Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Caldera IBM Operating Systems Software Unix News Linux

Judge Petitioned To Unseal SCO-IBM Court Records 301

Posted by timothy from the whatcha-eatin'-under-there dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Groklaw is reporting that Maureen O'Gara has applied to the judge to open all and any filings or transcipts that till now have been sealed by the Utah district court hearing the SCO Group's $5 billion suit against IBM. Groklaw's Pamela Jones notes that 'O'Gara believes the public can't understand the case, because of the sealing' and some of the Groklaw.net members seem to agree that, that since in the U.S. any citizen has a right to review court records in order to monitor the performance of a judge, that O'Gara's 'motion to intervene' will most likely succeed." An anonymous reader writes that Jones last night said of the request "that she is 'of two minds' about the filing: 'I'm crazy wild to read everything. But on the other hand, the court and the parties wouldn't seal things without a reason that seems good to them. I believe in privacy, personally, and I don't think the public has a "right" to know everything.' The legal filing to unseal everything has not yet become available via Pacer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Petitioned To Unseal SCO-IBM Court Records More

Judge Petitioned To Unseal SCO-IBM Court Records

Comments Filter:

  • Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Vengie ( 533896 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @03:55PM (#10967018)
    Sigh. I only came here because Groklaw was all slow. I know why now. *grumble*

  • At last (Score:3, Funny)

    by cwapface ( 835930 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @03:56PM (#10967025)
    I, too, am crazy wild to read everything about this case.

  • I'm of the mind.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Spytap ( 143526 )
    I'm of the mind that if it affects me in any way, I should have the right to reviewmy government's decisions.

    • In a civil lawsuit?

      I mean yes, we're paying a judge to... well, play judge, but that's about the extent of the government's involvement in this particular civil suit.

      • The government is going to make decisions of fact and law with regards to interpretation of copyright law that impact open source software. The decisions that are made establish precedent which can allow people to sue or prosecute you.

        So, I'd say this has a big impact on everyone, and the government is very much involved.
    • But this is a civil suit. And SCO is the plaintiff. Unless...

      You for one have already welcomed your SCO overlords?

  • As pointed out by PJ on Groklaw (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Savet Hegar ( 791567 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:00PM (#10967083)
    Just because someone sues you....that doesn't mean that all of your private information and trade secrets should become public information.

  • Not to be a jerk ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ralconte ( 599174 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:01PM (#10967093)
    But this is more corporations are people to BS. There's no need for privacy here. SCO and IBM are companies, no one wants to watch them shower, or see their mental records, 'cause they don't have bodies or minds.

    We still know nothing about what SCO allegeds was stolen. If we knew, the Open Scource community could remove and rewrite offending parts in a few months. (I guess, IANA programmer) Why are people proud that FUD is the only thing they can produce?

    • Not to be a jerk either... but the reason we still know nothing about what SCO alleges was stolen is not because a few court documents are sealed. We still don't know because SCO still hasn't said, sealed or otherwise.

      As others have said, there is some need for privacy here. IBM's AIX source code should not be published to the world just because some idiots file a court case and some third-party observer sees it as a chance to get nosy.

    • United States Code, Title 1, Section 1, "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise... the words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;"

      Therefore, in the United States, corporations are people for most purposes.

      • Therefore, in the United States, corporations are people for most purposes.

        That legal document states that for legal purposes, corporations are given the same rights as a person. That does not make them people. Even if Congress passes a law that specifically says that corporations are people, it still does not make it so. If congress passes a law, the pope blesses it, and Jesus comes down from heaven and stamps it "approved by GOD" that still doesn't make it so.

        The law has little to do with "most pur

  • Public Can't Understand? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ggeezz ( 100957 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:01PM (#10967096)
    I believe a portion of the public (many of whom are here) understand that SCO's case is ridiculous. Really it's just the extent of the ridiculousness that's being sealed off right now.

