Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


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

IBM Asks Court To Declare Linux Non-Infringing 133

Posted by kdawson from the decisive dept.
A Cyclic Graph writes "We finally have a redacted version of IBM's Reply Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment on Counterclaim 10 in SCO v. IBM. In short, IBM is asking the Court to declare that Linux doesn't infringe upon any of SCO's purported intellectual property. This document is the last word on that matter until the Court either declares there to be no doubt that Linux is free of infringement, or decides that that issue has to be decided by the jury. In their brief, IBM points out that SCO puts forth a convoluted set of non-answers referencing each other to disguise it's inability to answer IBM. Their set of cross-references is so complex that Groklaw readers graphed the claims to make what little sense of them they could."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Asks Court To Declare Linux Non-Infringing More

IBM Asks Court To Declare Linux Non-Infringing

Comments Filter:

  • Redacted is an understatement (Score:3, Funny)

    by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:57PM (#18422597)
    It reads like the Pamela Jones version of an Andrew Dice Clay monologue.

  • IBM points out that SCO puts forth a convoluted set of non-answers referencing each other to disguise it's inability to answer IBM.
    It's called being an ass blister. The only thing left for the SCO lawyers to do is claim some sort of mental disorder to gain disability pity.

    • Re:Where I have I seen this before? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Araxen ( 561411 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:08PM (#18422707)
      If they can't straight forward answer the questions the case should be thrown out. The judge so far has been pretty smart to call SCO on this kind of stuff. Hopefully the judge calls them on their BS again.
      • I hope he makes SCO pay for every freaking penny of the court's and IBM's time. At least until they dry up and blow away. That would suck for SCO stockholders, but anyone left holding SCO is (IMO) nuts, anyway. SCO deserves to die a public, humiliating death at this point. The principle need to spend a long time in public stocks, maybe on a flatbed trailer that travels around the country (as) as punishment and (b) as a warning to similar scumbags.
    • SCO Lawyer: "Your honor... I would like to point out that anyone who still owns shares of SCO at this point must have some sort form of mental retardation. Therefore if you rule against us, you will make 'special' people cry! And by special... I mean the 'special' people who have paid me and my team millions to drag this on for so long that they are going to be lucky to trade those shares in for toilet paper as it is."
    • Wow. Eighty pages of legalese just to say, "Leagally, these jokers have to actually show the court the offending code. Otherwise, Linux is officially and legally non-infringing."

      I added in 'These jokers' to reflect phrases like, "Notably, SCO's response to IBM's statement of undisputed facts is largely a frolic and detour into the irrelevant, plainly designed to give the false impression of a fact dispute."

      It's not that I don't think IBM is taking SCO's lawyers seriously. That's about as serious as you C

  • Hey men, call me crazy but (Score:5, Funny)

    by vivaoporto ( 1064484 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:06PM (#18422697)
    That graph is the very image of the mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster! Seems like he will soon touch SCO people with His noodly appendage. That explains why SCO called Linux people pirates tho, seems like it was some kind of flattery, or something like that.

    • Re:Hey men, call me crazy but (Score:5, Funny)

      by dunng808 ( 448849 ) <garydunnhi&gmail,com> on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:58PM (#18423165) Journal
      Look at it in a Picasso/Miro kind of a way. That's PJ, right? Definitly a female upper half. Might be Frank Zappa on one of my sleepless nights, but hey. That seemingly out of place symmetry break on the right side, that's a bust line, right? Am I reading too much into this?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by o0OSABO0o ( 937312 )

      Wait a minute, I've seen this graph somewhere else today. Oh, that's right it is the solution to Lie E8 problem, one of the most complex symmetrical structures in mathematics defining a 248 dimensional object. Here is an other view of the same chart:

      http://news.com.com/2300-1008_3-6168586-1.html [com.com]E8 Solution Graph
    • Indeed, you, like all mankind, will be driven insane. And eaten in good and painful time. This image is none other than that of one of the Elder Gods:

      "In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu lies dreaming."

