|
SCO's Reply Memo in Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike |
|
Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 05:58 PM EDT
|
Here we have SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike, in which SCO makes the extraordinary argument that Sandeep Gupta, John Harrop, and Chris Sontag, while they could be experts, are instead testifying as lay persons. So Mr. Gupta, who has testified that code in Unix and Linux is similar, is just giving the opinion of a layman. And on the other side, we have Randall Davis of MIT, who has testified that it is his expert opinion that there is no similarity. Is SCO out of its mind? Not trying? Trying to lose elegantly? I have been debating it every which way, and my current hypothesis is that the only thing they fight hard for is delay. I think, therefore, that they don't mind losing, as long as they can preserve their opportunity to go after end users. For that, a loss on some technicality will do. If, say, they ask for the moon (all AIX since the world began and for good measure the right to strip search IBM's software management system), and they are turned down, they could tell the media that there really is code in there that is infringing, but unfortunately the court turned down the only way they had to prove it against IBM. But it's in there. It's just that the courts....well, remember OJ, right? He's still walking around, as that legal scholar Darl McBride pointed out.
Could that be the strategy? I don't know. All I know is, this isn't normal behavior. So you can judge for yourself, here is a section of the memo, on why IBM's motion to strike the declarations of Sontag and Gupta and most of Harrop should be denied: "Motion to Strike should be denied because:
-
The Declarations are based on the declarants' personal knowledge, including their review of portions of the UNIX and Linux source codes and other documents in this case;
-
To the extent that the declarants' testimony can be construed as opinion, it is admissable lay opinion not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized information.. . .
-
In any event, each of the three declarants could qualify as an expert witness."
If they were trying to win, wouldn't they qualify their witnesses as experts, if they could, the way they did with Broderick? It's just so odd. They are hoping to defeat a motion with non-expert testimony that there is similarity of code. They go on to carefully say that Gupta isn't testifying that there are any copyright violations. So, they've publicly leveled the charge, but there will be no one to testify to prove it? They say people end up looking like their dogs and husbands and wives look like each other after a long married life. Do you suppose lawyers end up like their clients?
|
|
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
There is a use of 'their' in 'that their really is code' that should be 'there'.
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections - Authored by: utahbob55 on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 06:44 PM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: julian on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 08:48 PM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 08:59 PM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: cranesable on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 09:26 PM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 10:24 PM EDT
|
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 06:27 PM EDT |
Pretty please? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 06:28 PM EDT |
>preserve their opportunity to go after end users. For that, a
>loss on some technicality will do.
Its the only thing that really makes any sense!
At least we've got the IBM 10th, etc... to help dispell the FUD. If you can't
win, then let everyone think there are still IP issues with Linux.
I would think SCOSource is finished regardless, which I think adds to the MS
proxy war theorists. Keep the FUD alive, which was the true purpose (as they
would suggest).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: uw_dwarf on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 06:30 PM EDT |
Oy. They look like they're abandoning their case, but have they forgotten about
IBM's countersuit for Lanham Act transgressions? If they walk away from this,
they still have to answer for the PR against (at least) IBM.
<boggle>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sef on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
Do I have this right?
The three declarants have said things that are
not based on any technical
knowledge. But they're experts. But they're not
testifying as experts, only as
lay people. But without relying on any
technical knowledge.
That does not appear to make any sense! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 06:42 PM EDT |
"Is SCO out of its mind? Not trying? Trying to lose elegantly? I have been
debating it every which way, and my current hypothesis is that the only thing
they fight hard for is delay." PJ
There is no way in hell that SCOG could qualify the terrible three (John Harrop,
Chris Sontag and Sandeep Gupta) as experts of any kind except b.s., and make
that qualification stick - not with the likes of Dr. David Randall hovering
around at any rate.
SCOG wants to preserve its ability to go after end users? With what? As the
trial progresses, IBM will have been shown that it has not violated SCOG's
copyrights assuming that SCOG has any to be violated, that SCOG violated IBM's
copyrights by reneging on the GPL and therefore illegally distributing Linux,
and that the terms of the AT&T contract are what everybody SCOG say they
are. Further, SCOG is going to lose its slander of title suit against Novell and
end up with a court-certified cloud over its purported copyrights.
And the best part of the joke is that SCOG spent tens of millions of dollars to
get to the point where IBM, Novell and AZ are going to wipe the floor with SCOG.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 06:45 PM EDT |
more discovery <click> more discovery <click> more discovery
<click> more discovery <click> more discovery
AAAARRRRRRRGGGH!!!!!