    The part of the public that doesn't understand the case is not going to read these documents anyway. This would however allow experts to analyze the case more effectively, which will in turn benefit the general public's understanding of the case. All in all though, you've got to be in favor of these documents being opened up.

    • Re:Public Can't Understand? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gnuadam ( 612852 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:33PM (#10967463) Journal

      Actually, as a person following this case, the thing that is sealed, and that O'Gara is filing to have unsealed (digression: I've not read the motion, so I can't say exactly what she's asking to have unsealed. But given her past writings on the subject I pretty sure I know what she's after), is an internal IBM memo that SCO contends shows evidence of IBM fraud in their dealings with oldSCO's project to port unixware to itanium. IBM claims to have provided the memo on accident, and that it is a privledged document that should not have been given to SCO. SCO basically agrees that it's not admisible evidence, but touts it as evidence that they need more discovery before IBM's summary judgement motions should be heard.

      I'm all for open records, but in this case I don't want the seal to be lifted, and here's why.

      SCO has been chomping at the bit to release this letter. They have made many references to it in their filings. They even read bits of the letter *aloud* in open court - the judge has since ordered that the transcript be sealed. But there were journalists there, and O'Gara (even though she was not there) has basically reported what was said --- despite the fact that SCO basically violated a court order when they read it.

      This whole sorry business seems like a SCO orchestrated attempt to try and make IBM look bad, and I'm wholeheartedly against it. SCO's misconduct should not be rewarded; the seal should not be lifted.

      • Re:Public Can't Understand? (Score:4, Informative)

        by RiffRafff ( 234408 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @06:48PM (#10968889) Homepage
        "SCO has been chomping at the bit to release this letter."

        Champing, not chomping. Humans chomp, horses champ.
        It's "champing at the bit."

        Champ \Champ\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Champed; p. pr. & vb. n.
        Champing.] [Prob, of Scand. orgin; cf. dial. Sw. k["a]msa
        to chew with difficulty, champ; but cf. also OF. champier,
        champeyer, champoyer, to graze in fields, fr. F. champ field,
        fr. L. campus. Cf. Camp.]
        1. To bite with repeated action of the teeth so as to be
        heard.

        Foamed and champed the golden bit. --Dryden.

        2. To bite into small pieces; to crunch. --Steele.
    • I always wondered, does anyone in the IT industry really lend any credance to these "journalists" like O'Gara, Didiot, Pretenderle ?

      They have these lovely websites, full of nice sories, but does anoyone make any descions based on these guys ? I compare this to the scamdicappers in the newspapers with their "Lock of the week" picks.

  • Not mentioned in /. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by museumpeace ( 735109 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:04PM (#10967129) Journal
    But various new sources [linuxbusinessweek.com] have mentioned that Ms. Jones resigned from OSRM because SCO had systematically smeared her participation in that organization. No hard feelings between her and SCO could have crept into any of her announcements about that fine purveyor of THE Unix OS.

    • Re:Not mentioned in /. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:23PM (#10967359)
      Of course there are hard feelings. Don't we all have hard feelings over what SCO is doing. They haven't smeared me and I hate them too.

      Honestly how many people here don't have hard feelings for what SCO has done.

    • Re:Not mentioned in /. (Score:5, Informative)

      by twiddlingbits ( 707452 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:30PM (#10967444)
      If you've kept up with GrokLaw PJ has talked about the OSRM situation. She dislikes what SCO is doing in the ethical/moral sense, she's not a techie. Since she left OSRM she's had many job offers and I recall she recently took one. PJ is a very good journalist and solid paralegal. I wish Groklaw had been around during the M$ anti-trust case.

    • Linux Business Week is not "various news sources." Hell, I wouldn't even consider it one news source.

    • There is no love lost between PJ and SCO or PJ and O'Gara, She has admitted it openly. Kind of like the Finacial analyst stateing he owns a stock he's rating. What we have to decide is will PJ be un-objective because she biased, or more objective. The indications I've seen is PJ is being excutiatingly objective; and O'Gara seems to have a problem with critical thinking.

