|
|
| IBM FILES A SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY |
 |
|
Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 01:56 AM EST
|
IBM has now filed a second Motion to Compel Discovery. The PDF from Pacer is here. IBM is really pressing SCO hard. The first IBM Motion to Compel, which is still pending and will be conferenced in November, had to do with IBM's first set of interrogatories and requests for documents. Now, having served SCO with a second set of interrogatories and request for documents, they are telling the court that they asked SCO to identify all of the material in Linux to which SCO claims any rights and if and how SCO contends that IBM infringed SCO's rights, but that SCO wouldn't give them meaningful answers. Also they say they asked for documents that SCO could have produced months ago and still hasn't turned over. So now they are filing a second Motion to Compel. There is a memorandum in support of this motion, which a volunteer is preparing as text. We'll get it up as soon as we can. These two IBM motions are separate from SCO Motion to Compel. There are three motions to compel now before the court. I guess you could say that they are seriously not friends. IBM asks that both its motions to compel be heard on December 5, the date already set for oral arguments if the conference in November shows there is still a need for a hearing.
| IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH |
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff |
DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF IBM'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 37(a)(2)(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
(ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED)
Civil No. 2:03cv0294
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells
|
Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM"), through counsel, hereby moves this Court for an Order compelling Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant The SCO Group ("SCO") to (i) respond fully to IBM's second set of interrogatories, and (ii) to produce categories of documents that SCO has agreed to produce but have not been forthcoming.
As set forth in detail in the memorandum accompanying this motion, SCO's response to IBM's second interrogatories is inadequate and incomplete. These interrogatories ask SCO to identify all of the material in Linux to which SCO claims any rights (Interrogatory No. 12), and, with respect to the material identified, whether SCO contends that IBM infringed SCO's rights and how (Interrogatory No. 13). SCO responds to these interrogatories by (i) raising various groundless objections, and (ii) incorporating by reference its answers to Interrogatory nos. 1, 2 through 4 (which are the subject of IBM's pending motion to compel). SCO has not provided a meaningful response to these interrogatories and should be compelled to do so. In addition, SCO has failed to produce to IBM important categories of documents that it could have produced months ago.
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 37(a)(2)(A)
Counsel for IBM has made good faith efforts to obtain complete discovery responses without Court action, but has been unable to do so. As detailed in IBM's first motion to compel, the parties have exchanged numerous letters and e-mails, and have participated in several phone conferences to resolve various discovery disputes (See IBM's First Motion to Compel and Certificate of Compliance with Rule 37(a)(2)(A)). Counsel for the parties did not specifically discuss Interrogatory nos. 12 and 13 because, at that time, SCO had not yet answered these interrogatories. However, the parties discussed at length the deficiencies in SCO's answers to Interrogatory nos. 1 through 9, the very same of deficiencies present in SCO's answers to Interrogatory 12 and 13. Indeed, in responding to IBM's Second Set of Interrogatories, SCO merely incorporates by reference its answers to Interrogatory nos. 1, 2 and 4, which are the subject of IBM's first motion, and the subject of extensive discussion by the parties. With respect to the production of documents, counsel for IBM has requested on several occasions that SCO promptly produce all responsive documents that are ready for production. Although counsel for SCO has agreed to do so, such documents have not been provided, as detailed in IBM's accompanying memorandum.
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
IBM also requests oral argument on this motion pursuant to DUCivR 7-1(f), and that it be heard on December 5, 2003, the date currently set for hearing on IBM's pending motion to compel.
DATED this 6th day of November, 2003
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 02:25 AM EST |
I bet you SCOs lawyers were pretty proud that they managed to get their
own motion to compell together. There sitting in their offices and
drooling all over it. Until the certified mail arrived from IBM. I don't know
how much lawyer $50m can buy you, but IBM has essentially unlimited
legal resources at their disposal. And I really love how they serve this
stuff on Friday, every time. Isn't this the 4th weekend they make Mark
Heise and his boneheads work extra hours? Its like: here you go, have a
few pages of legal text to review, we are going to be on the golf couse
over the weekend if you need us. Have a nice day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maxhrk on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 02:29 AM EST |
Is it just me or Am i seeing a vision of IBM quite pissed off at SCO and going
to slap sco's face with iron glove?
