SCO Accuses IBM of Destruction of Evidence 266
Udo Schmitz writes "According to an article at Forbes, SCO claims that IBM destroyed evidence by ordering programmers to delete copies of code that could have helped SCO prove its case. SCO's attorney Brent Hatch says that 'one IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying source code and tests' and that they didn't mention this in public, because it only became relevant now, and that 'the claim was part of a motion SCO filed in March 2006, which has remained sealed'." From the article: "IBM declined to comment, citing a policy of not discussing ongoing litigation. In her sharply worded ruling, Wells criticized SCO's conduct in the case and seemed to indicate she was annoyed with the company. 'I don't know if that's true or not, but that's a question I'm asking myself,' Hatch says. Hatch concedes the Wells ruling represented a setback for SCO. But he says SCO still has a strong case. "
Hmmm (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
No, this is just more of SCO purposefully not understanding how software development works.
To do otherwise would be the exception, not the norm.
Why is this still going on?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO periodically makes enough noise to get some new press, but beyond that the case is effectively dead. They really have no chance of actually winning, and the whole endeavor seems to be an elaborate pump and dump scam for their stock.
Re:Why is this still going on?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
That aside, most employees of most companies are not really fully aware of the legal ramblings they're involved in. Out of site out of mind...
Tom
Re:Why is this still going on?!? (Score:2)
As a former IBM employee, I personally don't give a fuck who cares what I say about internal politics and what not like that. I occasonally share anecdotes about my time with Tivoli (shortly after IBM purchased them) and as long as I'm not being malicious, who gives a shit? I'm not under any current NDA, and I don't intend to work directly for big blue any time in the future. I had enough of it w
Re:Why is this still going on?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just saying it's not wise to speak on their behalf. Saying things like
"It was my personal impression that people didn't care"
is generally better than
"It was IBMs position that nobody cared"
You have to disclaim that you're not speaking on behalf of the co
Re:Why is this still going on?!? (Score:3, Interesting)
My statement is based upon observations I've made of employees' attitudes, information I've discovered since I quit, and logical evaluations of the situation at
Re:Why is this still going on?!? (Score:2)
Does IBM share it's legal strategies with it's sysadmins?
Re:Why is this still going on?!? (Score:2)
Sure, after all the Evil Overlord list says: "I will hire one hopelessly stupid and incompetent lieutenant, but make sure that he is full of misinformation when I send him to capture the hero."
Now, while SCO certainly leaves a lot to be desired for their moral character, they do take on far greater odds than your average dragonslayer armed with a toothpick -1, so I guess they're close enough. Or would this particular lieutenant be here to misinf
SCO (Score:2)
Re:SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
Riiiiight... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh. Good. Grief. (Score:5, Funny)
Next, I suppose, aliens from Planet Zontar in Zeta Reticuli will have stolen those very same computers from which the Unix and Dynix code was deleted.
Re:Oh. Good. Grief. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh. Good. Grief. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh. Good. Grief. (Score:4, Funny)
As lawyers say. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the law is on your side, bang on the law.
If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, bang on the table."
Re:As lawyers say. (Score:2)
Re:As lawyers say. (Score:2)
Re:As lawyers say. (Score:4, Funny)
Like the ravings of a crackhead on "Cops": (Score:3, Funny)
At least this is legal strategy intended for use with law enformcement personnel. May not work as well in a court:
1) "Deny deny deny"
2) "Delay delay delay"
3) "Lie lie lie"
Does destroyed code matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Does destroyed code matter? (Score:2)
Don't they have a copy?
Re: Does destroyed code matter? (Score:2)
Re: Does destroyed code matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Does destroyed code matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
It all seemed m
Re: Does destroyed code matter? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you missed his point entirely. If IBM deleted this code from their source tree, it wouldn't matter since if it infact is part of the linux system then any other source code copy in the wild would still have it. IBM may have in actuality deleted obsolete or unused code from their dev tree, SCO is trying to point to that and say "Aha! destroying evidence!" but they could easily prove if th
Except... (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO are flat out lying, whether just to the public, or to their lawyers as well. The only reason I think IBM are continuing with this is to get each and every claim SCO has specifically and individually struck down so when the house of cards finally does crumble they have no way to try it again.