  • Publicity in court (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 31415926535897 ( 702314 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:06PM (#10967155) Journal
    I worked at a law firm 4 years ago (in their IT department) and the whole legal system wrt this filing has confused me a lot. I always thought that trials were supposed to be public, but that certainly doesn't seem the case anymore. As of 2000, you had to have some sort of ID or know someone with an ID to get into a courthouse (and if you were coming as a guest of someone with an ID, you had to go through a security check, where as they could just walk in). It seems like most cases you hear about are closed to the public, and occationally the judge will allow some sort of video feed out to the press. It doesn't really bother me all that much because I don't have a huge interest in going and watching a bunch of trials, but I don't ever want to be put in a position where I'm tried for something and nobody is allowed to know anything about the case (as has happened to certain 'enemy combantants' in the last couple of years).

    Whatever. It seems like judges are allowed to do whatever they want in their courtroooms, and no other branch of government gets to keep it in check (after all, an appeal judge will support his buddy judge in an appeal of a judicial decision).

    In this case, I feel like the information should be made public, mostly because I think it would be great for the public to see that SCO's case is baseless and help clear the name of Linux before decision-makers decide to choose something other than Linux. I also don't see the point of making this case so private, there doesn't seem to be any sort of really good reason to make a case private (strong mafia/mob witness protection type issues, etc.). So, let's hope this filing succeeds.

  • At what point though (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Johnathon_Dough ( 719310 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:06PM (#10967159)
    I believe in privacy, personally, and I don't think the public has a "right" to know everything.'

    I would agree with this on the surface...at least for things like National Security Issues, Trade Secrets and other things that do not belong in the public domain. But two things come to mind.

    One: This is now a public issue, it has been brought into the courts. There is nothing going on here that should not be in the light of day if someone wants to wade through all the court docs.

    Two: At what point does the line get drawn between public disclosure? Some things are obvious. How to make a hydrogen bomb, nope, shouldn't come out even if it is part of court documents. But where does the line end?

    Is SCO using the thinking (right or wrong) that this is their proprietary information, therefore the public has no right to it? Wouldn't it be no less proprietary if we could all see it? If they win (blech) then it doesn't matter, we still can't "use" it. If they lose, then well, we can and it doesn't matter either.

    Or, are they just using court procedure to hide from the public(media) that their case is weak/strong?

  • you know sometimes I get these funny images in my head. when I read this headline I had to picture a combination of two movie scenes. the first would be when they open the ark in indiana jones and the lost ark. the second would be the ghostbusters II scene when the Scoleri brothers come back for the judge.

    as in: judge breaks the seal, evil spirits fly around the room causing peoples faces to melt, but then turning into a ghostly darl in the electric chair. The judge looks scared and says NO... not Darl S

  • Revealing information about a civil suit? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:11PM (#10967226)
    Many comments here seem to ignore the fact that this is a civil, not criminal, suit. SCO is suing IBM; the only part the government plays is in providing the judge and courtroom. Why should information be released, just because it is involved in a court case? If you could force someone's private information to be leaked to the public merely by suing them for something, the right to privacy would be severely threatened. Is this what we really want?

  • Extract of transcript (Score:5, Funny)

    by oexeo ( 816786 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:14PM (#10967274)
    Here's an extract:

    SCO: I present to the court exhibit A.
    Judge: What is it?
    SCO: I present you the penguin, it's not just a penguin, it's an *EVIL* penguin. Look at it's eyes, look at his eyes! the way they look straight through you, as if to say "I'm Evil", look at the way he waddles along in his "oh so innocent" way, but he doesn't fool us, oh no, he doesn't fool SCO ...
    Judge: Get the hell of my court!

  • I know why it's sealed (Score:5, Funny)

    by kevinx ( 790831 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:15PM (#10967278)
    unix is made out of PEOPLE... PEOPLE!!
  • From the article, Pamela Jones of Groklaw states,

    personally, and I don't think the public has a "right" to know everything.