(furthermore, offhand, it remind me of humour comedy of Robin hood that has to
do with gloves slapping).
excellent work as always, PJ.
---
SCO: Linux... I am your.. father.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 02:39 AM EST |
And all this comes after Novell and SuSE getting it on...
The legal team at SCO is most likely looking hard at the issue of SuSE being
free of SCO's threats by virtue of Novell's past UNIX history...
There was a good article at zdnet the other day found here
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/novell_suse.html , titled
"Is Novell-SuSE deal a brilliant Big Blue power play"? , By David
Berlind - November 4, 2003
...that part of, is quoted as follows:
"So, let's add this up, against the backdrop of indemnification. We've
got two companies --- IBM and Novell --- both of which have made heavy
technology and marketing investments in Linux and open source (including
Novell's recent acquisition of Ximian). One of the companies (IBM) is the
subject of a giant lawsuit from the company that claims to own the intellectual
property rights to the technology in Linux. The other is a company that, dating
back to its UnixWare days, is rumored to still have just enough Unix
intellectual property rights to be immune to the wrath of SCO. The customers of
these two companies want some assurances, and the CTO of Novell wants to provide
them in the way of solid stack interoperation and issue-free intellectual
property rights. Are we getting warm yet?
So, if Novell is immune (which Novell officials wouldn't comment on yesterday),
and SuSE belongs to Novell, then it follows that SuSE's distribution of Linux
could be untouchable. IBM's Linux strategy --- of which SuSE's Linux
distribution is a centerpiece --- is preserved. Novell's cross-platform
services strategy (which I'll get to in a minute) --- at least a third of which
(or more) depends on the long-term viability of Linux --- remains intact.
Customers seeking indemnification end up with something better--a free and clear
license.
I asked Nugent what he thought of my theory. While he didn't give me much, he
gave me this: "Your intuition is good. Stay tuned." [end quote]
Ouch!
SCO and SCO's lawyers have gotta be punch drunk by now!
AND the investors? If they are not running for the hills then one has gotta
wonder is they are in it for the money OR till the last one of them is standing?
For those that stay in the game one would have to wonder if the big question
for them all is IF they can kill or damage the GPL?
Why else pour money into SCO?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 02:45 AM EST |
So this is IBM giving up on SCO ever actually complying: they are asking the
judge to sort it out.
Interestingly enough, the whole issue of derivative code is mingled in with
SCO's position on discovery, so a decision could be made quite soon that would
either bolster SCO's case, or kill it! We may not have to wait until the trial
in 2005 or whenever.
---
-----
For a few laughs, see the scosource.com website[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM FILES A SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY - blacklight - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 10:21 AM EST
- But of course! - Authored by: rgmoore on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 12:13 PM EST
- But of course! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 03:11 PM EST
- Nope - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 03:19 PM EST
- Nope - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 07:04 PM EST
- Nope - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 07:17 PM EST
- Nope - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 09 2003 @ 06:31 PM EST
- Nope - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 07:25 PM EST
- Nope - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 09 2003 @ 06:33 PM EST
- But of course! - blacklight - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 06:22 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: smtnet1 on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 02:50 AM EST |
From the start of the case SCO have been stalling at every chance, while they
try to figure out how to extort money from Linux users without getting arrested,
and take advantage of the inflated stock price that their PR has generated.
IBM have now clearly had enough and are pushing hard for SCO to actually make
clear what their claims are.
Although most Linux users know that SCO have NO CASE, I have been contacted by a
couple of my largest customers asking about the claims by SCO and the
implications, so IBM will have been ask plenty of times.
