decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
All 3 Motions to Compel Set for Oral Arguments on Dec. 5
Sunday, November 23 2003 @ 06:40 PM EST

The US District Court, District of Utah court docket now reflects that all three Motions to Compel, two by IBM and one by SCO, will be heard by Judge Wells on December 5, 2003 at 10:00 AM. I will show you how I finally figured it out.

Look on the page and scroll to the bottom. You will see a notation, 80-1, saying "Magistrate Notice of Hearing Motion hearing set for 10:00 12/5/03 for [68-1] motion to compel discovery, set for 10:00 12/5/03 for [66-1] motion to Compel Discovery, set for 10:00 12/5/03 for [44-1] motion to compel Discovery. To be held before Judge Wells cc:atty ( Ntc generated by: JD)"

Notice the numbers in the brackets: 44-1, 66-1, and 68-1. If you go up the line on the left until you find what these numbers correspond with, you will find that 44-1 is IBM's first Motion to Compel, which it filed on October 1st. Then next in order, 66-1 is SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery, which it filed on November 4. Then 68-1 is IBM's Second Motion to Compel Discovery, which it filed on November 6. By noting all three, the clerk is indicating that the judge at Friday's conference found that discovery issues have not been resolved by the parties and therefore the December 5th hearing that was more or less already set for that date is evidently now confirmed and will happen at 10:00 AM, also before Judge Wells, with oral arguments. By the way, Groklaw has its own timeline for the IBM case, called IBM Timeline, with a link on the left of the page, so you can follow chronologically what has happened so far and what is expected in the future.

Keep in mind that sometimes clerks goof, just like the rest of us, so this is subject to correction, but that is what the clerk has recorded. So it looks like we're set to go for the 5th, as we hoped. It isn't unusual for a party who has been hit with a Motion to Compel to file one too. That way, they can say, in effect, "They're as bad as we are." It's a psychological thing, kind of like a parent who sees one child hit the other. Now he's mad at that child who hit his sibling. But if the one that got hit strikes back, now the parent is mad at both children, not just the one who started it.

An example of a clerk error: Did you notice the notation about David Markarian being added as an attorney for IBM? I consider that impossible, even though I saw it with my own eyes on the docket. Why impossible? Well, for starters, he's an associate with Boies, Schiller. Second, he's close friends with Mark J. Heise. They started a law firm together, prior to joining up with Boies in 2002. So if he joined IBM's team, it would be Greek tragedy, instead of French farce, which is what we have been enjoying so far.

Here is an an example of their work, from January of 2002, a case where they challenged the City of Miami's parking tax as being ... drum roll . . . unconstitutional. Hmm. Is he a one-trick pony, or what? It must have been fun to do, though, because it's so bold a concept, and it looks like they did well, up to a point. Here is the argument the city's attorneys made. The case survived one appeal and here's the notice of settlement of the class action from November last year, for $14 million for the class. But here's where it gets a bit interesting. It seems in April, Boies, Schiller was accused of a conflict of interest in the case, and their fees were challenged. Well, I'll let NY Lawyer tell the tale:

"Months after the city of Miami reached a $14 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit challenging its parking surcharge tax, a local attorney has filed objections to the agreement.

"Peter Homer, a partner at Homer Bonner & Delgado in Miami, alleges one of the attorneys representing the plaintiff class has a conflict of interest, that the settlement terms aren’t fair to some members of the class, and that the agreement would award excessive fees to the plaintiff lawyers.

"Homer contends that class attorney Mark Heise, a partner at Boies Schiller & Flexner, cannot serve as plaintiff counsel in the case because his law firm is a member of the class. The settlement, Homer says, improperly favors parking customers who paid the surcharge in county-owned facilities. Also, Homer says, the settlement is too generous to Heise and his co-counsel, Thomas Korge, a partner at Korge & Korge in Coral Gables.

"The two plaintiff lawyers are asking the court for $3.6 million in attorney's fees. Their fees would be paid first out of the $14 million fund established under the proposed settlement."

