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
SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney
Monday, December 01 2003 @ 08:35 PM EST

SCO filed a motion in Utah on November 26 asking for a month's extra time to answer IBM's third set of interrogatories. IBM asked them for all facts relating to their affirmative defenses. That's too much to ask them to finish on time, SCO argues, because they asserted 26 affirmative defenses, so that's like 26 questions instead of just one.

Also, they point out there is a motion to strike three of those affirmative defenses. What if IBM wins that motion, SCO seems to be saying? Then we'd only have 23 affirmative defenses, so it'd be wasteful to provide all the facts about those three affirmative defenses.

In addition, they need a month because they hired a patent attorney, but it turns out there may be a conflict due to the patent firm's "prior or continuing representation of IBM in other matters", they explain. Either he has worked for IBM in the past or his firm is now working for them on another matter or has in the past. SCO asked IBM to waive the conflict, but IBM said no. Duh. I think SCO may have trouble getting any favors from IBM's lawyers. There are apparently negotiations about the waiver still going on, but if it doesn't get settled by December 1, SCO says it will have to hire a new patent attorney. They say they need a patent attorney because some of IBM's counterclaims are about patents.

IBM agreed to give them 2 weeks if they agreed to actually answer the question at the end of the two weeks, without objecting to any part of the question. SCO wouldn't go for that deal, so they plead with the judge for an extra two weeks, until December 29.

If this was their first such request, under the circumstances, you'd expect they'd be granted their request. It sounds plausible. You really can't go forward in a court battle without proper representation. The only questions the judge may wrestle with are: how much time does it take to hire a new lawyer? and haven't these folks asked for delay after delay after delay already? Is there a pattern here?


Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address, phone, etc.]

Stephen N. Zack (Pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (Pro hac vice)
David K. Markarian (Pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER L.L.P.
[address, phone, etc.]

Attorneys for Plaintiff The Sco Group, Inc.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH


THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION, a New York corporation,
Defendant

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANT IBM'S
THIRD SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND THIRD
DOCUMENTS
Case No. 2:03CV0294

Hon. Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells


Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, The SCO group, Inc. ("SCO"), through its undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Local Rules, files this Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant IBM's Third Set of Interrogatories and Third Request for Production of Documents and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof, and in support states:

1. On October 29, 2003, Defendant, International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") served Defendant IBM's Third Set of Interrogatories and Third Request for Production of Documents ("IBM's Third Request"). As detailed below, SCO needs a 30-day enlargement of time to respond and/or object to the third set of interrogatories[1], up to and including Monday, December 29, 2003.

2. To date, SCO has produced over one million pages of requested documents and reviewed millions more to comply with its discovery obligations. During that time, IBM's [sic] has issued its Third Request that asks SCO to reveal "with specificity and in detail, all facts concerning" each of SCO's affirmative defenses. While this Third Request appears as just a single interrogatory question, the reality is that SCO has asserted twenty-six affirmative defenses. As a result, IBM's question is the functional equivalent of twenty-six questions. To respond to this seemingly innocuous interrogatory is an enormous task in a case of this size and complexity.

3. Besides the expansive scope of the question directed to the twenty-six affirmative defenses, there are further reasons why a brief enlargement of time is appropriate. First, three of SCO's affirmative defenses are currently under challenge by IBM and are the subject of a motion to strike that has not yet been fully briefed. Depending on the outcome of that motion, responding to those three affirmative defenses could be a waste of resources. Second, two of those and several other affirmative defenses related to "patent" issues arising from IBM's counterclaims. Because the patent issues raised by IBM present separate and unique factual and legal issues, SCO had retained separate patent counsel for those matters. After this other firm chosen for the handling of patent issues was involved in the case, an issue arose as to whether a conflict existed based on that firm's prior or continuing representation of IBM in other matters. Upon learning of this potential conflict, the firm discontinued all work for SCO regarding this case and attempted to obtain a waiver from IBM. To date, IBM has refused to do so, although efforts to do so continue. It is expected that by December 1, the conflict will be waived or SCO will obtain other patent counsel. Many of the interrogatory responses required by IBM's Third Request necessarily require the involvement and input of patent counsel. As a result of the foregoing, SCO needs a brief enlargement of time to respond to the interrogatory directed to the twenty-six affirmative defenses.

4. IBM has expressed willingness to agree to a two week enlargement of time, but only if SCO agrees to respond and agrees not to object to any portion of the question.

5. No prejudice will come to IBM by the granting of this motion. The current discovery cut off date is not until August 4, 2004 for fact discovery and October 22, 2004 for expert discovery.