The momentum of Linux is unstopable but the Legal threat although unfounded will
make some large organisations think twice abot Linux because of the SCO threat
to sue them.
IBM will now work very fast to push these motions to compell, and will follow
discovery with a motion to dismiss. This must be damaging the growth of IBMs
Linux business, which without SCO, would have been moving even faster.
My business has not suffered from the SCO case, but when my largest customers
start to ask questions about the potential merits of the SCO claims, it makes me
keen to see a quick discovery and dismissal of the case against IBM.
BTW when is the next phase in the Red Hat case due? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Beyonder on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 03:36 AM EST |
Ok, let's see if we can offer some tidbits here...
IBM has probably the best patent lawyers in the business (their lawsuit is about
patents), and probably the best litigation lawyers in the business too. I've
read I don't know how many dozen comments about lawyers, A/G, paralegals using
IBMs documents as required reading, or commenting just how beyond excellent
their work really is (thats an understatement). A little worm like SCO doesn't
stand a chance, not that they ever intended to anyhow...
Then there's the Novell angle, I really don't see why IBM doesn't just
present the judge with Novell's statement about waiving any perceived
violations and say ok, dismissed right? I mean, that's really all it would
take...
IBM: "Here's Novells statement saying any violations, real, imaginary,
perceived, or otherwise are waived. We move for immediate dismissal"
Judge: case dismissed!
then of course SCO gets put through a grinder with IBM's suit, RH's suit, and
also for wasting the courts time...
I maintain my original perspective, SCO never intends this to go to court, and
I've flip-flopped on my buy-out ideas, I don't think they ever intended on
getting bought out. They also never intended to win either.
There's no conspiracy theory here, there's no ulterior motive (other than
getting rich), its all about pump and dump until the carcass is totally drained,
then disappearing to some non-extradition country never to be seen again...
This is a classic pump and dump, nothing more, nothing less.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 05:07 AM EST |
Sorry but I would like to say that I surely hope with everything I believe in
that SCO lawyers have a chance... That is if their accusations would be
founded which they are not.
I hate to read that it is enough to have the deeper pockets to have it your
way always. I believe in the court system and I surely hope that RIGHT will
be served.
Besides this I believe this is war and SCO and its operatives ought to be
punished by the law for throwing this at IBM and even worse at th Open
Source comunity.
I think I have to go back and read THE BOOK OF THE FIVE RINGS again .:)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kevin lyda on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 05:47 AM EST |
is it possible for us to submit something to the court. info that we think ibm
missed?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 06:40 AM EST |
This should not come as a surprise to SCO: IBM's Reply Memorandum in Support of
its Motion to Compel Disovery already stated IBM will be filing one against the
interrogatories 12 and 13 with basically the same objections as to the others:
"SCO has submitted responses to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 that are
deficient for the same reasons that its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1-9 are
deficient... we intend promptly to move to compel responses to Interrogatory
Nos. 12 and 13."
IBM just could not include 12 and 13 in the first motion to compel as they had
not received SCOs responses at the time of filing of the first motion.
So no really new information from this: IBM already had stated they object to
SCOs answers 12 and 13 on exactly the same grounds as they object to the other
answers. This simply makes that complaint formal.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fjaffe on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 08:05 AM EST |
| The sentence
"However, the parties discussed at length the
deficiencies in SCO's answers to Interrogatory nos. 1 through 9, the very
same of deficiencies present in SCO's..." appears
as if it might be a conversion error. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 08:18 AM EST |
SCO has not produced:
-
any of its
supposed "evidence" of wrongdoing by IBM -- such as code comparisons, public
"postings" of SCO confidential material, or presentation materials from the SCO
Forum -- which it has clearly shown to others (see, e.g., Exh.
