|
|
| SCO v. IBM - SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery |
 |
|
Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 08:55 AM EDT
|
SCO has filed a Renewed Motion to Compel -- meaning they claim IBM is not obeying Judge Wells' March Order, and they have filed a Motion requesting the court allow them extra space to tell them aaaaaall about it at length. They say they need 2 extra pages, in order to enumerate all of IBM's alleged "sins" against the Order of March 3rd. The long and the short of it appears to be this: IBM has turned over materials to SCO, but SCO evidently believes they have more hidden away they aren't turning over. They are in a bind, because if IBM says there isn't any more, then what is the court supposed to do? SCO has some suggestions. In essence, it looks to me that they would like to court to order more than it originally ordered, despite framing it as if IBM failed to obey the earlier order. If you read the court's order, which I have excerpted in relevant part below, I think you will see SCO insisting documents simply must exist, even if IBM asserts they don't, and that they'd like more now than they got under the order. I gather SCO is very unhappy with the way things are going in discovery. They can't find what they need to prove their case, I guess, and no doubt they'd like to portray IBM in a bad light to the judge, hence this motion.
Specifically, SCO would like the following:
- "Unfettered access" to IBM's Configuration Management Version Control and Revision Control System. Good grief, Charlie Brown. They don't want much, do they? Why don't they just ask the court to let them move in to IBM headquarters, with catered meals at IBM expense, so they can find out everything there is to know about how to run a business? They are seeking more information to supplement IBM's answers to SCO Interrogatories 2, 5, and 11. Interrogatory 5 was seeking info about persons who "worked on developing source code for IBM's AIX, Dynix and Linux products, and the contributions of these persons to these products", and IBM allegedly told SCO that the information they seek can be found in the AIX and Dynix products turned over by IBM. SCO can't find it themselves, evidently. Maybe SCO fired one too many engineer. So now they want to get "unfettered access". I don't recall SCO ever asking for this before. The court didn't order this. It ordered both IBM and SCO to give each other source logs. So how would this be an example of IBM failing to obey the Order?
- Relevant notes, memos, correspondence and emails of Sam Palmisano, which SCO claims exist and which IBM says do not, to supplement what IBM has already turned over.
- The same for Irving Wladawsky-Berger, but for him, SCO says IBM didn't turn over anything. The explanation is likely that there isn't anything relevant. And for good measure, SCO requests "full files" of all of IBM's Board of Directors, including minutes, Board packages, and other "relevant materials." There is nothing in the Order that I see ordering IBM to turn over Board of Directors files, so this appears to be, from all that is publicly known, another new request, not an example of IBM failing to obey a prior order.
- Contact info relating to 134 persons SCO asked about, and they want it and also contact info for "any other witnesses IBM intends to call at trial." If you look at the Order, it says nothing about 134 persons. It does speak about a list of witnesses in paragraph 6 and maybe the parties have narrowed the list down to 134, but I see nothing ordering contact info, as opposed to a list. I don't know, therefore, what SCO's request refers to, but it doesn't refer directly to the Order, as far as I can see. Discovery isn't public, unless it ends up as an exhibit, so there is no way to be sure about this issue.
- If IBM continues to assert there are no further relevant materials, SCO would like the court to order that everybody fork over certifications.
Obviously, IBM will say they did, too, obey the earlier order, and SCO is just looking for more than the court ordered IBM to provide. It's quite serious to disobey a court order, and faced with the choice of putting in a new motion to compel or portraying this as a renewed motion in response to a failure to obey, you can make the other side look worse if you claim they have failed to obey. Now, just to show you that SCO is once again phrasing things according to their own lights, so you can judge for yourself, here is what the judge ordered IBM to give to SCO in the Order, the part that relates to SCO Renewed Motion requests: "3. IBM is to provide documents and materials generated by, and in possession of employees that have been and that are currently involved in the Linux project. IBM is to include materials and documents from executives including inter alia, Sam Palmisano and Irving Wladawsky-Berger. Such materials and documents are to include any reports, materials or documents from IBM's "ambitious Linux Strategy." Steve Lohr, A Mainstream Gian[t] Goes Countercultural; I.B.M.'s Embrace of Linux Is a Bet That It Is the Software of the Future, N.Y. Times, March 20, 2000, Business/Financial Desk. The Court finds these materials are relevant because they may contain information regarding the use or alleged misuse of source code by IBM in its contributions to Linux.