So, let's get this straight. The firm was a member of the class and the lawyer for the class. Say, wouldn't that mean you'd get paid twice from the lawsuit's settlement? Why, yes. I believe it would. Apparently some old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds in FL think that's not appropriate, and they have ideas that you might favor your own best interests at the expense of others in the class, if you're the lawyer. There's always a nudge, isn't there? I don't know what happened after April, but not enough to make Boies, Schiller take the case down from its web site, where they list it as an example of Heise's work.

If you'd like to know a bit about these two friends, you can go to the Boies, Schiller web site, if you can bear flash and tables and other bells and whistles. You will have to click on the pretty picture, then when you see a menu appear, choose Lawyer Profiles, then pick the letter M for Markarian, then his name, or H for Heise. Markarian's specialty is trial work, particularly jury trials, and he does appellate work as well, which means he's a good man to have on your side during a trial, to make sure you don't miss your chances to make sure you can appeal if you lose on the first rung.

Here's what the site says about his pal Heise:

"His main practice areas are complex commercial litigation and class actions.

"Since joining Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Mr. Heise has represented The SCO Group in its significant intellectual property claims involving the licensing of the UNIX source code. Mr. Heise is also involved in numerous class actions, including as lead counsel in a case against the City of Miami on behalf of persons who paid an unconstitutional parking tax."

Here's what it says about Markarian:

"Mr. Markarian . . .has developed an enviable record of courtroom and appellate success. He has tried, and won, scores of jury trials involving virtually all types of complex civil litigation, from corporate disputes to product liability and personal injury claims and has written and argued over 20 appeals in the appellate courts of Florida. In 1999 he founded Heise Markarian Foreman, a boutique litigation firm which merged with Boies, Schiller and Flexner in 2002. . . .

"Mr. Markarian is a graduate of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy (1993), lectures on topics ranging from trial tactics and techniques to ethics, and has been an annual lecturer at the Florida Bar sponsored Bridge the Gap Seminar given to newly admitted lawyers. REPORTED CASES: Adamo v. Manatee Condominium, Inc., 548 So.2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 521 So.2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Ballard v. American Land Cruisers, Inc., 537 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Carroll v. Kencher, 491 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Feliciano v. Sherouse, 626 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Ferguson v. V.S.L. Corp., 528 So.2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Boone, 546 So.2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); McEvoy v. Union Oil Co., 552 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Metropolitan Dade County v. Zapata, 601 So.2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Moghari v. Anthony Abraham Chevrolet Ltd., 699 So.2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Nuñez v. Capital Insurance Co., Inc., 545 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Sierra v. Brizuela, 680 So.2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Taylor v. M.C.F. Aviation Corp., 635 So.2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Wade v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 508 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Wilson v. Gill Hotel Co., 684 So.2d 1373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Lightborne v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 796 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); McGrath v. City of Miami, 824 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 2002); Browd v. Highland Underwriters Insurance Co.,560 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Ospina v. Indian Creek Club & Marina Condo Assoc., 561 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

He lectures on "trial tactics, techniques, and ethics." Woah. Ethics? Now, that sounds refreshing. The financial deal between SCO and Boies is getting some notice. Here is what Corp Law Blog ("Issues encountered by corporate lawyers") had to say:

"SCO's willingness to essentially give Boies 20% of SCO -- whether through license fees, equity financings or a sale of the company -- suggests that SCO is little more than a publicly traded lawsuit.

"If and when SCO and Boies finalize the engagement terms, I expect SCO will need to file the engagement agreement as a material contract in its next 1934 Act report. That should be a very interesting agreement."

Would this be our first publicly traded lawsuit? Here is the regulation about reporting a material contract. So maybe we'll get to see all the details. There has been quite a bit of concern about lawyer ethics of late, and if you are interested in the debate specifically about lawyers who help corporations file their documents with the SEC, here is one view:

"The spotlight is now focused on lawyers. In the post-Enron, post-Sarbanes-Oxley debate over the United State's seemingly dysfunctional system of corporate governance, Congress, the SEC, and the public at large all suspect that, when sophisticated financial chicanery occurs, lawyers are typically present 'at the scene of the crime."

What does he isolate as the prolem, or one problem?:

"[A]ttorneys are becoming too economically intertwined with their clients, as a result, in part, of the increasing practice of law firms taking (and even demanding) equity stakes in the client in return for professional services. If some level of independence is necessary for an attorney to function as a gatekeeper . . . SEC rules of professional conduct could define those limits."

Corp Law Blog takes a different view. And finally, a word from a congressman:

"His statement was quickly followed by that of co-sponsor Senator Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs, who said: 'In fact, in our corporate world today -- and I can verify this by my own experiences -- executives and accountants work day to day with lawyers. They give them advice on almost each and every transaction. That means when executives and accountants have been engaged in wrongdoing, there have been some other folks at the scene of the crime -- and generally they are lawyers.' (148 Cong. Rec. S6554 [daily ed. July 10, 2002]"

It's in the Congressiona Record, folks. I guess it must be true.


  


All 3 Motions to Compel Set for Oral Arguments on Dec. 5 | 132 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
All 3 Motions to Compel Set for Oral Arguments on Dec. 5
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 23 2003 @ 11:37 PM EST
Liars, thieves and claim jumpers. Man, they're gonna give lawyers a bad name!

SCO: The New BRE-X!

[ Reply to This | # ]

All 3 Motions to Compel Set for Oral Arguments on Dec. 5
Authored by: Hepburnj on Sunday, November 23 2003 @ 11:38 PM EST
I hope this is not an error on the court clerks
part. Go IBM:->

---
__________
Hepburnj

[ Reply to This | # ]

Options and conflict of interest?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 23 2003 @ 11:42 PM EST
1. Is Boies' firm getting options (e.g. option to buy at $20) or shares?

2. If options, is there a possibility of a conflict of interest? How does this
situation get handled? What, if any, are the ethical rules.

To explain my concern, in my detail:

- My understanding is that the company's lawyers are supposed to be
representing the company as a whole (i.e. all shareholders interests). Somebody
please correct me if wrong.

- If the lawyers have options priced relatively high, then they have a financial
incentive to do things which have a chance of raising the share price above the
option price, even if such actions are relatively risky.


For example:

Imagine if a lawyer had options at $22 in some company.

Now these options are worth little or nothing if the current share price is say
$14.

The best interest of the company (all shareholders) might be to take few risks,
or small risks, and try to preserve the $14 value.

However the lawyer's best interest is different. The lawyer knows his options
are essentially worthless if the price is below $22. So the lawyer would have a
financial incentive to take extreme risks (with the future of company) to get
the price above $22.
- If the extreme risks work out (the lawyer wins the case or whatever), the
lawyer makes money on the options
- If the extreme risks destroys or damages the company, the lawyer is no worse
off (in terms of his own financial interest), than if he had done nothing or
played it safe.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ethics
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 23 2003 @ 11:45 PM EST
That one's interesting, seems he should give ol' Darl a
lecture. Maybe after that, Darl won't contradict himself
when he speaks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Ethics - Authored by: skidrash on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 12:28 AM EST
Couple of OT bits
Authored by: Clifton Hyatt on Sunday, November 23 2003 @ 11:46 PM EST

3D desktop for Linux? video presentation

Always funny Linus verbiage The Beaver Overlord

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parking tax, GPL and Unconstitutional thing
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 23 2003 @ 11:54 PM EST
I read some of that parking tax filings a while ago, before my eyes glazed
over.

I vaguely remember it was about the Florida State constitution rather than the
US constitution, although that's kind of immaterial to my main point/question.

The parking tax thing, at least involves some government action. So it makes
sense to me a parking tax could in theory be unconstitutional (whether it was or
not in this particular case is another matter, and not one that I'm interested
in).

What has me totally perplexed is how the use of the GPL license by individuals
and corporations, could be unconstitutional.

Are there are any government provided elements in Linux?

If there were, could it be seriously argued that the government placing
government provided elements under the GPL is unconstitutional? And if this
argument could be made, could this extend to affect the private individuals or
corporations for their elements?

I realize the affirmative defenses are some sort of grab bag of *possible*
defenses that might be used, but if no decent argument can be made that the GPL
violates the US constitution (and I don't know whether a decent argument can be
made, although I haven't seen one as yet), would it proper to just throw it in
the grab bag of possible defenses.

[ Reply to This | # ]

All 3 Motions to Compel Set for Oral Arguments on Dec. 5
Authored by: skidrash on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 12:34 AM EST
Isn't it a gimme that Boies has already violated the Lanham act by
threatening to sue RH & RH customers,
all the unfounded accusations against IBM,
all the partaking of press conferences.