C)
-
any files from any individual employees of SCO
-- such as the files of Chris Sontag, who has played a prominent role in SCO's
public relations efforts (see, e.g., "LInuxworld News Desk, SCO, IBM UNIX,
Microsoft, and Canopy -- SCO Group's Sontag Speaks Out", at
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34281.html)(attached hereto as Exh.
D))
-
any of the recent agreements between SCO and new licensees that
have been touted in the press -- such as the significant licenses between SCO
and Microsoft or Sun (see Maureen O'Gara, "Sun and Microsoft Agree on SCO
License (July 11, 2003) at http://www.linuxworld.com/story/33820.html) (attached
hereto as Exh. E));
What an incredible
pleasure to see SCO's lies come back to haunt them! Champaigne for the IBM legal
team!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 09:10 AM EST |
N.B.
IANAL, this is just an opinion. I am NOT supporting them, I am just telling you
what I think they might be thinking:
<BR><BR>
SCO have expressed a number of theories in the press at various times (e.g.
quote from earlier agreements, "enjoin or otherwise prohibit" means
revoke is an option, and so on).
<BR><BR>
However, I think they have probably told us their argument in the slide show,
and in the court filings when they say Novell's letters are irrelevant.
<BR><BR><BR>
1. In the slide show, they cite Liu v Price Waterhouse (which has been discussed
at some length on groklaw before), and say something like using software outside
scope of license makes copyright of derivative a nullity or something. (check
previous discussions on Liu for why most who commented thinking they are
stretching, in any case AIX development is inside the scope of the license,
it's Linux development which is alleged to be a separate breach).
<BR><BR>
Anyway they seem to believe Liu v Price Waterhouse can be stretched to mean if
you break a license agreement, all your copyrights now belong to the licensor.
<BR><BR><BR>
2. SCO figure they own all the copyrights on Sys V. That's SCO's
interpretation of Amendment 2 between SCO and Novell.
<BR><BR><BR>
3. Here is the paragraph from Amendment X
<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
No Additional Royalty. Upon payment to SCO of the consideration in the section
entitled "Consideration", IBM will have the irrevocable, fully
paid-up, perpetual right to exercise all of its rights under the Related
Agreements beginning January 1, 1996 at no additional royalty fee. However, if
IBM requests delivery of additional copies of source code of the Software
Product, IBM will pay the fees listed under Section 1(b) of Soft-00015
Supplement No. 170. Notwithstanding the above, the irrevocable nature of the
above rights will in no way be construed to limit Novell's or SCO's rights to
enjoin or otherwise prohibit IBM from violating any and all of Novell's or
SCO's rights under this Amendment No. X, the Related Agreements, or under
general patent, copyright, or trademark law.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Notice that last sentence " or under general patent, copyright, or
trademark law."
<BR><BR><BR>
4. They are probably argue that Novell's waiver is irrelevant as (i) SCO is the
copyright holder (so SCO thinks), and (ii) this paragraph could be read to
explicitly give SCO a right to go to law "or SCO's rights ... to prohibit
... under general ... copyright ... law."
<BR><BR>
This is why, SCO say Novell's letter has no legal or factual basis.
<BR><BR><BR><BR>
I won't even try to disassemble this, except to say, I think it's got a few
problems (but hey IANAL), not least of which the clause says "under
general patent, copyright, or trademark law." -- but SCO is suing for
alleged breaches of trade secrets.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 09:10 AM EST |
N.B.
IANAL, this is just an opinion. I am NOT supporting them, I am just telling
you
what I think they might be thinking:
SCO have expressed a number of
theories in the press at various times (e.g.
quote from earlier agreements,
"enjoin or otherwise prohibit" means
revoke is an option, and so
on).
However, I think they have probably told us their argument in the
slide show,
and in the court filings when they say Novell's letters are
irrelevant.
1. In the slide show, they cite Liu v Price Waterhouse
(which has been discussed
at some length on groklaw before), and say something
like using software outside
scope of license makes copyright of derivative a
nullity or something. (check
previous discussions on Liu for why most who
commented thinking they are
stretching, in any case AIX development is inside
the scope of the license,
it's Linux development which is alleged to be a
separate breach).
