Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Darl McBride Takes the Stand In Novell v. SCO

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the utah's-own-information-minister dept.

Caldera 138

UnknowingFool writes "Everyone's favorite CEO Darl McBride took the stand on Wednesday April 30 in Novell v. SCO. Chris Brown has posted his account on Groklaw of the 2nd day of trial. The first day's account can be found here. To refresh your memory in this ongoing case, Judge Kimball has already ruled that Novell owns the copyrights to Unix and has practically dismissed all of SCO's claims. This portion of the trial is about Novell's counterclaims that SCO never paid them the money from the Sun and MS deals. What is to be determined in this trial is how much of the money from the deals were for Unix licensing (SVRx) and how much were for SCO's server technology (Unixware)." (Read on for the rest, below.)UnknowingFool continues:

"Reading the account, it seems that the SCO folks are currently trying to delicately separate Unixware and SVRx. However Novell's lawyers are quickly pointing out in the past where SCO made no distinction between SVRx and Unixware in their literature or press releases. In day 1's account, SCO's tree picture shows Unix as SCO IP (Unix).

Also SCO's position is that it owes Novell nothing because the deals to MS and Sun were Unixware deals and not SCOSource deals (the much despised Linux licensing program) or SVRx deals. Novell points out fatal flaws in SCO's arguments. Sun wanted the ability to open source some of their Solaris code (which became OpenSolaris). Solaris and Unixware both branched from SVR4 so they would need permission from the owner of SVRx copyrights, not the Unixware owner. That owner is Novell. The MS deal is a little different in that MS wanted Unixware rights AND rights to legacy Unix (SVRx).

The best part of the cross-examination was Darl refusing to admit that the MS and Sun deals were not SCOSource, but Novell showing SCO's financial statements (10Q) where both deals were listed under SCOSource and not Unixware revenue."

cancel ×

138 comments

I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267094)

I have (via Ars Technica) some interesting comments from his testimony [arstechnica.com] yesterday. He stated (under oath):

... many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers ... We have evidence System V is in Linux ... When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on 'How to Program UNIX' but when you go to the Linux section and look for 'How to Program Linux' you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist. Linux is a copy of UNIX, there is no difference [between them].
This flies directly in the face of what SCO found in extensive investigations in 2002 and did not correspond with what SCO Senior Vice President Chrs Sontag just finished testifying earlier that day.

Also, as to his book remark, he didn't [amazon.com] look very hard [amazon.com] !

Mmmmmm, that's some good perjury!

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267136)

This flies directly in the face of what SCO found in extensive investigations in 2002 and did not correspond with what SCO Senior Vice President Chrs Sontag just finished testifying earlier that day.
Wait... you're going to claim that Darl McBride is a liar?!?!? I'm totally shocked!

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267164)

Mmmmmm, that's some good perjury!

I'm sure most of us would love to see McBride behind bars (I know I would), but I'm afraid it probably won't happen. In our plutocracy no rich, powerful man goes to prison unless a richer, more powerful man wants him there.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267208)

But is he really all that rich now? I'm assuming most of his money was probably tied into company stock that's worth less than toilet paper at this point.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23267540)

But is he really all that rich now? I'm assuming most of his money was probably tied into company stock that's worth less than toilet paper at this point.
Well, that's still worth more than the dollar. That's Federal Reserve!

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (2, Informative)

DaveInAustin (549058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267558)

Actually, Darl managed to sell [korgwal.com] quite a few shares between the time the lawsuit was announced and when the stock tanked. That is, during the time when he was telling the press about the "rocket scientists" who found the "millions of lines of code".

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268622)

Hmm, perjury, plus a possible insider-trading rap. Sounds like the kind of thing that could send him to a pound-you-in-the-ass federal pen.

-sigh-

We can only hope.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

chromatic (9471) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269654)

We can only hope.

Why would you ever wish prison rape on anyone?

