SCO’s “BiPolar” Objections
“I thought of her today, when I started getting emails about a
story SCO is now telling about allegedly destroyed evidence, told
by the same ‘reporter’ who told us in 2004, if you recall, that SCO
had this hot, hot claim about Project Monterey and how SCO was
going to trim IBM’s sails for using SYSV4 on Power. Remember all
that? I told you when the story first broke that it was going
nowhere.“Well, you know how it turned out. It went nowhere. It was just
a wild and untrue story that maybe helped the stock to shoot up, I
can’t recall, but the court didn’t buy it. It was not a hot, hot
new claim. It was a dud. Just like I told you. Does Forbes ever get
anything right when it comes to SCO or Linux or Open
Source…?”
SCO Has Not Brought a Motion for Sanctions Against IBM
for Spoliation of Evidence
“First, SCO has not filed a motion for sanctions for spoliation.
That’s the way to get an issue regarding missing evidence properly
before a judge. It has not happened. I checked Pacer.“Second, SCO didn’t file any motions in March of 2006, sealed or
otherwise, despite Forbes ‘reporting’ that SCO filed the
allegations as part of a sealed motion that month (‘Hatch, SCO’s
attorney, says SCO learned about the destruction of code when it
took depositions from IBM programmers. This is the first time SCO
has made the allegation in public, though Hatch says the claim was
part of a motion SCO filed in March 2006, which has remained
sealed.’)…”
Related Story:
Forbes.com:
SCO Claims IBM Destroyed Crucial Evidence(Jul 21, 2006)