|
|
| SCO's Ex Parte Motion For Leave to File Overlength Memorandum |
 |
|
Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:14 PM EDT
|
Here is SCO's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum. They are asking the judge to allow them to file a 20-page document, which is longer than what is allowed. They need to be overly long, because IBM made certain "mischaracterizations" about SCO's conduct and public statements in their Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Opening Memorandum, in which SCO asked more time be tacked on to the scheduling order.
*********************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark R. Clements (7172)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]
Robert Silver, Esq. (pro hac vice pending)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
____________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
___________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant.
_________________________
EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE OVERLENGTH MEMORANDUM
Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Judge Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells.
________________________
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant The SCO Group ("SCO") hereby moves the Court pursuant to District Court Rule 7-I(e) for leave to file an over-length reply memorandum in support of SCO's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order.
SCO's Opening Memorandum set forth in detail the reasons why the scheduling order in this highly technical case should be amended to provide for a discovery plan that deals with the substantial practical problems and issues that have arisen. In its sixteen page opposition to SCO's motion, International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") makes numerous mischaracterizations of SCO's discovery conduct in this action and SCO's theories of the case. In addition, IBM mischaracterizes public statements made by SCO about the case and about the status of discovery generally. To respond to IBM's attempts to mischaracterize the actions and statements of SCO, SCO has been required to discuss in detail the factual record in order to demonstrate how the record contradicts IBM's claims.
SCO's Reply memorandum is up to 20 pages long, exclusive of face sheet and any table of contents. SCO has endeavored to be as concise as possible, but respectfully submits that the excess length is necessary for a full and fair reply to IBM's opposition.
SCO respectfully requests that it be allowed to file a Reply Memorandum up to 20 pages long, exclusive of face sheet and table of contents.
DATED this the 28th day of May, 2004.
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
BY: ___[signature]________
Brent O. Hatch
Mark R. Clemens
Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum to be placerd in the US Mail first class postage prepaid on the 28th day of May, 2004, to the following:
Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]
Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]
Alan L. Sullivan, Esq.
Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
[address, email]
________[signature]_________
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:08 PM EDT |
What could be the reason for it being
ex parte? If it weren't, would IBM
object to the motion?
Could this be an appeal-hook?
---
__
|Warning:
|Encountered Proprietary Standard and/or Patented Protocol.
|Choose method of payment[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: icebarron on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
sco: Sorry yer honor we have a lot of overly broad explainations to offer to the
court...
IBM: Oh, please are you really that stupid...just show us your supposed
evidence.
sco: But your honor, they have sullied on our good name...
Judge: Oh please are you really that stupid...
I find in favor of the defendant...unless you have some real evidence, I am
inclined to dismiss this case...etc...etc....
Dan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:27 PM EDT |
"up to 20 pages"? They don't even know how long their crappy excuses
are.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:28 PM EDT |
I don't see why TSG needs so many pages. It's not like the pages submitted
so far have actually offered anything relevant to the case.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:39 PM EDT |
ROFLMAHO!!!
Maybe it's time once again for the Judge to say "yes, SCO, just what IS
this case about?" Apparently everyone seems to be mischaracterizing the
case. Can you imagine that? First it's trade secrets...no, no... it's contrat,
yeah, that's it.. but we'll add copyright... yeah, yeah... but this case isn't
about copyright, it's about contract... yeah... um... but all the versions of
AIX and Dynix might help us find trade secrets... and, by the way, the GPL is
unconstitutional... well, it's not, but we said so anyway... and um...
derivative works means that the code was at one time in the same building and
some magic fairy dust transferred... we can't find that because it's magic...
but this case is mostly about IBM leaving Project Montery and not telling us
they were going to do Linux... but oh yeah, we changed our name... but it's
about contracts, and should wait for AutoZone because of the copyright violation
issue involved.
Yeah... WHO mischaracterized the SCO case???
I'm dyin' here...
...D (IANAL)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:42 PM EDT |
Am I the only person hoping this motion (allowing SCO to file 20 pages of
drivel) will be granted
I am really looking forward to, in particular,
(1) SCO's explanations of Gregory Blepp's statements about bringing out evidence
a piece at a time, as part of U.S. legal activities
(2) SCO's explanation of Darl's 21 July speech which says where he said that IBM
and other infringements had caused Linux users to use a tainted product at SCO's
expense, and that the issue was now about copyright infringement.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:51 PM EDT |
Why can't they do it lie everybody else and attache exhibits to their filing?