Re:Except... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Except... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the longer this mess goes on, the more money it bleeds from SCO. Even the stock market is finally reluctantly starting to realize, years after Slashdotters, that SCO doesn't really have any ground to stand on. SCOX is currently valued at $2.51 a share, having lost about $1.50 or so in the past month. One source says that SCO is down to $18 million in cash. I think IBM is just trying to get them to run out of money by the time this is settled in IBM's favor so they won't be in a position to launch endless appeals of the verdict.
Re:Except... (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO will stand for Smoking Crater Organization (formerly and once again Caldera), and perhaps SEC Comin' Over as well.
IBM has more or less bet the company on the viability of Linux, and their reputation for following contracts and respecting copyrights must remain ironclad for them to be credible as an organization enterprises can entrust with their most vital data.
SCO has no case, and there are many signs that the lawsuit is a suicide attack to buy time for the release of Vista, but IBM is making absolutely sure there will be no stain on Linux going forward, no matter how implausible.
Bet the company? Hardly... (Score:3, Insightful)
Darl's book "How to make big money fast" (Score:5, Funny)
2. Falsely accuse IBM of giving Linux SCO code - code that SCO themselves released under the GPL in the form of Caldera Linux (later SCO OpenLinux)
3. Dump some of your stock
4. Receive practically every scrap of Linux and AIX documentation, source code, marketing literature, test reports, design docs, etc. that IBM ever produced
5. Dump some SCO stock
6. Realizing that you've been called on your bluff, accuse IBM of destroying alleged "evidence"
7. Dump more SCO stock
(months later, after IBM and Novell are eating SCO's remains)
8. Have fun being Bubba's bitch in federal prison
Re:Darl's book "How to make big money fast" (Score:2)
Re:Darl's book "How to make big money fast" (Score:2)
And, if you think that CxOs are immune, may I direct you to enron? Ken Lay found himself in a mound of crap - lucky for him, his ticker gave out.
Re:Darl's book "How to make big money fast" (Score:2)
And if you believe that, I've got a benevolent government to sell you.
Act now, and I'll throw in a benevolent god.
SCO again and again. (Score:3)
SCO claims that IBM toke their code from SCO Unix, even if it was thru some long forgotten version of Dynix or AIX, into contributed into Linux.
But they have SCO Unix source and they have Linux source so simple show the connection and be done with it.
Re:SCO again and again. (Score:2)
Basically, SCO is trying to blame the fact that they have no case on IBM. If they could get it to stick, IBM would be guilty of obstructing justice at least. If they can't, at least it takes the courts a few months to churn through their latest excuse, and that's a few months longer
What happened? Did the stock drop? (Score:4, Funny)
Could be me, but I find it hilarious that SCO accuses another company of smoke-and-mirror tactics.
Re:What happened? Did the stock drop? (Score:2)
In psychological terms, it's called projection.
--
BMO
Yes, the stock dropped - a lot (Score:2)
SCOX was trading at $4 for a long time. Good news, bad news, no news it was still $4.
Then, SCO had most of it claims tossed out of court in a blistering ruling by Judge Wells. The judge called "BS" on most of their case.
Now the stock is down to around $2.50
Re:What happened? Did the stock drop? (Score:2)
Yes, the stock dropped. Around July 1, somebody dumped almost a million shares of SCOX all at once [yahoo.com], and the price dropped from around $4 to into the $2-$3 range and has been there since. $2.51 right now. For the last two years, the stock has been hovering around $4, so this is a big change.
At the height of the lawsuit hype, it hit $20, but that was back in 3Q 2003. Back in the glory days of the dot-com boom, it reached $100.
Re:What happened? Did the stock drop? (Score:2)
New company idea! (Score:3, Funny)
Wrong /. Icon! (Score:5, Funny)
SCO's Strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
Hi, I'm Darl! I get paid $300,000 dollars each year the lawsuit continues- without doing any work other than a couple press conferences!
Basically, the people who run SCO get paid more the longer the litigation continues. It doesn't matter to them whether they win or lose- the longer the lawsuit continues the more
It's actually all a cunning plan... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's actually all a cunning plan... (Score:2)
This is the most plausible explanation yet for SCO's abortion of case.
Re:It's actually all a cunning plan... (Score:2)
He's now defending Andrew Fastow. Maybe Fastow can have a heart attack too to save him from Boies's representation.