6. SCO will be prejudiced if this Motion is not granted.

7. This Court has "wide discretion" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) to grant the enlargement of time requested herein. This is so because the time prescribed by the federal rules or court order has not passed, and the request is timely. Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation 497 U.S. 871, 895 and n.5 (1990); see Hertz Corp. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 16 F.3d 1126 (11th Cir. 1994); Ritter v. Smith, 811 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir. 1987). Courts have recognized that a timely requested enlargement, such as the one requested here, is "readily available." Motsinger v. Flynt 119 F.R.D. 373, 378 (M.D.N.C. 1988); accord Sherrod v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., 516 F. Supp. 39, 41 (E.D. Tenn. 1978) (Plaintiff could have "obtained readily an enlargement," had he made a timely request); In re Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 106 B.R. 510, 515 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1989)(same).

8. SCO respectfully requests an extension of time to December 29, 2003 to respond to IBM's Third Set of Interrogatories.

DATED this 26th day of November, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

By: ______________________
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, L.L.P.
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
David K. Markarian

Counsel for Plaintiff/Counterclaim defendant


[1} This motion is directed only to the interrogatory answers required by Defendant IBM's Third Set of Interrogatories and Third Request for Production of Documents. SCO is responding to IBM's Third Request for Documents.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, The SCO Group, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OT TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT IBM'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND THIRD REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS was served on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation on this 26th day of November, 2003, by U.S. mail to:

Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore L.L.P.
[address] Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq. [address] Allan L. Sullivan, Esq. Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. [address]

  


SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney | 143 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 01 2003 @ 10:23 PM EST
5. No prejudice will come to IBM by the granting of this motion. The current discovery cut off date is not until August 4, 2003 for fact discovery and October 22, 2004 for expert discovery.
They make it sound like August 4,2003 is sometime in the future (?) What's the dif between the two types?
Steve S

[ Reply to This | # ]

How much longer can this go on?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 01 2003 @ 10:23 PM EST
I mean, are they not going to eventually make the judge angry with this request
after request for delays, especially since SCO has been screaming about their
rock solid evidence in public nearly every day for the last nine months?


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney
Authored by: Whiplash on Monday, December 01 2003 @ 10:26 PM EST
They'll get what they want.

Although if I was the Judge I'd say, answer that part of the interogs that
AREN'T related to patents now (which are around 3 of them) and answer the rest
in 4 weeks time.

But I don't think that will happen and we will have Happy New Year readings of
more documents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Monday, December 01 2003 @ 10:26 PM EST
This got me, about the patent attorney
"Either he has worked for IBM in the past or his firm is now working for
them on another matter or has in the past."

How many patent attorneys are there?
How many patent attorneys have ever worked for IBM?
How many of the total patent attorneys, have not ever worked for IBM in any
way.
What is his name? <G>

We are talking about IBM.


---
Norman Madden
Chuluota, FL

[ Reply to This | # ]

Grammar and sentence structure
Authored by: sphealey on Monday, December 01 2003 @ 10:29 PM EST
Is is just my misimpression, or is the grammar and sentence structure in the SCO
filing atrocious? I always thought that while legal prose might be opaque it
was supposed to be logical and well-structured underneath. When I read the SCO
filings I find poorly structured sentences, missing connections, unclear
antecedents - the kind of writing problems my kids' sixth grade teacher circles
in red.

Am I missing something - is their work just too brilliant for me to follow?

sPh

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney
Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, December 01 2003 @ 10:39 PM EST
looks like IBM says nope so this means IBM thinks they deserve some answers
after all after 8 or 9 months surely they can at least say what IBM did wrong?
GO IBM
and i hope the judge tells them not this time


---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

Building the momentum of delay, two responses
Authored by: webster on Monday, December 01 2003 @ 10:39 PM EST
What's the hurry? Trial is more than a year away. The judge has the rest of
his caseload to attend. Let the big boys play. Give them more time. They'll
work it out or settle.

But.. How could SCO make the allegations they have and deal with IP and methods,
code and derivations and copyrights and ...patents without some patent know how?
Didnt they perform due diligence before they brought this claim? Why do they
need more time for a patent attorney at this point? Isn't there any one in the
firm that does patents? They won't or can't disclose the code behind their
claims and they are now talking about further delay. SCO is going to take the
law firm down with it. Quick deadlines sanctions, dismissals and attorney fee
awards are the order of the day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I have a question...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 01 2003 @ 10:40 PM EST
IANAL so I was wondering if anyone out there could help me out here...

At what point can someone honestly delay in a situation like this? At what point
will a judge tell a plaintiff to quit delaying? Is there written or unwritten
rule that governs this?