After all there should be citstions and quotes form opinions and references to
other documents all of which are proper exhibits.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Night Flyer on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:58 PM EDT |
If 20 pages is overly long, what is the usual length?
(How much too long is 20 pages?)
In the discovery, each side asked for truck loads of documents (maybe reduced to
brief cases full of CD's). There has been no shortage of paper (and paper
equivalent) floating about, what's 20 more pages in the scheme of things?
My summary comment? If it moves the case along, let them. Analyzing SCO's
"spin" will be entertaining, and it will probably help IBM focus its
efforts a bit better.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jig on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 10:10 PM EDT |
here
is a link to the article
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 10:43 PM EDT |
Part of me wishes that IBM had pointed to SCO's initial attempt at discovery
(the 60 disks of scanned pages of source code, as compared to text files of
source code), and then SCO's immediate filing asking the court to prevent IBM
from following suit.
Then again, since that was brought up in the first Motion to Compel, I guess it
was included by reference.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 10:51 PM EDT |
I wish they'd give 20 pages of the source code they claim is infringed so we can
pick it to bits and find open origins for everything, but thats why SCO are
being so careful with revealing anything, they want to keep it from the eyes of
IBM and us, so we can't pick it to bits before they can use it to try and
impress a judge.
Its gonna end up like the end of a Scoby do cartoon, "I'd have gotten away
with it to if it weren't for those pesky kids."
BTW, we are the pesky kids.
rgds
Franki[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 11:07 PM EDT |
| I would really like to see this pointed out more often. Anyone who is
considering entering any contractual relationship with SCO should
review:
From news.com.com.com, amongst
others:
"Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers.
Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with."
- Chris Sontag – Senior Vice President and General Manager,
SCOsource
No, dear reader, contracts are not for making
agreements, spelling out
understandings, or avoiding future suits. Contracts
are what you use against
parties you have relationships with.
Now, would
you like to hear about our licensing opportunities? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 11:39 PM EDT |
I think that SCO and its laywers are learning. Recall several other exchanges
between IBM and SCO where SCO refused/forgot/didn't-care-to respond to a point
in an IBM motion, and IBM hence insists that the point must be true because SCO
did not refute it. Several very important positions have been secured by IBM
this way.
So, SCO is now making sure that each and every point in the IBM memorandum is
answered.
Not too surprising really.
Thad Beier[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 11:43 PM EDT |
| I don't see why they need 20 pages.
All they need to do is say that they lie
like rugs to their investors, customers, and the general public.
Simple. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Glenn on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 12:00 AM EDT |
It seems as if the SCOG wants to tell the judge that Darl, Blepp, BS, Sontag
et al were er not really lying but er not really meaning it when they said,
"The proof is here in my briefcase" (Blepp), or
"Now, by going into pre-discovery, we have strong enough claims. We'd be
fine to go to court just on what we have before discovery." (McBride)
Somehow IBM has "mischaracterized" these otherwise rather plain
statements, again according to the SCOG. But I think they pretty well speak for
themselves.
Glenn
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kitterma on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 12:11 AM EDT |
More insane patents to disctract people from the real work at hand...
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/06/01/HNnaantispam_1.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 01:46 AM EDT |
I'm waiting for environmentalists to start weighing on how many trees are having
to be cut down to make all the paper for all of SCOsuX's legal acrobatics. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tangomike on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 02:21 PM EDT |
IBM has been using literal quotes. TSCOG needs 20 pages to explain their theory
of non-literal public statements, i.e. the public statements of TSCOG's execs
are part of TSCOG's IP and therefore IBM is using them without permisiion. IBM
should only be allowed non-literal use, and with an appropriate licence, which
TSCOG has not issued.
---
To The SCO Group - please come back when you pass a Turing test.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wepprop on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 05:23 PM EDT |
Judge Kimball granted this motion on June 2nd. It appears in the Daily Orders
and Judgements for June 3rd.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