Putting himself in an ownership position
AND
obviously a position with access to management

puts him at great risk for 'piercing the veil' by IBM?

Isn't this the kind of thing that 'piercing the veil' was meant to address?
Shareholders are supposed to stay at arms length.

I don't think that means you keep your arms at your side and the other party is
touching your deltoid.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Publically Traded Lawsuit
Authored by: gleef on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 01:07 AM EST

You ask if this would be the first publically traded lawsuit. I know of at least one older traded lawsuit, DR-DOS, alhtough it would probably be considered a privately traded lawsuit.

DR-DOS was a workalike MS-DOS clone by Digital Research, the company that wrote CP/M. In the early 90's, they sold DR-DOS to Novell (who released it under the DR-DOS and NDOS brand names). Microsoft started playing illegal anti-competitive games with Windows detecting DR-DOS, and giving error messages. In 1996 Novell sold the product and the damages to Caldera (now SCO), who immediately filed suit against Microsoft. Microsoft settled out of court for an undisclosed but large sum of money (probably between $300-500 million).

The lawsuit out of the way, Caldera spun the less interesting (to them) part of the property, the actual product, out into it's own company (Lineo) via the Canopy group. Lineo was since bought out by DeviceLogics, who continues to maintain and market it for embedded systems (eg ATM machines).

Regardless, it appeared like Caldera bought a lawsuit from Novell, and then passed on the property as uninteresting when the lawsuit cashed in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

All 3 Motions to Compel Set for Oral Arguments on Dec. 5
Authored by: dodger on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 01:15 AM EST
Hi pj, what do you do when a judge/jury has been bought?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Heise and cronies
Authored by: JMonroy on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 01:38 AM EST
Yes, it is all becoming more clear.

Heise had the gall to charge $3.6 million in fees for a lawsuit over parking taxes? In actuality, it was more like twice that at $7.2 million (including partner fees), or over half the entire settlement. HALF. How can anyone call themselves ethical, or even moral, when they extort millions from hardworking taxpayers? Isn't that highly immoral... by any standard? How can they sleep at night? Have they no conscience?

Heise, who is of obvious questionable character based on this one incident, is money-hungry. When I finished the section about Heise merging with Boies, it made perfect sense. Boies, a man with questionable morals, is a perfect partner for Heise. As one of my old high school teachers used to say, "Birds of a Feather Flock Together."

Throw in McBride, and now you have your set of modern day liars, swindlers and horse-thieves.

Yes, it is all becoming more clear... with each passing day.

---
SCOvsIBM
Res ipsa loquitur

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Heise and cronies - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 09:49 AM EST
  • Off contingency? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 11:32 AM EST
Can the judge throw out the case?Arguments on Dec. 5
Authored by: shaun on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 02:47 AM EST
I read in an article that it might be possible for the judge to dismiss the case
entirely if he feels the evidence is to weak or non-existent for SCO to continue
further. Is this in fact true? If it is and the judge does dismiss what happens
next?

--Shaun

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • No - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 02:57 AM EST
    • But... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 03:19 AM EST
      • But... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 08:41 AM EST
        • But... - Authored by: PJ on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 10:14 AM EST
          • But... - Authored by: J.F. on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 12:20 PM EST
  • Not on Dec 5 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 07:41 AM EST
    • Not on Dec 5 - Authored by: SkArcher on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 09:07 AM EST
      • Not on Dec 5 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 09:24 AM EST
        • Not on Dec 5 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 12:18 PM EST
  • Not sure IBM would want that - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 12:44 PM EST
Off Topic but these are the kind of office Supplies SCO needs to buy.
Authored by: shaun on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 03:36 AM EST
http://store.yahoo.com/demotivators/indem.html

BTW click on the Frownies link for an interesting take on copyright game play it
immediately made me think of SCO. All to funny.

