Beta
×

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!

SCO Missing 16,209 Files?

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the a-few-here-a-few-there dept.

The Courts 273

FileSortingZombie writes "After all the allegations by SCO that IBM is abusing or dragging out the discovery process, over in this story on Groklaw you can read about IBM's objections to what SCO is producing in discovery, not the least of which is that there are suddenly 16,209 fewer files in the privilege log, and IBM wants to know what's become of them. Are they unprivileged, lost, destroyed, already produced, or quite simply gone? As of yet, no one seems to know. All told, IBM found fault with some 76% of their claims, especially one case where IBM says that SCO appears to be trying to claim that a conversation it had with an IBM employee should be considered confidential. One helpful Groklaw reader went so far as to put up this analysis of the complaint on his Web site for those interested in just how objectionable IBM found SCO's filing."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

DAmn (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346422)

Is this crap still going on? This hasn't been thrown out yet?

Re:DAmn (1)

g0dzuki (879027) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346448)

I thought SCO would have crawled under a log to hide from there humilty by now...

Re:DAmn (4, Informative)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346509)

Who says they haven't? Right now it's IBM and others pressing the issue forth in what seems like an attempt to bury this case forever.

Re:DAmn (4, Insightful)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346494)

The marketing firm known as SCO has of course deep pokets due to their financing and elimination of any productive branches of their business.

Not only have they marketed their Linux FUD, but appearantly they are good at marketing themselves as valuable as well. Else why would any sane company continue to fun this obvious lawyers party?

Re:DAmn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346535)

SCO is like the toilet in a public restroom that been broken for years, yet never gets fixed because the shit in it has been there so long no one want to go anywhere near it.

Re:DAmn (0, Offtopic)

KDN (3283) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346552)

Not as long as Microsoft can find them funding. Their plan is to keep the lawsuits up as long as possible to give them as much time as possible to finish shorthorn, I mean longhorn. Whoops, I meant as long as possible to get Longhorn up to beta quality so they can sell it.

Haha! (5, Funny)

slashalive (853666) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346425)

Gotta hope they didnt empty their trashbins!

Re:Haha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346655)

Pehaps they should have used a better backup solution.

This is not SPAM, it is honestly funny.. if you like over the top British humor.

backuptrauma.com [backuptrauma.com]

I have nothing to do with these people and there are no kick-backs for linking to them.

Doh... Just make it disappear... (2, Funny)

ThatWeasel (113982) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346430)

If you can't beat them, then make it disappear...

Re:Doh... Just make it disappear... (3, Insightful)

KinkifyTheNation (823618) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346646)

If you can't beat them, destroy all evidence that you tried.

Re:Doh... Just make it disappear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346697)

SCO are onto another winner there then. "Destroy the evidence" worked out well for the Enron executives.

analysis link contains no data (5, Insightful)

gwn (594936) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346434)

... seems to be the nature of SCO's whole case...

(the link produced errors when first posted.)

Re:analysis link contains no data (3, Funny)

Randy Wang (700248) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346436)

Wow. Almost makes me wonder if they just ran out of toner for their printer. :-)

Re:analysis link contains no data (1)

dascritch (808772) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346667)

Sir. We should apologize about producing proof we cannot present, as they have mysteriously disapeared. All of them. Please, do not blame us being outrageous at the Court, we can explain that : It's Henry. In 1997, Henry downloaded games and other stuff from the internet. And he gets a virus. This malicious program was downoloaded from a finnish ftp server. This virus prevented us of printing and destroyed all our archives. We just discovered that. But we have proof that IBM stolen us the concept : they made an advertising about this sad story. (sorry, I just madde humor about a old IBM advertiqing, and in French, the name of the falwty employee was Henry).

Re:analysis link contains no data (1, Funny)

Leon Yendor (216067) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346703)

Sir. We should apologize about producing proof we cannot present, as they have mysteriously disapeared. All of them. Please, do not blame us being outrageous at the Court, we can explain that : It's Henry. In 1997, Henry downloaded games and other stuff from the internet. And he gets a virus. This malicious program was downoloaded from a finnish ftp server. This virus prevented us of printing and destroyed all our archives. We just discovered that. But we have proof that IBM stolen us the concept : they made an advertising about this sad story. (sorry, I just madde humor about a old IBM advertiqing, and in French, the name of the falwty employee was Henry)

Too verbose! What you wanted to say is: "The dog ate my homework!"