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23269744)

That's actually a reference out out of the movie Office Space. In that film, there is a reference to two types of prisons; the comfortable resort-like prisons that most white-collar felons go to (Club Fed), and the harsher prisons that more hardened criminals get sent to (the "pound me in the ass prison").
So anytime someone on this forum makes a reference to a PMITA prison, they are only referring to the second prison type -- not necessarily condoning the activity that goes on there.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (2, Insightful)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269860)

Sorry if I seem insensitive. I do not wish rape - prison or otherwise - on anyone. I am only wishing federal prison upon him for the (apparent) perjury and insider trading.

I'm not saying that I want him to *literally* get screwed. Metaphorically, sure. It's about time he and the other greedy, souless suits at SCO receive a taste of what they dished out in their vicious, deceitful battle against Linux and the software industry in general. "We can only hope" they see prison time, because I think these millionaire weasels will probably wriggle out of it one way or another. What happens after they get there ... well, that's not up to me.

Anyway, since I assume you didn't see the movie, the pound-you-in-the-ass bit is a quote from Office Space. I probably got it a little wrong. If I did, I'm sure a trivia nazi, er, I mean, helpful slashdotter, will show up and correct me.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267692)

I would assume that he sold some of the stock before it went down the tubes, unless he's just stupid.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268058)

I'm assuming most of his money was probably tied into company stock that's worth less than toilet paper at this point.

I thought the whole point of the pump'n'dump was to dump after pumping.

  • 1. Announce lawsuit leading people to speculate SCO will get a big judgement or license fees. Price goes up.
  • 2. Sell SCO stock.
  • 3. Profit.
  • 4. SCO loses and stock price falls, but this no longer concerns you.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269210)

But is he really all that rich now? I'm assuming most of his money was probably tied into company stock that's worth less than toilet paper at this point.

Though I disagree about the "plutocracy" statement Darl could have unloaded a lot of stock before the company tanked.

Falcon

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267248)

In our plutocracy no rich, powerful man goes to prison unless a richer, more powerful man wants him there.

When all is said and done most male slashdotters will qualify as richer and more powerful than McBride.

Let's make this thing happen !

I'm pretty sure (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267360)

I'm pretty sure that CEO of a $1M market cap company doesn't qualify him for rich and powerful status.

Re:I'm pretty sure (1)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267368)

Especially when you're stock is worth less than a roll of Charmin.

BLAST (0)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267396)

your*

Re:BLAST (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268086)

They all got a lot of options, so if by some miracle they can win this thing they should do well.

Re:I'm pretty sure (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268016)

unless you sold all/most of that stock when it was worth significantly more.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267648)

Well I don't think this is a plutocracy but if you want to take it from that point of view fine.
IBM wants to see McBride in jail. It would be a lovely show of force and the danger of messing with Big Blue in Big Blue's back yard.
So from your view point I would say McBride is looking at some hard time.
I on the other hand would bet he is just an idiot that listened to other idiots and believed every word he said.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267916)

The reason I consider it a plutocracy is because if you have enough money, you can "contribute" to both major party candidates, and whichever one loses won't matter to you because the winning politician will now be beholden to you. A big enough campaign bribe and you can get any legislation you want passed.

Even though Bill Gates lives in Washington state, he has more pull with my Senators and Congressmen than I, an Illinois resident and voter, do.

And if a monied bigwig from IBM does in fact want McBride in prison, then there's still hope!

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268138)

I don't think that anybody with enough money can get any legislation they want passed. There are still limits.
But I would bet that their are more than a few big wigs at IBM, and maybe even Intel, and AMD that would like to see it as well.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23268174)

IBM wants to see McBride in jail.
Who fears the Nazgul? Even hobbits can take them on.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268032)

You don't think that IBM has any number of shareholders who are richer and more powerful than Darl McBride?

-jcr

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269090)

Sure it does. But do you really think they care ? Different from the average /.er, they are out for money, not blood. And putting Darl in jail won't give me a penny.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23268142)

Mmmmmm, that's some good perjury!

I'm sure most of us would love to see McBride behind bars (I know I would), but I'm afraid it probably won't happen. In our plutocracy no rich, powerful man goes to prison unless a richer, more powerful man wants him there.
Have you seen how deep Novell's pockets are?

At this point I'm pretty sure their pissed at McBride - if he's not behind bars, he'll probably be dead in less than 24 months. Novell's got some OLD Family connections...

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269688)

"More powerful man wants him there."
Is there something on backup media?
Something of interest to cold war historians?
Something of interest to security experts?

Or is it all a known known?

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267186)

He was also grilled over statements in their 10-Q that were, shall we say, at odds with what he was trying to say on the stand.

Novell confronted him and he angrily accused them of calling him a liar. Their rejoinder was that he had just claimed that he told the truth on their 10-Q.

In other words, he was trapped by his own words :]

I'm surprised his pants didn't burst into flames.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267590)

no but I bet there was a small oder as he got up.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267838)

He will probably claim that he simply "Misspoke" :-)

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267944)

He claimed that the licenses weren't SCOsource when the SEC filing said they were. He can't just say "oops. My bad. I didn't know what we were talking about." These licenses are pretty much the main section of the lawsuit. If a CEO takes the stand in a lawsuit without knowing the basic facts of the case, it's gross incompetence of a level that should be criminal. So either Darl is the world's biggest idiot of a CEO, or he perjured himself, or SCO lied in their SEC filing. I doubt that his ego will allow him to say "I'm the world's biggest idiot", so his only options left can have pretty severe penalties.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268362)

>So either Darl is the world's biggest idiot of a CEO, or he perjured himself, or SCO lied in their SEC filing.

I assume you are not using this as the logical OR. Clearly, any two, or more likely, all three could be true.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

graphicsguy (710710) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269052)

This is slashdot. The logical operator you are referring to is XOR. OR allows multiple operands to be true.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269354)

So either Darl is the world's biggest idiot of a CEO, or he perjured himself, or SCO lied in their SEC filing.

The The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 [wikipedia.org] requires the CEO, in this case Darl, sign that all accounting the corporation files is truthful so 2 and 3 are the same.

Falcon

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23267986)

he angrily accused them of calling him a liar.
Wow. Just wow. "Are you calling me a liar!?!" is a common tactic used by bullies when caught lying. It works great when the bully is some sort of threat. It rarely works in court, where such tactics are well understood. No one is going to back down when Darl contradicts himself just because he puffs up his chest and looks threatening.

This guy is in way over his head.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268094)

Would have been great if Novell's counsel had doubled up in laughter at that question.

-jcr

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268388)

It would have been poetic justice if the counsel for Novel said, simply "No, I am not calling you a liar. I am proving it."

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267202)

Mmmmmm, that's some good perjury!

Ah, but it's not a lie if you believe it.

See, he can be misinformed, stupid, confused, or just plain wrong ... none of which gets you convicted for perjury. He just has to believe what he's saying.

You'd have to show that he deliberately lied -- I bet any half-way decent lawyer could convince a jury that Darl doesn't really understand half of what he says, and that he's merely operating on his understanding of legal and technical briefs provided to him. Hell, half of Slashdot has spent time pointing out how clueless he is.

The claims of SCO will likely get thrown out of court. But, I can't see McBride getting thrown into the clink for perjury.

Cheers

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (2, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267304)

You'd have to show that he deliberately lied -- I bet any half-way decent lawyer could convince a jury that Darl doesn't really understand half of what he says, and that he's merely operating on his understanding of legal and technical briefs provided to him. Hell, half of Slashdot has spent time pointing out how clueless he is.

True, but thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as CEO he had to attest to the truthfulness of any financial statements. So as Novell pointed out, he was lying then or he's lying now.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269176)

Ah, but it's not a lie if you believe it.

