Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th Aug 2009 14:45 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
Legal Not too long ago, Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw explained he had found the perfect husband for Lara Croft: Jason Voorhees. They both have way too many sequels all following a default plot, they both murder a lot and spend a lot of time underground, but most of all: none of them will ever just die. In that light, I suggest another husband for Miss Croft: Darl McBride. Instant update: Darl McBride responds. See inside.
Thread beginning with comment 380530
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Wish it would just die already
by Morgan on Tue 25th Aug 2009 15:21 UTC in reply to "Wish it would just die already"
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

With all its faults, I still think the US court system is the most fair in the world, generally speaking. However, it's situations like this that make me question my feelings about its impartiality. There is absolutely no way that six or twelve random people could ever truly understand the situation well enough to rule fairly for either side.

I think technologically complex cases like this should be decided by a panel of five or seven judges, with one or two impartial expert witnesses to clarify any questions the judges have about the technical aspects of the case. As difficult as it may be to find techies that are truly impartial given SCO's track record, it's got to be better than a box full of truly clueless local citizens, no matter how intelligent they may be in their own field of expertise.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lindkvis Member since:
2006-11-21

With all its faults, I still think the US court system is the most fair in the world, generally speaking.


Do you have any justification for this or is it just a vague feeling based on yourself being from the US?

Reply Parent Score: 6

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Well, I work for the system so I have a first hand viewpoint. As I said, it has its faults and there is much room for improvement.

Reply Parent Score: 2

nordog Member since:
2008-08-07

With all its faults, I still think the US court system is the most fair in the world, generally speaking.


My initial reaction to this statement: ouch!

Reply Parent Score: 1

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

It's merely my opinion, which anyone can easily dismiss. I find it quite silly that only one person so far has read past my first sentence and actually commented on the heart of my post, which concerns what I believe to be the utter stupidity of using a jury trial in a case like this.

But never mind that, I'm called out because I still have faith in the US court system.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

With all its faults, I still think the US court system is the most fair in the world, generally speaking. However, it's situations like this that make me question my feelings about its impartiality. There is absolutely no way that six or twelve random people could ever truly understand the situation well enough to rule fairly for either side. I think technologically complex cases like this should be decided by a panel of five or seven judges, with one or two impartial expert witnesses to clarify any questions the judges have about the technical aspects of the case. As difficult as it may be to find techies that are truly impartial given SCO's track record, it's got to be better than a box full of truly clueless local citizens, no matter how intelligent they may be in their own field of expertise.


Nah, it isn't that hard to follow at all.

FTA:
SCO claimed IBM had used Unix as a basis for making improvements to the Linux operating system, the basic software code of which is "open source," or freely available to the public. Companies such as IBM and Novell take the basic code and use it to create products and services that can be sold to other companies, often more cheaply than for-profit systems such as Unix and Microsoft's Windows.


-- Actually, the code that IBM put into Linux, which is SMP and RCU and the JFS filesystem, is IBM's code. Some of this code was written originally for OS/2, and some of it was written by Sequent (now IBM) for Dynix, and then also put into Unix.

FTA:
SCO claims that it saw a precipitous decline in sales of its Unix system after IBM modified Linux using Unix code.


-- Actually, the code that IBM put into Linux is IBM's code.

It doesn't matter if SCO has copyrights to Unix or not ... there is no Unix code in Linux. Any IBM code that is in Linux is copyright IBM.

As I said, it isn't really all that hard to understand at all.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You're right, and to those of us who are in the tech field for employment or even as hobbyists, it's cut and dry. But put a savvy lawyer up there and I guarantee you he'll confuse the hell out of the jury by the end of the trial. A panel of judges isn't as easily swayed by petty lawyer tricks. I've seen it a thousand times and it never ceases to amaze me how much non-factual influence both prosecuting and defending attorneys can get away with during the course of a trial.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kokara4a Member since:
2005-09-16

With all its faults, I still think the US court system is the most fair in the world, generally speaking.


Then what do you make of the recent ruling which I'd paraphrase like this: customers have "fair use" rights but it's forbidden for anyone to make tools that would let them exercise their rights.

You may say it's the law, not the courts. But it doesn;t really matter. It's the legal system. And it has been piling crap on top of other crap for so long that it's now mostly a dung hill. And don't get me started on the patent system...

Edited 2009-08-26 08:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

saidge@yahoo.com Member since:
2007-11-06

The most annoying thing about having a Jury Trial on this case is that Jurors selected for the case must not have prior knowledge of the case!

... what techie with any knowledge of non-windows OS's doesn't know about this case? So the jury would exclusively be filled with american citizens who, most likely, don't have a clue what Linux or Unix is, let alone what an OS is.

The story, as pointed out, can be summarized, but anything technical about it can not. Luckily - or unluckily as the case may be - this is not going to be a case about whether Linux has Unix code or not, but rather, whether or not SCO legally owns UNIX.

Still, I think the Jury might struggle with the concepts if they are, as a whole, relatively ignorant of the workings of computers. And that might make them unable to understand what Novell did and didn't sell to SCO. And that might make them find in SCO's favor.

It's all who's got the better Lawyer again. That said, how much money does SCO still have???

Reply Parent Score: 1

bfr99 Member since:
2007-03-15

Don't worry, the case will really be decided at the appellate level and perhaps even by the Supreme court. A jury trial is only a legal fiction in a case like this and everyone knows it. Of course no matter what the ultimate outcome there will be many who will disagree but that is to be expected.

Reply Parent Score: 1