Coincidental (5, Insightful)

treff89 (874098) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346445)

This is a great example of the corporate corruption plaguing the courts and, ultimately, the globe. Why were these files not seized by court officials if they are so important? In any case, IMHO there should be some form of penalty applied to SCO if these documents really could have had significant sway in terms of the court case. This is a criminal offence? (IANAL)

Take Your Anti-Corporate Nonsense Elsewhere (5, Insightful)

mfh (56) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346503)

We are lucky to have something Marshall Berman [penguingroup.com] has enlightened us about and it's called modern progress -- companies can learn and evolve. They don't have to stay the same! They can change!

This is a great example of the corporate corruption plaguing the courts and, ultimately, the globe.

Just because people set up a corporation for the purpose of defrauding an industry -- don't blame all corporations. If we held every single corporation to blame for incorrect practices of employees and management, the economy would collapse. What many businesses are missing today are change mechanisms. Every company is doing something wrong right now. It's the duty of those who work there that see the impropriety to blow the whistle on bad practices, internally and if that fails, externally. If the company in question has the correct business systems in place to enable internal practice auditing to occur, then the company will survive.

Certain people are responsible for SCO's incorrect business philosophy. Let the focus be on them, and what they did wrong, and how they manipulated little old lady stockholders into shelling out big bucks for no reason whatsoever.

Re:Take Your Anti-Corporate Nonsense Elsewhere (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346616)

Certain people are responsible for SCO's incorrect business philosophy. Let the focus be on them, and what they did wrong,...

That's one of the main criticisms of corporations. All the privileges of citizens*, none of the responsibility.


* although these days they seem to have more privilege than citizens

Re:Take Your Anti-Corporate Nonsense Elsewhere (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346905)

Does your statement mean you have not yet incorporated? .... just asking! :)

Re:Take Your Anti-Corporate Nonsense Elsewhere (1)

Doogie Howser (65040) | more than 9 years ago | (#12347098)

That's one of the main criticisms of corporations. All the privileges of citizens*, none of the responsibility. * although these days they seem to have more privilege than citizens
No no, all legal entities are equal. But some legal entities are more equal than others.

Didn't you read Animal Farm?

Take Your Corporate Apoglism Nonsense Elsewhere (0, Flamebait)

hyfe (641811) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346728)

we held every single corporation to blame for incorrect practices of employees and management, the economy would collapse.

The current situation is not a result of a few individual isolated wrongdoings. There are fare too many of them, and lack of long-term/real perspective is so pervavise in so many aspects of the society is downright frightening.

Me, as a fairly anti-US government European see this very clearly in your foreign policy. Sanity/long-term strategy has been thrown out of the window (christ, you guys actually invaded both Afghanistan and bloody Iraq! why oh why?!) and replaced by short-term goals and quick profits. I'm fairly certain I'd find much of the same if I payed as much attention to European foreign politics as US ones, but I'm frankly too scared to look, and am starting to prefer to keep my illusions.

I think, in the end real changes come from the bottom. The poorer people in the west has had it too good for too long now, and isn't a factor to be feared anymore. I'm fairly certain, sadly enough, that is going go change.

Re:Take Your Corporate Apoglism Nonsense Elsewhere (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12347061)

christ, you guys actually invaded both Afghanistan and bloody Iraq! why oh why?!)

In case you missed it, someone flew a fucking airplane into one of our skyscrapers. An hour later, someone else did it again, this time to the building next door. Then someone flew another one into the Pentagon (a *military* installation). And yet another person drove one into the ground while trying to make a pass at the [White House|Capitol]. Turns out this was orchestrated by a looney from Afghanistan, with the full support of the Afghan government.

OF COURSE we invaded Afghanistan.

As for Iraq, well, the best explanation I can come up with is that Bush Jr is still pissed that Hussein tried to have Bush Sr killed. But that explanation kind of sucks.

