[Sussex] A development in the SVO v IBM case

[Steve Dobson]

All

I've just read an interesting article on Groklaw
   http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050129060736295#c268231

IBM issued a subpoena on PointServe middle of December.  The CEO of
PointServe and its Chief Scientist had previously been at MIT's
Lincoln Laboratory.  Speculation is that this is (one of) the MIT
"Deep Drive" experts that analysed the code for SCO.  

There is a lot of speculation that Microsoft may be working behind
the scenes in this case.  I personally don't subscribed to that 
view point, but I don't rule it out altogether either.  If they 
M$ were working behind the scenes I thought that this would be
nothing but a bit of bad PR if it came to light - in this I was
wrong.  Webster, a regular poster on Grawlaw, and a criminal law
attorney, has this to say:

    What can basically happen is that all of the participants
    can be put in the position of SCO. They can be joined as
    codefendants and be responsible for SCO's actions because
    they knew and participated in what SCO was doing. They could
    all be liable for slander of title, patent infringements,
    and whatever other counterclaims IBM has. They can all be
    made responsible for the Lack of Due Diligence. SCO seems
    to have a problem with proof now. Copyrights, transfer of
    copyrights, source of their code, infringing code, trade
    secrets, patents, inability to specify code, inability to
    specify experts. The faiures of one can be the failures of
    all.

    That is why the PSJ will be devastating. They will all be
    liable before they even get into the suit. It will be res
    judicata on the liability. They will be joined to the suit
    to open their wallets and line up and pay. The sins of one
    are the sins of all. Compare in a criminal case: the wheel
    man in an armed bank robbery is as culpable as the masked
    suspect who weilds the gun at the bank counter.

    Incompetently preparing software claims and financing suspect
    litigation schemes, particularly to bolster a monopoly are
    not good defenses. Particularly when they are all confounded
    by the infamous NDA, Non disclosure agreement, whereby they
    kept their claims secret and away from the very experts who
    were in a position to evaluate their claims, like Linus T.
    So they are doomed. IBM is harvesting the facts if they have
    not already and forcing them to document and admit their
    activities.

To me this one post has changed the SCO v IBM case, now it has
a little more interest.  As one poster put it "[g]rab your
popcorn..this is getting good."

Steve