Re:It's actually all a cunning plan... (Score:4, Funny)
spent on a turnip.
KFG
The obvious statement (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean... one developer deleted some files? Oh, the horror! But, um... I'm a developer, and I've been known to do that from time to time, not to destroy evidence, but just to clean up my drive.
We should also note that Forbes doesn't exactly have a great track record with respect to objectivity and accuracy on this case.
All in all, I think I'll refrain from assuming IBM's guilt just yet...
relevant excerpt (Score:5, Informative)
even after the Court ordered the source code to be produced, IBM failed to produce all versions of its AIX code, claiming that they cannot be located. Even more egregious was IBM's spoliation of evidence. Weeks after SCO filed its lawsuit, IBM directed "dozens" of its Linux developers within its LTC and at least ten of its Linux developers outside the LOC to delete the AIX and/or Dynix source code from their computers. (SCO Opp. Memo. (3/7/06) at 3.) One IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying Dynix source code and tests, as well as pre-March 2003 drafts of source code he had written for Linux while referring to Dynix code on his computer. (Id. at 3-4.)
SCO has access to every version of AIX and Dynix released in recent and not so recent history and they can't identify any infringement in them. So now they're saying that the same code that were copied or cached on the developers' workstation must have had the smoking gun in it. That's a really really desperate argument. Clearly they're just trying hard to raise arguments - any arguments - that may lead to this devastating ruling to be reversed. I suppose I can't blame them lawyers for not leaving a stone unturned.
Re:relevant excerpt (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:relevant excerpt (Score:2)
That's like saying that they have AIX 3.1.1.1 and AIX 3.1.1.2 in which they can't find any infringements. But they're missing AIX 3.1.1.2 be
Re:relevant excerpt (Score:2)
In some of that source code a Developer might have started to put some code into AIX that never made it to production. The then put the same code into Linux.
Wow this is getting really fuzzy. I hope the judge tosses that out or else every scratch pad of every AIX developer will need to be dragged in to court.
I can see it now. So did you start thinking about how to handle x when you where working on AIX?
Mod Parent Up - IBM was keeping itself honnest (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as deleting "draft" linux code, that might have been a case of playing it safe and making sure that nothing written by a developer with concurrent access to UNIX was contributed to their Linux projects (i.e. oh, you had access to UNIX source? Sorry we can't use your patches, please get rid of them and don't come back until UNIX is off your box.)
COPY, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Shouldn't the copyright holder keep, I dunno, copies?
Re:COPY, right? (Score:3, Funny)
-
SCOX share price (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCOX share price (Score:2)
I wouldn't worry, SCO (Score:2)
Re:I wouldn't worry, SCO (Score:2)
So true - SCO has been on a fishing trip from the start.
this country seems to award civil liberties to corporations. The police can't randomly search your house -- does this mean that private citizens can?
I think Joe Bob has my waffle iron under his bed - I don't have any documentable evidence, but I want him to box up and ship the contents of his master bedroom for my inspec
SCO Source Code Omission (Score:5, Funny)
FTA: Hatch, SCO's attorney, says SCO learned about the destruction of code when it took depositions from IBM programmers. This is the first time SCO has made the allegation in public, though Hatch says the claim was part of a motion SCO filed in March 2006, which has remained sealed.
Hatch says the allegation has become relevant now, because it helps explain why SCO could not meet demands to cite source code.
IBM declined to comment, citing a policy of not discussing ongoing litigation.
So, who here feels sorry for the SCO lawyers?
*Crickets*
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (Score:5, Funny)
SCO: "Judge we can't find any evidence because IBM detroyed it."
IBM: "How could we destroy evidence when they haven't requested it or know what said evidence might be. Judge their case is totally without merit. They lack the evidence to proceed. We motion to dismiss."
SCO: "The absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence."
IBM Lawyer: . "Judge IBM has provided all evidence they have requested. How can we provide items that are not known even to SCO. They are on a fishing expedition. We request that SCO make their evidence requests known. We shouldn't be made to provide items that are not identified and unknown. It appears that what SCO wants is unknown to even themselves."
SCO: "There are known knowns, and there are known unknowns, but there are unknown unknowns. Things that we don't know that we don't know."
IBM Lawyer: "Motion to dismiss your honor."
Judge: "Motion granted. Case dismissed."
