|
|
|
| Authored by: jjon on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 06:48 AM EDT |
| Zero. SCO would claim that Groklaw is biased, and by
reading it the judge was
unfairly influenced. SCO would
then drag the case
through another round of
appeals and retrials. Whether that
allegation is true or not is irrelevant (as
proven by the
SCO story so
far).
The judge has to not only be fair, but be
seen to be fair.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 07:07 AM EDT |
Judge Gross isn't hearing this case; he's the Bankrutpcy judge
in Delaware. This case is (now) before Judge Nuffer.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DannyB on Monday, June 17 2013 @ 09:44 AM EDT |
Rather than cite Groklaw, IBM has the advantage of the actual court record.
IBM can summarize the case and give references to places in the record where
each event has occurred. IBM can demonstrate that no claims survive.
Just as a couple examples:
To eliminate everything or almost everything, IBM can point to the record that
SCO did not own Unix, that even if SCO had owned Unix, AT&T interpreted the
license the way IBM and everyone else did, long before IBM extended Unix with
its own code such as JFS and that JFS was IBM's code to do with as it pleased.
IBM can point to its past argument that SCO's interpretation of an engineer's
mind being contaminated once they saw Unix code, was novel, and would turn the
industry on its head and make engineers unemployable -- nevermind AT&T
having estopped that.
If SCO still claims IBM interfered with its business by improving Linux in
various important ways, IBM can point to the record that SCO not only approved
of this work, but donated (IIRC) hardware and/or manpower to help do just what
IBM was doing.
In short, the record is the most powerful weapon IBM has. Not Groklaw, other
than for reference. The court record is much more persuasive because it all
happened out in the open, in court, under a judge, with all parties fully aware.
No third party opinion. No charge of bias. Etc.
That said, IBM may find Groklaw a powerful reference, index and summary of what
happened. :-)
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