--Shaun


[ Reply to This | # ]

What is likely to happen after Dec. 5?
Authored by: neil on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 06:34 AM EST
So what is likely to happen on and after the 5th? I guess that the judge will
order SCO to be more specific. Presumably there will be a set time frame in
which they have to comply. I doubt that they will just give up at that point,
so they will do what they can. Probably they have some more stuff like they
showed at the SCO Forum, perhaps even some stuff that's a little bit better
than that. Doubtless ESR and friends have been busy preparing for that as best
they can, and will be able to rebut SCO's claims within hours. However, the
main thrust of SCO's complaints will probably involve methods rather than
literal copying. They might just highlight the SMP/NUMA/RCU/JFS bits in the
files they have already mentioned, and point to corresponding bits of their own
source code, and say that the methods are copied. Their evidence will probably
be laughable, and the community will probably document that quite quickly, but
that may not be the main issue, because I doubt that the judge has authority to
rule on laughability at this stage. The question is, can they do enough along
these lines to keep the case running?

Neil

[ Reply to This | # ]

All 3 Motions to Compel Set for Oral Arguments on Dec. 5
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 07:44 AM EST
If you look down the list of changes, there's an old familiar name : is that
the same Hellwig who worked for Caldera ?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Some OT Humor
Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 08:08 AM EST

For fans of the British Sci-Fi show "Dr. Who"... Here's the real villain in this matter. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Deutsche's Skiba quoted in Barrons Article
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 08:39 AM EST
The usual fluff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: News of day
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 08:40 AM EST
http://www.eweek.com/ article2/0,4149,1395307,00.asp - new paper coming from Eben M.


New McBride threats against Industry consortia, technology companies, and repeats of threats against Novell/SuSE and Linux users.

Selected quotes follow (emphasis added to a new target)

"We've always said it was license or litigate," SCO CEO Darl McBride says.

Which company or companies does SCO have in its sights? As of last week, that decision had not yet been made. "We're culling the list down," McBride says. The mystery will be over shortly; SCO plans to initiate legal action within 90 days. The target will be a large, "fairly high-profile" company or companies that have been uncooperative to date, McBride says.

It's possible, even likely, that other lawsuits will result from SCO's intellectual-property push. McBride warns that Novell will be in violation of a noncompete clause signed in 1995, when the former Santa Cruz Operation purchased Unix assets from Novell, if Novell begins distributing the open-source operating system after its planned acquisition of SuSE Linux AG. "They'll be hearing from us," McBride says. And SCO last week also warned that "industry consortia" and other technology companies are fair game, too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anyone going on Dec 5th?
Authored by: mflaster on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 09:39 AM EST
So is anyone planning on attending the 12/5 meeting? Is it open to the public?

Mike

[ Reply to This | # ]

Share price
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 10:10 AM EST
It's rocketed at the very start of trading - is this a sign of many people
buying or selling?

N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Share price - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 10:15 AM EST
    • Barron's - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 10:18 AM EST
  • Share price - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 10:38 AM EST
  • Share price - Authored by: coffee17 on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 10:53 AM EST
OT, how to suggest a link ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 10:42 AM EST
How can I suggest a nice link ? I found

Paper Calls SCO's Position 'Desperate'
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1395307,00.asp

this one very nice.

[ Reply to This | # ]

All 3 Motions to Compel Set for Oral Arguments on Dec. 5
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 10:55 AM EST
My understanding is it started out in AIX, then it was re-written for OS/2 (If
they had used the AIX version then this might have been a violation of there
Unix license). The OS/2 version was then ported back to AIX and then also ported
to Linux.

[ Reply to This | # ]

All 3 Motions to Compel Set for Oral Arguments on Dec. 5
Authored by: Nivuahc on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 11:44 AM EST
This just in on LinuxPlanet.
SCO's litigation plans around Linux and BSD Unix amount to "a joke," said Tim O'Reilly, CEO of O'Reilly Publishing. During an open source roundtable at Comdex, the panel moderator strongly criticized SCO's refusal to go public with more details about its intellectual property (IP) infringement claims. In the same session, however, a Microsoft exec said he sees the SCO case as food for thought among developers.

Responding to a question from the audience, O'Reilly suggested that, if SCO's allegations really carried much weight, SCO would be willing to elaborate more. He predicted that the SCO beef will "blow over." SCO's complaint "wouldn't matter," he said, except that certain parties want it to matter. O'Reilly didn't specify which parties he meant.


Excellent read, IMO.

