decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The problem is to make it SCO's problem | 244 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Well... thats up to sco to figure out
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:40 PM EDT
Though I imagine tax records from 1979 might be considered irrelevant, I can't
think of much else... still I definitely remember the wording being made in a
way that anything that is still relevant for lawsuits 'couldn't' be destroyed.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The problem is to make it SCO's problem
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 06:27 PM EDT
Allege something against them which properly kept paperwork
would be necessary to disprove. Since they destroyed their own
paperwork, the court is free to draw all inferences against
them.

As if the hill weren't steep enough already...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

How could that work?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 05:44 PM EDT
If I were Cravath and IBM, I'd move for Spoilation of Evidence on that note.

They **REALLY** don't want to do this stupid thing they're doing right now...so
I don't get why they're even going there.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )