Judge orders SCO, IBM to produce disputed code

[short bus president]

"A court ruling by Judge Brooke C. Wells in the SCO Group vs. IBM intellectual property lawsuit amounting to "show me the code" was released Wednesday -- in the form of a nine-page pdf document. For a change, the SCO Group had no comment, because Judge Wells told it not to issue any."

"In her ruling, the judge wrote that SCO hasn't produced enough proof to back up its allegations that IBM moved proprietary Unix software to new Linux systems. SCO Group filed its $1 billion lawsuit against Big Blue nearly one year ago, on March 6, 2003."

story

Looks like the judge has had enough of SCO's "trust us, it's there" approach to evidence.

[Fenris]

1. Good. Maybe SCO will SHUT THE FUCK UP

AND STOP SUING EVERYONE.

[MikeGalos]

2. Well it'll certainly be interesting

But I wouldn't make any assumption that this would be a good time to buy IBM stock...

After all, the court held that SCO complied in good faith and ordered IBM to produce quite a bit.

[short bus president]

3. You're entitled to your opinion, but

if SCO had any case at all, the judge would never have had to demand to see the evidence. The responsible thing for SCO's attorneys to do would've been to put the company's cards on the table when it brought the suit. What's the benefit to SCO in bringing a suit based on flimsy allegations, and withholding the crucial bits? None. Therefore, ipso fatso, </archie> SCO is, at this point, toast.

I'd sell my stock right now if I was you. ;-)

[MikeGalos]

6. Actually

the judge had to demand material from IBM and praised SCO for their cooperation while asking them for additional documents. Perhaps you should have read that PDF file rather than trusting Slashdot to explain it to you.

[rman]

7. But you can not explain away the fact that SCO has produced no evidence

nor the fact that the judge had to ask SCO for that evidence.
No amount of praise will compensate for lack of evidence.

[MikeGalos]

10. Nope

Read the Judge's PDF order. They HAVE produced evidence and are instructed to produce more.

Sorry to break your bubble but it's only a short order. Maybe you could read it before telling people what it says.

[papau]

8. true - but unix (AIX)files and linux submisions by IBM are not a big

deal

granted IBM acts big company tough, help not unless ordered by Court

but SCO showing its code is "co-operation" which proves nothing about IBM - but it got IBM an order so as to force the compare and contrast.

[Atlant]

9. Are you sure your realtionship with Microsoft...

Are you sure your realtionship with Microsoft isn't clouding your judgement?

Atlant

[MikeGalos]

11. I no longer have one

but I DO have both experience in the industry and expertise to know what IS and ISN'T likely to be true.

[Occulus]

4. I mentioned this in another thread today.

SCO should have been required to show everything related to the infringing code immediately.

[TroglodyteScholar]

5. AutoZone

AutoZone stock, despite their unwavering strong general performance, dropped by 5% on today's news. I haven't checked IBM, but looking at AutoZone's stock performance over the past year, I'd say now is a great time to buy. I mean...they were over $100 just a few months ago, and now they're at $83 something.

Maybe the folks at SCO just wanted to buy some good stock at a cheap price. Shame on them...:spank:

[Florida_Geek]

12. SCO will lose this case big time

Linux has been in the open source world since it came out.

IBM has all code for Unix and Linux.

IBM knows if Linux stole Unix source. IBM would not be fighting this if they knew Linux used Unix source.

PS, Unix source also USED to be open back in the Bell Lab days, and it was called "The Experts Manual".....

I first started using Unix in around 79, with a company that was producing Unix boxes.

[MikeGalos]

13. Nope

The Unix source was available back in the AT&T days but not without signing a license. If you were at a university, that license was signed on your behalf when the university licensed the source but they DID license it and that DID include a restriction on use.

As for IBM's motives, guilty or innocent they'd never fold. They HATE precedent and they'd rather keep people thinking that no matter how good their case they've got to go against IBM's wall o' lawyers no matter what.

As for IBM having the source, nobody disputes that. They have it under license from SCO. The question is whether any of their people intentionally or unintentionally violated that license and release source code that they didn't have rights to distribute.

[Florida_Geek]

14. Excussssse ME

SCO is the Unix new comer. IBM had Unix code long before SCO brought the rights.

"The Unix source was available back in the AT&T days but not without signing a license. If you were at a university, that license was signed on your behalf when the university licensed the source but they DID license it and that DID include a restriction on use."

Gee I thought I said the Unix was open source, when you release it to Universities, it is very open at that time.

IBM/Microsoft have never release their full source of their flagship operating systems to Universities.

[MikeGalos]

15. Nope

Unix was NEVER Open Source (or public domain or GNU or anything other than proprietary software)

On the other hand, Microsoft DID release the source to Windows to Universities under license.