I can't believe that they try to qualify Sontag and Gupta's declarations by
restating what is in the declaration. Wouldn't one usually try to provide proof
for the validity of a document by adding additional facts? Instead they appear
to just be saying "read the declarations, they tell all".
This looks like yet another document that is intended for another audience
altogether. It purports to be in opposition to IBM's motion to strike, yet only
minimally discusses the motion to strike, most of the memo is more pleading for
more discovery.
Why pay all those high priced lawyers? Any decent word processor can cut &
paste.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 06:53 PM EDT |
I think the SCOg lawyers are trying to protect their "expert"
witnesses from
perjury charges down the road. By classifying their
depositions as the
opinions of lay-persons instead of experts then they
are probably less liable
to perjury charges when all of what they said
turns out to be a pack
of lines incorrect.
--- SCO cannot violate the covenants
that led to and underlie Linux without forfeiting the benefits those covenants
confer. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
bottom of page 31:
"Mr. Gupta's declaration was offered not to show IBM's copyright
infringement of protected UNIX code, but to show that there is evidence that
UNIX source code has been copied into Linux."
fuh-WHA?!
Also, note the citation of a case involving the scientologists @ page 22. Some
heady company they're in. :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:12 PM EDT |
The object here is to raise enough doubt to defeat the PSJ.
The argument is that these people are providing "lay" testimony, which
contradicts IBM experts, or at least raises sufficient doubt to warrant going to
a jury.
The one problem with this is that the central argument that they make is that if
they get more discovery they'll " find the pony (or cows, as Darl said) in
there somewhere".
So, even if the court accepts their declarations as "lay" people, they
still haven't shown any evidence to defeat the motion. They've been ordered to.
They claimed over and over they have it.
All they have to do is show enough to have the judge say "Okay, this might
convince a jury."
They admit they don't have it. Looks like this one will go to IBM.
---
The SCO Group's secret project to develop Artificial Stupidity has obviously
succeeded!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:15 PM EDT |
...you assume that Darl is working for Boies, rather than for SCO's
stockholders.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Paul Shirley on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
Its such a pity IBM want to avoid wasting time on this rubbish, its prime time
comedy material.
"The first act, `allocating a new data structure of a
certain size,` is expressed in UNIX RCU and Linux RCU by a single line of
nearly identical code.
If that's typical of Sandeep Gupta's
'evidence' I'm almost surprised IBM are trying to strike it, faced with a real
expert in court he would be shredded.
The best he can come up with is a
single line that's nearly identical. Claiming a whole routine was nearly
identical might work but a single line? Unbelievable. Either he's so incompetent
he failed to claim logical equivalence or even worse, all he could find really
is unmistakeably different.
If anyone still thought they're seriously trying
to win this rehashed rubbish should disabuse them, it really is just about delay
and inflicting as much expensive discovery as possible on their victims. SCOG
are doing no real work to further the actual case, just inventing stories that
might slow things down. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Flower on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:21 PM EDT |
We have another document lamenting that SCO has not gotten the discovery they
need from IBM. Now we have 38 pages of "these declarations are for a very
narrow purpose and because they are so limited in scope they should be
accepted."
So far I'm a third of the way through and the arguments they make for not
striking Sontag's declaration is so weak it isn't funny. Prof. Davis'
declaration makes short work of everything brought up by Sontag.
Then you get to the arguments of Gupta's declaration and I simply cannot believe
they harp on the fact that Mr. Gupta finds a *single* line of "nearly
identical" code. And again, the following arguments get vaporized by the
Davis declaration. IIRC, Prof Davis pretty much lays it down that you don't need
all this discovery to prove that SCO copyrights are in Linux. All you need is a
comparison between SCO -> Linux. Not SCO -> Dynix|AIX -> Linux.
And then we get to Harrop's and it gets no better. Let's have an article on
selective quoting shall we? Really, what did Linus Torvalds and Andrew Morton
say in what actual context and why are their peripherial musings on this case
pertinent? SCO won't show them the alleged infringement so there is no way
either developer can state with any level of certainty that any code is
infringing. AFAICT, Linus and Andrew are guessing.
That's all I have to say so far. I have to finish reading the pdf.
---
You make me out to be responsible for your self-inflicted misery. - "Faceless"
Godsmack[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- And once again - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 05:59 AM EDT
- And once again - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 05:59 AM EDT
|
Authored by: gnuadam on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:28 PM EDT |
Forgive my confusion.
