I haven’t been following the SCO case very closely, having only mentioned it once since I started this blog. So I missed this ass-kicking order that came down over the summer from Judge Brooke Wells. It’s long and detailed (GrokLaw speculates that this is to discourage SCO from a tedious appeal), so don’t be afraid to skim for the good parts. For example:
The court finds SCOs arguments unpersuasive. SCOs arguments are akin to SCO telling IBM sorry we are not going to tell you what you did wrong because you already know. SCO received substantial code from IBM pursuant to the courts orders as mentioned supra. Further, SCO brought this action against IBM and under the Federal Rules, and the courts orders, SCO was required to disclose in detail what it feels IBM misappropriated. 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. Certainly if an individual was stopped and accused of shoplifting after walking out of Neiman Marcus they would expect to be eventually told what they allegedly stole. It would be absurd for an officer to tell the accused that you know what you stole Im not telling. Or, to simply hand the accused individual a catalog of Neiman Marcus entire inventory and say its in there somewhere, you figure it out.
A bold warning to FUD perpetrators everywhere.