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
Judge Wells Denies SCO's Motion For Protective Order! - Depositions Stay on Schedule
Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 02:08 AM EDT

Judge Wells has denied SCO's Expedited Motion for Protective Order, in which it asked that three depositions be postponed. There was a telephone conference and the docket entry says this:

"Court hears arguments and DENIES the motion due to lateness of the objection and inconvenience to the parties scheduled for deposition."

So much for SCO's "Let them just go to work instead of to the deposition" breeziness. They lost. No delay. IBM's arguments won the day.

Here* is the Docket Entry of the telephone conference, oh ye of little faith in our courts.

So, the deposition of Mr. Wilson, who executed the 1985 IBM-AT&T agreement for AT&T and David Frasure, also an AT&T employee, and David Rodgers, who was at Sequent, will go forward as scheduled. Frasure was actually scheduled for Tuesday the 8th. Mr. Wilson and Mr. Rodgers are scheduled for June 10. BayStar was postponed on IBM's consent. We expect some swordplay on that one.

*Note it may take a few minutes for the PDF to be available on ibiblio's servers. I just couldn't wait to tell you.

*******************************

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

JUDGE: Hon. Brooke Wells

DATE: June 7, 2004

CASE NO. 2:03CV294DAK

SCO vs. IBM

COURT REPORTER: n/a
COURTROOM DEPUTY: n/a
INTERPRETER: na

TAPE # n/a

LOG # n/a

Approved By: ___________

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Pla Brent Hatch
Dft Todd Shaughnessy
US PO
USMS

MATTER SET: Telephone Conference

DOCKET ENTRY:

Counsel for both parties contact the Court by telepone re: expedited motion for protective order (d.e. #168). Court hears arguments and DENIES the motion due to lateness of the objection and inconvenience to the parties already scheduled for deposition. Counsel for defendant is to prepare an order.

Case Title: 2:03CV294DAK, SCO v. IBM


  


Judge Wells Denies SCO's Motion For Protective Order! - Depositions Stay on Schedule | 329 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Wells Denies SCO's Motion For Protective Order - Depositions Stay on Schedule
Authored by: ravenII on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 02:28 AM EDT
Amen!
A breather, after such a long time of holding my breath
Thanks PJ, and all those who helps, for timely information flow.

---
"Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things,
but just look what they can do when they stick together."

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here and fresh links
Authored by: paul_cooke on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 02:34 AM EDT
so PJ can find them

---
Use Linux - Computer power for the people: Down with cybercrud...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells Denies SCO's Motion For Protective Order! - Depositions Stay on Schedule
Authored by: paul_cooke on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 02:38 AM EDT
Now will they complain that Judge Wells is being unfair???

I wouldn't put it past them as they've been behaving like
a two year old who's been denied sweeties in the checkout
queue

---
Use Linux - Computer power for the people: Down with cybercrud...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells Denies SCO's Motion For Protective Order! - Depositions Stay on Schedule
Authored by: creysoft on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 02:40 AM EDT
Is it just me, or is this the first time the court has actually made a decidedly
pro-defendant, anti-plaintiff decision in this case? Most the rulings have been
fairly lenient with SCO, making sure they have plenty of rope with which to hang
themselves, but not particularly dispositive to either party. In this ruling,
the judge has sided with IBM, to the supposed detriment of SCO's case. Could
this be the end of SCO's "grace period" with the court? Let's hope so!
I want to see blood! BLOOD!

---
Fear th3 Platypus

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells Denies SCO's Motion For Protective Order! - Depositions Stay on Schedule
Authored by: haroldship on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 03:06 AM EDT
Forgive my ignorance, but if the hearing was before Judge Kimball, why was it
Judge Wells who denied?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow, an Honest-to-Goodness, Real-Life ruling!
Authored by: jkondis on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 03:10 AM EDT
Yay!

There's so much delay and stalling on the part of SCO, so much "taking
under advisement" of the court, etc., that it's refreshing that some
progress in the case is made. What's also nice is now the tone has been even
more clearly set: Caldera/The SCO Group is late in applying for stays, and is an
inconveniencer of witnesses. Not good for the bad guys!

The AT&T and Sequent (Frasure and Rodgers) depositions should be quite
interesting, although it's a foregone conclusion to us LawGrokkers, thanks to
previous depositions (or were they affidavits?), letters to customers, and
AT&T newsletters.

Boy would I like to be a fly on the wall; it would be great watching Kevin,
Darl, and Blake squirming while the witnesses say "Control of code that
doesn't include AT&T System V source was not claimed by AT&T." How
simple can it possibly be??? That's the whole kit-n-kaboodle of the case.
Without it, not only does contract violation fall through the floor, but so does
the copyright case, since then Caldera/The SCO Group *definitely* had no right
to terminate the license, even if they *did* own the copyrights, which they
*don't*. So then phase two falls through the floor. (Which it would do,
anyway.) Hard times soon follow for the Bad Guys in its other cases.

Incidentally, how long will it take before the deposition transcripts are
available? I know the court transcribers will be there at the depositions, so
how quickly can we see them?

---
Don't steal. Microsoft hates competition.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hatch was not happy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 03:29 AM EDT
Maybe he was told by Judge wells to stop
wasting time and get on with the case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Hatch was not happy - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 04:00 AM EDT
  • I predict... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 10 2004 @ 12:47 AM EDT
Whats up next?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 03:57 AM EDT
When is the next hearing?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells Denies SCO's Motion For Protective Order! - Depositions Stay on Schedule
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 04:46 AM EDT

oh ye of little faith in our courts.