Re:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (Score:5, Funny)
IBM: "How could we destroy evidence when they haven't requested it or know what said evidence might be. Judge their case is totally without merit. They lack the evidence to proceed. We motion to dismiss."
SCO: "The absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence."
Judge: "But you can't sue without evidence. That's what absence of evidence is."
SCO: "Yes, but you can sue in the absence of evidence if you have evidence of evidence."
Judge (frowning): "Run that by me again?"
SCO: "Absence of evidence is prima facie evidence if there is evidence of evidence."
Judge (frowning counting on his fingers): "But absence of evidence in the face of evidence of evidence is evidence that the evidence of evidence isn't errr... really evidence."
SCO: "No, absence of evidence in the face of evidence of evidence is not evidence of absence but evidence of malfeasance"
Judge (to IBM laywer): What do you say to that?
IBM Layer: Oh, I agree.
SCO(Trimumphantly): See! He admits it.
Judge: Admits what?
SCO: That they destroy the evidence of whihc the evidence of evidence was evidence of.
IBM: I admit no such thing.
Judge: What? You just said you agreed!
IBM: I agreed that absences of evidence in the presence of evidende of evidence evidences malefeasnce.
Judge: Isn't that the same thing?
IBM: No, because as my learned colleage is no doubt aware, I have not stipulated whether the evidence of malfeasnce pertains the to absence of evidence, or the absence of evidence of evidence.
Judge (working it out): Hey! What exactly is the evidence of evidence we've been talking about
SCO (looking at his feet): mumble
Judge: Pardon?
SCO: I said, they destroyed that too.
Judge (to IBM): What do you say to that.
(IBM is a bit preoccupied and does not respond)
Judge (to IBM): Excuse me, counsellor, but I asked you what you though of plaintiff's assertion that the absence of evidence of evidence is your fault?
IBM: I beg your pardon your honor. I was measuring another fathom of rope for my learned colleague.
Your Daily Chutzpah (Score:4, Funny)
"You can't read big things into all these little wars," Hatch says. "It's like saying the North didn't win the Civil War just because a couple of battles were bad for us."
Of course, what Hatch is saying is like saying that SCO is fighting to keep the war-torn Linux world as one Union of the people, by the people, and for the people, by suing the pants off Linux developers, threatening to charge license fees to corporate users of Linux, accusing Linux developers of plagiarism and copyright violation and now obstruction of justice. They've got General Sherman in their back pocket just waiting to pillage his way through IBM's case. I think he works as a mathematician for MIT. Also, IBM owns slaves.
"Weeks after SCO filed its lawsuit, IBM directed 'dozens' of its Linux developers...to delete the AIX and/or Dynix source code from their computers," SCO's objection claims.
"One IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying source code and tests, as well as pre-March 2003 drafts of source code he had written for Linux while referring to Dynix code on his computer," SCO says.
Come on, I thought the copyright infringement claims were going to show that parts of System V were copied into Linux. The argument that it's illegal for IBM to put their own code from Dynix into Linux has always been barely there. I guess if this destruction really happened, IBM will call SCO's bluff and say that they didn't know it was illegal to destroy their own code, because their legal department couldn't anticipate the need to preserve AIX and Dynix to prove SCO's wacky legal theory.
Re:Your Daily Chutzpah (Score:2)
First of all, SCO needs to prove that they IN FACT own the rights to the Unix source code(the Novell case), and then they need to prove the derivative works part of the contract with IBM. Finally, they need to prove that the only way the code ended up in Linux
Re:Your Daily Chutzpah (Score:2)
And (at least according to IBM),
Re:SCO's 'legal' theory (Score:2)
Fishy and ridiculous from the start... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fishy and ridiculous from the start... (Score:2)
Getting stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was code that never reached Linux, then what's wrong? Are they complaining that IBM didn't copy code into Linux?
If true, IBM discovered some coders copying from the Unix source, and says "don't do that", and removes the offending code before it ever got out. It apparently never made it to Linux, or SCO would be able to show it in the Linux listings. Sounds like they are complaining that IBM didn't allow the Unix source to be copied into Linux. It just sounds like the IBM code police were doing their job,
So, SCO's case now seems to be: They could have copied Unix code into Linux, but they didn't. Anyway, we want money.
SCO recap.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that I have finally managed to stop laughing, let me see if I understood this correctly.