Is the plaintiff allowed to delay at all?

As I've been following this case I've become curious as to when SCO's delays
become not just rude, but illegal or punishable or whatever...

Thanks in advance...

--andy richter

[ Reply to This | # ]

Am I missing something??
Authored by: jkondis on Monday, December 01 2003 @ 10:54 PM EST
What's the logic in requiring a discovery delay for patent issues related to
the counter-claim? That's another ball of wax, is it not? OK, they could get
tried together, but they don't need a patent lawyer to produce the information
requested, do they?

They've paid Boies, Scheister, and Co. 10,000,000 dollars!!! WTF are they
doing with all that money if not following the necessary procedures?

???

My head is spinning. I feel bad for PJ...

...J

[ Reply to This | # ]

two weeks or four
Authored by: jiri on Monday, December 01 2003 @ 10:59 PM EST
Paragraph 4 of the article, should probably end "an extra month, until
December 29" rather than "an extra two weeks, until December
29". (Unless I'm confused - if I'm reading it right, they're asking a
month from the judge, while IBM offered two weeks in their deal.)

---
Please e-mail me, I usually read with "No comments".
jiri@baum.com.au

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 01 2003 @ 11:21 PM EST

How long has it been since IBM filed their countersuit? And SCO is just now realizing that they're having trouble getting an attorney that has patent experience lined up?

Jeez! I guess they were having so much fun preparing documents for the lawsuit they initiated -- not to mention spending time arranging for some shady financing and partnerships for the legal team -- that they plum forgot that they are the defendants in another lawsuit.

Who's the judge presiding over the IBM patent suit?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tin Foil Hat Again
Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, December 01 2003 @ 11:46 PM EST
you are all going to kick me out for this but the more that happens the more
convinced i am right
here goes
boies worked as attorney for IBM when it was being sued by the government
fought them for 10 years and won
boies won the M$ case the government let M$ off the hook
this guy is smart enough that i really dont believe they waited till now to get
a patent attorney
sorry
i just do not buy that
it does not fit the picture of boies
this case has been planned every step laid out
it is all a script
the patent attorney is going to have ties to either M$,canopy,or maybe CA?
but it is sure going to be interesting
i do not think boies is stupid or lacking in talent
and he would plan more carefully than to think IBM wouldnt have filed patent
claims in a counter defense


---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Latest Gambit
Authored by: D. on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 12:22 AM EST
My, my, my. Why are we suprised?

How about a friendly wager, as to the next delay?

Will it be the need for a copyright lawyer, or will it be for a license lawyer?

Rember, SCOG's attorneys took the offence on contingency, the defense is paid
in cash.

D.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 12:56 AM EST
Justice delayed is justice denied ?
How much longer ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Additions to the IBM Timeline
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 01:35 AM EST

I think the August 4, 2004 deadline for fact discovery is missing from the IBM Timeline. It would probably also be good to clarify that October 22, 2004 is the deadline for expert discovery.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney
Authored by: skuggi on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 02:17 AM EST
Well well, it looks like they are not as eager to prove
their claims in the courthouse now as they previously
stated. "We look forward to prove our case in court"

But it is not a surprice that they ask for delay now, when
not only their lawyers get payed by stock, their whole
business relies on it, hahahaha!

And talking about GPL being business unfriendly, yes it
is! And you are absolutely right Darl'ing!
It is to the type of business SCO is running now!

-Skuggi

[ Reply to This | # ]

Didio Quotes of the day
Authored by: MathFox on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 04:29 AM EST
iTNews :
Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio, who saw the code, said she thinks SCO "seemed to make a compelling argument" but added that "they were showing us snippets, and you cannot draw a definitive conclusion based upon that."
internetnews :
"For Linux to take its place alongside UNIX, Windows, and NetWare in the enterprise, it must be worthy in both a business and technological sense. That means strong indemnification," DiDio wrote in a recent note about the issue.

---
MathFox gets rabid from SCO's actions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: GPLF fud from www.cio.com
Authored by: Slay on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 04:39 AM EST
It's Here.

One of the things that strike me is this: "The GPL states that the user of an open source program "must cause any work that you publish or distribute that in whole or [in part] contains or is derived from the program or any part thereof to be licensed as a whole, at no charge, to all third parties under the terms of the licence"."

Because I don't trust my memory I just checked the copy of the GPL on www.gnu.org and of course this stuff is not quoted from there. And yet they use it to attack the GPL. They also talk about the definition of 'derivative': "The meaning of the term "derived" is not clear, and the pertinent clause is, he says, inconsistent with other parts of the GPL licence."