Re:Take Your Corporate Apoglism Nonsense Elsewhere (4, Interesting)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 9 years ago | (#12347103)

Why oh why? Maybe democracy is more of a long-term thing than you think. Maybe a bloody war is more of a short-term thing than you think.

And please trade in your illusions for a copy of the constitutional treaty if you get to vote on it, and read it. As EU citizen I am far, far more concerned about the Brussels bohemeth then whether Bush and Cheney make more money on the Iraq war than the UN did on the food-for-oil scandal. At least the former group removed a dictator.

You're right about one thing though: poverty in the western world is virtually non-existant. It's a statistical joke defined as earning less than half the average income, so every generation nearly doubling its wealth is completely left out of the equation.

How you turn that into a sad thing, I do not know.

So relax people, the 21st century is yet another one where life is better than in the one before. Bit off-topic for a SCO discussion but seriously, some people get so pessimistic over nonsense it's frustrating.

Re:Take Your Corporate Apoglism Nonsense Elsewhere (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12347110)

Me, as a fairly anti-US government European...christ, you guys actually invaded both Afghanistan and bloody Iraq

We invaded Germany, too. You're welcome.

Re:Coincidental (5, Interesting)

Ibix (600618) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346604)

My understanding, from reading Groklaw, is that this is a list of documents that SCO claim they cannot be compelled to reveal for one reason and another (attorney-client priviledge, for example). IBM will have submitted a similar list. The list was initially submitted without court oversight by agreement of both IBM and SCO. However, the list has been re-submitted because (IIRC) SCO are challenging some items on IBM's list. SCO's list is a LOT shorter, this time around.

Why is it shorter? Could be a genuine mistake by SCO. One suggestion, again from a Groklaw poster, is that it's a tactical ploy by IBM. They agree to an initial unsupervised submission, knowing that SCO will declare (nearly) every paper they possess to be priviledged. They also know that SCO are going to challenge something on IBM's list. As soon as they do so, IBM and SCO have to re-submit their lists, with justifications for each document this time. IBM can do this easily. SCO can't because they don't have justification for much of it. IBM can then stand up and say "look at the lying little bastards, Judge" (however you say that in legalese). Just a theory (I think), but an entertaining one.

I

It only helps IBMs case all the more (2, Insightful)

puppet10 (84610) | more than 9 years ago | (#12347107)

that even though it may be a tactic, that they (SCO) happen to be lying little bastards.

Re:Contempt (2, Insightful)

Analogy Man (601298) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346644)

A few findings of contempt (with fines) and potentially disbarring some of their lawyers would push these guys back under the rocks they live under.

If the abuse of the courts is so obvious why wait for an IBM counter suit.

Re:Coincidental (3, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346914)

"if these documents really could have had significant sway in terms of the court case."

You are confusing this with a criminal case where the police seize evidence. This is a civil case, so there is a discovery process.

SCO (the party that filed the complaint in the first place) can do whatever they like with their documents, but every time they pull a stunt like this, their chances of winning this case (which were pretty much limited to litigation risk from the start) drop by an order of magnitude, and the chances that the judge will simply throw the case out of court go up to compensate. Ultimately, they could even be charged with a criminal offense, depending on how blatant it is that they did this to obscure the facts, as opposed to simple incompetence.

To look at it the other way around, imagine how awful it would be if, every time someone sued your company, your books were seized. I can just see the denial-of-service type attacks now. Want to cripple IBM? Sue them just before they file their taxes! ;-)

Re:Coincidental (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12347068)

I dont want financial penalties..

put the CTO CFO and CEO in stockades in front of the corperate headquarters for 48 hours. add police protection so their beatings are not too severe and they dont get killed.

this is the only way these pieces of crap will learn, they happily pay fines with other peopel's money, making them personally punished for their crimes is the only deterrent.

Missing? (5, Funny)

AntEater (16627) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346459)

" there are suddenly 16,209 fewer files in the privilege log"

That's awfully close to 16,384 missing files. I wonder if SCO is using MS Excel to keep track of their privilege log.

