SCO, IBM battle heats up

TalkBack 11 of 73:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

re: How odd: >* Anyone can get a copy of 2.4 kernel.
>Conclusion: IBM could easily see which lines of
>code appear to be copied, either from SCO to linux,
>or the opposite.

Your point is well mistaken, but not well taken. SCO is accusing IBM. In order for their charges to have any substance SCO must identify the code "with specificity". What they have done is say "It's somwehere in these 591 files, find it yourself". If they know what it is and have the SysV code themselves why should IBM have to compare the two code bases to figure out what SCO is referring to? And if, as they keep claiming, they have such a well founded case and are in such a hurry to move forward with the discovery process, why haven't they shown or pointed to [specifically, as required by the law] even one single line of code in the discovery documents?

SCO showed what they said was infringing code to the people that IBM is subpoenaing in order to get favorable press, loans to prop up the corpse of their company and stock analyses to boost the price of their stock from under $1 to $21 (although it's now down under $15 because they are blowing their case so badly during the discovery process.) Why can't they show it to the court to prove that IBM has done what SCO is accusing them of? Why has IBM had to make 2 separate requests to compel SCO to provide information to support the charges?

You have this entirely upside down. It's not up to IBM to prove that they are innocent. It's up to SCO to show that IBM is guilty. So far they have SAID it endlessly and shown it not at all. If someone accused you of a crime and their case against you was "you're the one who broke the law, you know perfectly what it was you did" would you be a whiner if you wanted to know what law you broke and what you did to break that law? Your analysis is perfectly logical, IBM could compare the 2.4 and 2.5 kernel code to the SCO code base. You contention that they _should_ do this is based on a misunderstanding of how the legal process works.

SCO has the SysV code AND has access to all of the Linux code, how come 8 months later they still can't say "Here is the code you wrongfully migrated into Linux, here is the day and the way that you did it and here are the names of the coders that submitted this code to Linux and the date it was committed to the codebase."? That is their job, to show that they have a case so that IBM may admit it or dispute it if they can. What IBM is "whining" about is that SCO is claiming in the press and in private that they have been wronged by IBM. SCO has made millions of dollars doing so, and cannot or will not actuallly say specifically what it was that IBM did. SCO is doing all the whining and IBM is just asking them to say what it is they are whining about and so far they have not replied with anything meaningful.

They sent IBM a million pages of scanned copies of SysV source code printouts when IBM asked for machine-readable code to review for evidence of infringement. So a scanner, which is a machine, has read the code they sent to IBM and now IBM has a million pages of code that is hard to read that STILL doesn't point to any misappropriated intellectual property of SCO. They have said that the misappropriated code "is, or may be" somewhere in the 591 files listed in their response to IBM's motion to compel discovery. The clue you refer to is coming from SCO and it is: We don't have anything to back up our charges or we would have shown it already and collected our $3 billion dollars when IBM couldn't refute our evidence. The clue is NOT that IBM could or even _should_ figure out what SCO is hinting at but not really saying so that they can prove themselves not guilty.; Posted by: Still Lynn Posted on: 11/16/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use