Is tomorrow's hearing before Judge Kimball still on?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:32 PM EDT |
Some suggestions:
1. They know they've lost this one, but some junior lawyer has to keep it going.
Besides, it's all billable time. (Didn't Darl say they got a discount with the
cap? This explains why)
or
2. It's slapdash work. They found the lay person rule. They're using it to keep
wiggling. They haven't really researched it, as with most of their stuff. They
are both outnumbered, and attempting to use motion practice to the max.
Attrition is starting to show in the TSCOG camp. They are after all trying to
keep five suits going.
or
3. They are practicing such bad law and abuse of the courts and process, that
they hope to get a 'Microsoft decision' for appeal, because one of the judges
will "lose it". In other words, they are baiting Kimble, whose court
web site advises against exactly these kinds of submissions. That would keep the
game going quite a bit longer.
or
4. They really are lousy lawyers.
Personally, I'm going for #4. It's the simplest explanation.
---
The SCO Group's secret project to develop Artificial Stupidity has obviously
succeeded!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:40 PM EDT |
Rack up all the legal fees you can before the roof caves in. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nattt on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
"Responding to IBM's tenth counterclaim is a task which could ake many
man-years to complete without the discovery SCO requests;
SCO will need to take discovery from third-parties who have contributed to
source code to Linux to enable SCO to identify UNIX source code sopied into
Linux; and
Linux contains copied portions of UNIX source code which suggests that
further discovery will reveal that Lunix infringes SCO's UNIX copyrights"
Total contradiction here from SCO, right on the first page!! The last line says
that there is copied portions of UNIX in Linux, and therefore further discovery
is needed to find the rest. If they have evidence, which they suggest they do,
then just providing it here, and now will clear a lot of things up. Only one,
solid bit of evidence is needed, but do they provide it - no they do not!
Also, they don't need any witnesses - all they need is to compre Linux and
Unix, which according to our MIT Prof. is quite easy, and indeed SCO
themselves have claimed to have done this, and again, they won't show us the
evidence. They can waffle till they're blue in the face, but unless they show it
in black and white, from a qualified expert, not Gupta, who can perform the
filtration-abstraction-comparison test, and also, as part of the filtration,
show that the source is not from a public domain, or BSD, or other legal
source, then they cannot not only win the 10th CC, but cannot stop IBM
procedeing with it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
QTLurker in his/her/its post Its
all about discovery, dummy in response to story Declaration of
Randall Davis of MIT: SCO Is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong
makes, IMHO, a very
good argument that all this constant hammering on "fishing expedition" type
discovery is based on Ryan E. Tibbitts successful strategy in the Microsoft
DRDos trial. The original post was towards the end of the comments for this
story and seemed to be skipped over by most people. I for one would really like
to see further analysis and discussion of this theory. It may explain the
obsessive demands for discovery in not only this case but also why they are
continuing DC and AZ cases on such flimsy grounds.
Thanks,
OldPro
not logged on but deeply proud of himself for being able to figure out how to do
a link
Old Mainframe programmers never die, they just... they just...
Dagnab it, you just wait! I'll remember it sooner or later.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:45 PM EDT |
SCO cites Offshore Aviation v Transcon (and other cases) to argue their
inadmissable hearsay, should be admissable in the context of a summary judgement
motion.
The 11th circuit addressed this question in another case. They do not seem to believe these cases
provide a blanket exception for hearsay statements being considered in summary
judgement motions.
McMillian contends that the district
court erred in refusing to consider the hearsay evidence on
summary judgment.
He contends that the Supreme Court's decision in Celotex and our decisions in
Church of Scientology and Offshore Aviation permit the use of hearsay to defeat
a motion for
summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 , 106
S. Ct. 2548 (1986); Church of
Scientology v. City of Clearwater , 2 F.3d 1514
(11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 54
(1994); Offshore Aviation v.
Transcon Lines, Inc. , 831 F.2d 1013 (11th Cir. 1987). Tate, Ikner,
and Benson
contend that the district court properly refused to consider the hearsay. Tate
contends
that McMillian misreads Celotex .
We do not read Celotex
to permit McMillian to defeat summary judgment with the type of hearsay
evidence offered in this case. In Celotex , the Supreme Court said:
We do not mean that the nonmoving party must produce evidence in a form that
would be
admissible at trial in order to avoid summary judgment. Obviously,
Rule 56 does not require the
nonmoving party to depose her own witnesses. Rule
56(e) permits a proper summary judgment
motion to be opposed by any of the
kinds of evidentiary materials listed in Rule 56(c), except the
mere pleadings
themselves, and it is from this list that one would normally expect the
nonmoving
party to make the showing to which we have referred.