    • Is that "common errors" book yours? If so, please consider an entry for "faster than," as in "Version 2.0 is two times faster than version 1." Clearly it should be "as fast," and if the example means anything at all it should be the equivalent of three times as fast.
      • Unfortunately, it's not. But it is a good observation. I didn't know that either, because in my native language (portuguese), the equivalent to "two times faster than" exists. I think. Now I don't know anymore hehe.

  • Nine references deep... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Etherwalk ( 681268 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:19PM (#18422817)
    > Their set of cross-references is so complex that Groklaw readers graphed the claims to make what little sense of them they could.

    *deadpans* Honestly, that doesn't mean much--Groklaw readers will graph anything.

    *clicks on link*

    Oh, now. See, it's only about nine references deep. (Unless you get caught in an infinite loop between documents 27 and 187.)

    • Oh, now. See, it's only about nine references deep. (Unless you get caught in an infinite loop between documents 27 and 187.)
      Or the one between documents 233, 228 and 222. Or cut out the middle-man and get caught directly in the cycle between 233 and 222.

    • Having graphed out complicated answers definitely lifts the level of complexity though.

      A little off-topic, but I wish there was a central site where one could see such graphs and the contents of each node not for legal cases, but for statements made by politicians.

      Then it would be easy to see how many times politicians contradict themselves!

      • Political Speech Graphs (Score:4, Funny)

        by camperdave ( 969942 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @07:25PM (#18423393) Journal
        I wish ... one could see such graphs ... for statements made by politicians.

        Unfortunately, that cannot be mapped in three dimensions.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by h2g2bob ( 948006 )

          I wish ... one could see such graphs ... for statements made by politicians.

          Unfortunately, that cannot be mapped in three dimensions.
          I'm sure you could map Bush's thoughts in 1D.

          <BritishHumor> And Jeffry Archer's integrity in 0D </BritishHumor>

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by maxume ( 22995 )
            There are two response to that though:

            What does that say about all the people who elected him?

            Or:

            What does that say about the majority who let a minority elect a moron?
            • "Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi

              • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

                by CmdrGravy ( 645153 )
                Clearly the fool, what a stupid question. There are many potential reasons for following a fool almost none of them would imply that the follower was himself a fool.

                For example you could be following the fool to check his foolish behaviour and stop him getting into trouble, you could be an anthropologist studying him, you could be a thief intending to rob him, you could be following him to laugh at the foolish things he says and does or you could simply happen to be heading in the same direction and happen

                • Re: (Score:1)

                  by k8to ( 9046 )
                  Thank you captain asperger.

                  Us normal humans got it the first time around.

    • Re:Nine references deep... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by IgLou ( 732042 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:39PM (#18423011)
      *Unconvincingly* Well, real programmers never get caught in infinite loops! *cough cough*

      Back on topic, I have this nagging feeling that somehow SCO thought they could technobabble this through court and the judge would just nod and go, "uh yeah, sure". What bugs me about all this was that I can't help but to feel that this lawsuit was a means to make money for SCO, much like the RIAA lawsuits. I feel like litigation now is a legitimate means to add to your bottom line.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Adambomb ( 118938 ) *

        I feel like litigation now is a legitimate means to add to your bottom line.
        just feeling that now? wow man.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rakarra ( 112805 )
        *Unconvincingly* Well, real programmers never get caught in infinite loops! *cough cough*



        Maybe this was the feature Linux programmers copied from SCO?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Ed Avis ( 5917 )
      When you escape with the Destinator, put Triax in an infinite loop between caves 27 and 187. It will keep him busy for a while.
  • That's nice and all, but what are all those little circles, lines, and arrows for?

  • If you ever wondered what this case was about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LoveMe2Times ( 416048 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:27PM (#18422897) Homepage Journal
    Go look at the latest postings on Groklaw. There is a *ton* of redundancy between the various filings, but that's legal wrangling for ya. Anyway, if there was ever a time to actually go and read through this stuff, now's the time. I personally recommend the transcripts of the lawyers arguing the motions before the judge.