See, he can be misinformed, stupid, confused, or just plain wrong ... none of which gets you convicted for perjury. He just has to believe what he's saying.

However he said "When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on 'How to Program UNIX' but when you go to the Linux section and look for 'How to Program Linux' you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist" which would seem to indicate he has been to bookstores lately. I know I have and I see the opposite, I see books on how to program for Linux but hardly any for Unix. Actually when it comes to books on any *nix, most deal with Linux (quite a few are Ubuntu books) while a small number of others are about Solaris, BSD, FreeBSD and such. There might be one or two about "Unix".

You'd have to show that he deliberately lied -- I bet any half-way decent lawyer could convince a jury that Darl doesn't really understand half of what he says,

Yeap, that's the hard part, proving he knew what he said was wrong.

I can't see McBride getting thrown into the clink for perjury.

He should be introduced to Bubba, his new room mate, for driving stockholders' value into the toilet.

Falcon

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (1)

YaroMan86 (1180585) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269572)

Ahem. Darl is lying, since he was told way back in 2002 by Chris Sontag there was not a single line of "their" UNIX in Linux.

Cite: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050715-5099.html [arstechnica.com]

I doubt anyone could prove he didn't know, whereas there's plenty of people now who *do* know. Shit, Chris Sontag himself testified before Darl and said he never saw evidence of UNIX in Linux that he could recall. And what does Darl say?

Linux is a copy of UNIX, there is no difference [between them].


Sorry, Darl may be an idiot, but he definitely lied here unless you can prove he somehow completely and totally forgot a big fact that would have affected his entire case. When faced with the 10-Q he obviously lied there.

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (3, Funny)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267212)

Mmmmmm, that's some good perjury!

Except, to prove perjury you would have to prove that he was knowingly making false statements, or in other worlds that he knew what he was talking about and just chose to say the opposite of what's true.

So basically you would have to prove that Darl is not an idiot. Good luck with that ;)

Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (2, Funny)

berashith (222128) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268084)

So now we understand the motives behind his actions for all this time. He wanted us to all scream about how stupid he is, and then submit the comments from /. as evidence that he didn't perjure himself.

My God, he is a genius.*

* this is the first step of destroying this evil plan

Her's hoping (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267226)

Here's hoping he performs better than Hans Reiser ... no, on second thoughts cancel that.

Re:Her's hoping (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267622)

Here's hoping that he receives the same sentence as Hans Reiser. Cheers!

Re:Her's hoping (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267828)

Here's hoping Hans Reiser charges him $699 for the idea. He can prove prior art, too.

Re:Her's hoping (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268202)

With any luck, they'll be cellmates. They deserve each other.

Re:Her's hoping (1)

javaxman (705658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268390)

Here's hoping that he receives the same sentence as Hans Reiser. Cheers!
Hans Reiser has not been sentenced yet. That happens on July 9 [mercurynews.com] .


My hope for true justice includes someone claiming rights to everything Daryl owns, requiring him to spend huge amounts of money defending his assets in court. I'd say someone should take credit for something Daryl created, but it's pretty clear that he isn't likely to create anything worth claiming rights to.

Re:Her's hoping (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23267874)

I gave Darl a blow job a few years ago in a Salt Lake fast food toilet stall. He's big. Huge, actually. Very sizeable. And he has a HUGE load, it just kept cumming. Huge globs of thick hot sticky cum. He came out of the stall looking sharp, but I just couldn't clean all the cum out of my beard and tee-shirt, it was pretty obvious that I'd been chugging cock.

Re:Her's hoping (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23268036)

It still is, pal. It still is.

please, Lord, make it stop! (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267268)

can't you just strike them down and put an end to our misery?

Re:please, Lord, make it stop! (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267702)

That is what he is doing. Bolts from the blue and frogs are so old testament.
This way McBride will know that he did wrong the entire time he is being struck down.

