I doubt that SCO would try to buy the judge, but they may have been able to pick a judge that knows little about computers. In fact from what I have seen most judges know nothing about computers. Even with such poor evidence it may be hard for IBM to disprove the allegations. The attempt at showing what has been appropriated may be enough for the judge to see this as due diligence.
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Thornton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SCO Vs IBM On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 10:52, James Melin wrote: > Looks like some of the 'evidence' given to IBM by SCO was the result of a > google search. This is pathetic. Given the quality of SCO's, ah, "evidence" so far, they're clearly not hoping to win this case on its merits. So here's my question: What does it cost to buy a judge these days? Is that amount large or small compared to a $3B judgment? What if your under-the-table arrangement is for a percentage of the gross, as it is with your lawyers? Although, if that's your play, why bother to hire good lawyers? And really, I thought Boies et al. were supposed to be at least *competent*; if the best they can do (they *do*, after all, have the budget to hire adequate technical consultants) is a couple hours' worth of hacking together find and grep scripts, and then appending a Google query, why are they worth millions and millions of dollars? It's all very bizarre. Adam