Also this tidbit from Ample
SAN FRANCISCO (AFX) - SCO Group shares rose as much as 11 percent early Monday, after a story in Barron's over the weekend called the stock "a high-risk speculation with a potentially huge payoff." In the story, Barron's quotes a Deutsche Bank analyst who said there's a chance for more "dramatic gains" in SCO's stock price, based on the company's intellectual property lawsuits that seek compensation for what SCO claims is its stolen code that's included in the widely used Linux operating system. In morning trading, SCO shares rose $1.50 to $15.50. The stock is up from $1.09 a share in February. SCO, represented by Microsoft nemesis David Boies, filed a $3 billion lawsuit against IBM , one of the largest backers of Linux. The suit claims IBM illegally made use of SCO's software code by putting it the open-source Linux operating system. The case is scheduled for trial in April 2005. Last week SCO said it plans to file suit in 90 days or less against at least one more large company that makes use of Linux, software that lives in the public domain and is distributed for free. An outright loss in court could make SCO's shares go to zero. But the stock could continue to rise if the lawsuits push large companies into licensing SCO's software, to avoid suits. And if SCO wins the $3 billion it seeks vs. IBM in court, the Barron's story points out that the stock could be worth $185 a share, or 20 percent less after Boies gets his 20 percent payment for representing SCO. This story was supplied by CBSMarketWatch. For further information see www.cbsmarketwatch.com.


---
Yeah, I finally created an account. You might recognise me from my old nickname though: 'Anonymous'.

[ Reply to This | # ]

400,000 shares?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 12:30 PM EST
I am puzzled as to why Boies would take 400,000 SCO shares as part of his
payment. The shares would be worth something only if SCO wins the trial. Does
he really think this is possible?

Or maybe he is going to sell them before the trial is over. (that would look
really great -- your trial lawyer dumps all his shares of your stock).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Help.. What to expect?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 01:39 PM EST
I'm still a bit (well, a *lot*) confused by what to expect from this..

Will it just be the back-and-forth argumentation that we've seen so far in the
motions and answers filed so far, albeit at an accelerated pace, or is it
possible that the judge will provide rulings on these motions?

If so, will the rulings come on the fifth, or after? What is the likely
outcome?

I know that we'd all like the judge to force SCO to 'put up or shut up'.. but
what I'm wondering is: can this happen at this stage, or does it come later?

[ Reply to This | # ]

David Markarian being added as an attorney for IBM - not a mistake
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 03:42 PM EST
Oh no, this is not a mistake. It actually explains everything.

<conspiracy theory>
It appears as if IBM actually started it all in the first place. The idea was to
try GPL in court in such a ridiculous (and at the same time - high-profile)
scenario, that it will have no chance of failing and yet be serious enough to be
considered a "good" precedent.
Step 1. Creation of United Linux, transferring all knowledge/methods Caldera had
to SuSE.
Step 2. Caldera/SCO sues IBM
Step 3. Novell purchases SuSE (with everything it got from Caldera before),
under an IBM umbrella.
Step 4. Boies lawyers make sure that SCO has no chance of winning.
Step 5: IBM wins with a crush.
Aftermath: IBM has a way to pursuade its customers and partners that GPL has a
strong legal grounds, and they should not fear. It partially owns both leading
Linux distributors (Novell/SuSE with latest deal and RedHat through early
investment), makes sure no one of leading distributors has effective monopoly.
Now they can position themselves as an ultimate Linux company without looking
back at anyone, and effectively confront any legal FUD MS can put up.
</conspiracy theory>

What's missing from this picture is any evidence of how IBM would compensate
SCO execs and shareholders for such a sacrifice - destruction of company and its
UNIX legacy assets. Inflation of stock is one thing, but there likely was
something else as well. Anyway, SCO was ripe for slaughter and this is a
brilliant way of bringing it down as usefully as possible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another Publicly Traded Lawsuit
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 12:44 PM EST
An example company is Ambase, which is successor to several bankrupt S&Ls
and has been pursuing a claim against the government for over 15 years (for the
government destroying their business by suddenly changing the rules on
goodwill). It has one employee and a pretty substantial market value considering
it is literally just a lawsuit. It is very lightly traded, however.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )