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 07:38 UTC

<< First, re disclosure of proprietary code: If it's in the kernel it's already been disclosed, and you can't destroy confidentiality that was already lost. >>

Ahh but you can, I dont know what the code is, neither do you. SCO does and when they disclose, if they havent already to IBM, IBM will know, but myself and you will still be in the dark.

<< Second: a small procedure that can't be screwed up? If it was so small, then why did SCO waste the court's time with its objections rather than simply turning over the material IBM requested? Judges *do not like* having their time wasted - take it from someone who was a law clerk to a Federal judge. Actually, you are correct in one sense - any lawyer would have been hard pressed to make SCO's case that IBM had to respond regarding its alleged misconduct before SCO told IBM and the judge just what that alleged misconduct was, so why not send Darl's bro in to take the hit for this sure loser? >>

To see if it could be done, they gambled and they lost. IBM will lose in January when the judge orders them to disclose to SCO. Neither company is being front and center with either of its claims IMO or its dicoveries. IBM claims no one in IBM ever had any communications with Linus Torvalds? Yeah right, why do you think SCO subpoenad Torvalds to provide information? IBM is witholding as much as SCO is, if you want to play that game why didnt IBM go ahead and disclose to SCO so SCO would disclose with them? Its a rat race and whoever reaches the end of the maze first wins. If you think IBM is being totally 100% honest think again, every huge firm has skeletons in their closet and something to hide. This hearing yesterday was just as much IBM's fault as SCO's and the Judge was not looking at IBM that friendly either.

<< "It's a type of test that law firms give new employees." Umm, sure, a law firm is always eager to have judges realize that the firm has so little regard for the judge that they send bad and inexperienced lawyers to the judge's courtroom to screw things up and waste his time as a sort of test. >>

Do you think every lawyer wins every case or motion? If you do wake up. SCO probably thought they had a good argument. Kevin McBride actually from what I understand actually did a pretty good job for a green lawyer, the only people I have heard say he was pathetic was the Open Source community, surprise, He didnt screw things up, wasted a little more time then what he should have but he didnt screw things up. I just cant wait to read the transcript. Have you ever had Kevin McBride represent you? If not, how can you tell he is a bad lawyer, just because he has different views from you and me doesnt mean he is not a competant lawyer.

<< In turn, having federal judges hate you is obviously a great way to ensure that lots of clients will trust your firm with their multimillion-dollar cases, and that your firm will grow and prosper >>

As I stated before tell that to IBM as well. Boies firm is a well known firm and Im sure they will do just fine.

<< IOW, Roberto, no law firm would do such a thing on purpose - it would be financial suicide for the firm. Law firms spend as much time as they can getting judges - especially federal judges, who are appointed for life - to *like* them.>>

Yeah they would. Financial suicide for the firm? When boies's law firm goes bankrupt I may agree with you then. Im sure IBM has enough money and has probably spent enough money to make anybody "like them" as has SCO.