IBM Denies Destroying Evidence in SCO Case 125
Rob writes "IBM Corp has denied claims made by SCO Group that it destroyed evidence relevant to
their ongoing breach-of-contract and copyright case, maintaining that SCO has had the
evidence in question in its possession since March 2005. SCO, which believes IBM breached
a contract by contributing Unix code to the Linux operating system, accused IBM of
destroying evidence in a July 2006 court filing, claiming that "IBM directed 'dozens'
of its Linux developers within its LTC [Linux Technology Center] and at least 10 of its
Linux developers outside... to
delete the AIX and/or Dynix source code from their computers.""
What cojones! (Score:5, Interesting)
What's really funny about this particular SCO accusation is that they're basically accusing IBM of being careful not to accidentally put SCO's (alleged) IP in Linux, and trying to spin it as a bad thing. IBM didn't want its developers to inadvertently use AIX or Dynix code in their Linux development work, because IBM didn't want to risk revealing AT&T's trade secrets and violating their contract. So, IBM prudently directed developers who were going to work on Linux to get rid of the AIX and Dynix source on their machines prior to beginning Linux development work. Now SCO wants the court to interpret this attitude of respect for AT&T/Novell/SCO/TSG IP as bad-faith destruction of evidence.
I guess I have to admire their chutzpah.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
What's really funny about this particular SCO accusation is that they're basically accusing IBM of being careful not to accidentally put SCO's (alleged) IP in Linux, and trying to spin it as a bad thing.
Not quite. They're claiming IBM put the code in, and are now removing it to try to hide their infringement.
SCO's claims are so ridiculous it is possible to refute them without misrepresenting them. Although I will admit it might not be possible to do that while trying to get a first post.
Re:What cojones! (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that I simplified the claim, perhaps excessively, you've done the same thing.
To be very precise, they're claiming that IBM's developers copied "methods and concepts" from AIX/Dynix via the process of:
Note, though, that the above doesn't contradict my statement that they're trying to twist IBM's cautious and respectful behavior into a bad-faith destruction of evidence. Basically, SCO concocted this weird "your code becomes mine if it rubs against mine" infringement argument because they couldn't find any copied SVR4 code. Then they were unable to find enough evidence of that sort of "transitive infringement", and when they noticed that IBM had asked developers to delete code, they saw an opportunity to argue that IBM did that *because* it wanted to destroy evidence of such "transitive infringement".
I stand by my original characterization. SCO is trying to twist IBM's cautious avoidance of IP contamination into evidence of malfeasance.
Re:What cojones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, talk about your viral licences!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
doesn't make sense (Score:2)
If they put it in and didn't publish it, then they didn't infringe, since they have a license.
If they put it in and did publish it, then directing a limited set of developers won't help with destroying evidence, since the code will be on thousands of web sites and on CD ROMs.
Re:What cojones! (Score:5, Informative)
The two really key parts of TFA are:
1. "Despite SCO's dogged efforts, it can identify nothing that has been destroyed."
2. "IBM also maintained that SCO did not show that IBM acted in bad faith or that SCO suffered any prejudice, and that SCO agreed in March 2006 that there were no disputes between the two parties over discovery evidence."
Basically, SCO can't prove shiat and even if they could, it's too late; since SCO already said that there were no evidentiary problems.
As others have said, Groklaw goes more indepth, but those two facts are all you really need to understand the issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. In fact, it constitutes good-faith, conscientious care with licensed code. Which is why it's so amazing that SCO thinks they can twist it 180 degrees and turn it into evidence of bad faith.
They don't care. (Score:2)
It's impossible to prove a negative (Score:5, Informative)
SCO is making claims that cannot be proven either way. If there had been such file deletion, the files are gone so there is no proof they were ever there. If there had never been such files, the drives are in the same state as if they had existed and been deleted.
Time to stop playing word games.