Anyway they seem to believe Liu v Price Waterhouse
can be stretched to mean if
you break a license agreement, all your copyrights
now belong to the licensor.
2. SCO figure they own all the
copyrights on Sys V. That's SCO's
interpretation of Amendment 2 between SCO and
Novell.
3. Here is the paragraph from Amendment
X
No Additional Royalty. Upon payment to SCO of the
consideration in the section
entitled "Consideration", IBM will have the
irrevocable, fully
paid-up, perpetual right to exercise all of its rights under
the Related
Agreements beginning January 1, 1996 at no additional royalty fee.
However, if
IBM requests delivery of additional copies of source code of the
Software
Product, IBM will pay the fees listed under Section 1(b) of
Soft-00015
Supplement No. 170. Notwithstanding the above, the irrevocable nature
of the
above rights will in no way be construed to limit Novell's or SCO's
rights to
enjoin or otherwise prohibit IBM from violating any and all of
Novell's or
SCO's rights under this Amendment No. X, the Related Agreements, or
under
general patent, copyright, or trademark law.
Notice
that last sentence " or under general patent, copyright, or
trademark
law."
4. They are probably argue that Novell's waiver is irrelevant
as (i) SCO is the
copyright holder (so SCO thinks), and (ii) this paragraph
could be read to
explicitly give SCO a right to go to law "or SCO's rights ...
to prohibit
... under general ... copyright ... law."
This is why, SCO
say Novell's letter has no legal or factual basis.
I won't
even try to disassemble this, except to say, I think it's got a few
problems
(but hey IANAL), not least of which the clause says "under
general patent,
copyright, or trademark law." -- but SCO is suing for
alleged breaches of trade
secrets.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark_Edwards on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 09:43 AM EST |
Excellent work PJ !!!
I have just been reading documents 68 & 69 and it certainly seems
like IBM are getting fed up now ! Now we just have to wait to see what
lame comments SCO come back with !. Or will they just do the usual
repeat everything IBM has stated..
Anyway so it seems now that the next big showdown will be at the end
of november/beginning of november.. It would be interesting to sit in
on those meetings !
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 10:12 AM EST |
hi guys .. thanks for the excellent site PJ. Visit everyday.
Here are
the valid pacer links for the PDFs.
IBM's 2nd motion to compel (same as
text in article)
document
68
Memorandum in support of 2nd motion:
document
69
enjoy!
Sho[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- pacer links - Authored by: jasonstiletto on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 11:47 AM EST
- pacer links - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 12:09 PM EST
- pacer links - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 12:45 PM EST
- No they don't - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 07:52 PM EST
- that's utterly amazing.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 03:28 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 10:20 AM EST |
How come IBM hasn't asked to see the publicly cited report by the MIT experts
in their discovery filings? It seems like they have a clear claim to see
publicly cited evidence of wrongdoing.
Mike[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 10:36 AM EST |
| "So thats what opening a can of whoop-ass feels like" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 11:56 AM EST |
is it me or is IBM really going with a more aggressive stance now with each
filing?
as if to say to the judge;'we keep asking for these things and they just arent
even attempting to comply.maybe they are falsely accusing ?'
each filing seems to be adding to their counter claims
they are even saying maybe sco didnt have any claims and that is going for the
throat?
br3n
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: raph on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 12:21 PM EST |
| I'm impressed. The memorandum in support is especially clear and to the point. I
draw your attention to footnote 2 (page 6):
[2] SCO has apparently been
performing this very analysis for financial analysts. See, e.g., Bob
Mims, SCO Stock Soars After Nod From Analyst, The Salt Lake Tribune,
October 16, 2003 (recounting Deutsche Bank analyst Brian Skiba's recommentation
of SCO's stock after viewing "a direct and near exact duplicate of source code
between the Linux 2.4 kernel and [SCO's] Unix System V kernel" during a visit to
SCO's Lindon headquarters (attached hereto as Exh. C). There is no reason SCO
cannot do so for IBM.