Re:Missing? (2, Funny)

treff89 (874098) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346469)

Yes,Excel destroyed the documents! It probably self-destructed (decompiled?) upon seeing so much anti-Microsoft information and lawsuit documents on the machine, and didn't want to go down without a fight :P

Re:Missing? (4, Funny)

LosManos (538072) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346496)

hi.

>That's awfully close to 16,384 missing files. I wonder if SCO is
>using MS Excel to keep track of their privilege log.

More probably they are using old intel processors.

/OF

Re:Missing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12347071)

More probably they are using old intel processors.

And since new operating systems no longer run on them at decent speed, they decided to do the calculations on Windows 3.1 Calculator, thus increasing the error even further...

*bonnnng* Bring out yer old jokes! *bonnnng* Bring out yer old jokes!

Re:Missing? (1, Funny)

William Robinson (875390) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346675)

I am sure it is Y2K bug.

They must be having 175 more files. :D

Please Please Please (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346478)

Don't bring the insane stupidity of Groklaw over here. We're aware that there's a site called "Groklaw" that talks about pretty much nothing but SCO. Great, fantastic. Don't give a shit.

Some of the worst legal analysis I've seen, but since its target audience is laymen sheeple, they don't know better.

Finally, an expert (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346508)

I just wanted to express my gratitude, that finally a legal expert wheighs in on /. with his well founded, well researched, well argued analysis of groklaw.

Just looking at the wealth of arguments you present to proof your point that groklaw is presenting "some of the worst legal analysis" you have seen during your distinguished legal career (well, I'm sure it was a very distinguished career, unfortunately you are so modest as to post as an anonymous coward, so as not draw the attention, that of course would be well deserved, to your person, but instead focus on the topic at hand, which of course leaves readers in the dark about exactly how distinguished your career was) makes my head spin.

Aweinspiring and impressive.
Thank you so much!

Re:Please Please Please (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346631)

I agree.

PJ should get a life and get laid, too. I'm willing to help with the latter.

Re:Please Please Please (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346724)

Dude, she's, like, 48.

Re:Please Please Please (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346730)

So? I like mature women.

sick, sick, sick (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346870)

god, you milf fetishists are almost as bad as the furries.

furries are too scared to act out their bestiality fantasies in real life, so they dress up as animals and then have sex.

you people are too afraid of either strong, independent women who could turn you down, or deep down inside you want to fuck your mother.

"Lost" files ? (1)

Digital Warfare (746982) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346481)

"How convenient"
/Homer Simpson

Who cares ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346482)

SCO is dead anyway.

Have they checked behind the copy machines? (3, Funny)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346495)

If they're not there, they should try accusing their Chinese employees of espionage.

Works every time!

Re:Have they checked behind the copy machines? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346674)

It just works

I KNOW this goes without saying.... (3, Informative)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346519)

but Groklaw DOES cheerfully accept donations. I'm also sure that you went over and gave P.J. at least a couple of bucks didn't you? Didn't you?

You know folks the cure for FUD is an informed populace. God Bless you PJ. There is a place in heaven for you.

Re:I KNOW this goes without saying.... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346570)

but Groklaw DOES cheerfully accept donations. I'm also sure that you went over and gave P.J. at least a couple of bucks didn't you? Didn't you?

Why? IBM is paying the lawyers... you know, the guys who wrote the material. Feldegast transcribed it. iBiblio is paying for the hosting. Why in hell should I be giving money to PJ?

Consider giving money to people who write free software (ie, GNOME), or people who maintain free software (ie, Debian), or people who defend the legality of free software (ie, FSF), but not to people who merely commentate on what other people are doing (ie, CmdrTaco, ESR, PJ). There are enough people out there who will talk endlessly for free. You don't have to pay for it.

Re:I KNOW this goes without saying.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346607)

What does "commentate" mean?

Re:I KNOW this goes without saying.... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346657)

From WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) [wn]:

commentate
v 1: make a commentary on
2: serve as a commentator, as in sportscasting

Re:I KNOW this goes without saying.... (1)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346988)

She collates the data and buys the court paperwork.

How much of an easier time would SCO have without bringing everything into the light?

How much of a shadow would still be on Linux because what happened in court stayed in court?