Hang the SCO team or line them up in front of a firing squad. This witchhunt has gone on too long. They've used the courts to try to extort customer license fees, they've used the courts to impose heavy expenses on their targets, and they've used the courts to dig for evidence of vague claims without performing the due diligence of searching the public OSS archives first.
Fraud at the least, but I expect SCO is guilty of much worse. Stock manipulation. Extortion. Anything else?
Scrap the firing squad. Hang them and let the bodies rot in public so every other IP leech out there knows what their fate will be.
Slightly OT: Computer Forensics (Score:3, Informative)
That's not technically true. While I agree with your general sentiment (this trial really needs to end), and while SCO's spin on this makes me dizzy, there are still ways to find evidence that has been deleted off a hard drive. (As long as the drive still exists, you can pull things off of it. The earlier after a deletion, the better chance you have to find things, but unless the developers were u
Re: (Score:2)
And what do you think are the odds after 4-5 years that the hard drives have not had their sectors repeatedly overwritten if files were deleted?
The courts should not be entertaining such nonsense accusations at this late date. SCO has had more than enough time and digging. They've flip-flopped through literally dozens of unproven accusations. They have no case.
End this fiasco.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tough, but fair.
This is what happens when the lawyers move in on a company. When they move out, there's this shell that looks like a bug, but the bug has long since moved on...
Re: (Score:2)
If IBM had destroyed any AIX and Dynix source code, that would be destruction of evidence. What IBM did was to create a firewall between their AIX/Dynix and Linux developers by having their Linux developers get rid of their copies of the AIX/Dynix source code. They provided the source code to SCO during disclosure.
Not a logical argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if these were the last copies of AIX source, then IBM is by far the dumbest company in existence
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd wager that only unbelievably dumb companies destroy their source code, since any company with a quarter of a clue and above enforces the use of a source code management system.
It's part of the nature of those thingies that you can pull the code for just about any version of a specific, version controleed software.
I'd be absolutely stunned if this wouldn't be the case
Re:Not a logical argument (Score:5, Interesting)
Only files on the programmers's personal machines were deleted. Anything that actually got submitted to AIX was in the central repository, which IBM produced to SCO five months previously.
Of the eight people who got copies of the message, four didn't delete anything, and the other four don't remember of they deleted anything or not.
The real kicker, as IBM points out, is that none of the eight people in question are listed in any of SCO's complaints about alleged IP infringement. If SCO thought these people had misappropriated methods or concepts from AIX and ported them into Linux, it was required to say so, specifically, before filing this motion as 'proof' that IBM was destroying evidence.
SCO's brief really boils down to, "We haven't actually accused these people of doing anything wrong. But if you adjust your tinfoil hat just right, you can see how their getting a memo to delete AIX files looks like evidence of a conspiracy by IBM management to destroy evidence related to this case." In practical terms, it's about half a step up from the Chewbacca Defense, and IBM's reply memo shows the Nazgul giving it the reaming it so richly deserves.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm (Score:1)
Can't wait for this nonsense to be over and for them to finally file for bankrupcy.
Hope all the SCO executives spend a long time in prison for this.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doubtful. They'd have to be guilty of criminal misconduct. The only thing that comes to mind that'll do that is if the SEC goes after them on suspicion of running a pump-and-dump scheme.
SCO's toast no matter what, but SCO execs are probably safe. It takes a lot to "pierce the corporate veil" and go after execs directly.
Re: (Score:2)
www.darlbehindbars.org, anyone?
What a mess! (Score:5, Insightful)
I simply cannot believe how long this has gone on. What a staggering waste of time and resources. This is probably as good an example as any of why the West is probably going to fall. While China is ramping up production and making huge economic strides, [wikipedia.org] we here in the US are arguing over lines of code as our manufacturing base continues to crumble [indystar.com]. Changing over to a "service economy?" Please.
How many hours have been wasted on this type of crap? What useful item has been produced out of this or any of the other spurious "copyright" or "intellectual property" cases?
