[ale] Judge to SCO: No, YOU gotta show!

Jim Philips 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 mailing list