Cool! A new synonym for "everybody"!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Typo?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 06:51 AM EDT
DOCKET ENTRY:

Counsel for both parties contact the Court by telepone re:
expedited

Should it read "...telephone..." instead?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Typo? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 07:54 AM EDT
    • Typo? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 08:03 AM EDT
      • Typo? - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 08:16 AM EDT
        • Typo? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 09:19 AM EDT
          • Typo? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 06:44 PM EDT
        • Typo? - Authored by: codswallop on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 09:39 AM EDT
  • Typo? - Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 08:33 AM EDT
    • Typo? - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 11:52 AM EDT
  • It's a Southern thing - Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 01:17 PM EDT
Judge Wells Denies SCO's Motion For Protective Order! - Depositions Stay on Schedule
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 09:15 AM EDT
PJ - thanks for the pre-release.

Judge Wells - well done, this is costing people outside this case time and
money, if you are in IT management and infrastructure.

The first two despositions are (ex?) AT&T right? Will substatiantially
reduce time on this case good call!
Should sort out some of the SysV.

OT:

Was going to pick up a vaio for the SO but now will pickup a thinkpad.

More OT: Thanks Big Blue your consistant and focused efforts are _much_
appreciated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

for a poster?
Authored by: MyPersonalOpinio on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 10:31 AM EDT

When I first read that line, what first came to mind is "pretty astute for a poster" (self-criticism intended, I know I post dumb ideas and mistakes more often than I'd like!)

[ Reply to This | # ]

No reason given?
Authored by: N. on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 10:42 AM EDT
Is it normal for judgements such as this one (especially denials) to be given
without any revealing any reason behind it?

---
N.
(Recent convert to Linux)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Your Honor I object!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 11:17 AM EDT
JUDGE: Why is that Mr. Hatch
HATCH: Because its devestating to my case!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells Denies SCO's Motion For Protective Order! - Depositions Stay on Schedule
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 11:50 AM EDT
No suprise after reading the judges bio...

...I seem to recall one of the tips was to

leave out bad arguments from your motions....

SCO's they can just go back to work that day.....was a bad argument and
reflected poorly upon the rest of the arguments.

...goes to show.... it ain't so easy to fool an old farm boy!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Linux Credit File Over the Years
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 12:14 PM EDT
This isn't purely on topic (SCO's court moves), but it is related to the basic purpose of Groklaw and is the most recent posting.

First Monday has an article tracing the history of Linux through the credit file distributed with each version. You can read it at:

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_6/tuomi/index.html

Here is the article's abstract:

Evolution of the Linux Credits file: Methodological challenges and reference data for Open Source research by Ilkka Tuomi.

This paper presents time–series data that can be extracted from the Linux Credits files and discusses methodological challenges of automatic extraction of research data from open source files. The extracted data is used to describe the geographical expansion of the core Linux developer community. The paper also comments on attempts to use the Linux Credits data to derive policy recommendations for open source software.

--Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Any background on Zero-Knowledge Systems?
Authored by: Asynchronous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 12:58 PM EDT
Since they filed suit alleging copyright infringement against IBM. Not linux related, and I cannot find any connections in the board of directors with our normal cast of misfits.

I'm sure this stuff happens all the time, but at first glance it looked fishy.

myTELUS article

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells Denies SCO's Motion For Protective Order! - Depositions Stay on Schedule
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 01:15 PM EDT
Hey, I cannot find a feedback email address anywhere on this site. Maybe I'm
blind? Anyway......Not sure if this is old news or not:

1998 - Microsoft Loses Suit to SCO. The case was tried in Europe, and since the
settlement was worldwide, SCO dropped actions within the United States. An old
AT&T contract forced SCO to include obsolete Microsoft code in its Unix
operating system and pay a substantial royalty, making SCO's product less
competitive.

http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html#sco

[ Reply to This | # ]

OTK AdTI FUD Machine
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 01:51 PM EDT
AdTI is clearly showing their agenda in what quotes they've taken from those who
have submitted and it's clear they are trying to sow dissention in the FOSS
community as well as create FUD about Linux/Linus. AdTI even mentions Groklaw:
"Buy the book that has groklaw.net hackers sighing, 'can someone explain
what is going on?'"

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO "late" as in deceased? We can only hope...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 02:58 PM EDT
"Court hears arguments and DENIES the motion due to lateness..."

Judge to SCO lawyers:
"Hurry up or you'll be late"
SCO lawyers:
We've got plenty of time.
Judge to SCO lawyers:
"No, late as in the Late Dent Arthur Dent" (Douglas Adams,
_Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy_ trilogy).

[ Reply to This | # ]

baystar's deposition
Authored by: mossc on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 04:08 PM EDT
So Baystar's deposition was postponed with IBMs consent.

Why would they consent?

Does that mean Baystar "quashed" the subpeona?

Is that a motion filed with the court?

Is this a result of something SCO filed? I assume either Baystar or SCO could
file motions to quash the subpeona.

Basically I have some idea why baystar would not want to be deposed but I have
no idea what the process is for them to fight it, grounds, or likelihood of
success.

When IBM agreed to postpone Baystar's deposition if they did not have to file
another subpeona was that giving Baystar the choice to move to quash or
implicitly accept the existing subpeona?

Inquiring minds want to know.....

Chuck

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells Denies SCO's Motion For Protective Order! - Depositions Stay on Schedule
Authored by: John M. Horn on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 05:43 PM EDT
In an article on El Reg, Groklaw is referred to as 'ever vigilant' which it most
certainly is.

Thanks PJ.

The article can found at...

http://www.theregister.com/2004/06/09/sco_nogpl_solaris/

John Horn

[ Reply to This | # ]

when is the day ?
Authored by: tizan on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 06:12 PM EDT
For the title to be : Judge so & so rules that SCO violated the GPL and
need to pay repairs...

I am patient...

---
tizan: What's the point of knowledge if you don't pass it on. Its like storing
all your data on a 1-bit write only memory !

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.06 seconds