    In other words, you believe that people don't have the right to pursue information about this judicial government proceeding. That seems like censorship to me -- here I thought Groklaw were the good guys.

    • Re:Right to privacy belongs to citizens (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ajrs ( 186276 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:28PM (#10967423) Homepage
      would you be so good as to post your last seven tax returns, your drivers liscense, and the titles to any cars and property you own? I know that my tax dollars were used to process those documents, and I have a right to know.
      • would you be so good as to post your last seven tax returns,

        That's not generally public information, though political candidates are smeared if they don't make them public. Really, I'd much rather that you had that information about me than that the IRS had it, if I had my choice.

        your drivers liscense,

        You'll find that information in the state DMV. It's already made public there.

        and the titles to any cars and property you own

        You'll find these in the state DMV and the county courthouse, respecti

    • Re:Right to privacy belongs to citizens (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:34PM (#10967475)
      I don't think she was saying people don't have the right to pursue information, just that not all information should be made public. I took it to mean that whether or not the records should be released depends on the nature of the information that caused them to be sealed in the first place.

      She is just saying that certain information should remain private. The public does not have a right to access all types of information. Do I have a right to know your SSN? Or view your medical records? No. That is privileged information that need not be divulged for public review.

      While that example is only valid in an individual sense, the same reasoning can be applied to a corporate setting. If the court discussed information that is within the rights of SCO and/or IBM to retain as private, the public does not have an implicit right to demand access to that. If on the other hand someone just wants to hide the skeletons in the closet, then perhaps more public proceedings are called for.
    • If you want to read some website that agrees with everything you say so that you can call it a "good guy" website, start your own. That's the only way it'll happen.

  • Won't happen (Score:3, Informative)

    by DaveAtFraud ( 460127 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:23PM (#10967356) Homepage Journal
    The interest of justice is a sufficient incentive to maintain the ability to seal certain court filings by participants in a trial. Reductio ad absurdum: what happens if the provision for sealed documents is done away with? Individuals and companies involved in a suit will be *more likely* to attempt to hide evidence since its disclosure could be damaging to them if made public. The whole idea of discovery in a civil trial is to allow pertinent documents to be made available to the other side. If public disclosure of a document could cost a company or an individual much more than the value of the suit, it is highly likely that said document will conveniently disappear.

    In current practice, the parties to a civil suit and the court agree to rules defining what may be kept confidential and then the rules are applied to various filings. Requests to seal are subject to challenge by the other party and the filing party is free to file a redacted version of a document without the portions that are subject to being sealed (e.g., leave out the formula for the "secret sauce" but leave in the rules for disclosing it, licensing it, etc.). This works for me.

  • The public's right to know (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fuzzy12345 ( 745891 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:25PM (#10967375)
    The public has a right to know what's done in the courts, full stop.

    Recently, courts have taken to imposing publication bans (Read: You've got a right to know, but to exercise it, you'll have to line up for a seat in person, not send your representative, the press), or to sealing documents at the request of either counsel.

    I'm of the opinion that, in all but the rarest of cases, the public's right to know what sort of justice is being done in their name trumps parties' desire for secrecy.

    I'd like to see the details of all settlements made public, none of this crap about parties using our courts to compel counterparties to agree to secret settlements.

    • If it's a settlement, it was done out of court, and the private dealings between citizens should never been made public if they don't want them to be.

    • Re:The public's right to know (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Man, folks aren't joking when they say slashdotters dont RTFA.

      1. the sealed documents are NOT settlements or a judge's decision. they are info(trade secrets, code, info concerning upcoming business deals/products, whatever) used to support an argument. which is mostly irrelevant, because from the info we DO have we know that SCO is full of it and that the judge knows this too.

      2. the information Maureen O'Gara wants made public is IBM's information. O'Gara, a known idiot, believes IBM's sealed documents co
    • OK, so let's say there's a kiddie porn case. By your reasoning, the court should have to publish the evidence. This is, of course, illegal, so the court would have to prosecute themselves, and publish the evidence again, ad infinitum. It's not only absurd, but it's an infinite loop.