Trial lawyers giving money to politician lawyers [opensecrets.org], who make laws so trial lawyers can argue cases against rival trial lawyers in front of judge lawyers. So, what's the common denominator and who benefits? Follow the money.
Re:What a mess! (Score:5, Insightful)
Likewise, lawsuits, dollar for dollar, count just as much towards economic growth as manufactured goods.
Edward Abbbey once said, "Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell." In a country where monthly economic figures are cited in election debates, is it any wonder that our system favors fast growing tumors?
Re:What a mess! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
AHA! Now it all makes sense.
SCO is the reason that the PS3 is shipping in such small units and costs so much
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This makes me wonder if IBM might be able to go after Microsoft for initiating this whole mess. If IBM's lawyers have any skill at all, they could prove the connection.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAE (economist) so, for all I know, if SCO won this lawsuit and IBM had to pay up, it might be counted towards the GDP too. Juking the stats to create a perception of growth is meaningless except if you're running for reelection.
At least in the case of the Exxon Valdez cleanup, something constructive was done. What would happen with this SCO thing? A big chunk of cash moves from one party to another, with a hefty percentage for the lawyers, of course. But when all is said and done, what benefit wil
scene from "The Fifth Element" (Score:1)
Priest Vito Cornelius: I try to serve life. But you only... seem to want to destroy it.
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: Oh, Father, you're so wrong. Let me explain.
[closes office door, places an empty glass on desk]
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Take this empty glass. Here it is, peaceful, serene and boring. But if it is...
[pushes glass off table]
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: destroyed...
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: [robot cleaners move to clean broken glass] Look at all these little things. So busy now. Notice how each one is useful. What a lovely ballet ensues so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people who'll be able to feed their children tonight so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny weeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain... of life.
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: [Desk prepares a glass of water and a bowl of fruit] You see, Father, by creating a little destruction, I'm actually encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business. Cheers.
[drinks water with cherry, only to choke on cherry stuck in throat. Zorg frantically presses all buttons on his desk in an attempt to get something to clear his throat]
Re: (Score:1)
If what Zorg says is the paradigm for the "Service Economy" model, then I, for one, can live without it.
Why would we want to emerge into an economy based on catering to the whims of the power-brokers and corporate despots?
It's not that the Service Industry is in any way reprehensible, quite the opposite. I believe the morality of a Service Industry is measured by whom the industry actually serves.
In the end; to argue that SCO has provided for the national GNP in a positive light is like saying "parkin
Re: (Score:1)
I wasn't trying to say that Zorg was right (I believe he is very wrong), and to be fair, you were not claiming that I was. As I initially read the parent to my post, I immediately thought of that scene from the movie and just how f***ed up the whole thing has gotten.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And maybe those risks are too much for a us in a developed nation but I just think that we should stop wasting all of this effort and hours doing totally unproductive things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because if they did that all the time, everyone would make the same mistake you just did. Now, it's just you!
Re: (Score:2)
If you are implying that China will be the one to cause "The West" to fall, I believe you are mistaken. Many companies in China blatantly ignore western IP laws, in some cases getting their rip-off products to market before the originals. This is frequentl
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. We will be the cause of our own demise with our Byzantine laws, greed and decadence. If it weren't China that was taking all of our manufacturing capacity, it would be someone else. Perhaps the Goths, Vandals or the Visigoths?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True enough. One thing is certain though, when the West does come to a consensus, the little dictator in North Korea will suddenly burst back on the world stage with his missile-rattling. He's China's pawn, whom they use as a bargaining chip when we object to their crap.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Our manufacturing base isn't crumbling on its own, executives of domestic companies are, for all intents and purposes, intentionally smashing them with BFHs and selling the American public at large out in the name of short-term gains (quarterly bonuses for "cost saving measures").
Re: (Score:2)
And your solution is?