    These filings show that IBM sees this whole thing was a baseless land-grab effected by a change in management. The estoppal and waiver arguments are so convincing and indisputable that you'd think a stock-holder lawsuit would be forthcoming. I mean, both Caldera and Santa Cruz had significant Linux business for significant periods of time. Presumably the shareholders held stock in part because of this. Apparently not enough to get rid of the board and management upon commencement of these shenanigans, but hopefully enough to make some noise once a verdict comes down.

    In a similar vein, did SuSE stock get converted to Novell stock, or were they bought out with cash? If it got converted, then former SuSE stock holders may very well file a suit for the MS deal. Overall, in both cases, in seems curious that the stock holders seem helpless. If these companies were traditional F/OSS enemies, there'd be no surprise, but will people who bought stock in a Linux company really support being a traitor? I mean, really, these aren't people who bought stock in an oil company or GM. It's like investing in a solar power company or something you do at least in part for the principle of it.
    • The SCO leadership ought to come under the same scrutiny as Enron execs did. Corporate leaders have a responsibility to the stockholders. Willful misrepresentation of facts resulting in a significant loss of stock value deserve criminal changes. A year from now, with SCO engulfed in bankruptcy, we ought to see the start of criminal proceedings.
      • However much we wish for the same treatment, it would never occur for two reasons:
        1. SCO did not cheat consumers or investors.
        2. SCO did not pre-book 20 year incomes in one year and went bankrupt.
        3. SCO's directors did not form criminal partnerships and conducted insider trading.
        4. SCO did not steal from employees.

        Enron affected many thousands of people's finances and lives directly.
        SCO affected only those investors who chose to invest in it delibrately well knowing SCO is failing.
        In Enron's case, people th

    • If these companies were traditional F/OSS enemies, there'd be no surprise, but will people who bought stock in a Linux company really support being a traitor? I mean, really, these aren't people who bought stock in an oil company or GM. It's like investing in a solar power company or something you do at least in part for the principle of it.
      Nope. The only duty to its shareholders that a public company faces is a fiduciary one.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by civilizedINTENSITY ( 45686 )
        However, that fiduciary responsibility can be mitigated by a statement of principle made at the time of going public. "We exist to earn our shareholder's profit, but also to earn for our shareholder's the following non-monetary values." Things like a bank who won't invest in weapons manufacturing, or banks that do invest in ecologically correct business.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by maxume ( 22995 )
        There needs to be some work done to change the public sentiment about giving a company you do not control money from 'investment' to something closer to 'loan'.
    • and the big lessons are

      1 DO NOT SUE the core of the open source movement

      2 do not hack off a paralegal (with a Blog)

      3 Don't become an interesting problem

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by sjbcfh ( 611594 )
      In a similar vein, did SuSE stock get converted to Novell stock, or were they bought out with cash?

      SuSE was a privately-held company before the Novell purchase. Novell bought SuSE for $210 million in cash. [zdnet.com]

  • What about us IBM shareholders? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:29PM (#18422917)
    I'm not in favor of a bunch of lawsuits but IBM should press the point that the sooner it's ended, the sooner they can sue to recover their costs. If SCO keeps this charade up much longer, they'll go out of business before it's over and IBM will be left with their own hefty legal fees and no recourse but to pass that on to their shareholders.

    SCO has no interest in a timely end to this trial and I question their ability to cover IBM's costs. Seems to me like SCO is screwing IBM's shareholders.

    • It's a race (Score:5, Informative)

      by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:46PM (#18423067)
      Remember that SCO's lawyer is Darl's brother. They're probably trying to get as much SCO money salted away by paying legal fees.

      IBM does not really benefit is suing. SCO is broke. What are they going to get?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by pembo13 ( 770295 )
        Maybe they have some useful hardware lying around the office. IBM could eBay it.

      • Remember that SCO's lawyer is Darl's brother.
        Is that true? If so, why even I can spell c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by stanmann ( 602645 )

        Remember that SCO's lawyer is Darl's brother. They're probably trying to get as much SCO money salted away by paying legal fees. IBM does not really benefit is suing. SCO is broke. What are they going to get?
        IBM gets a big plot of scorched earth, and the right to plant a sign saying
        Don't mess with IBM

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by iminplaya ( 723125 )
        What are they going to get?