Hey! I cheerfully accept donations, too (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346897)

You won't believe what lawyers are like when you can't pay them!

Darl

Re:Hey! I cheerfully accept donations, too (0, Offtopic)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346934)

Well, Anonymous Coward does contribute a lot to this site. How do I donate to you without compromising your anonymity?

It seems (-1, Flamebait)

Idiotech (838541) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346521)

as if SCO is being run by Hillary Clinton. Quick, someone check for the missing files in the CEO's bedroom!

And to prevent invasion, (2, Funny)

lottameez (816335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346574)

all Saddam has to do is show us where the missing files are.

Re:And to prevent invasion, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346672)

While we're on that topic, did you see the news?

GWB, the lying sack of holier-than-thou shit, has run out of yet another excuse [washingtonpost.com] .

Re:It seems (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346658)

As a European I really hope that when you finally elect a female president, it will be Hillary.

Re:It seems (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346764)

Why? So you can take over the world?

I Dont want to be SCO. (5, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346529)

With many of their lawsuits being thrown out of court, It is just makings IBMs counter Suit so much easier. IBM at least early on in the process asked many of its larger customers to report to them any Time loss due to this lawsuit, including meeting on changing strategy away from Linux or talking about purchasing the Linux License. IBM seems to have a big counter suit coming that will probably cripple SCO. But they will wait untill SCO empties its funds before IBM fights back.

Re:I Dont want to be SCO. (1, Informative)

lheal (86013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346863)

>countersuit coming that will probably cripple SCO....

That's so wrong it's right, in a vacuous sort of way. None of their lawsuits are being "thrown out", but they aren't winning them by any stretch of the imagination.

There won't be anything left of The SCO Group to "cripple" after their half of the litigation. They are dying by their own sword - the strategy of prolonging and delaying, filing multiple suits, changing their complaint periodically, etc. They are running out of money.

The case has never been about winning, IMHO, but all about the insiders milking the stock. The FUD game was just a part of that (as it certainly wasn't designed to win a lawsuit, only perhaps to achieve a lucrative settlement).

If there is anything left of The SCO Group before the countersuits or not, IBM will leave a smoking crater. At the center of the crater will be a sign, etched in Google, saying:

Herein Lies The SCO Group
These fools messed with IBM, drew the ire of the Free and Open Source Software community, and brought on their own doom. Be warned.

The IBM countersuit will use, among other things, the Lanham Act to pierce the corporate veil, bringing Ralph Yarro and Darl McBride to justice. They'll all be left penniless, bankrupt, and imprisoned.

There won't be two atoms left to stack on one another.

tech support please (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346536)

finally got around to installing XP SP2 and now i get the goddamn ding.wav nearly every time I "open in new window" in IE (right click or shift click)..... popup blocker is turned off and so is play a sound...

Re:tech support please (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346775)

Install a proper operating system instead you retard.

Re:tech support please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346851)

No way. I want to be able to run real software like Office and Photoshop.

Re:tech support please (-1, Offtopic)

Dr.Opveter (806649) | more than 9 years ago | (#12347079)

- stop opening new windows in IE
- actually, don't use IE at all
- set soundscheme to no sounds
- delete ding.wav
- delete *.wav
- etc.

Missing documents (4, Interesting)

budgenator (254554) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346542)

The thought occurred to me is that if SCOX, seems to have removed 16209 files from their privilege logs without reason, most likely clerical errors ect.; how is anyone ever going to trust them to maintain anything as complicated as a source tree?

I feel sorry - (4, Insightful)

spungo (729241) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346561)

for SCO's customers. Ok - the management should be put in front of the firing squad, but the bulk of their employees and their customer base will turn out to be the real victims here. An ideal solution to this fiasco would be the incarceration of McBride/Stowell, and some reputable outfit picking up Unixware and OpenServer for a song, and continuing with their support.

Re:I feel sorry - (3, Funny)

argent (18001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346678)

I feel sorry for SCO's customers.

Me too, but I've always felt sorry for SCO's customers. I've been one. And, well, even when SCO was real SCO it wasn't very nice being a SCO customer.

I don't know if I want to go into details. I'd be hear all day, and I need to be watching my blood pressure.

