Hi Russel,

I've been following this case VERY closely.....all the information you
want (and more) can be found at http://www.groklaw.net.  Transcripts of
yesterday's hearing can be found there.

In short, SCO had a hearing yesterday (Dec. 5th) on their discovery
motions and IBM's discovery motions.  SCO lost big-time.

Under the law, you must tell the court and the defendant EXACTLY what
crime is alledged to have been committed.  To date, SCO has not
demonstrated anything, and has been repeatedly dragging their feet on
revealing exactly what code has been copied.  They play games like
"here's the Linux kernel on 1,000,000 sheets of paper rather than a
CD,"  and "we can't tell you where the copying happened because we don't
have all of your e-mails and development notes for 40-mil lines of  AIX
code."  This foot dragging was the basis of IBM's two separate "motions
to compel discovery."  To date, SCO has not indicated to IBM or the
court which code is in question in any specificity, other than saying
that it exists ("it exists somewhere in this phone book!...I promise")

The judge overseeing the discovery phase of this case seemed tired of
SCO's circular arguments, and ruled that no other discovery can occur
until SCO specifies the charges and indicates what code they think has
been copied.  In essence, "put-up or shut-up."  They have 30 days to
comply with the judge's order.  After that, IBM may be able to move for
dismissal if no specific claims are made.

SCO's case is a farse, if they had real evidence, they wouldn't hesitate
to show it in court (as required by law).  Darl has promised to keep
this up for 18 more months, and has said that they would be filing a
copyright case against IBM next.  I'm assuming that this will happen
AFTER this case gets tossed in January.  Don't believe their hype, SCO
has no case.

DD

On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 18:02, Russell McMahon wrote:
> > > This is typical microsoft bogosity, comparable to the recent
> > > unix nastiness from SCO.
>
> Not wanting to start a "religious" argument here, but I gained the
> impression, from the little I have read on the matter, that the SCO claims
> looked liable to have some merit. As I understand it, they are claiming that
> specific code fragments that are clearly their IP are found within the Linux
> kernel. This sounds like a readily provable claim in due course (or sooner)
> and it seems unlikely (to me) that they would make such claims if they had
> no merit whatsoever.
>
> I may well be missing something obvious here and would be happy to have it
> explained.
>
>
>
>
>         Russell McMahon
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
> email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body