Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 6th Dec 2003 19:42 UTC, submitted by Tom Curtis
SCO, Caldera, Unixware IBM won a tactical victory Friday in a legal battle with SCO Group when a judge ordered SCO to show within 30 days the Linux software to which it believes it has rights and to point out where it believes IBM is infringing.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Re: @Roberto
by Roberto J. Dohnert on Sun 7th Dec 2003 05:16 UTC

<< I disagree that this is "nothing worth cheering over." While it is true that it's a procedure, it is nonetheless the first hearings in the case - and more to the point, it does force SCO to reveal what the allegedly stolen code is. So far SCO has resisted this tooth and nail - while in reality it would be advantageous to them to show that code (imagine how their stock would skyrocket!). >>

Their stock would not have skyrocketed it would have gone up just like it has. SCO is not required to share code with anyone but IBM which they will eventually. The Open Source community is no one, we are of no importance, SCO did not file the lawsuit against us. I think somewhre down the line, between opinion papers and ramblings of supposed "UNIX historians" we lost sight of that fact. What I find funny is that when SCO filed their subpoenas everyone said SCO was fishing, yet IBM has filed more subpoenas than anyone and people cheer them. Playing the devils advocate, what if SCO did show IBM code and now IBM is on the fishing trip, trying to find a memo, letter or anything telling SCO, from SUN and or Microsft, to kill Linux in order to take the sights off of them and confuse the issue? No one can.

My Prediction is that SCO will stick with the derivative acts argument.

<< I also disagree that, because this is a procedure, Boies didn't need to be there. There is both a symbolic and a tactical value to his presence. Symbolic, because of who he is and tactical, because it would have helped in gauge the judge as well as the opposing team for himself. >>

After speaking to our lawyer at work about this, we have our own inhouse law, he said it did not strike him any relevance for boies to be there or not to be there and if the role was his, he said he wouldnt have been there either. But maybe its a lawyer thing. It would not have helped ENGAGE the judge as well as the opposing team because this was a meaningless procedure. Boieses team was there, expect it to come out that either kevin McBride is either employed by his firm or contracted to it. I mean I have had my own personal lawyer send someone else from his firm in some of the few times I have been to court.

<< In any case, this is a positive development. Of course we're still a long ways from victory (unless SCO cannot produce the infringed source code). >>

I dont see it as positive, I think there is a whole lot of cheering over something very meaningless and very procedural to settle a childs game of " You go first ". I will cheer when either IBM wins or the Judge tells SCO to get out of the courtroom and settle or dismisses the case. Im stuck in this position for another 19 months. Just like the Microsoft funding SCO. I disagree with that and I do not and never have believed Microsoft is funding them, it is nothing more than comspiracy theory ramblings of figures in the Open Source community that Microsoft is funding SCO.