        A license to use Linux?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by untouchableForce ( 927584 )
        They could sue for the company's real IP (i'm sure they have some, just none that linux copied) and release it under the GPL just to add salt to the wounds.
        • SCO turned over all their IP to UnitedLinux (from when they were Caldera, a popular Linux distribution of its time before the founder was ousted) and Novell (the rights to UNIX that the Santa Cruiz Group had), and possibly other companies. I don't think SCO has any IP that IBM would want...
          • Interesting. I didn't think they turned over all of their IP. I was thinking they turned over some IP and it just happened to be all of it that applied to this case. I don't know any of that for certain. It's just what I had in my head. Anyone know for sure? If nothing else I think they should file the claim for legal fees to rid the world of SCO forever.
            • I don't think even IBM is claiming that SCO turned over all rights to Xenix... er, SCO Unix, er, I mean Unixware. IBM's just saying that any rights to any property SCO had in Linux is part of the UnitedLinux effort, since Caldera/SCO/Caldera/SCO/Canopy/whomever they want to be this week signed off on distributing everything that was in Linux through that.
            • I think that a big part of the problem is the IP ownership trail has gotten so convoluted that, SCO doesn't have a clue about what they own and don't; and the value of the IP is less than the cost of straightening the mess out.
        • ... or charge themselves for Linux licenses.
      • > IBM does not really benefit is suing. SCO is broke.
        > What are they going to get?

        IBM gets the satisfaction of throughly kicking SCO's but into oblivion.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tiro ( 19535 )
        Maybe they can get Darl's brother's law license revoked--just like SCO tried to revoke our Linux licenses.
      • Perhaps with a nice chianti.
      • "... IBM does not really benefit is suing. SCO is broke. What are they going to get?"

        Entering the boardroom with a vanquished enemies scrotum as a holster for your blackberry is THE latest power executive's fashion accessory. That's what IBM gets out of a victory.

        • I thought it was a goblet made out of the victim's bones. After IBM's done, there might be enough for a whole set.

      • What are they going to get?
        GUTS

      • IBM does not really benefit is suing. SCO is broke. What are they going to get?
        *sarcasm* Obviously, the rights to UNIX, so they can distribute linux without being in infringement! SCO has known all along that IBM with its Deep Pockets would try this tactic when they failed to disprove SCO's claims before SCO finally would reveal them!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by renegadesx ( 977007 )
      I think they may be able to afford IBM's legal fees and stay alive if they fire enough people. Mind you, the lawyers representing them could buy out SCO and continue litigation, best to keep it dragging. Just say IBM's legal bill is $2 million and they have $4 million in cash reserves, best leave it until SCO is just dry, then SCO will be forced to liquidate stuff and sell stuff, that way they cannot come back. After this basically backfiring (as expected) Microsoft will not pick them up, neither will Novel
  • Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
  • from the good 'o days of "Hunt the Wumpus". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunt_the_wumpus/ [wikipedia.org]
  • Finally, I got that cloud to find someone else to hover at!

  • Wow, what lawyering! (Score:5, Informative)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @08:46PM (#18424037)

    Reading the filings you can see why some lawyers cost so much. At the same IBM's lawyers building an almost invincible legal position on every one of their claims, they take huge swipes at SCO's claims. They point out flaws in SCO's arguments and point out when SCO has failed to address an important point. No detail is forgotten even the little detail of SCO's use of cross referencing to hide their lack of evidence. Unfortunately for SCO's lawyers, they didn't have much in the way of evidence and are reduced to lawyer's tricks.

    Groklaw is hosed right now but there was one moment in the March 7th transcript that is indicative of the case. SCO's Brent Hatch is referring to an IBM document. IBM's lawyer, Amy Sorenson, reminds the court that the document is marked confidential and trying to work out an agreeable way of handling it whether it meant clearing the court room. SCO responds that IBM could waive the confidentiality. The court interjects noting that IBM wouldn't have mentioned the confidentiality if they wanted to waive it. While the judge and Ms. Sorenson continue to discuss how to best proceed in terms of procedure, SCO's Hatch begins to argue that nothing in the document (in his opinion) should be marked confidential. Ms. Sorenson responds with a "that's your opinion" and says as long as the document isn't directly quoted, IBM is satisfied with SCO referencing it in open court. IBM and the court are working on a case. SCO is offering red herrings.