"5. IBM is ordered to provide further responses to SCO's interrogatory numbers two, five, and eleven. These responses are to include relevant information from all sources including top level management.
"6. SCO seeks the proper indentification of approximately 7,200 potential witness[es] identified by IBM. IBM in its memoranda suggested that the parties might be able to reach some sort of agreement as to the most important prospective trial witnesses and then IBM would provide the full contact information for these individuals. The Court orders IBM to properly identify a representative sample of the potential witnesses that is to include a 1000 of the most important prospective trial witnesses as agreed upon by SCO and IBM. Following the production of this information, the Court will consider the need for the proper identification of additional witnesses." See anything about unfettered access or the Board of Directors? Me neither. Yet, SCO states it this way: "IBM should be ordered to comply with the Court's March 3, 2004 Order by providing the full files of Mr. Palmisano, Mr. Wladawsky-Berger, IBM's Board, including Board minutes, Board packages, and other relevant Board materials, and all other documents relevant to SCO's requests that this Court previously Ordered be produced, and that SCO originally requested on June 24, 2003. "[emphasis added] I just don't see where they are getting that, unless it's a question of interpretation of what the phrase "top-level management" means. What I see is that IBM did turn over what they felt was relevant, as ordered, and SCO didn't get what it hoped to get. While it is perfectly fair to ask for whatever you feel you need in discovery, I can't see how this shows IBM disobeying any order of the court, not yet anyway. I can't possibly know if IBM is holding back materials, not having any inside information. Heaven only knows lawyers have been known to do that. What I am saying is that I can't see how this motion compared with the order shows that they are or that they disobeyed the order itself. This might be a good time to let you know that I spent the long weekend revamping the Legal Docs page. It isn't finished yet, but the IBM section is, and I hope you find it easier to find things now. I am also working on a page that will group the documents by category. When we started all this, it was a simpler time. Now, with so many cases and so much motion practice -- and today is Exhibit A -- I realized I needed to get Legal Docs better organized. I hope it helps. We are also revamping the timeline pages, and the IBM Timeline page is up-to-date.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: jbeadle on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
... So PJ can find them quickly.
-jb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbeadle on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 10:43 AM EDT |
Thanks,
-jb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: anesq on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 10:57 AM EDT |
| Just as a note, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) requires that a
party, without waiting for the request of the other party,
produce:
the name and, if known, the address and telephone number
of each individual likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing
party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment,
identifying the subjects of the information;
I'm not saying
IBM hasn't complied, but it is clearly required to give over the contact
information SCO has requested if it has it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 11:06 AM EDT |
| To state the obvious - this seems to me just a ploy to confuse issues so that
firstly a summary judgement decision can be delayed while all this is sorted
out, and/or secondly to increase the chances of SCO getting an appeal through
after the event - assuming SCO loses, that is.
However - if SCO wins this
case this ploy may backfire :-)
Web Sig:Eddy Currents [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sander123 on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 11:08 AM EDT |
Is the corresponding memorandum also available?
The file
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-190.pdf
is only the motion, and 4 not 12 pages.
Sander.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: peragrin on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 11:36 AM EDT |
I would be willing to bet that SCO is going to use this as a platform from which
to try and delay the arguments of the aug. 4 hearing. SCO needs a delay, to
continue the FUD.
SCO needs something and is trying to throw shit at the wall to see what sticks,
probelm is that IBM used Teflon wallpaper, and coated that in a thin layer of
grease to make sure nothing sticks.
---
I thought once I was found but it was only a dream.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
In a perfect world, IBM would have to produce all Linux contributions they have
made; SCO would have to tell the court what IBM contribution they lay claim to.
Is this so hard for SCOx to do?
---
Litigation is no sustituite for Innovation.
Say No to SCO.
IMHO IANAL IAALINUXGEEK[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bap on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 11:56 AM EDT |
| Why doesn't SCO just come out and issue the following motion:
SCO
hereby requests that IBM turn over all documentation that proves plaintiffs case
against the defendant.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 12:27 PM EDT |
...to insist that SCO:
1) Explain what sort of information they hope to find, and how it would support
their case.
