Legal aspects [was: anybody else see darl on teevee?]

[Alma J Wetzker]

Chong Yu Meng wrote:
> Leon A. Goldstein wrote:
> 
>> Is it just a coincidence that this worm comes just before SCO's 
>> deadline  to respond to a court order to present
>> its evidence?
>>
> Actually, I find the whole SCO case very, very unsettling. Maybe I'm 
> becoming paranoid as I approach middle age (which I will be in less than 
> 2 months from now). It seems to me that you can bring a lawsuit against 
> anybody for anything nowadays. You don't even have to tell them what 
> they did wrong or anything. A lot of people say that Singapore (where I 
> live) is a "police-state", but I don't see how the States is any 
> different if I can sue my customers/neighbours/etc., without showing 
> evidence of wrong-doing. Isn't that the same as detention without trial?
> 
> I don't mean to insult anyone, but if somebody can explain the process 
> in this lawsuit (and counter-suit by IBM) to me, that would really help!

First, I am not a lawyer (thank God!).  If I remember my civics, when you sue 
someone, you must produce evidence of wrongdoing.  In a civil suit, if you 
demand an injunction against someone doing business during the trial, you must 
first produce enough evidence to convince a judge and you must produce the 
amount of cash the defendant could lose from the injunction if you happen to 
lose.  While it is true that you can sue anyone for anything, winning can be 
an issue.  (I was once sued for ripping a man's hand tailored, monogrammed 
shirt.  I was a paramedic and he was in cardiac arrest.  I showed up and the 
judge went ballistic about the lawsuit.)  Note that IBM and the other targets 
of SCO's rhetoric are not legally encumbered by SCO's legal claims.  The only 
restraint of trade that SCO can manage is through the press.

In the US there is a specific crime for filing unsubstantiated and frivolous 
lawsuits, it is called barraty <sp>.  So the lawyers can get in trouble if 
they are not careful.

In terms of the SCO case, I think the case is all about share price.  SCO is 
making all sorts of claims, unrelated to the lawsuit, that would put the 
officers in jail through SEC proceedings, if they were not suing IBM.  (I 
expect far more of this if Darl and Co. are not nailed.)  While the share 
price is up, lots of SCO folk with stock are cashing out.

In the SCO lawsuit, I think the judge is giving SCO more rope than they need 
as appeals insurance.  From what I have read, the judge is getting pretty 
ticked about SCO not producing evidence.  The rubber is about to hit the road 
and SCO will end up roadkill if they don't do better about producing evidence. 
  If things don't change, this may never reach trial.  (That may be SCO's 
tactic, appeal a summary judgment because they showed contempt of court.)

I suspect that the US legal system works better than the cynical responses 
your request may generate.  It is just very slow to produce results and 
sometimes requires appeals to get where it should be.  (Please note: I am not 
claiming the legal system works well or even as envisioned by its designers. 
It needs serious reform to hold lawyers accountable for the abuses slowing 
down the system.)