    • That's Cravath (Score:5, Informative)

      by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @12:23AM (#18425473) Homepage

      Reading the filings you can see why some lawyers cost so much. At the same IBM's lawyers building an almost invincible legal position on every one of their claims, they take huge swipes at SCO's claims. They point out flaws in SCO's arguments and point out when SCO has failed to address an important point. No detail is forgotten even the little detail of SCO's use of cross referencing to hide their lack of evidence.

      IBM is represented by Cravath, Swayne, and Moore, and that's how Cravath works. They have a very organized staff checking everything the other side puts out. Everything goes into a litigation support system (Cravath was the first law firm to use one, and it was developed by IBM for a famous IBM case). At least two different lawyers check over everything. One of Cravath's slogans used to be "For those must-win cases". Cravath often wins simply because the other side makes mistakes, and they don't.

      All this is incredibly expensive, but it works.

  • not to beef but... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dasnipa ( 972400 )
    the creator of the graph could have done a better job, in the top portion which is a tangled mess, if my count is correct, there are 56 edges (counting the loops between 233 and 222, 27 and 187 and as one) and 43 vertices, Eulers corollary states that if |E| = 3|V| - 6, that is 56 = 143 (even if my count was off a bit this is clearly true) then that can be drawn on the same plane (no intersecting lines)... I didnt take the time to find a good way to redraw it, but I have proven it could be done... This depi

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by dasnipa ( 972400 )
      ah I had HTML formatting on... it should read... Eulers corollary is |E| = 3|V| - 6

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      You may say you've proven it, but I don't believe you.

      I am unable to find a way of depicting the relationships between nodes 233, 192, 118, 222, 228 and 27 with no intersecting lines on a single plane.

      I can draw it with just one intersecting line, with relative ease - don't even need to use curved lines. But I need to see an implementation of a 0 intersecting line drawing before I'll acknowledge it can be done.
    • Actually, that's a pretty good graph for Graphviz. Graphviz just takes the relationships between the nodes and tries to automatically generate a good graph. It esssentially turns something like this...

      digraph untitled
      {
      2 -> 1;
      2 -> 283;
      ...
      283 -> 33;
      283 -> 98;
      }

      ...into a pretty decent graph. However, getting an optimal graph is pretty difficult. The graph provided here is pretty decent - trying to recreate it at home gave me something less readable, which is probably because I have
    • You've gotten it wrong. The formula was right but you're using it badly.

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planar_graph [wikipedia.org]

      For a simple, connected, planar graph with v vertices and e edges, the following simple planarity criteria hold:
      Theorem 1. If v 3 then e 3v - 6

      See, it's not "if and only if", it's just "if". It only goes one way.
      This formula can only prove that a graph is not planar, it can not be used to prove that a graph is planar. You can read more details about it on the wikipedia page i linked.
  • How big would the document have been without all the redacted sections.

    Here is a snip for example;

    "When all is said and done, SCO's claims of infringement relating to the Linux kernel

    SECTION REDACTED
    concern a mere

    SECTION REDACTED "

    Sometimes I think I would have liked to have read the unabriged original to see what was left out.

    • Re:Better example on page 30 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Technician ( 215283 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @10:08PM (#18424603)
      In internal documents, SCO developers acknowledged that "

      SECTION REDACTED
      The mere fact that some or all of the 2.4 kernel may have predated SCO Linux 4.0 does not mean that

      SECTION REDACTED
      If the term

      SECTION REDACTED
      then sections of the JDC assignment provisions would be rendered superfluous. As stated, the JDC

      SECTION REDACTED
      If SCO were correct that

      SECTION REDACTED
      would be rendered superfluous because SCO's reading of the

      SECTION REDACTED
      would necessarily exclude such materials from assignment.


      Wow, why was this document chopped to bits? Anybody know?

