|
|
| SCO Rattles Its Nasty Saber Once Again |
 |
|
Wednesday, June 25 2003 @ 03:36 PM EDT
|
Now McBride is saying SCO can audit AIX customers during discovery.
"'As we move into discovery, this will be very nice for us because now we get to go in and talk to all their people, their customers. We get to really shake things up and get in to find out what really is going on over there,' he said.
"McBride claimed that SCO has the right to audit IBM's customers. 'We have other rights under the contract we are looking at. For example, we can audit IBM customers. SCO has audit rights on its customers,' he said."
Clearly, SCO hasn't given one thought to after this trial is over. Maybe they are sure they will go under unless they win this battle. For sure, it's impossible to imagine anyone in their right mind entering into a business relationship with this company in the future.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 25 2003 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
I'm curious what he means by "shake up"? Is this supposed to mean something like
frighten or disrupt or ...? If not what does he mean. But if so, I'm wondering
whether this is a legitimate/appropriate/allowable use of a discovery or audit
process (assuming SCO does have the rights to audit which is a question in
itself). Perhaps somebody with enough knowledge of the legal process can explain
this, please :-)
S Tanna[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 25 2003 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
Also, another quote, "that [discovery] might be the vehicle to be able to
investigate what we need there anyway.". Again, I wonder if he Darl/SCO intends
to use the discovery process as "vehicle" for something more than discovering
evidence for the case. This quote could certainly be read that way (although to
be fair, it's not clear). So is using the discovery process as such a "vehicle",
possible, and if so is it legitimate/allowable/legal/whatever? Please, any
friendly people with sufficient legal background, I'm very interested to know -
thanks in advance.
S Tanna[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 25 2003 @ 09:27 PM EDT |
| In discovery, you can ask for whatever you think might be relevant, but with
specificity. You can't go on what is called a "fishing expedition". His quote,
in which he pretty much says that's exactly what he intends to do, might end up
before a judge, for him to decide what they can and cannot do in the discovery
phase. IBM gets to protest discovery requests. However, that's in normal
discovery. SCO here is talking about audit rights under the contract. But SCO
just terminated the contract publicly. They are in a rather odd spot, and not
for the first time. I seriously wonder if they talk to their legal staff before
making their public remarks. They don't seem to. I'll find and post some
material on discovery when I get a chance.
PJ
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
