Judge slaps SCO council in SCO vs IBM
- SCO vs. The World2003 Including the original code analysis by Bruce Perens
- WE URGENTLY REQUIRE YOUR ASSISTANCE SCO parody of a Nigerian scam 2003
- Amusements from the SCO Group's latest filing2004 with whoppers such as SCO claiming that IBM had little or no expertise on Intel processors.
- SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing2005
In the latest hearing, which included a motion to dissallow a surrebuttal to a rebuttal to a motion to dismiss based on ... sorry, I don't remember past that bit ... the action focussed on whether SCO had complied with the court orders and therefore whether it should be allowed to proceed with the parts of the case related to those court orders.
Throughout the morning the SCO council weathers some pretty heavy times - both from the IBM council and the Judge - but just put yourself in the shoes of the SCO council for a moment, and imagine the shiver run down your spine as this particular conversation with the Judge plays out (italics mine):
THE COURT: Let me ask you this: Is SCO in possession of -- can SCO provide additional specificity with regard to any of these items?MR. SINGER [council for SCO]: We have had a couple months of additional work since December 22. It may be that on a handful of these items something has come up during that time period which would allow a more specific reference in
one place or another. But, in general, with what we're talking about here on methods and concepts, no.THE COURT: Well, I guess what I'm asking you, basically: Is this all you've got?
Well, Mr Singer, is that all you've got? Of course the answer is yes - they don't have jack, but the keep on plugging away with the case, lest their share price fall when the investors realise that the emperor has no clothes.
Let the merriment continue (albeit at great expense to the plaintif IBM...).
Original court procedings via Groklaw as always. This quote from pages 75/76.
08:55 PM, 11 May 2006 by Mark Aufflick Permalink