Re:I feel sorry - (1, Flamebait)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346974)

for SCO's customers.
Why? They've had lots of time to switch. Its not like there aren't alternatives out there, you know.

If they're too lazy/stupid/whatever to realize what's going on, then they deserve to be left high and dry.

Same with the employees. No excuse not to have left that stinking pile of crap early on. Perhaps a better tactic for SCO employees would be to lie on your resume and say you were in jail for the last 5 years than admit you worked for SCO. Time will tell. These people are unemployable now.

And to all those people who say that "they can't quit - they have a family, etc", that's like saying the Pope couldn't quit the Hitler Youth because he didn't want to be "re-educated" - others made the hard choices he shied away from, and paid for it, such as Hans and Sophie Scholl. Only 80% to 90% joined, so it wasn't impossible to avoid it. Neither the Pope nor SCO employees have an excuse. And as with the pope, Time WIll Tell!

financial nuke (1)

mockm (678892) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346565)

someone just needs to hostile takeover sco and be done with them. they are as almost as bad as the riaa. just annoying enough to cause problems with progress.

Re:financial nuke (1)

Loco3KGT (141999) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346829)

That's what SCO wants to happen because it makes SCO a piss load of money. That's why IBM isn't doing it.

Re:financial nuke (1)

mockm (678892) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346853)

yeah, it's sad. so, how long till sco suffers from a chapter 11 filing? is there any relief in our future?

Inside Baseball Leading /.ers to Law School? (5, Interesting)

stupidnickname (513210) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346576)

This doesn't seem like a stunning development in the case; more of a minor "whoops" with a variety of possible explanations. The documents now seemingly not covered by privilege may or may not be informative, the "whoops" may or may not have been strategic and/or intentional, those documents still claimed as privileged may or may not be disputed based upon lack of information demonstrating the privilege. But it's still inside baseball: there's nothing so new here as to warrant a major news flash.

What is interesting, at least to me, is the possibility that The SCO Group has unwittingly created an entire generation of technically literate individuals who have also closely followed the inside working of a major lawsuit. Through PJ and Groklaw, and secondarily through /. and other sources, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of individuals have read actual court documents, debated the meaning of standing, venue, attorney-client privilege, chain of evidence, discovery, and god knows what else.

This must be resulting in some sort of predisposition in young technogeeks for law school, or at least for thinking about legal issues. I don't want to say that it's a substitute for sitting through a contract law course, or even a legal textbook, but reading a year of comments on Groklaw must be preparing generations of youngish technology people for pursuing law as a career. It's like a real-time moot court on technology issues. The technically-minded can be drawn to the law as just another complex system, one with its own terminology, protocols, communications systems, manuals. Possibly, through following the inside baseball of this case, they might develop enough of an interest in law to choose to hack that system.

We'll call them the "SCO generation".

Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346610)

"We'll call them the "SCO generation"."
There is no need for insults. ;-D

Other than that, you are of course absolutely right. Thinkin about it, there is even one thing scarier, there are now a lot of people who are at least to some extend familiar with the american legal system through following this case, but who are not even americans.

I often get the feeling that I know more about the workings of the american legal system than I know about the workings of the legal system of my country (germany).

Scary, somehow.

Re:Inside Baseball Leading /.ers to Law School? (2, Funny)

Pop69 (700500) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346670)

Just what the world needs, more fucking lawyers.

Re:Inside Baseball Leading /.ers to Law School? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346752)

Hey, don't diss the lawyers.

I'm sleeping with one cute lawyer.

Re:Inside Baseball Leading /.ers to Law School? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346812)

If all you're doing is sleeping, what's the point ?

Re:Inside Baseball Leading /.ers to Law School? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346994)

This doesn't seem like a stunning development in the case; more of a minor "whoops" with a variety of possible explanations.

Whether this is an "whoops" or not, the issue is that privileged documents are documents that TSCOG has said are relevent to the lawsuit, but protected from discovery for various reasons.

Suddenly, apparently, they are no longer privileged, so if they are relevent to the lawsuit, but not protetcted by privilege, then IBM has every right to demand that TSCOG produce them in discovery.