To me, this signals that IBM is going after not just
lies, but serious wrongdoing - withholding documents that have been shown to
select members of the public. I think we now know why IBM is requesting
documents from DB and the like - it could do those companies serious damage to
be caught out lying and deceiving a judge. By contrast, for SCO, it seems to be
part of their warped, twisted business plan.
So when the DB documents re
this presentation come to light, there will be a clear discrepancy in the paper
trail between what SCO is telling its friends and what they're doing in the
court trial. If I were the judge, I would be mightily pissed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 01:06 PM EST |
"With respect to subpart (a), unless SCO filed suit without a factual
basis
for its claim, and unless its public statements about its evidence are
false, then SCO has the information IBM seeks readily available and can
easily provide it."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Translation - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 02:02 PM EST
- My favorite part ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 03:34 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 01:42 PM EST |
For those who know the US Federal Ct rules etc:
Can IBM ask the judge in oral argument to limit SCO to being only able to
proceed on disclosed matters, and prohibit them from intoducing any evidence
that was not produced? Or file for the same thing.
~prep[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: converted on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 03:29 PM EST |
This is part of response I posted to another comment, but
I immediately read
it again and felt everyone else might
find this quite humous as well.
OT: I read another post here somewhere which made a
reference to
Robin Hood. It instantly reminded me of one
of the Halloween Documents at
opensource.org.
Read It Here
Scene: Morning, Sherwood Forest
Linus Hood, his
trusty lieutenant Alan-a-Cox, Friar Eric,
Maid Tove, and sundry merry men
enter, stage right.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Glenn on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 05:53 PM EST |
PJ mentioned in a previous article that IBM does not seem to miss anything. I
am seconding that opinion. They seem to have people beating the bush for any
possible relevant quote, news release, etc. I would hope that the GROKLAW
research has been beneficial to them.
SCO's incautious public statements and carefuuly choreographed show and tell
seems to be backfiring on them. But they are only reaping what they have sown.
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark_Edwards on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 07:17 PM EST |
| Just read this on yahoo finance and found it quite interesting !
Link
to post
Re: SCO Desperate for Shut-up Money
by: ndangerctscom
> That's why they're going to keep trying till IBM flattens them. It's
their last hope
> and they could care less - all they want is the money.
The supposition that the activities they engage in are intended by
them
to benefit the SCO Group is, I think, misguided. The facts simply do
not
fit that theory.
The facts fit the theory that the SCO Group
is a bankrupt shell that is
being piloted to a fiery death quite
deliberately. The intent is to cause
as much harm as possible to the
marketplace prospects of linux before
the legal walls close in, at which
point the company will declare the
same bankruptcy it was going to declare
anyway.
Why would they do this? Because they are being paid to do
it. Look at
the money that is being shoveled into the hands of the Canopy
Group
while their bankrupt little shell prances on the stage throwing mud at
linux.
Who would pay to have mud thrown at linux? Somebody who
considers
open source their biggest competitor.
SCO is nothing
but an item of ammunition in this process. It is intended
to be destroyed at
the end. It was a bankrupt company anyway, when
this all started. That's why
it was picked as the vehicle to be sent out to
sling the mud on behalf of
the "mystery client" behind BayStar, RBC,
and Deutche Bank.
When
the time comes, they will crater it. That is how they intend to
walk away
from the mess they have created, and it is how the
"mystery client" thinks
it is going to escape liability for the trade libel
and other torts it has
inflicted on IBM, Red Hat, and others.
There is no lawsuit against
IBM. It's all bogus. It's a prop in a press
relations campaign. Pressed by
IBM to name one single specific charge
they would like to make against IBM
-- in court, not to reporters -- SCO
cannot do it. SCO is about to receive a
court order mandating that they
tell the Defendant what it is, precisely,
that they are charging. It has
come to this because SCO cannot or will not
make an actual charge
against IBM under oath. Only in the press do they say
all this stuff.