2) Show why they believe that such information even exists.
3) Explain how the search would end if, in fact, no evidence does exist.
SCO keeps saying that IBM is hiding the evidence of wrongdoing, and that more
and more discovery will be needed until the proof is found. How does SCO know
there's anything to find, and what would it take to satisfy SCO that there's
nothing to be found?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John M. Horn on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 12:42 PM EDT |
SCO cannot, I believe, prevail in its IBM case. And if, by some miracle, it
managed to pull its irons out of the fire and somehow prevail - Boies and
Shiller should fork over most of their fees to IBM's attorneys as payment for
legal services rendered - because SCO certainly seems NEVER to have had a shred
of evidence to support its outrageous claims against IBM and relies solely upon
IBM's attorneys to provide it with such evidence. *Shaking Head*
John Horn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
Robert Cialdini, The Psychology of Persuasion
ask for things that are completely unreasonable
After the denial ask for lesser things.
This usually yields you more than directly asking for the lesser things without
ever having aksed for the unreasonable things.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sef on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
Man, this is awfully depressing. Even realizing it's a move of
desperation,
it is depressing to see it allowed to happen. And, of course, TSG
is going to
get a "partial" "victory" from the judge, which will be even more
depressing.
I know the wheels of justice grind slowly, but this is just
disgusting. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
Are these interrogatories available somewhere? It seems that the Order limited
the scope of these to less than SCOG wanted.
I'm sure Darl thinks Sam stays up nights plotting to get him personally,
probably because he (Darl) is a Mormon. Darl just can't imagine a fellow CEO is
not consumed by this clash of titans, and that Sam writes copious detailed memos
directing all of his minions in a concerted campaign to destroy Unix.
I think given IBM generally conservative culture, they have turned over
everything they can find and probably the executives have spent very little time
on this issue and even less time on the law suit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Lawsuit?? - Authored by: seanlynch on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 05:49 PM EDT
- Mormon??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 08:41 PM EDT
- Mormon??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 09 2004 @ 02:52 AM EDT
- Mormon??? - Authored by: Anonomous on Friday, July 09 2004 @ 01:57 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 01:33 PM EDT |
Well, the more and longer this goes on, the less and less I understand law.
So what happens if the Judge decides that IBM did not disclose information that
SCO asked for (and hope they can reel in without knowing for sure)?
Does the judge issue a warrant so IBM premises get searched (either though they
are not guilty of anything)?
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Reply - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 02:14 PM EDT
- That seems unlikely - Authored by: Jude on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 02:15 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 01:59 PM EDT |
If I were IBM, I would argue that in light of the fact that SCOG has failed to
comply with two consecutive court orders requiring that SCOG identify all
infringing code with specificity, any discussion of additional discovery
requirements on IBM must be postponed until the court has made a determination
that SCOG has fully complied with both court orders. We cannot have a situation
where SCOG keeps demanding and getting broader and broader discovery, even while
ignoring two consecutive court orders to produce the evidence.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 02:05 PM EDT |
so:
sco stated they are having trouble working their way through the materials that
IBM has already turned over and need more time to do so, aka delay.
sco states that they still need EVERYTHING for discovery, because what they have
is inadequate [how do they know? - see above], aka longer delay.
sco have a limited number of representatives reviewing the supplied code and
can't hire more to help as their engineers are barred from viewing said code,
aka infinite delay.
yay =(
sum.zero[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
Ergo, they must be hiding the evidence that incriminates them.
We know that such evidence must exist, because why else, ladies and gentlemen,
would SCO be in this courtroom?
Further, if Chewbacca lives on Endor...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
I wonder: since, so far, none of SCO's motions have been substantially denied --
in any way that an appeal is possible, is this just an attempt to get:
1. More delay
2. A motion denied.
The denied motion will then form the basis of an appeal, resulting in yet more
delay!
Is this possible? Or just a ridiculous idea? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Adam B on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
It's a good point, and worth repeating: how is it that SCO constantly
believes that it can skip intervening steps between A and B just because they
want to be at B so badly?
The overall strategy shows it.