The problem is that you can't find one without putting undue burden on people who legitimately have a case and who need to go up against big pockets to get redress. Of course, as one who probably sees no personal need to do so in the future (as is the case for most of
Re: (Score:2)
Windows!
Re: (Score:2)
Way to set up that straw man [wikipedia.org] and knock it down. No wonder you posted AC.
Ever heard of Groklaw? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunately, because it has my name in print I cannot comment on this story at all.
Cheers,
Matt
Re:Ever heard of Groklaw? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of like this post [slashdot.org] and oh, maybe this one [slashdot.org]. :)
Deleting a Sandbox -- Not the Repository (Score:5, Informative)
IBM instructed developers to purge their sandboxes. This, of course, has nothing to do with the source code in IBM's source control systems. It's just working copies on developers' machines.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm. And they say that managing developers is like herding cats...
And it seems to be moot besides (Score:2)
Isn't the real issue whether there is AIX/UNIX code in Linux? So who cares if there ever was AIX code on a developer's machine, just as long as it is not in the Linux code base. So given that we know SCO has access to their own UNIX source code in question, and access to the Linux source code... and has so far still failed to prove their case (at least so it seems), we can say this sounds like a red herring.
The judge should order a statement of WTF has this got to do with anything to SCO. Obviously IANA
The Disappeared Ones (Score:2, Interesting)
It's funny they don't seem to crop up anymore, just like all those people telling us our governments could never be so wrong about WMD and how they'd certainly find loads of evidence once the invasion was completed.
Re:The Disappeared Ones (Score:5, Funny)
Their bosses at MS told them to work on the Novell story spin and let the SCO thing go since everyone saw through that ruse.
I'm not joking. Astroturf is real and is happening.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I deny all sorts of things also... (Score:5, Insightful)
If something is simply not true, guess what? I'm going to deny it.
The headline should be "SCO accuses IBM of destroying evidence"
(eg: the party making the accusation should be the subject of the sentence)
TDz.
I understand what you're saying, but... (Score:2)
Re:I understand what you're saying, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Source:http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?sel
Re: (Score:2)
two points here, one factual/logical, the other grammatical.
first, IBM is the "actor" in the article; it's explicitly about IBM's issued response to a much earlier SCO allegation. the reworking you've suggested is appropriate for an article about that earlier SCO accusation.
second, the abbreviation "eg" is used to introduce an example; you've instead given a rewording of your point, for which you probably really meant "ie". see here [wsu.edu]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
IBM's lawyers should point out to the judge that SCO is attempting to play him for a fool. The accusation sounds as ridiculous as much of the rest of their case.
I think the thing to do would be to have every officer and director of SCO killed, along with their families, pets, friends (if any); their houses should be burned down, and their land salted. Surely the criminal trial and subsequent
"Deny" is jargon (Score:2)
Lawsuit that never ends (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Lawsuit that never ends (Score:5, Funny)
Besides, it was a parody (also fair use), not a direct copy.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
IBM does the right thing, and gets it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO's claims here a bit funny, why complain when IBM does the thing you most desperately want them to? Or perhaps the problem here is that SCO wants the Linux source pollution, then they might have an actual case...
Anyway, I'm thoroughly bored with this story now. I can't spare any more time griping about those bad people at SCO. They have become irrelevant.
Don't be bored (Score:4, Insightful)
Even though we've centered the SCO trolls in the gun sights, there's still plenty of time to enjoy watching them try to slither away before their component atoms are blasted back to the alternate universe they came from. The longer and more painful this process is for them, the better. Where's the popcorn? Bring on the show.
SCO's response (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe... just maybe this will (Score:2)
SCO strategy .. (Score:3, Funny)
IBM: what source code.
SCO: we aren't saying and besides which you deleted the evidence.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
IBM: what source code.
SCO: we aren't saying and besides which you deleted the evidence.
You forgot one step:
Dear Mr. "Bates":
Please send next payment.