This lawsuit by SCO is going to be dismissed as an
act of barratry, and
the lawyers sanctioned for bringing it and wasting the
court's time.
Once that happens -- and it isn't two months away --
there will be no
point to keeping SCO in operation any longer. They will
close the
doors, hoping to avoid the countersuits by ducking into
bankruptcy.
Whatever "mystery client" put up the $50 million
behind the PIPE
financing will have lost the entire amount, but that won't
matter. They
weren't making an investment. They were purchasing PR services.
Will
$50 million worth of mud stick to linux? Probably not.
This will go down in history as one of the sleaziest operations ever
undertaken by an Amercian corporation, and the most egregious abuse
of the
legal system in decades. We will probably see some kind of tort
reform
because of this case... some change in procedures to make this
kind of
"lawsuit as a prop" activity a lot harder -- and a lot more
expensive -- to
do.
As for Microsoft, when the Judge overseeing the anti-trust
settlement
sees the proof of what they did here, the clerks will have to
peel her off
the ceiling. What had been a "settlement victory" following a
trial loss
will turn into something else entirely. Microsoft will end up
paying very
dearly for this little stunt.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 07:30 PM EST |
"SCO has not produced:
* any of its supposed "evidence" of
wrongdoing by IBM -- such as code comparisons, public "postings" of SCO
confidential material, or presentation materials from the SCO Forum -- which it
has clearly shown to others"
IBM really has SCO cornered on this.
For months SCO talked publically about the code comparison and how it had
allegedly found a million lines of SCO code in Linux. But they didn't mention
the code comparison in their complain against IBM.
Why not? The only
reason I can think of is that what the code comparison came up with was pretty
poor, like not many matching lines, and so they don't want to introduce it in
court.
In its motion IBM makes a solid argument that SCO has to turn
over the code comparison. If SCO hands it over then the court gets to see how
bad the code comparison is. If they don't hand it over, then they forfeit their
case against IBM -- and they probably also forfeit against IBM's countersuit
claim that SCO made false public statements about Linux.
Boy, I
wouldn't want to be in SCO's shoes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 08:04 PM EST |
"IBM also requests oral argument on this motion pursuant to DUCivR 7-1(f),
and that it be heard on December 5, 2003, the date currently set for hearing on
IBM's pending motion to compel."
So, it looks like we're going to get "Show and Tell Time" at long
last![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Dec. 5th - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 09:46 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: gnuadam on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 09:22 PM EST |
Interesting article that features Dido quotes throughout
here.
Of particular intest is this quote refering to ibm's investment in
novell:
But there is more to this deal than maintaining
open-source channels, DiDio believes. "You must recognize that SCO and Novell
are both character actors in the larger tableau, which is all about Microsoft
and IBM going after one another. It is no coincidence to me that several weeks
ago, SCO received financing from Microsoft, and then IBM turns around and
finances Novell. And that is what all this is about, ultimately -- high-tech
politicking by proxy."
Is she refering to the baystar
deal? Could this be the evidence that quatermass is looking for....surely dido
has some inside info we're all not privy to.
And if sco is propping sco
up by proxy, as our hostile witness contends, should the anti-trust people be
interested
in this saga? These are all good questions, I believe. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nboddie on Sunday, November 09 2003 @ 12:06 PM EST |
All,
I was out at the NASA site for other reasons today, and ran across a link to
this site that has apparently served NASA as a reference source in their Open
Source licensing program:
http://www.denniskennedy.com/opensourcelaw.htm
regards,
Ned[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Sunday, November 09 2003 @ 04:06 PM EST |
score the PDFs instead of just reading them from the Pacer images? I would have
thought that there'd be at least one PDF image posted but haven't found one.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