IF our code was misappropriated
by IBM, and IF it made it into
Linux and IF it was
knowingly used by end users (because reasonable,
credible notice of this
misuse was issued to them), THEN they are liable
for damages to
us. But we really, really want those damages, so let's just
whip up some
ridiculous cease and desist letters and then sue anything that
moves.
Now, this case is starting to show it. IF there is any of
our
code in Linux, THEN we'll need to know who put it there so they
can
be called as witnesses, and we'll also need to know the path from UNIX to
Linux
so we can make our case. But you can't get past the "if" there. Even if
we're
going in for the whole derivative works thing (which is, by the way, not
protected by copyright law), you still have the burden of showing the output
to be substantially similar to the input before you go on to the then
clauses.
Why oh why is it so hard, apparently, to bring this before the
court? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Skipping Steps - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 04:41 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: bruce_s on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 04:41 PM EDT |
Doesn't this sound like what Darl was saying during the
last conference call? That it was IBM was delaying and not
passing information on.
Bruce S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GLJason on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 04:46 PM EDT |
SCOX seems to be pleading again for the version control information. I
certainly hope they don't think this will help them with IBM's summary
disposition motion on counterclaim 10. In order to prove copyright
infringement, substantial similarity is a requirement. There is no way that
this evidence will help them prove substantial similarity. They have had the
Linux code and the UNIX SYSV code since before the trial began. Now they have
hundreds of versions of AIX as well. Even if they could prove that IBM had
taken some SYSV code, modified it to be in AIX, and modified it again to put in
Linux, they would still have to have the substantial similarity. If it has been
changed so much to contain no more protected expression and the remaining copied
parts are incidental to the function, they have no case for copyright
infringement in Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 05:13 PM EDT |
When Wells originally issued the stay on discovery, and then lifted it, she gave
both parties 45 days to comply, and stated that there would be no further
discovery until SCO was compliant.
SCO is still not compliant, so how can they turn around and ask for more
discovery on IBM?
At what point does either Wells or Kimball say no?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 06:37 PM EDT |
I predict the judge will see through SCO's latest ploy.
Nothing can be gained by this request. First, it expands the original discovery
requests, which is clearly wrong.
But (and stick with me here), let's suppose that Palmisano WAS stupid enough to
tell his people to abuse SCO code, that he was even crazier and put it in
writing, his underlings were even MORE stupid, and sent the message along.
It proves nothing.
It wouldn't prove opportunity or motive or damages. It doesn't prove copyright
infringement, and their other claims ever happened. With 300,000+ employees,
it's a safe bet Palmisano doesn't micro-manage (like SCO may be subject to) and
any such message, IFFFFF it even existed, would have been lost along the way.
And SCO offers no hint or proof that it exists - just more innuendo. The whole
thing is so preposterous that anybody can see through SCOs argument in this new
motion.
Face it: ALL things SCO would need to "prove" their case are already
in their hands. NOTHING was found - they admitted it. "Unfettered
access" cannot change it. There is nothing to find BECAUSE THERE IS
NOTHING THERE IMPROPERLY. SCO is just too dense to realize (or too crooked to
admit it), and they hope the judge is that dense too.
This is nothing but a witch hunt or ploy to steal AIX code (they already
admitted AIX code was sent improperly for review, didn't they?) Doesn't
Microsoft need some of that code if they are going to stave off Server Linux for
another year or two? Even if not, and even if SCO is not sending the AIX code
straight to Redmond, the motion should be denied just for the "foolishness
factor".
But SCO *must* stop the pending IBM motions, or they are done - and Gates
doesn't get breathing room he needs to get Windows fixed and Longhorn out. The
danger of piercing the corporate veil at Canopy, then on to Microsoft, Baystar,
RBC, and the LDS church, becomes a massive risk (I think the judge may be
tempted to grant SCO's request just because of the potential damage to his
church). Suicide may start to look like a pleasant option (let's hope not - the
guys deserve a chance to view a jail cell from the inside out).