      So, basically: No, you're wrong.

  • They Could Start (Score:4, Funny)

    by techsoldaten ( 309296 ) * on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:28PM (#10967418) Journal
    If we wanted more transparency in the world...

    they could start by unsealing the usernames of all these anonymous cowards on /.

    M

  • Groklaw (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Skiron ( 735617 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:34PM (#10967476)
    PJ 'blogs' the facts, albeit sometimes with a fierce preserve for open source, but nevertheless, the FACTS.

    The other news sites 'report' what they decide is 'news', and that 'news' can be swayed by whatever/whoever is paying them to say it.

    I have been a posting member of Groklaw for ages now, and I damn well trust an ex-paralegal to investigate and 'blog' the truth, rather than any news reporter ANYTIME.

    PJ has done the world of 'IANAL' geeks proud - and I would even say without a doubt without PJ and her blog, the SCO FUD would have worked and we would all be in the shit.

    • Re:Groklaw (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nathanh ( 1214 )

      PJ 'blogs' the facts, albeit sometimes with a fierce preserve for open source, but nevertheless, the FACTS.

      Well, no, she blogs her opinion. Sometimes she intermixes facts with her opinion. Sometimes she doesn't. Really, it's just a blog. It's not the fount of all wisdom.

      Honestly, if you want a site that gives the facts you'd be better off with scofacts.org, especially something like the SCO Score Card [scofacts.org]. There is also Frank Sorenson's pages [tuxrocks.com]. He has all the court documents, not just the ones that PJ ca

  • O'Gara is the witch that's been defending SCO all along and seems to be cozy with the management. I wonder if SCO put her up to this for some reason...

  • Maureen O'Gara. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jaywalk ( 94910 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:40PM (#10967546) Homepage
    This is called "grandstanding". It has nothing to do with public rights, but with O'Gara's trying to sell more of her LinuxGram [linuxgram.com] at $195 a pop.

    Linuxgram part of G2News [g2news.com] and claims to "broken most of the key stories in Linux since it was started several years ago." Her version of "news" includes stuff like this tidbit [linuxworld.com] where she breathlessly reports that some guy -- shown two pieces of code with no background or research (and under a non-disclosure agreement no reputable journalist would sign) -- declares them to be the same. That and numerous similar examples show that her "inside information" is obvious; she's sucking up to SCO by spinning the story their way. In return, they give her "inside information" -- which amounts to trivia like this [sys-con.com]; who they hired for a lawyer or how much they plan to charge for SCOSource -- so she can claim an exclusive story. This isn't journalism, it's pandering.

    Kind of reminds me of the old Daily Show slogan, "When news breaks, we fix it."
    Except for O'Gara it's more like, "When no news breaks, we invent some."

  • This cuts both ways (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:45PM (#10967597) Homepage
    According to Groklaw SCO has more documents under court seal than IBM (eighteen vs seventeen) all of which would presumably have to be made public is Maureen O'Gara gets her way. Presumably that would mean SCO has something to lose by the records going public as well, otherwise why wouldn't have bothered putting them under seal in the first place would they? This seems a rather odd position for Maureen O'Gara to take if there is any truth in the allegations that she is little more than a paid for SCO shill.

    On the otherhand, SCO *does* have a very good track record at stalling their various court cases and launching off on tangents that ultimately lead nowhere but consume yet more time. So, suppose the have Maureen ask for the records, what's likely to happen next? Presumably the judge will have to consult with SCO and IBM's lawyers, time will pass, but they quite likely are going to end up giving her the response "no". So, unless things are very definite, Maureen can now ask for just some of the records to be disclosed. The judge then (she hopes) goes back to the lawyers and lengthy arguments ensue about which documents each side should, or should not, disclose.