  • Summary is wrong (Score:3, Informative)

    by elronxenu ( 117773 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @12:36AM (#18425549) Homepage
    IBM has not asked the court to declare Linux as non-infringing. It has asked the court to declare that IBM's Linux-related activities are non-infringing.

    Obviously Linux in total is a superset of IBM's contribution to Linux. IBM probably doesn't have standing in the court to ask for a declaration covering the whole of Linux, and if they attempt to do so, that is likely to cause the entire motion to fail.

    If, however, IBM wins this Partial Summary Judgement motion, as they may well do, then this is still an extremely important result for linux. Unlike the poster who recommended reading the oral arguments, I recommend skipping the oral arguments and go instead for IBM's written motions and briefs. They are very well written and logical.

    IBM constructs their motions as a form of logical-or. If the Judge accepts $REASON1 or $REASON2 or $REASON3 then the judge must rule in IBM's favour. So IBM offers multiple concurrent chains of logic supporting their case. The judge needs only to accept one of them, in order to rule for IBM. But each $REASON is fully detailed - supported by facts, evidence, legal argument, case history precedents.

    SCO's filings on the other hand, are like a shell game. It's hard to pin them down to facts. They pretend to be Caldera and Santa Cruz and even AT&T when it suits them; at other times they treat them as different entities. Their answers frequently say "please refer to some other answer", and (as this latest IBM filing says), SCO's replies don't really answer the question or dispute the fact, they raise some other issue or introduce non-relevant assertions.

    All in all, it's most entertaining.

    • Re:Summary is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LoveMe2Times ( 416048 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @02:20AM (#18425973) Homepage Journal
      The reasons that I recommended the oral arguments:

      1) It's a nice way to get a summary of the argument, the counter-argument, and the rebuttal without wading through multiple filings.

      2) As I mentioned, there's lot's of redundancy in each written filing (there's still some repitition in the oral arguments too), but thanks to the time constraints they don't repeat the arguments ad nauseum.

      3) Reading the judge's reactions and comments is valuable, I find. Reading the judge when she says (to SCO's guy), "Why are you standing up? You don't get to say anything more." To which he replies, roughly, that he was hoping she'd ask his opinion, which she does not dignify with a response, IIRC, provides real entertainment!

      4) Given that they're before a judge, they try and explain things somewhat more simply, with some analogies that don't make it into the written briefs.

      5) Given the back-and-forth nature, and putting names with the words, I find it easier to pay attention and keep it all straight. It's also nice to know who says what as you develop a sense of each lawyers' personality, which helps as you read more transcripts.

      That said, for the written versions, it's great to read the footnotes. The footnotes always have some of the most interesting material, IMHO. The oral arguments often allude to things which are explained in the footnotes, like *why* the case SCO refers to doesn't support their claim or is "inapposite." Anyway, YMMV.

      • Re:Summary is wrong (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mike2R ( 721965 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @03:03AM (#18426107)
        A thing I like about the written arguments is that you get a real idea of IBM's lawyers style. I really get the nazgul reference after reading IBM's latest reply on the summary judgement motion on it's Linux activites; IBM truly can blacken the sky with it's legal arguments.

        "Don't sue IBM" probably ranks somewhere close to "don't start a land war in Asia," as advice for a happy and successful life.
  • I'm not a lawyer and have difficulty understanding Legalese, but doesn't this sort of orchestrated fictionalization and avoidance of answering questions qualify as some kind of contempt of court? It struck me that SCO's attorneys had no respect whatever for the judge or the process. Redacted to its essence, I could hear a snotty voice intoning, "NYAH-nyah-NYAH-nyah-nyah!" Or does the judge have to put up with this kind of bratty behavior?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gnasher719 ( 869701 )
      '' I'm not a lawyer and have difficulty understanding Legalese, but doesn't this sort of orchestrated fictionalization and avoidance of answering questions qualify as some kind of contempt of court? It struck me that SCO's attorneys had no respect whatever for the judge or the process. Redacted to its essence, I could hear a snotty voice intoning, "NYAH-nyah-NYAH-nyah-nyah!" Or does the judge have to put up with this kind of bratty behavior? ''

      I think the judge doesn't care at all. He just looks through the

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close