477
U.S. at 324 , 106 S. Ct. at 2553. We read this statement as simply allowing
otherwise
admissible evidence to be submitted in inadmissible form at the
summary judgment stage, though
at trial it must be submitted in admissible
form. See Offshore Aviation , 831 F.2d at 1017
(Edmondson, J.,
concurring).
McMillian does not contend that Hooks and Hightower's
statements are admissible for their truth,
that is, as substantive evidence
that they were coerced into testifying falsely. Nor does McMillian
contend
that the content of the statements will be reduced to admissible form at trial.
He contends
that Hooks and Hightower might change their sworn affidavit
testimony and admit to being
coerced, but a suggestion that admissible
evidence might be found in the future is not enough to
defeat a motion for
summary judgment. McMillian alternatively contends that he can use the
statements to impeach Hooks and Hightower if they testify, consistently with
their affidavits, that
they were not coerced and did not testify falsely at
McMillian's criminal trial. While the statements
may be admissible for that
purpose, the district court correctly noted that such impeachment
evidence is
not substantive evidence of the truth of the statements alleging coercion. Such
potential
impeachment evidence, therefore, may not be used to create a genuine
issue of material fact for trial.
Because Hooks and Hightower's statements
will be admissible at trial only as impeachment
evidence, the statements do
not create a genuine issue of fact for trial. [7]
Neither Church
of Scientology nor Offshore Aviation holds that inadmissible hearsay may be
used
to defeat summary judgment when the hearsay will not be available in
admissible form at trial. In
Church of Scientology , we held that the
district court should have considered newspaper articles
offered as evidence
that Clearwater's city commission conducted its legislative process with the
intention of singling out the Church of Scientology for burdensome regulation. 2
F.3d at 1530-31.
There was no argument that the events recounted in articles
could not be proven with admissible
evidence at trial, and we expressed no
opinion as to whether the articles themselves would be
admissible at trial.
Id. at 1530-31 & n.11. Indeed, there was every indication that witnesses
would
be able to testify at trial from their personal knowledge of the events
recounted in the articles. Here,
in contrast, McMillian points to no witness
with personal knowledge who will testify at trial that
Hooks and Hightower
were coerced into testifying falsely.
In Offshore Aviation , we held
that the district court should have considered a letter offered in
opposition
to a motion for summary judgment. 831 F.2d at 1015. The party moving for
summary
judgment argued for the first time on appeal that the letter was
inadmissible hearsay. Id. We held
that the objection to the letter's
admissibility was untimely and that the district court should have
considered
the letter in its summary judgment decision. Id. at 1016. We also noted that the
fact that
the letter itself would be inadmissible at trial did "not undercut
the existence of any material facts the
letter may [have] put into question."
Id. at 1015. Though we agree with McMillian that this and
certain other
language in our opinion suggests that inadmissible hearsay may be used to
defeat
summary judgment, we do not read Offshore Aviation to hold that
inadmissible hearsay may be
used even when it cannot be reduced to admissible
evidence at trial. There was no indication in
Offshore Aviation that the
letter could not be reduced to admissible evidence at trial. Indeed, that
the
letter at issue was based on the writer's personal knowledge, id. at 1016,
indicates that there
was no impediment to the writer testifying at trial as to
the facts described in the letter.
Quatermass
IANAL
IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ares_Man on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:51 PM EDT |
I have been debating it every which way, and my current hypothesis is that
the only thing they fight hard for is delay
Have you been debating
it every which way but Tuesday? :P--- Heck, no. I won't SCO! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
There's only two reasons I can see that make sense (to me):
1) They keep delaying in the hope that something will turn up.
2) They keep delaying because that's what they agreed to do for someone
(Microsoft?). Very conspiracy-theory, but:
Circa Jan 2003: Longhorn's 2 or 3 years away. MS need to stop ppl moving to
linux (now and in the next few yrs). What better way than to ask SCO to start a
lawsuit and keep it in the courts for a couple of years? (MS are the FUD masters
don't forget).
By the time it's all settled (regardless of who wins), MS have Longhorn
("Windows 2006"?) out, the PR machine's been pumping for some time
(another $100m campaign) and people are sick and tired of hearing the word
"Linux" (due to the relentless court dramas).
Just my 2 cents.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yabut - Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 08:16 PM EDT
- Yabut - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 08:53 PM EDT
- Yabut - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 08:55 PM EDT
- Longhorn ?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 03:21 AM EDT
- MS Corporate Culture.... - Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 10:03 PM EDT
- SCO's strategy - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 10:02 PM EDT
|
Authored by: the_flatlander on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 08:04 PM EDT |
PJ wrote:
They say people end up looking like their dogs and
husbands and wives look like each other after a long married life. Do you
suppose lawyers end up like their clients?
