Judge Rules That IBM Did Not Destroy Evidence 163
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."
D'Oh! (Score:4, Funny)
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...
Re:D'Oh! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:D'Oh! (Score:5, Funny)
Of course! Just as soon as they figure out the second step they'll be set.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Finally, the four-step-to-fortune question is raised.
So here it is:
1. Sue IBM
2. Buy large amounts of stock in IBM, (or better, futures), and buy large amount of stock in the lawyer firm that IBM uses
3. Make sure proceedings take ages and ages.
4. Sell futures, just after losing the case in court: profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Is this what you refer to?
(from The Big Book)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Nuclear explosion at IBM headquarters.
2) Kinetic strike from Chinese anti-satellite system accidentally leveling IBM headquarters.
3) World War III.
4) Bill Gates as a president.
When will it End?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When will it End?!? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:When will it End?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:When will it End?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:When will it End?!? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
-
Re: (Score:2)
Damn you and that mental image!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When will it End?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, the MS Astroturf Unit will mod down this into oblivion.
Re:When will it End?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait... did I just post in this thread? Shit! Sorry, buddy!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re:When will it End?!? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:When will it End?!? (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Sun already turned into a giant [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
No, apparently there's a one in 2 million chance [oklo.org] the earth will have been captured by another passing star before then.
Don't worry about an appeal (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:When will it End?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
I am sure these @$$holes already have a list of such trivial technical stuff lined up to delay this as far as they can.
Re:When will it End?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:When will it End?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Link [groklaw.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Chris Mattern
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:When will it End?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither is Valdez. Juan has deep pockets, and they're full of coffee beans...
years of appeals (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
I suspect you'll get the obvious answer from the lawyers: when the money runs out.
Re: (Score:2)
"Is there a lawyer in the house? -=}BLAM{=- Any more?"
Of course, we'd love to help SCO out.... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, the lack of observation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, the lack of observation. (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
No room for appeals. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No room for appeals. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No room for appeals. (Score:4, Insightful)
And they should not do any different because they are good lawyers.
It's only sad they have an evil client.
Speaking of gender... (Score:2)
There's this big reel of rope ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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?
That's the second shoe. (Score:4, Insightful)
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-)
Re:That's the second shoe. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Legalese Translation (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
incredulous != incredible. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What he was doing was incredible to everyone else. Not incredulous. And it's an adjective, not an adverb.
It's true to say that due to years of misuse a number of dictionaries have lately introduced this definition, but historically speaking 'incredulous' was not intended for the usage you described, and it's best to avoid it if you don't want to appear a little ignorant. You could also say, what he was doing caused 'incredulity' to everyone else.
(IANA
Re: (Score:2)
That poster says: "Incredible: hard to believe. Incredulous: a person who finds something hard to believe."
Are you disagreeing with those definitions? If so what do you think the correct definitions are? They look correct to me, but I'm willing to be educated.
Re: (Score:2)
Incredulous: a person finding something hard to believe
Re: (Score:2)
Incredulous: a person finding something hard to believe
Even this is confusing... Incredulous is not a noun. Incredulous means a person exhibiting some behavior...
Sounds like a noun to me. After all I was told when I was just wee that a noun is a person, place or thing.
Did you mean -
Incredulous: finding something hard to believe. As in: Hearing his teacher tell the class that, in reality, the sky is pea green and not blue young Johnny was quite
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Longest Deathwatch in Tech. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I'll be glad when this is all over (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Please, you need to get some rest.
Question for lawyers (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:Question for lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
In other news... (Score:2)
Shhhhh, don't tell the lawyers.... (Score:2)
Two Questions: (Score:3, Funny)
Where will the party be held?
The Proverbial Wool Over Everyone's Eyes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Dog ate my homework, or, Wells takes SCO to school (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Scox & BSF are doing a damn nice job (Score:2)
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;
Fastest debarrment ever (Score:4, Funny)
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."
OB: Princess Bride (Score:2)
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
KeS
SCO's continuing self-flagellation (Score:2)
Re:Who cares if IBM destroyed evidence (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
-
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so bad (Score:2)
If you draw a straight line, my nose is a few feet from one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Thine mighty 800lb gorillaness".