SCO had such a strong case and so much evidence of "millions of lines of code", and "truckloads" of code from their "deep dive" proving that "the DNA of Linux is comming from UNIX", etc. that they were "ready for trial" in 2003 and they "don't need any discovery".
SCO needs all versions of AIX. Not only that, but they also need every unreleased internal iteration of code from CMVC, all programmer's notes, etc., at great expense.
SCO could not disclose specific code for M&C because they couldn't know what code was in the minds of IBM engineers when IBM disclosed the M&C.
IBM destroyed the evidence. So SCO cannot show what code, or M&C was copied. This, even though SCO has access to ALL of the code, and Linux code is publicly available.
No doubt, it must somehow be IBM's doing that SCO is unable to answer IBM's interrogatory asking for SCO to identify lines of Linux code that SCO claims to own rights in.
So in the end...
Of the vague nebulous blob of M&C...
Because of IBM's unfair, unethical and illegal actions, SCO is unable to...
So in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen of this fine Utah jury, IBM is guilty. They did it. Trust us. Now do the right thing. Award Billions in damages to the plaintiff please.
Thank you.
Re:SCO recap.... (Score:2)
No spoon (Score:3, Funny)
Child: "Don't try to make your case. That's impossible. Instead, try to realise the truth."
SCO: "What truth?"
Child: "There is no case."
SCO: "There is no case?"
Child: "Then you will see, that it is not your case that changes, but only your argument."
But the Dog Ate my Homework..... (Score:2)
Head hurts... (Score:2)
SCO accuses IBM of stealing code. SCO refuses to specify which code IBM stole. SCO says that IBM needs to declare which code it stole. SCO told to suck it up and declare what code was stolen. SCO does puppy-dog-eyes thing. For months. SCO says "some guy" at IBM knows about the code and it was deleted, but this was in sealed documents from before. GOTO 10.
Am I following this?
IBM doing the right thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't believe this story is being reported accurately, because if it is, SCO are just the most incredibley stupid asshats that ever filed a lawsuit - and given the frivolous lawsuits that we hear about filed in the US in The Rest of the World (nah, it's not really a country, but it might help some people to think of it that way), that is saying a lot.
Forbes reporting this might just be the typical, not-tech-savvy bad reporting that I've come to know and love from mainstream press, but places like this should know better and Just Fucking Ignore It so SCO can continue sliding off the face of the Earth. I don't want to hear any more about this case until some judge finally tells them to shut up and fuck off.
Burden of Proof? (Score:2)
wise advice (Score:2)
Maybe SCO could learn a thing or two, hmm? Given the endless stream of prejudicial statements, including disclosing things that were originally filed under seal, IBM at this point could ask for a gag order, but I guess they figure that as long as SCO keeps digging, IBM may as well let them keep their shovel.
The story so far... (Score:3, Funny)
SCO: You're a thief!
IBM: Huh? Are you on crack? What did I steal?
SCO: You know what you stole... our Unix code, that you put into Linux! Now turn it back over so I can prove you stole it!
IBM: Why do you think that?
SCO: We know you stole code from us because *WE* invented Unix, and Linux was written by a bunch of hackers and wannabe's... And yet somehow in less than a decade, doubtless with *YOUR* help, Linux managed to progress from a barely usable hacker kernel to something that is entirely practical in many areas include schools, businesses, embedded systems, and many others. This wouldn't have been possible if we hadn't invented Unix first, so you must have stolen code from us! So, give us back what you you stole... we can prove that it was ours!
IBM: Uhmmm... I don't know what you are talking about... Linux is open source, can't you show us from what's in the Linux source base?
SCO: While we could find code that was taken from us in Linux, finding it in the open source codebase wouldn't prove that you stole it.
IBM: Can you tell us where to look?
SCO: No... because if we did that, you'd destroy the evidence before this got to court. Just turn over what you stole.
IBM: If nobody here knows what code we allegedly stole how do we turn it over?
SCO: It's not our fault if your company doesn't keep records of where it gets stuff from. Just hand it over.
IBM: Like I said before, I don't know what you are talking about... can you show us if we give you everything we got?
SCO: (eyes light up like kid in a candy store) Yes! Yes! That will do fine! Give us everything you have!
IBM: Uh... okay. Here you go.
(much later...)
SCO: Hey! It's not here!