I also predict that, when IBM wins their motion, they will turn around and
demand LKP code from SCO. They would be justified: by SCO's own statements,
there is common code, but SCO cannot prove that AIX code or SysV code is in
Linux - therefore, the opposite MUST be true. And there's an excellent chance
that *kernel* code contains copyrighted IBM code. This would be a perfectly
reasonable request and motion from IBM - and their patent violation claims would
be only the tip of that iceberg, because they could then prove fraud and malice
against SCO, Microsoft, Baystar, RBC, various analysts, and a few others.
This is a Hail Mary play if I've ever seen one - and I don't think Mormons
believe in Mary.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 07:48 PM EDT |
Why doesn't people who have worked with UnixWare or SCO code come forward to say
what stuff SCO has stolen from others, illegally copied, violated any patents,
removed copyright notices, etc?
I would like to hear from any former or current SCO employees, customers, etc...
about any unethical or illegal bahavior SCO has participated.
This way, IBM, Novell, Red Hat, and Linux customers can have something to fire
back at SCO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 08:12 PM EDT |
It's simple folks
1. SCO don't have any evidence for any infringing
code in Linux - (this is why SCO's response to the March 3rd court order let to
IBM's partial summary judgement motion. See IBM 157, especially IBM
157-27)
2. SCO never had any evidence (SCO themselves have made sworn
statements that their responses attached in IBM 157-27 are full, complete,
thorough, etc.)
3. The idea of infringing code in Linux preceded
any investigation5 of the code by SCO. Darl McBride has
clearly said this himself. See this post for references.
4.
The IBM law-suit by SCO preceded any investigation5 of the code by
SCO. Darl McBride has effectively said this himself, all it requires is
a moment to compare his statements at different times. See this post for references.
5.
The code investigations which Darl alleged to have taken place during March 2003
to May 2003 (the three teams stuff), have never been presented to the court in
this case. And SCO declined to produce them (see Mark Heise's letter of
IBM103-3). And there seems some considerable room for doubt about whether any
such investigations ever took place.
6. SCO has lied about the stock
angle. (a) In a SCO press release in August 2003, they said their stock sales
plans were made in January 2003 "months before" any litigation against IBM was
contemplated. (b) In other statements Darl has said he was in discussion with
IBM all thru the second half of 2002, and began investigating IBM's contractual
violations from December 11th 2002. Both (a) and (b) can not be true. See this post for
references.
(Further to point 6, I might also mention that elsewhere,
including in SCO's official court pleadings and to the press, Darl and SCO have
said they became aware of IBM violations as a result of seeing an IBM
representative speak at Linux World in January 2003. This is a third (c)
account, that is not consistent with the (a) or (b) accounts. Thus we have three
different accounts from SCO which contradict each other in numerous respects).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 10:08 PM EDT |
I believe that it's possible that SCO wants direct (i.e. including by their
employees etc.) access to the CMVC and RCS.
This is from the prior
stipulated protective order:
In ongoing discovery, SCO has
sought from IBM source code for the AIX and Dynix operating system (collectively
"Source Code"). ... Based upon the stipulation of counsel and good cause
appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Stipulated Protective Order
is amended as follows: The Source Code, as defined above, may only be
disclosed by IBM to SCO's outside counsel and its independent experts. SCO
shall not provide said Source Code to SCO's officers or employees, including
SCO's in-house counsel, nor use said source code for any purpose outside the
context of the present litigation.
i.e. No access except for
anybody except "SCO's outside counsel and its independent experts"
Now
if you read the new motion:
IBM should be ordered to give
SCO unfettered access to CMVC and RCS, which systems are clearly relevant
to SCO's claims, to SCO's defenses of IBM's counterclaims, and to SCO's
discovery requests.
The word that is troubling me is
"unfettered". Look it up in the dictionary, it means "unchained",
"emancipated", "liberated", etc.
If they merely (!?!) wanted "access"
by outside counsel and independent experts according to the stipulated
protective order, they should have said just "access".
The fact that
they didn't just say "access", but instead said "unfettered access", implies
they want something more than just "access".
What more? Given the
definition of "unfettered", then "unfettered access" suggest with less
constraints than "access".
As the only constraint that would apply to
"access" (if it were granted) would be the protective order, I think that they
must want the constraints of the protective order removed from their
"access".
Regards
Quatermass
P.S.
Of course all
the above assumes that SCO is using language in the concise way that most
lawyers do, which may be too much of an assumption.