Re:please, Lord, make it stop! (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267712)

What? And have them become more powerful than we could possibly imagine? No. We won't make that mistake.

Re:please, Lord, make it stop! (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267954)

Misery? Our misery is over. SCO can no longer harm us. I for one don't want SCO to get a quick death at the end of a rope when the horse runs away, but a slow agonizing one as it's slowly pulled up, with SCO kicking and slowly strangling.

Besides, my popcorn isn't done popping.

Re:please, Lord, make it stop! (1)

YaroMan86 (1180585) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269588)

My only regret is this trial is only four days long!

Its entertaining watching Darl McBride perjure himself and SCO fail to make evan a defensive case after the fact they lost.

I think we can all see Novell getting money, but the dance for the money is going to be awfully fun, watching SCO's talentless lawyers trying to convince the judge that when they said red, they meant blue.

Editors ... (2, Funny)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267282)

The section logos beside the article text, in order, read as follows:

Caldera
the Courts
Unix
Novel
Tux

All together now ... CCUNT.

I guess you couldn't really leave this one out of "the courts". Either way, well done.

Re:Editors ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23267380)

Rather than "Tux" the logo shows as "Linux Business"

Re:Editors ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23268074)

Rather than "Tux" the logo shows as "Linux Business"
Caldera UNIx LINux BUSiness

CUNILINBUS

(coming to you from the get-a-life department)

Re:Editors ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23267418)

All together now ... CCUNT.
You should really get out more often. Have you considered dating?

Re:Editors ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23267698)

All together now ... CCUNT.
You should really get out more often. Have you considered dating?
I'm sure he has. Now if only he could get someone to consider dating him....

Re:Editors ... (2, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267802)

All together now ... CCUNT.


You should really get out more often. Have you considered dating?

With a stutter like that? The ladies would laugh.

Re:Editors ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23269224)

You're reading that wrong.

It's Caldera [SCO] the CUNT.

they should call it.. (2, Funny)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267496)

..UnixWars Episode V..Novell Strikes Back.

Re:they should call it.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23267716)

Your honor, Plaintiff calls 'Other Brother Darl' as a witness.

Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267506)

I'm not exactly sure how best to implement it; but it seems to me that more of our public social processes need a formal mechanism whereby blatantly factually incorrect statements can be challenged and amended. In situations like courtrooms, political debates, news shows, and whatnot, people can and do just say things that are trivially, demonstrably wrong all the time. Sometimes, their opponents call them on it; but that ends up degenerating into a game of "he said-she said". Surely it wouldn't be that hard for a venue moderator of some kind to step in and issue factual corrections. This is particularly true with media reports about such events. It should be really, really easy for a writer to do basic fact checking and, in addition to quoting the characters involved, note their factual accuracy(yeah, yeah, I know "fair and balanced" means finding two people who disagree and letting them both talk, truth is a matter of opinion, blah, blah...)

This sort of moderation wouldn't be suitable for matters of opinion or debate; but there are really a lot of things that are knowable with a high degree of confidence, particularly given our access to vast databases and recordings of past events:
Politician: "I never said "foo", I said "bar".
Moderator: "This clip is from our interview three weeks ago"*plays clip of Politician saying "foo".

It is good that we have (some) journalists who write followup articles and a bunch of bloggers who are willing to go digging after the press loses interest; but that just shouldn't be necessary for trivial falsehoods. They just aren't that hard to detect in near-realtime.

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (2, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267584)

In situations like courtrooms, political debates, news shows, and whatnot, people can and do just say things that are trivially, demonstrably wrong all the time.

No they can't.

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23267664)

Really? Found those WMDs yet?

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267890)

Really? Found those WMDs yet?

Yes.

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23267672)

You haven't been to court.

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267922)

You haven't been to court.

Of course I have; I'm a judge.

+1 funny (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267880)

I'm sure this is meant to be taken ironically.

Re:+1 funny (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267996)

Are you saying my statement was trivially and demonstrably false?

