|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 22 2013 @ 04:33 AM EST |
Just guessing:
If your opponent in court proposes cutting their own throat, you let them go
right ahead ?.
It's SCO's (or it's sucessors) problem, not IBM or RedHat's.
Spoilation is a killer for a case, and SCO just comitted suicide through
spoilation - they litterally have no case to bring now because they've destroyed
any evidence that may be relevant to their case.
All they have now is what was presented in court - most of which was disputed,
they can't present ANYTHING new, they can't challenge any rebuttals and they
went into bankruptcy to avoid losing those cases in the first place.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Friday, February 22 2013 @ 08:29 AM EST |
Litigation always involves analysis of
the money side of strategy. If the possible
benefits will cost a great deal and are
unlikely to be achieved, you simply don't
do it.
Here, there is a record on the part of this
judge that would indicate an unlikelihood
of success. And frankly, they may think
1) that SCO swallowed all the usable evidence
long ago and 2) that the likelihood of
going forward with further litigation is
slim to none.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|