Only one thing for it... (4, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346580)

Paging Mr. Sarbanes and Mr. Oxley... [s-ox.com]

Surely *some* of those 16,000 and change documents are going to be covered by Sarbanes Oxley's data retention requirements. Do Darl McBride and Ralph Yarro have some kind of sado-masochistic desire to be investigated by the SEC or something, because this sure sounds like a hunting license to me.

What would they know? (2, Informative)

elronxenu (117773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346930)

In that document [s-ox.com] the authors make the erroneous claim that:
"The total number of electronic records produced on the planet is expected to double every 60 minutes over a 10-year period."

That would mean that one hour from now, the number of electronic records created has doubled, in two hours it's 4 times, in 3 hours its 8 times, and so on, for the next 10 years.

2 to the power of 87600 (number of hours in 10 years) is a decimal number with 26,371 digits. Contrast this to one estimate of the count of the number of atoms in the observable universe (a number with 79 digits). The claim is clearly nonsensical.

The quote is attributed to:

"1 Rich Lysakowski & Zahava Leibowitz, Titanic 2020 - A Call To Action."

I checked out that paper and the original authors say something quote different. They say:

"At the current rate, the number of records will double in 5 years, and double again less than 3 years later. If the number of records continues to grow at the same rate of growth as that of the human population, the numbers are staggering; simple math tells us that within 10 years, the number of records produced on the planet could be doubling every 60 minutes."

The authors are referring to a decrease in the amount of time required for the number of records on earth to increase. So eventually (within 10 years) they expect the rate to increase to a point where eventually the number will double after only 60 minutes. This may be possible, but such a rate clearly cannot be maintained for very long.

SCO (-1, Offtopic)

Wookie_StarFire (782420) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346643)

Now I understand why the USA is suddenly filled with white trash nerds and geeks selling files on the streets for a low price. Claiming that this is the GOOD stuff unlike their colleagues who sell weapons and drugs. :P

No effect on SCO stocks anymore (5, Insightful)

AnuradhaRatnaweera (757812) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346665)

There was a time every single news item on the case used to boost the value of SCO scocks. Not anymore; the hype has died down [yahoo.com] .

Is this the same SCO ??? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346676)

In the late 1970's Microsoft licensed UNIX source code from AT&T which at the time was not licensing the name UNIX. Therefore Microsoft created the name Xenix. Microsoft did not sell Xenix to end-users but instead licensed the software to software OEMs such as Intel, Tandy, Altos and SCO who then provided a finished version of their own Xenix to the end-users or other customers. SCO introduced its first version of Xenix named SCO Xenix System V for the Intel 8086 and 8088 in 1983. Today SCO Xenix is one of the more commonly used and found versions of Xenix.

Linux was based on Minix. A UnixLite OS designed to run on PCs. However, it was really only a teaching tool. Andrew Tanenbaum repeatedly refused to add the new (legitimate) features the users and even developers asked for. Linus Torvalds set out simply to add functionality to his own version of Minix (the copyright allows use to do so for your own personal use, but you cannot sell or distibute it).

Over time, in adding functionality to Minix, Linus Torvalds found that he had created an entirely new kernel. I was very similar to Minix but used none of the Minix source code. Torvalds had originally called it freax, for "`free' + `freak' + the obligatory `-x'. The operator of the FTP server where Linus' new kernel made its debut didn't like the name and simply called it Linux (Linus + Unix). People seemed to like the name so it stuck.

Re:Is this the same SCO ??? (2, Insightful)

Shag (3737) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346825)

No, this is not the same SCO. From my hazy, it's 2:30 AM memory:

The Santa Cruz Operation was, by somewhere in the late '90s or so, not doing so well. Strangely, people seemed interested in this newfangled "Linux" thing. So SCO got borged by Caldera. I forget whether Caldera was already part of the Canopy group at that point, or became a part of it later, but bits of Caldera went into what's now called The SCO Group and what's now called... Tarantella, if I recall.

