I had this excerpt sitting in m inbox when I arrived home this evening. Any of us who have been involved with Linux for any length of time are certainly aware of the fiasco that was brought about by SCO. Finally, some rulings have come down. I thought those of you who are interested might enjoy reading what the judge had to say about SCO. Enjoy! > *Editor's Note: SCO Smack-Down* > > Two days ago, a federal judge confirmed the obvious: The SCO Group's > lawsuit against IBM is a paper tiger > <http://techweb-pipelines.com/trk/click?ref=zp7waa8wo_2-11a6x38bbex117827>. > > > Actually, I think "cheap scam" is a better description of SCO's antics > since March 2003, when the company lobbed its legal stink bomb through > Big Blue's window. SCO's best, and perhaps only, chance of getting > what it wanted went up in smoke when IBM decided to fight, rather than > paying the go-away settlement SCO's executives must have expected at > the time. > > IBM decided that it had too much riding on Linux -- and, indeed, on > the many other open-source applications that such a settlement would > have tainted with a lethal dose of legal risk -- to pay SCO's > extortion money. And the rest, as we have seen, is one of the uglier > chapters in legal history. > > Did SCO decide to play out its bluff on the assumption that it was > bound to find /something/ in the Linux kernel source code that it > could use to substantiate its claims? Given the amount of code > involved, and IBM's deep involvement with both Linux and with the > proprietary Unix code over which SCO has asserted its ownership > rights, it must have seemed like a safe bet. > > It wasn't a safe bet. > <http://www.linuxpipeline.com/showArticle.jhtml?%20articleId=190300354> > The gist of Magistrate Brooke C. Welles' ruling, in which she grants > IBM's motion to dismiss 182 of SCO's 294 claims, is that SCO has not > produced any evidence -- not a single line of code -- to support its > case. > > (The original ruling, in PDF, is available here > <http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-718.pdf>. Groklaw, as usual, has > transcribed the ruling into plain-text, available here > <http://techweb-pipelines.com/trk/click?ref=zp7waa8wo_2-11a6x38bc0x117827>.) > > > "SCO's arguments are akin to SCO telling IBM, 'Sorry we are not going > to tell you what you did wrong because you already know,'" Wells > wrote. "Given the amount of code that SCO has received in discovery, > the court finds it inexcusable that SCO is, in essence, still not > placing all the details on the table." > > You'll see plenty of other quotes from Judge Wells' ruling in the days > and weeks ahead. Besides being an unusually readable (and highly > quotable) document, however, the 39-page ruling clearly reflects > Wells' disgust at SCO's performance in her courtroom. The company, she > wrote, "willfully failed to comply" with multiple orders to produce > the evidence against IBM its attorneys said it possessed. > > As Groklaw editor Pamela Jones has noted more than once, the word > "willful," used in this context, is one of the most damning words the > judge can use without actually accusing one of the parties of > committing perjury or some other crime. It's an important cue, because > it tells you that the judge has drawn some very definite conclusions > not just about SCO's dismissed legal claims, but also about the > company's credibility as it continues to pursue its remaining claims > against IBM. > > Simply put, SCO's credibility is unlikely to extend any farther than > its ability to deliver hard evidence that is directly relevant to its > remaining allegations. In fact, Judge Wells in unlikely to assume that > SCO's attorneys are acting in good faith, if they find themselves > unable to comply with any of the court's orders from this point > onward. And, in the event SCO appeals her ruling (Judge Wells presides > over the discovery, or evidence-gathering, phase of the lawsuit; her > decisions are subject to review by U.S. District Judge David Kimball, > who would preside over the actual trial, if it ever happens) the > company will simply make its own situation even worse. > > Could SCO possibly find a silver lining in this fiasco? Well, no -- > although my colleagues at InformationWeek certainly knew where to look > in order to find a warm body willing to suggest otherwise > <http://techweb-pipelines.com/trk/click?ref=zp7waa8wo_2-11a6x38bc1x117827>. > I'm sure SCO is delighted that they're now able to "concentrate on the > remaining claims" -- which, in this case, is a lot like being able to > "concentrate" on your leg workout . . . after someone tears off both > of your arms, and then beats you senseless with them for good measure. > > Of course, SCO faces another, even more damaging credibility issue > with its customers, potential customers, and shareholders. SCO was > already in a financial death spiral > <http://techweb-pipelines.com/trk/click?ref=zp7waa8wo_2-11a6x38bc2x117827>; > at this point, customers who were willing to bet that the company > might stick around to provide long-term support or an upgrade path are > either making contingency plans or updating their resumes. > > Also, while companies routinely survive or even prosper in the face of > bad PR, SCO's reputation -- first as "bumbling bullies, > <http://techweb-pipelines.com/trk/click?ref=zp7waa8wo_2-11a6x38bc3x117827> > subsequently as bumbling, deluded bullies -- is so badly damaged that > it's impossible to place it within any meaningful historical context. > While it's impossible to say whether SCO could rebuild its credibility > and identity as something more than a host organism for its attorneys, > it's not a task that anyone associated with the company's current > management is competent to handle. > > IBM would be justified in gloating over its victory, in spite of the > work that remains if SCO insists upon pursuing what's left of its > case. Big Blue's executives had the guts to execute a legal strategy > that, however necessary it looks with the benefit of hindsight, > carried some very obvious risks; if SCO had produced evidence of > System V Unix code leaking into Linux, whether by design or through an > honest mistake, the case could have mutated into an disaster for IBM > and its customers. > > In order to answer SCO's charges, IBM was forced to put the Linux > kernel source code through the sort of minute, line-by-line > examination that only this sort of high-stakes legal battle could have > justified. And it's hard to overstate just how much Linux, and by > extension the thousands of companies with a stake in Linux as users or > developers, stand to gain from the results of that examination. > > I'll give PJ the final word here, since her work building and > sustaining Groklaw played such an important part in wrecking SCO's > nasty little get-rich-quick scheme: "There has never been an operating > system picked over with such care and determination to find fault," > she stated earlier this week. "And Linux has come through utterly > clean as a whistle."
More information about the ECLUG mailing list