Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageRecent Features
| |||||||||||||
Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims (Groklaw)
Groklaw
reports on a new order by Judge Brooke Wells which grants IBM's
Motion to Limit SCO's Claims.
"Here is Judge Brooke Wells's Order as text. 39 pages and 128 footnotes! Why? I can't read the judge's mind, of course, but my best guess is she is indicating to SCO not to bother to appeal this order. And if they do, she has provided her reasons -- with specificity, one might even say, sufficient to uphold her decision. You can follow along with the references on Groklaw's IBM Timeline page, where the docket numbers are provided."
For further reading, Linux-Watch analyzes the situation: "This means that the vast majority of SCO's claims against IBM for misusing Unix code in Linux have been thrown out." (Log in to post comments)
Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims (Groklaw) Posted Jun 29, 2006 17:13 UTC (Thu) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] Sink, SCO, sink. The sooner the better. Blake "BS" Stowell's remark regarding their next step ... the only reasonable next step would be to drop the lawsuit; but then, SCO's management might face personal liability, criminal or otherwise .. so they simply can't drop their suit. Cornered.
Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims (Groklaw) Posted Jun 29, 2006 17:42 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] It would be silly to just drop the suit at this point, because there are plenty of claims remaining. As far as I can tell, these were the claims that SCO brainstormed but couldn't specify clearly. They would certainly have lost these claims later anyway, when they couldn't provide any evidence to back up the claims (since they couldn't even characterize the evidence that would be relevant); including them was just a delaying tactic, and an attempt to make extra work for IBM. There are plenty of claims left that they could win (if IBM were to totally screw up their defense). And there's no reason for them to drop their side of the case, since IBM has counterclaims, and settling these would probably bankrupt SCO. If they're going to be in court, they might as well stay in a position where a favorable outcome is theoretically possible.
Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims (Groklaw) Posted Jun 29, 2006 18:20 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Nothing has changed. SCO knew from the beginning that the evidence wouldn't back their case. They (and their backers, particularly MS) win as long as the case is before the court. They stop winning when it ends. They tried another stalling tactic, and it didn't work as well as they'd hoped. Now we're just back on the already long-delayed schedule.
What is astonishing is how far they and MS can go, in front of a judge, without being cited for contempt. If I had been on the bench when MS showed their doctored videotape at the anti-trust hearings, Allchin and Neukom would have spent the week in jail. I've lost count of the times I've been amazed at SCO and Boies were getting away with worse. A night in jail for BS and DM, early on, and all this would have been wrapped up in 2004.
I've had to conclude that judges Kimball and Wells have seen this case as entertainment, and the (for anyone else ruinous) expense to IBM as guild dues. If the case were really tying up actual courtrooms and actual judges day after day, they would have had to put a stop to it, but hearings have generally been short and infrequent, and the paperwork can mostly be done by clerks who will ultimately be paid out of SCO's investors', Boies's, or your and my pockets. In the meantime it's Xtreme Sports for lawyers, with big prizes for everybody but the judges.
Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims (Groklaw) Posted Jun 30, 2006 16:46 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] well said. its amazing how long this has been allowed to continue, we are likely looking at a decade of activity in the courts on this, maybe longer. while there is an entitlement to due process, and the judges are clearly having fun watching this draw out, someone somehwere needs to keep in mind that the courts are a public resource. there are cases sitting in a queue that likely deserve attention....at what point does a higher level judge come in and say "in thirty days you will be hearing a new case."???
that said i am sure i am hopelessly naive about abuse of the courts by business, i am sure there are many examples of multi-decade debacles that literally swallow entire careers.
Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims (Groklaw) Posted Jun 30, 2006 17:28 UTC (Fri) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] The judges aren't keeping this going for their entertainment. They'rebeing thorough in order to keep from being overturned on appeal.
Contempt fo Court Posted Jul 1, 2006 6:37 UTC (Sat) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Sorry, but that fails to explain why nobody has been jailed for contempt of court for violating one court order after another.
Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims (Groklaw) Posted Jun 29, 2006 20:03 UTC (Thu) by wilreichert (subscriber, #17680) [Link] Lesse,
294 total claims - (198 desired dismissals - 10 rejected dismissals) =
106 left. Not bad. I may yet live to see the end of this.
|
|||||||||||||