Regards,
SCO
Go IBM (Score:1, Interesting)
They could have knocked out half a dozen distros just filing the complaint. Thanks, IBM.
Re: (Score:2)
You're making the (fatal) assumtion that they filed this suit because they wanted to win, and continue in business.
In actuality, the suit was SCOX's exit strategy - they initially sued IBM because they believed that IBM would just buy them out rather than fighting (which is why BSF's initial contract with SCOX mentions 30% of any buy out goes to the lawyers.) The scenario they envi
Relevance (Score:1)
Re: when did you stop beating your wife (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep Looking! (Score:3, Funny)
Well OK, so maybe only a retarded person would try to make (or buy) that argument. We already know that the SCO legal team isn't retarded -- they're getting paid buckets of cash to drag their feet. The SCO upper mangement isn't retarded -- I'm sure they made a killing on options in the few days when SCO was trading at $20 a share after the lawsuit was announced. Then I guess the retarded people would be... the other people who invested in SCO expecting this lawsuit to go anywhere. Poor retarded people, always being taken advantage of by SCO...
What this really means is... (Score:3, Insightful)
So there is nothing for GNU/Linux to have to remove and work around.
Or was this already obvious?
The SCO Effect (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO have NO other business plan, and will (more likely than not) be destroyed if they pull out. They have NO other choice but to carry on this fight to the very end. There is, basically, nowhere to retreat to.
My guess is that, in 5 years time, there will be an economic thery known as "The SCO Effect" which will basically be summerised as:
There comes a point when a company has invested so much money in one course of action, which is now apparent to all parties (inside and external to the company) to be futile; however they have no other choice but to carry on, with a full knowledge, and with clarity of thought (albeit fatally flawed) that this is the ONLY course of action left to them.
The company have to have faith in the outcome as failure will lead to the total destruction of the firm.
The company has no choice BUT to drive on - no matter how ludicous their actions. This is, in summary, The SCO Effect. These are the slow, painful death-throws of a weaken and fatally wounded company trying to do anything to survive.
Lets face it - it happens frequently in the software industry.
Jaj
Dear SCO: (Score:1)
"Specify the SCO owned code in Linux by file name and line number."
No?
SCO has now delayed past the end of discovery, no further weasel words can be accepted.
If there is any code in Linux, owned by SCO, they did not show; it is SCO's fault for not providing it to the court.
They cannot blame IBM for there own failure to provide evidence as ordered (twice) by the federal judge.
SCO does no believe that (Score:1)
You shouldn't WANT to use that argument. (Score:2)
If that argument prevais - or even achieves wide distribution - it would be VERY BAD for getting Open Source adopted by software vendors.
SCO claims that their IP had been included in open source products that they then adopted and distributed before noticing that their IP was included. After they discovered this (alleged) inclusion, they continued to distribute the code because:
- they were obliga
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
SCO claims that their IP had been included in open source products that they then adopted and distributed before noticing that their IP was included. After they discovered this (alleged) inclusion, they continued to distribute the code because:
- they were obligated to do so under the GPL
- the cat was out of the bag, so stopping their distribution wouldn't mitigate the (alleged) harm to them, but
- stopping distribution and support WOULD cause them FURTHER harm by
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you'd better go tell IBM, because they're the ones making it, and (*gasp*) they contribute source code to open source projects!
they continued to distribute the code because:
- they were obligated to do so under the GPL
No, they weren't. If that (rather laughable) scenario were true, they have protection against their GPL "obligations" because the allege
Re: (Score:2)
Let me summarize first: Company A writes code X that they want to keep proprietary. The code is stolen and incorporated into some open source software Y that is distributed under the GPL. Company A receives a copy of that software Y, adds code Z, and redistributes the changed software under the GPL, not knowing that their own code X in stolen form is part of the software. Then they detect that their own code X had been included in the software illegally.
First, that code