Utterly wrong on so many levels... (4, Informative)

titzandkunt (623280) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346883)


"Linux was based on Minix. A UnixLite OS designed to run on PCs. However, it was really only a teaching tool. Andrew Tanenbaum repeatedly refused to add the new (legitimate) features the users and even developers asked for. Linus Torvalds set out simply to add functionality to his own version of Minix (the copyright allows use to do so for your own personal use, but you cannot sell or distibute it).

Over time, in adding functionality to Minix, Linus Torvalds found that he had created an entirely new kernel. I was very similar to Minix but used none of the Minix source code..."


(Who modded the preceeding garbage "Informative!?)

Linux began as a development that was hosted on a pc running Minix. Linus set out, from the start, to create a posix compatible kernel of his very own. The idea that he created the kernel by accident is as laughable as it is insulting.

See here [uiuc.edu] for a a rather more factual account of the development of the Linux kernel.

T&K.

What is a "privilege log"? (3, Interesting)

RedLaggedTeut (216304) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346702)

Well, I am still not fully sure what a privilege log is but it seems to be a list of documents which were compiled between SCO and its lawyers and are to be protected from court enquiry.

I guess IBM can be happy that these documents are missing from the list now, since it means they can try to subpoena them.

Hmmm... (4, Interesting)

dadjaka (827325) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346709)

It makes you wonder. They sent out mail asking for money to make Linux 'legal', and yet they can't keep track of simple files. Hate to think where my money would have gone had I been dumb enough to actually pay up.

Missing, presumed er.. gone? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346715)

Nah, they will probably be found on a field somewhere using a scythe.. :)

Oh come on (0, Redundant)

meester fox (877084) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346748)

How conveniant that files just went "missing" like that. Gotta give SCO an A+ for brains. What were they thinking? "gee, nobody will think that maybe we removed them on purpose"

it's in the same place as their evidence (-1)

suezz (804747) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346755)

must be in the same place as their evidence.

missing.

I guess by now everyone agrees... (1)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346772)

... that what SCO did was an incredibly stupid idea.
Frankly, I'm not even interested in SCO bulletins anymore.

Mirror Anyone? (1)

lbmouse (473316) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346778)

One helpful Groklaw reader went so far as to put up this analysis of the complaint on his Web site and quickly had his server turned into a smoldering pile of ashes after the link was posted on Slashdot.

Is there a mirror anywhere?

So that's where Ollie North went... (4, Funny)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346789)

I always wondered what happened to him... looks like he's been very busy at the shredders again...

Re:So that's where Ollie North went... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12347010)

Oh no, that was Hillary C. you saw at the shredder, sometimes she looks like a man.

They were stolen! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346815)

Guess by whom.

Re:They were stolen! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346911)

Satan?

I'd claim Haig McNamee to be confidential too (2, Funny)

DoorFrame (22108) | more than 9 years ago | (#12346913)

I mean seriously, Haig McNamee, that's got to be a fake name right? McNamee? It sounds like someone couldn't remember the last name of the guy they talked to at IBM, thought it was Irish, and just threw McNamee down on the page. They're probably trying to protect it because it makes them look really stupid and a little bit racist.

Just a guess.

Re:I'd claim Haig McNamee to be confidential too (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12347028)

Google reports 450,000 results for "mcnamee".

It appears to be a very common name :)

cu8 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12346954)

Not Missing! (5, Insightful)

WPIDalamar (122110) | more than 9 years ago | (#12347003)

Good lord people, these documents aren't somehow gone. Go RTFA.

1. A while back they claimed a whole bunch of documents as privileged.
2. Now they don't.

What's "missing" is an explanation of why, not the documents themselved. Since they're not privleged, it would go to reason that IBM can now compell them to turn all of those over, only when they do this will we learn if the documents are missing.

The fact that it's taking so long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12347008)

just scares me about what would have happened if it wasn't SCO vs IBM but any small Linux based business vs SCO. In my opinion this just proves how corrupt courts can be: if law was truly money-blind, SCO shouldn't have been allowed to live six months after they made those obviously false claims.

i haven't really been following this case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12347011)

so can someone tell me what is so special about these privilege logs ? What are they logs of and how would they go missing.. (i'm assuming they're digital with backups? )

They should look... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12347017)

in Blepp's briefcase.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?