On Thursday 20 January 2005 20:22, Federico Lucifredi wrote:
> Ranga Nathan wrote:
>
> >Anyone seen this?
> >
> >
> >http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0,10801,99098,00.html?source=NLT_PM&nid=99098
> >
> >
> >
> They won a "discovery order" of sorts... they can get a look at code IBM
> did not show them.
>
> >Does it have any impact on this case?
> >
> >
> Hmm - they got to look at some IBM code. Lets call it a victory! YAY!
> Shares Rally to 4$!
>
> Computerworld should know better than using expressions like
> "programming code" - pih.
As always, when you're wondering about what something means in the
SCO cases, your best place to look for real information is groklaw:
www.groklaw.net covers all of the SCO cases, listing what happens
and also explaining what it means. It also covers other legal cases and
issues relating to open source - Novell vs. Microsoft, Microsoft monopoly
cases, laws and lobbying reagarding the various forms of intellectual
property, cases and issues around the GPL and other FOSS licenses,
media reports that cover open source with
and whatever else takes PJ's fancy.
For their general purpose of maximal FUD for the maximal period,
yes, this is a victory for SCO.
IBM has already provided huge amounts of code in previous discovery,
and has explained that the additional code that SCO was asking for would
be prohibitably expensive for them to provide. While SCO didn't get
everything they asked for, there is a lot there. IBM will either have to
oppose this order, or provide it. Either approach could mean lots of
additional delay to the case.
In the long run, IBM's case is solid while SCO's case is more like wishful
thinking or worse; but I don't think anyone has any illusions left about
actually winning the case (if anyone there ever did), they are simply
trying to delay as long as possible the time until the bubble bursts.
John Macdonald
|
