOfan
  • Cause it keep them buzy with a hopeless case, instead of them doing something bad to someone who can't suffer it.
  • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @11:17PM (#17675954) Homepage
    Anyone care to guess when this will FINALLY be over?

    Where will the party be held?
  • Has anyone noticed that there are some people getting really rich off of this? It's Darl and his cronnies that are making a fortune on this, and it's always been about this. It's like Vapourware...it's a great idea, but after millions of dollars, and nothing transpires it's just the top people who have made any money. They're going to run the company into the ground, and all of the investors will lose all of their money. Don't kid yourself, Darl and his buddies make sure that they are paid first before they
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by plankrwf (929870)
      Dear Sir,

      I am sorry to inform you that the debt owed to you, a total of

      0,02$,

      cannot be payed.
      This is due to some unforseen circumstances beyond our control: it turned out that other claims have been judged higher priority*.

      Kind regards,

      trustee SCO.
      * I am sure you can understand that we had to pay the gentlemen also known as 'Darl' first.
  • by Dachannien (617929) on Friday January 19, 2007 @01:35AM (#17677024)
    Freshman SCO: Uh, Professor, could I have an extension? I tried to download the assignment, but it said the file wasn't there for some weird reason.
    Professor Wells: *sigh* Okay, fine. One extension, but don't make a habit of this.
    Freshman SCO: Sure, sure. Thanks a lot. Oh, by the way, what server is the assignment on?

  • Next March 7th with four years into this absurd scam, and scox has not even proven that they own the code to begin with. In fact, all evidence indicates that scox does not own the code.

    It would be like me putting my own toll-booth on the Brooklyn Bridge, and suing New York City because I don't like what they've done to my property aka "Central Park."

    Yet, all these federal judges are taking scox's ridiculous claims seriously. And those judges are punishing ibm, novell, redhat, and the entire foss community;
  • by xenocide2 (231786) on Friday January 19, 2007 @01:54AM (#17677148) Homepage
    "Judge Wells asked IBM to help SCO out in any way he could."

    Maybe this is why I'll never go to law school, but I'd probably respond to that at that point by placing a loaded gun on the table and tell them "Kill yourself. Now."
  • Incredulously, SCO's Mark James requested that IBM tell SCO how to obtain the information.

    "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

    KeS
  • Stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself!

Uncompensated overtime? Just Say No.

Working...