That's slander. You'll be hearing from my lawyer, Johnnie Cochran, soon.

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (3, Funny)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267618)

We can issue everyone in the court one of those little suction cup guns and put color coded flags on the end of the cup. When you shoot the person on the stand with the gun, you have to present irrefutable proof that they are wrong in what they said. If that person gets too many hits, they are asked to stand down.

+1 funny (1)

weston (16146) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268660)

Where are my mod points when I *need* them? :)

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (1)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267794)

Finding the clip of them saying something is hard in realtime, though I guess if the questions are prepared beforehand, then the clip can also be found beforehand. There's a Daily Show where a clip is actually played showing that happening to Mitt Romney during an interview, it was fun to watch.

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267806)

This sort of moderation wouldn't be suitable for matters of opinion or debate; but there are really a lot of things that are knowable with a high degree of confidence, particularly given our access to vast databases and recordings of past events:
Politician: "I never said "foo", I said "bar".
Moderator: "This clip is from our interview three weeks ago"*plays clip of Politician saying "foo".


This is why I like the Daily Show versus regular news. Regular news broadcasts a quote from a politician: "I've always been against foo!"

Daily Show shows that quote, pauses, then shows a series of quotes from the politician showing how they changed positions ("I'm all in favor of foo!" "Foo is a wonderful idea!" "We need more foo!").

I'm all for politicians changing positions. Sometimes the information that you have on hand changes and you need to modify your policy positions because of that. I'd rather have a politician who did that than one who refused to let and new information sway him from his set-in-stone position. Still, the politician should acknowledge the previous position and lay out their reasons for the change. ("Yes, I used to be in favor of foo. However, studies have now shown that foo causes cancer. Therefore, I can't in good conscience support foo any longer!") When they try to rewrite history, however, the news media should be right there calling them on it. Somewhere along the way, though, the media lost their collective spines and just became Soundbite Broadcast Networks.

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268012)

On that note, I might add a Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] story on Adam Chodikoff, the guy behind the Daily Show who apparently manages to track down all those clips of politicians saying contradictory things. IMHO, the Daily Show would be scathing but ultimately harmless satire (like the Onion) without this factor. With it, it becomes something politicians actually have to be afraid of.

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (1)

graphicsguy (710710) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269188)

Great article. Thanks for the link.

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268546)

>This is why I like the Daily Show versus regular news. Regular news broadcasts a quote from a politician: "I've always been against foo!"

Network news used to be like that. In 1972 Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern were vying for the Democratic nomination. The California Democratic primary rules stated it was winner take all delegate votes. After he lost, Hube the Cube filed suit to force the delegates to be awarded proportionally. Walter Cronkite reported the story and then showed a clip of him interviewing The Hump on the subject prior to the election. Humphrey was asked about the winner take all thing and specifically if he would sue if he lost. His answer was that the current rules were wonderful, and he would never do that. "That would make me something of a spoilsport," he said, or something close to that. There was a lot of that in CBS's coverage of the Watergate scandal as well. I really miss Uncle Walter.

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23267820)

For the political, thats basically the premise of the Daily Show, calling people on their BS

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23267904)

The formal mechanism exists.
It is called a "Friend of the court" brief.

Hard to make it timely though.

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23268180)

Isn't that what Groklaw is for? :-)

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268192)

The perfect mechanism is already in place: *drum roll* The Slashdot Poll!

With the Slashdot Poll, you too can have your debate/court case/election decided and validated.
(careful with the Cowboy Neal option though)

After all, we are mature, informed, knowledgeable, and totally unbiased here, right? *crickets chirping* Hello?

Re:Some sort of fact checking mechanism... (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269076)

Politician: "I never said "foo", I said "bar".
Moderator: "This clip is from our interview three weeks ago"*plays clip of Politician saying "foo".


I don't think interviewers often really pull this sort of thing... not for politicians or anyone.