Well, it seems to
me that we have a similar effect here, but in this case, the clients, the
lawyers and the case are all beginning to look like
DOGS.
The Flatlander
Meaning no disrespect to dogs, at
all; I'm talking about ugly, mangy, mean-spirited yard-dogs, here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
"Mr. Gupta's declaration begins with a statement that his declaration is based
upon personal knowledge. See Gupta Declaration ... The facts included with each
of these topics are well within Mr. Sontag's personal knowledge, as
shown by his Supplemental Declaration." They forgot to change the names
when they copied and pasted the first paragraph.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 08:58 PM EDT |
is to get before a local jury without any evidence.
Any evidence that TSG has would be
- ripped apart
- used against TSG
- suit IBM's counterclaims
- prove Linux does not infringe
- you get the point of TSG's predicament
Take the money and run is as close to a strategy as TSG understands.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: chad on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 09:38 PM EDT |
I cannot comprehend the strategy behind SCOX's continuing to ask for delays at
every turn. The delays aren't generating any revenue, and they are accumulating
extraordanary legal expenses.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jseigh on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 09:52 PM EDT |
that "Unix RCU" was developed under and subsequently "copied" into Dynix?
That's the first I've heard of that.
Also, note that the comments by Gupta
being refered at the bottom of page 7 and top of page 8 appear to be referring
to the RCU design pattern which actually predates RCU. Paul McKenney documents
earlier uses of RCU in his later papers. I used the same pattern in VM in the
80's. Actually, you can use that pattern with any form of GC (garbage
collection), e.g. reference counting, Maged Michael's SMR, Boehm style GC, or
RCU deferred deletion. Despite it's being independently developed serveral
times, the pattern ends up being almost identical. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 10:11 PM EDT |
Wouldn't that be violating the judge's order that only outsiders could see that
- or is he saying that he's only looked at what SCO originally had, not any of
the subsequent IBM discovery?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 10:38 PM EDT |
I would consider an impartial witness to be much more credible than an
"expert" who is a senior exective in the company has an obvious vested
interest.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 10:44 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Lev on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 11:01 PM EDT |
Linux contains copied portions of UNIX source code which suggests
that further discovery will reveal that Linux infringes SCO's UNIX
copyrights.
Is there any case law to support this brilliant
inference? I don't see any cites. Following this logic, does the fact that the
defendant has visited the victim suggest that further discovery will reveal
breaking and entering? Does the existence of a sexual relationship suggest that
further discovery will reveal evidence of rape?
With regard to the
organization of Linux SysVIPC and UNIX System V IPC, both consist of three
mechanisms: message queues, semaphore, and shared memory. There is no reason
for the organization to be identical other than the fact that Linux SysVIPC has
been copied from UNIX System V IPC.
All I can say is
wow!
Mr. Sontag has first-hand knowledge that it is not feasible to
use an automated process to perform a complete comparison of all of the source
code in UNIX and Linux operating systems.
Is it ever possible to
have first-hand knowledge of infeasibility? Isn't that like claiming to
have first-hand knowledge that unicorns don't exist (even if it's true)?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 12:18 AM EDT |
that lawyers end up like their clients, with SCO's predilection to delay, you
could be right.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eggplant37 on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 02:27 AM EDT |
Well, this is what you get when you send a Boise in to do a man's job...
Yeah, I know, it's bad. If yer going to throw grapefruit, make it the pink
kind.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:58 AM EDT |
as long as they call it an opinion, it's not pergery when they are wrong.
if they become experts, then they should know better.
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 10:00 AM EDT |
I guess this is the silliness you have to resort to when your case sucks to
begin with. I think that SCO can't find any *real* experts, as IBM did, that
will support their side of the story. And I guess Laura Didio and Rob Enderle
won't go so far for SCO as to attach their name to the legal case.
So they are down to the opinions of their own staff that the code is similar.
They couldn't even get an outside lay opinion on the matter? I think they need
to turn down the nitrous oxide being pumped into their office in Utah, this is
just too stupid for words.
-pooky
---
If at First You Don't Succeed, Skydiving Isn't for You.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 10:36 AM EDT |
>I think, therefore, that they don't mind losing,
>as long as they
can preserve their opportunity
> to go after end users.
More likely
Darl's deal with M$ is $X per day of FUD that they can sustain.
The longer he keeps it up the more they make under the table. All they need to
do is work out a way to loose by looking inept and unprepaired without actually
going to jail themselves. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 16 2004 @ 06:37 AM EDT |
I enjoyed the last comment regarding lawyers ending up looking
like their client. You made my day! Thanks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|