Fraud -- can they?

Message ID: 182405
Posted By: nobbutl
Posted On: 2004-09-20 05:18:00
Subject: Fraud -- can they?

I gather there's a buzz that SCOX may in some way seek to get IBM smacked for fraud.

Please forgive me if I'm wrong or have missed prior discussion, but isn't it now too late for SCOX amend their complaint?

Message ID: 182407
Posted By: phandsvrta
Posted On: 2004-09-20 05:31:00
Subject: Re: Fraud -- can they?

There's been a huge amount of discussion around this after Maureen O'Gara's rather surprising article last week - nearly as much as there was/is in the pointless and never ending moaning/supporting/flamewar about Groklaw :-)

I would have thought it was too late to change the complaint as well, but with SCOX, who knows. Either that or they start a new action against IBM, for fraud, and quietly stop talking about the existing, embarrassing case.

I figure either that Maureen is talking crap, or is acting on some inside knowledge - but then why advertise the change in tack?

Watch this space....

P.

Message ID: 182408
Posted By: nobbutl
Posted On: 2004-09-20 05:34:00
Subject: Re: Fraud -- can they?

<< Suppose Darl and Chris have lovely dreams of US Marshalls frogmarching handcuffed IBM executives out to the paddy wagon.>>

Ok, so they can make a complaint to the criminal justice system regarding fraud and IBM. Of course they also could have done that regarding the supposed copyright infringement. Or maybe they could bring a private criminal prosecution. An unbiased observer might suggest that such activity is the sort of hobby sometimes associated with mental illness.

Message ID: 182409
Posted By: nobbutl
Posted On: 2004-09-20 05:41:00
Subject: Re: Fraud -- can they?

<< Either that or they start a new action against IBM, for fraud, and quietly stop talking about the existing, embarrassing case. >>

Hmmm, but then doesn't all that 'compulsory' stuff kick in? Oh well, this fraud stuff is just a soundbite from The Hypothetical Show on DarlTalk AM anyway; it doesn't have to make any sense in the real world.

<< I figure either that Maureen is talking crap, or is acting on some inside knowledge - but then why advertise the change in tack? >>

I think, if you reach into your soul for your deepest reserves of Monday morning autumnal cynicism, that you might already know the answer to that...

Message ID: 182416
Posted By: idiot_spavint
Posted On: 2004-09-20 06:50:00
Subject: Re: Fraud -- can they?

The SCOG v IBM case is a civil action. Isn't fraud a criminal offence?

Message ID: 182426
Posted By: b29651
Posted On: 2004-09-20 08:00:00
Subject: Re: Fraud -- can they?

<< Well, before they even get to having evidence, they'd have to have standing to sue.

As The SCO Group was not a party to the contract between IBM and The Santa Cruz Operation (now Terrantella), I don't think TSG will get very far.>>>
isnt this something we have been saying since march 2003?
br3n

Message ID: 182428
Posted By: lumber_cartel
Posted On: 2004-09-20 08:06:00
Subject: Re: Fraud -- can they?

>> Isn't fraud a criminal offence?

There is both civil and criminal fraud. Civil fraud is a tort, and the victim can sue for recovery of damages. Criminal fraud is generally a felony, with the usual jail time etc.

Prosecutors are most likely to bring criminal fraud charges against parties which have defrauded a large number of victims, each for a relatively small amount. Consumer protection is the obvious example.

Civil fraud is more often brought when the individual losses are large enough to make the action worth while. Since it's a civil matter, the standard of proof is lower but of course the costs of proving it are borne by the plaintiff.

The biggest challenge to SCOX in charging IBM with fraud resulting from the Monterey project would be showing damages, since SCOX today actually benefitted from the failure of Monterey.

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "nobbutl", "phandsvrta", "idiot_spavint", "b29651", "lumber_cartel" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.