    Also, I wonder if there is anything more that coincidence behind the fact that this should come to light so soon after SCO received a setback in its legal proceedings. Funnily enough, SCO just had its motion to stay the Daimler-Chrysler case until after the conclusion of the IBM case denied... I find it very interesting that this should be announced just one day after SCO lost the ability to use the IBM cases as a brake in another of its lawsuits.

  • The public has a right to know. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hkb ( 777908 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @04:59PM (#10967784)
    I believe in privacy, personally, and I don't think the public has a "right" to know everything.'

    This case is really about Linux, and Linux is written by "the public". As a (small-time) kernel contributor I want to hear the sealed information relating to arguments in a court case that is attempting to damage the reputation of a project that I am a contributing author of.
    • Well, no, the case is really about trade secrets... no, it's about copyrights... no, it's really about SCO's contract with IBM... This case doesn't seem to actually be about anything. The current incarnation is mostly about a contract between AT&T/Novell and IBM, which SCO may (or may not) have inherited. But SCO's public statements have been that "it's about Linux!" Court filings do not back that up. So you want the court to make everything public because the public statements of one party mention

  • Yea, Right. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Intrinsic ( 74189 )
    I believe in privacy, personally, and I don't think the public has a "right" to know everything.'

    Companies should never have the same rights as people, they need to be held accountable for their actions. And they wont do that unless business pratices are made open to the public.

    • Re:Yea, Right. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Companies should never have the same rights as people, they need to be held accountable for their actions. And they wont do that unless business pratices are made open to the public."

      Since Visa or Mastercard are companies, does that mean we should have the right to your credit card information that they, as a company, hold? Or do you think there is some information that should be kept private, even though held by a company?

  • The motion can be found at ip-wars.net (Score:3, Interesting)

    by petrofsky ( 702225 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @07:17PM (#10969198)
    According to this ip-wars.net story [ip-wars.net], this 13-page pdf of images [fienx.net] is the motion to intervene. A comment at ip-wars contains a text transcription [ip-wars.net].

  • Embarrassment for the U.S. legal system (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nice2Cats ( 557310 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @07:52PM (#10969539)
    Dear God, how long can this go on?

    With the possible exception of the O.J. trial, this must be the most embarrassing court case the U.S. has had to suffer through in front of an international audience. It took the German legal system, what, a week to bitch-slap SCO? And they didn't even dare try any of this crap in countries like Britain.

    So just what will it take for an American judge to finally throw this whole pile out? Why does SCO get to spread rumors that hurt the business of RedHat, IBM, and Novell for months and months without one single bit of hard evidence? This is not a game, it is about real money that is being lost because of FUD, real damage to product images and real smears to reputations. Just why does the judge get to wait forever to get something, anything done?

    If P.J. has convinced anybody of anything, it is that the rest of the democratic countries can thank heaven that they are not stuck with the 18th Century anachronism we Americans pretend is a real, functioning legal system. Care to hazard a guess how much the lawyers have made on this already?

  • It's not quite that simple to make matters public (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cheros ( 223479 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @02:43AM (#10972176)
    First off, there is a balance between the right to privacy and the right to know.

    Secondly, hasn't it occurred to anyone that SCO has been asking for an awful lot of company confidential material from IBM? With "awful lot" I mean to the point of being rediculous and apparently completely irrelevant to the case itself.

    Given the ease by which bits of confidential information appears to make it into the public (like the reading out of IBM data in court despite a judge's order to stop it) I would, as IBM, feel rather concerned - these are, after all, their business secrets. And sorry, you *don't* have a right to know those. Otherwise go and ask Microsoft for the same, they're in court more often AFAIK.

    I agree you/me/planet ought to have full access to court proceedings, but I think SCO is demonstrating quite clearly how this can potentially be abused. Given the origin of some of their financial backing I guess it's imported expertise.

    Now, back to the journo, I have no idea what her motive is, but I remain unconvinced this has anything to do with real journalism.

    Disclaimer: all of this IMHO, and IANAL etc..

Slashdot Top Deals

A triangle which has an angle of 135 degrees is called an obscene triangle.

Close