IBM: What's not there?
SCO: What you stole from us! You must be withholding something!
IBM: Uhmmm... nope. Do you want to search our place to see if we missed anything?
SCO: Yes, please. We'd like that very much.
IBM: Okay... come in (rolls eyes).
(later...)
SCO: Okay, what did you do with it?
IBM: Do with what?
SCO: The code you stole!
IBM: We didn't steal any code!
SCO: Yes you did!
IBM: Why do you still believe that when you've seen for yourself that we don't have it?
SCO: Because you must have destroyed it when we first asked to see everything!
IBM: Uhmmm... do you have any evidence to support that supposition?
SCO: Ah hah! You *ARE* admitting to destroying evidence!
IBM: For cryin' out loud man, get a grip! All we're saying is if you can't find any evidence for your claim, it really seems like a waste of effort to continue to pursue it. Although at this point I suppose it doesn't matter, because you know full well that we're going to sue your asses into the dust for this harrassment when the court finally rules that you are wrong.
SCO Group HAS deleted evidence from its websites (Score:2)
From 09 June 2003 What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL [slashdot.org].
Look - pigs fly!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah... there are 2 options:
1. We never got the code, yet somehow we *KNOW* you're infringing our rights with it.
2. We had the code, but we lost it, so YOU must provide it.
SCO alleges this happened in 2003, yet the company has never
They're one to talk. (Score:2)
--
This is simply a last-ditch desparate effort of SCO to divert the attention from their pathetic selves and delay this tired and drawn-out leagal action.
Some advice for SCO - Roll over and expose your soft underbelly in a show of submission while IBM humps the air over you.
Your tactics are old and busted and everyone's tired of hearing about you.
SCO? I hear your momma calling. You better run home now.
This is very serious... (Score:2)
we don't have evidence, because they destroyed it (Score:2)
This is utterly insidious behavior on SCO's part (Score:2)
This goes back to the derivitive works issue.
How can IBM delete something that SCO claims to own? If IBM wrote something and released it into Linux then that should be all you need -- deleted copies of something that was never released is moot. Deleted code created by IBM, if this indeed even occurred, wouldn't b
What (Score:2)
Daniel Lyons (Score:4, Insightful)
Throughout this case there have been two consistent trends. One, IBM gives everything the court asks of them and goes to enormous lengths and expense trying to produce materials that SCO sometimes doesn't even seem to have wound up using, while SCO drags their feet and refuses to provide either what IBM requests or what is explicitly ordered of them by the judge. And two, this whole time, SCO rants ceaselessly in the press, usually through mouthpieces like Daniel Lyons, that IBM is refusing to provide what is ordered, IBM is obstructing justice, IBM is dragging their feet. (IBM, for some reason having decided to try their case in the courts rather than the media, tends to remain silent.)
At this point Forbes may be the only thing that still qualifies as a media source where you can read the news about SCO and get any impression except that things are going disastrously, one-sidedly bad for SCO.
Re:Anyone else... (Score:3, Interesting)
So, they don't have the code. But they claim they have depositions from IBM people that show the code existed. TFA says nothing about SCO bringing the depositions to court, but I assume that would be the next step, which would be interesting - if it actually took place. We'll have to wait and see, I guess. Most likely we'll start hearing "we lost the depositions" or something like that.
Re:Anyone else... (Score:2)
Whoa! Check it out! I never thought winged monkeys would really come flying out of my ass.
Re:Anyone else... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure if it means anything, but I thought it was interesting.
Re:Anyone else... (Score:5, Informative)
This Brent O. Hatch is Sen Hatch's son (Score:3, Insightful)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has suggested that people who download copyrighted materials from the Internet should have their computers automatically destroyed.
Re:This Brent O. Hatch is Sen Hatch's son (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Anyone else... (Score:2)
No, IBM destroyed the developers before they could be brought to court.
'Flat Earth" Vibe explained (Score:3, Funny)
So, in the case of SCO, the multiplication effect has been carried out to an awe-inspiring degree. Assess the number of people in SCO mana
Re:Classic projection (Score:3, Informative)
In general, when providing a definition and example, you must use the word you have defined... in the example.
Re:(no subject) (Score:2)
...or Brent Hatch, as his coworkers and family refer to him..
Re:A ploy... but what for? (Score:2)