I beg to differ and claim that the meaning of "derived" as used in GPL is just as clear as the meaning of "...derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.", and that is a quote from the GPL.

So what's the deal with these people? Can't they read?

Slay

---
SCO? Non Serviam!

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT... SCO T-Shirt brings $51 on eBay
Authored by: lpletch on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 06:11 AM EST
Here is a link.

New unused SCO attacks Linux T-Shirt

Bidding has ended for this item (sammyfuzz is the winner)

Winning bid: US $51.00

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 06:29 AM EST

Whew. I was thinking over breakfast (sad, isn't it, how Groklaw is so addictive?) about Friday, and how SCO might try to delay the hearing until (oh, say) January 2nd, in order to get a fourth profitable quarter under their belts. Then comes today's Groklaw headline, and I thought it had happened.

Anybody wanna take bets on whether SCO will in fact ask for a postponement of the Dec 5th hearing?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Will this postpone Dec 5 oral arguments?
Authored by: burySCO on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 06:48 AM EST
If granted, will this delay the Dec 5 oral arguments in which SCO is expected to
explain why they can't/won't answer IBM's motion to compel discovery?

I still don't get this: I'm comparing this to a hypothetical situation in
which I'm charged with robbing a bank, and the prosecution stonewalls forever
when asked to divulge what bank, when, what was stolen, etc. I had no idea this
could happen.

---
My jabber handle is burySCO@jabber.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: The Real Brains Behind This Whole Thing
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 07:02 AM EST

UserFriendly fans, take note: here's who's really behind the SCO lawsuit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prejudice is to Red Hat more than IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 07:41 AM EST
Forgive me for interjecting the Red Hat v. SCO case into
this, but isn't this situation the ultimate wet dream
situation for SCO?

In the Delaware court, SCO seems to be asserting that all
the issues Red Hat seeks to resolve in its declaratory
judgment action are being resolved in the IBM case and
since discovery is proceeding apace in the IBM case, there
is no prejudice to Red Hat in waiting for that case
to proceed.

But discovery is **not** proceeding apace in the Utah
court, where SCO seems to be arguing that IBM is not
being prejudiced by various long delays of discovery in
the the IBM case. Yet since Red Hat isn't involved in the
Utah court case, SCO doesn't have to argue to the Utah
judge that Red Hat is being prejudiced by the delay in the
IBM case.

If I have this right, I would surely appreciate someone
explaining how SCO expects to get away with this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about a partial concession?
Authored by: ijramirez on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 08:55 AM EST
Is it possible for the judge to grant a delay for some of the things SCO is
asking and denying it for the rest? Lets say, can the judge grant them the 30
days they are requesting but just the interrogatories pertaining the patent
dispute and let SCO hold on discovery for the other 3 interrogatory requests
pertaining the defenses that IBM is challenging? I hope the judge force then to
move on discovery on the remaining interrogatories.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Instead of delaying a month
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 09:06 AM EST
for answering the third set of interrogatories, they could perhaps bother to
answer the first. It is not that IBM is asking much new here, they are merely
asking again and again that SCO get up their act and answer the first round of
questions: what this is supposed to be about.

And everytime they do that again, SCO says "oh, we are so surprised you
still want to know, we'll need another month of thinking before not answering
your question again."

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 09:15 AM EST
IBM filed thier counter claim 118 days ago, SCO just figured out thier patent
attorney has a conflift of interest?
I guess spewing BS in the press is more important than defending IBM's claims

[ Reply to This | # ]

interesting perspective
Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 09:40 AM EST
http://www.orangecrate.com/article.php?sid=539

---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 09:46 AM EST
There is a team of MIT English whiz kids out there ... somewhere ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney
Authored by: zjimward on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 09:50 AM EST

Since SCO can't find any other reason to delay now, they are going for the
proper legal support angle. Talk about a company that just keeps looking for
loopholes not to provide information. Although in this case I do believe SCO
needs proper legal representation for patents. It's only fair, so that when
they don't win they can't claim a mistrial.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's a question for ol' Darl
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 09:50 AM EST
Nice.. "IBM's question is the functional equivalent of
twenty-six questions. To respond to this seemingly
innocuous interrogatory is an enormous task in a case of
this size and complexity"

Question: Is SCO not at all prepared for the lawsuit they
brought???

[ Reply to This | # ]

The 26 questions
Authored by: MyPersonalOpinio on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 10:53 AM EST
SCOX: Dear Judge:- We affirmed 26 BS defenses so now when IBM asks us what it is all about we don't have enough time because of course we didn't research at all before producing this bunch of BS.

