[ale] Judge to SCO: No, YOU gotta show!
jcphil at mindspring.com
Fri Dec 5 21:57:38 EST 2003
I just got through digesting today's hearing as described on Groklaw. The
purpose of the hearing was to determine whether IBM has to turn over any code
SCO feels is relevant so they can look for violations in it. IBM's position
was that the burden is on the plaintiff to show what code is in violation.
David Boies didn't show up to speak for SCO. Instead, the attorney for SCO
was one Kevin McBride (brother of Darl). Could Boies be wondering if he's
jumped onto another sinking ship? He didn't do much for Al Gore's case back
in 2000. Anyway, if you read the transcripts, IBM's lawyer was clear and
concise and showed a mastery of the case law on this point and some good
common sense. His basic point is in this statement:
"In order to file the complaint, SCO had to have what they say they have. Case
law says a party may not dump information on a party and expect them to
extract relevant information."
McBride's arguments were long and rambling by comparison and he clearly tried
the judge's patience. The judge sided with IBM and gave SCO thirty days to
either come up with the offending code or file an affidavit saying why they
couldn't. It wasn't a good day for SCO.
More information about the Ale