I remember hearing an interview with Bertrand Russel (the anti-nuclear peace activist) where he was asked about his earlier support of massive pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Russia.

He flat denied ever having said such a thing.

The interviewer didn't bother to roll out the archive tapes where he was heard saying that the west *must* nuke the Soviets... just took the guy at his word...

(Russel became an anti-nuclear peace activist *after* the Soviets got the bomb, before that he was rabidly pro-nuclear-strike).

There are some FINE mechanisms already (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269782)

I'm not exactly sure how best to implement it; but it seems to me that more of our public social processes need a formal mechanism whereby blatantly factually incorrect statements can be challenged and amended. In situations like courtrooms, political debates, news shows, and whatnot, people can and do just say things that are trivially, demonstrably wrong all the time.

There are already some fine mechanisms in place that have been tested for centuries.

In courts: Cross-examination, witnesses for the other side, contempt-of-court citations, perjury charges (to name just the big four). This is what a court is ABOUT - holding an argument between two opposing sides to get to the truths that have a bearing on the issue in question.

In political debate and public political statements: Rebuttals by opponents, fact-checking and follow-on stories by a free press.

A free press is not intended to promote every press outlet getting all the facts right (even if what is right WASN'T subject to disagreement.) It's about eliminating governmental roadblocks to publication of varying points of view, in the hope that, among these biased outlets, most information and viewpoints of significance will find an outlet somewhere. (Unfortunately the dreadfully-expensive former mainstream media has fallen into a very few hands - and thus shows very few viewpoints and interpretations, and filters out or distorts much of the information of interest. But that's why the internet is replacing it.)

Just as the price of freedom is letting other people do things you like, the price of free speech is letting other people SAY things you don't like. That happens to include spin, euphemisms, and outright lies.

Restricting the debate to some perception of "truth" implies having a group of people who make the call on what is true, with the power to interfere with the publication of information and opinion that does not agree with their call. Oops!

Meanwhile, since people will continue to lie, IMHO it's just as well that they often do so in public, where others can sometimes identify their "errors" and publish them as well. This lets those watching get practice at detecting and rejecting such lies.

A successful truth-squad scheme would be like protecting your kid against contagious diseases - only to have him fall seriously ill when he finally leaves home due to an inadequately trained immune system.

bad typo (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269808)

Just as the price of freedom is letting other people do things you [DON'T] like, the price of free speech is letting other people SAY things you don't like.

(GOTTA hit "preview" more often....)

Court TV? (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267720)

Does anyone know if the trial is being broadcast anywhere? If it is, torrents would sure be appreciated.

Re:Court TV? (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267768)

I don't even think Court TV is still around. Last I heard it was TruTV and had primarily shows like "Cops" and "Worlds _____iest _____".

Re:Court TV? (1)

barzok (26681) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267824)

Well, she is wearing the world's shortiest skirt.

Transcripts (1)

Kalak (260968) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269576)

Transcripts are being purchased with the combined contributions of Groklaw readers, and will be available soon (apparently the first day's has issues with floppies). Reading is going to be better than watching days worth of trial at any rate, plus it will be court produced public record.

OS Rustling? (1)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267762)

By God, we hangs OS Rustlers around these here parts. Someone git us a rope and we can commence with the hangin'!!!

Perhaps the judge will find it in his heart to jail this Team-Killing FuckTard, or at least fine him all his assets. Truthfully he is as bad as any spammer.

ObPace (1)

rhizome (115711) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269162)

By God, we hangs OS Rustlers around these here parts.

Salt Lake City?!

Get a rope.

I Thought... (1)

Odin_Tiger (585113) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267780)

I thought that this was all over with. Or was that just some other aspect of it?

Re:I Thought... (3, Informative)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267896)

The part where they determined whether or not (and how much) SCO owned Unix is over. Now that it has been determined that Novell owns the copyrights, the questions are:

1. Did SCO sell Unix licenses and keep money that should have gone to Novell?
2. If so, how much of this does SCO owe Novell?

