> -----Original Message----- > From: Fargusson.Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:43 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: SCO Vs IBM > > > 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. >
I thought it was still up to the accuser to prove the accusation. Not for the defender to disprove it. Granted, in civil law, it is "preponderance of the evidence" not "beyond a reasonable doubt", so the burden is not as onerous on the claimant. I did read the article, but I don't think that listing just about everything in the kernel is "due diligence". Especially the weasel words "may or may not". Or like the police telling the thief: "We say you stole some articles. You're the one who stole the stuff, so if you tell us what you took, we'll write up the arrest warrant based on that." BLECH! -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer UICI Insurance Center Applications & Solutions Team +1.817.255.3225 This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its' content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