Can IBM request that the delay be conditioned on their starting to produce something meaningful now and just grant more time to finish responding? (e.g., something like negotiating that SCOX has to present support for half of the defenses now and only gets extra time for the rest of them, even let them pick and choose which ones of the 26 they want now and which later!)

This "I cannot do it all therefore I don't do anything at all" attitude that SCOX has, is it usual in court?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question about Plaintiff
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 11:23 AM EST
As i read the documents i see its about the counterclaim that IBM as Plaintiff
made to SCO.

Are this two seperate cases ??

And if it are two seperate cases isn't IBM the Plaintiff in this cases and SCO
the defendant. In the court document it says that SCO is the Plaintiff, is that
correct ???

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • It's both. - Authored by: Dark on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 11:47 AM EST
Half a loaf
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 12:25 PM EST
It seems remarkable [1] that SCO would file 26 affirmative defenses without any preparation whatever. Would it not be reasonable for the Court to order SCO to provide the facts which led them to add those defenses immediately, and grant a delay for the rest?

Of course, if SCO responds with "we really have no idea if this applies, we just piled up anything we could think of on the off-chance," it might look a bit funny.

[1] Well, no, not really. This is SCO we're talking about.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Half a loaf - Authored by: PM on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 02:18 PM EST
A Groklaw question
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 01:04 PM EST
Why do we take out the addresess and phone numbers from the legal documents?
They are in the PDFs so it's not like we are preventing them for being
discovered. We leave similar information like email addresses in other
documents... is this a legal concern, tradition or just being polite?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney - blacklight
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 01:07 PM EST
It is interesting that the SCO Group is filing a motion for enlargement of time, pleading that answering IBM's interrogatories are a serious burden, while two weeks ago Darl McBride was on record saying that the SCO Group was planning to sue an end user within the next 90 days and a BSD end user by mid 2004. This is a disjoint: if the SCO Group has budgeted enough time to harass Linux and BSD end users, then it follows that it already has all the time it needs to answer IBM's motions to compel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Delays and Market Analysts
Authored by: moogy on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 01:19 PM EST
I don't think the SCO FUD machine will be shut
down as long as they continue to successfully mislead
market analysts about their IP claims upon Linux.
After all, it's not only the IBM case that's driving
the feeding frenzy, it's also the potential profits
of owning IP claims upon, and ability to license, ALL
versions of Linux.

After evidence is compiled and itemized by
categories of SCO false claims, should market
analysts who have published recommendations based
upon false information be notified of the facts,
perhaps by registered mail. This would perhaps
undermine possible future claims of ignorance
before the SEC.

Investigator: Did you not read groklaw.net during
your research of IP claims upon Linux?

Analyst: No sir, never heard of it.


---
Mike Tuxford aka moogyCode[TM]

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 02:03 PM EST
Seeing how long ago it was that IBM filed their patent charges, surely SCO has
had plenty of time to hire a patent attorney.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dec 5 hearing
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 02:23 PM EST
I wonder if we could get Court TV to cover the hearings and the trial. Or maybe
do our own internet video feed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What I don't understand
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 02:30 PM EST
Scox (8 months ago): we have solid evidence that ibm broke our contract.

Ibm: show us, and the court, what you've got.

Scox: here's a million pages of code, it's somewhere in there.

Ibm: where exactly?

Scox: we need another delay to get a patent attorney!!

WTF? As ibm said way back, either scox has the evidence, or scox does not. If
scox has the evidence - which scox claims they had 8 months ago, then why does
scox need yet another delay?

[ Reply to This | # ]

My favorite line from SCO's filing
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 05:09 PM EST
SCO says Second, two of those and several other affirmative defenses related to "patent" issues arising from IBM's counterclaims.

I love the quotes around the word "patent", as if this was some exotic butterfly never seen around Utah before. "Oh my God, there are 'patent' issues!"

A cheap shot, I know.

thad

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patent Attorney Possibility
Authored by: Bill The Cat on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 05:32 PM EST
I was thinking about this and another possibility is that the SCO patent
attorney may have found that there was nothing to defend or challenge. In that
situation, (s)he may have decided to state that to SCO. SCO, not wanting to
hear that they have no case then said "go away. We'll find somebody who
can make a case." IF this is true, then the existing attorney may want to
distance him/her self from this to protect their reputation.

We all know how honest SCO has been about their claims so this current claim
about their patent attorney may have as much truth as all the others.

Bill


---
The more I know about Windoze,
The more I Love Linux!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Would Like A Month's Delay to Get a Patent Attorney
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 06:24 PM EST
So, they didn't they like the advice their attorny gave
them. Now the have got to find another one.

[ 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 )