The main sales in this trial are the Microsoft and Sun ones. There's something like $20 million that SCO might owe Novell. (Money that SCO doesn't have even if they sold every last chair in the office.)

SCO insists, however, that the licenses weren't SCOsource licenses and thus weren't ones that Novell would be owed money for. Darl testified to this on the stand. However, SCO's own SEC filing insists that the money was SCOsource. So either SCO lied in an SEC filing or Darl perjured himself. Either way, Darl and SCO have only the barest shreds of a case left. (Unfortunately for them, that "barest shred" relies on the past few years of case history vanishing magically.)

So... (2, Funny)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267888)

...who's a cocksmoking teabagger now Darl?

I'm not dead yet! (1)

Darth McBride (749942) | more than 6 years ago | (#23267946)

It is good to see my Mickey Mouse Death star logo on the front page again.

he may not be lying this time.. (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268164)

It may be they listed it under scosource to show that scosource wasn't an unmitigated failure. A public relations stunt that is backfiring on them badly now.

Whatever, doesn't matter anyway, they are rapidly heading towards history and a fabulously lucrative book deal for PJ when she writes her history of the event.

When will they compare it to Obama v. Hillary? (1)

shanen (462549) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268182)

Oh wait, I just did. SCO has to be the ultimate metric of when a struggle has just gone on for too long.

(By the way, I don't really hate Hillary, and I don't like Obama all that much. I preferred Edwards quite strongly, and McCain is a kind of insult to the intelligence of the voters--but look at Dubya. I'm evidently wandering--but I did think of another point of comparison. Hillary has too many negatives--rather like Darl McBride, whereas I think Obama can generate the kind of positive enthusiasm I associate with Ubuntu Linux.

So now I've just donated to Obama (2nd donation--but never to Hillary), and I'd like to put it all behind me... Have I missed offending anyone yet? If you're a religious lunatic, how about if you just designate me as your "foe" now and save time?)

Jailtime for $CO fraudsters? (1)

pyrr (1170465) | more than 6 years ago | (#23268822)

While the train-wreck that is Darl is becoming more amusing by the trial, $CO's tactics are just getting silly. In Ars Technica's write-up of this trial [arstechnica.com] , not only do they mention some of Darl's more interesting statements (such as him saying that "Linux is a copy of UNIX"), but the author also points out that SCO's current strategy seems to be that, while it doesn't own the trademarks it claimed it did, all its blustering that led to Microsoft and Sun coughing-up licensing cash was erroneous and the licenses were invalid, and therefore Novell isn't entitled to any of the money $CO collected. The only recourse Microsoft and Sun would then have would be to sue $CO over their losses.

I'm inclined to hope that tactic works. Does it seem to anyone else like $CO's execs may be on the hook for committing fraud by selling things they didn't own? In the real world, most times you sell stuff that doesn't belong to you (like counterfeit or pirated software), you go to PRISON for your efforts. So why shouldn't Darl and his pals wind up behind bars for extorting money out of companies for licenses they didn't own the rights to sell?

Re:Jailtime for $CO fraudsters? (1)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | more than 6 years ago | (#23269236)

I'm inclined to hope that tactic works. Does it seem to anyone else like $CO's execs may be on the hook for committing fraud by selling things they didn't own? In the real world, most times you sell stuff that doesn't belong to you (like counterfeit or pirated software), you go to PRISON for your efforts. So why shouldn't Darl and his pals wind up behind bars for extorting money out of companies for licenses they didn't own the rights to sell?

Methinks that is why they are trying to play it "straight" and act like they were just clueless noobs that screwed up. If they were to just say, "the hell with this, I'm gonna retire," like you'd think they would want to, they would probably leave themselves open to criminal charges, SEC investigations, and other uncomfortable adventures, sooner than would happen otherwise. If they don't take the time to make like they were just idiots, they end up looking like criminals.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...