We'll
probably know for sure when we see the accompanying memo.
I say
probably because, it's also possible that SCO may want to obfuscate what
they mean by "unfettered". If the court grants their motion, they can claim it
did away with much of the protective order. If the court denies their motion,
they might argue that the court denied it, because of misinterpreting
"unfettered" in too broad a manner. Or it may be that SCO just wants to argue
about what "unfettered" means instead of the substantive issues of the
case.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 10:10 PM EDT |
It's interesting to read the actual motion with respect to this
point.
This time they say they need "Unfettered access" to IBM's
Configuration Management Version Control and Revision Control System in order to
determine the people who worked on Dynix and AIX.
Oh sure, by
the way it gives them exactly what they think they need, and have been
begging for for more than half a year: mountains and mountains of source code
that must (in Darl's mind) contain some sort of smoking gun. But the magistrate
didn't seem to be buying the argument that SCO should have access to all source
code and versions of AIX and Dynix in past pleadings, so now they need to offer
a new reason.
Why are they trying such a transparent tactic???? Do
they actually think that Magistrate Wells is going to buy it? Or is Hatch as
big a fool as his father seems to be?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tangomike on Thursday, July 08 2004 @ 10:26 PM EDT |
I don't think this is directly about the Summary Judgement. This is setting up
to go after the contract aspect. Mind you, it will be used to request a delay in
the summary judgement if that request is not denied. We now have a pretty good
handle on how TSCOG's legal teams run this. They routinely use one motion and/or
case to delay another one. This request will be used to try to delay the
decision on summary judgement. They'll argue that this request needs to be
answered or they won't have had a fair chance to defend against IBM"s
request.
It's a shell game, but you have to hand it to TSCOG's legal teams:- they're good
at the scam.
---
To The SCO Group - show us your cows.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 09 2004 @ 12:27 AM EDT |
I have here in my suitcase ( a black one at that ) a 400 page memo from
management at IBM detailing in all respects the insidious plot to destroy the
value of UNIX(tm) by placing all precious ip into Linux. I found it stashed
away in the CVMC system...
What was that? You want to see it? ummmm... I cannot do that . The, uh, court
ordered me to, ummm, not show anyone this memo because, ummm, ahhh, it may,
ummm, it may look like we are trying to, uh, manipulate our stock and make
millions. Yeah, that sounds like a good reason. Uh, ummm, I need to go now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TechnoCat on Friday, July 09 2004 @ 12:36 AM EDT |
| So far the judges have been mostly on the side of IBM, Novell, AutoZone,
and D-C, but have generally failed to crack down hard on SCO. It's almost as if
they're afraid that simply saying "No" would leave them open to appeal, so they
always say, "Not so much" instead.
Could it be that SCO has figured this out,
and by asking for the moon, they know the judge will give them some of
it? That would maybe give them more room for obfuscation and certainly for
needing more time.
By giving in a little every time, the judges have
subverted the process in favor of trying to ensure little room for appeal. But
it's an unfair game they play. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 09 2004 @ 11:20 AM EDT |
This is making me sick. Up until this point in the case, I've been patient and
interested in the inner workings of our justice system. But I can't take it
anymore. I can't TAKE IT I SAY! First of all, I've never, ever understood how
this suit could have even been FILED. How can SCO make baseless claims, costing
the accused millions of dollars in legal fees and get away with it? As I
understand things, they've pretty much just said "IBM stole our code so
we're suing them". The court said, "okay, show us what code you're
talking about", and then SCO responded by saying "How could WE
know...we need to see their code".
Doesn't that beg the question, "then how do you know IBM stole code in the
first place?". SCO replies "we just...know".
How in the H can this go on??? I'm fastly losing my faith in our justice
system....all because of this BS. What's to stop someone from filing a claim
against me? When asked what the base of the claim is, someone would just have
to say, "'casue we know" and not show ANY evidence. Meanwhile, I
bankrupt my family trying to prove otherwise. You know...maybe I should accuse
Microsoft of stealing MY code. I'll just present my case to the judge as
follows "How could I know? Their code is closed-source. Make them give me
their code, and I'll show you what they stole".
If this case is any example, the judge will grant my request...based on nothing
at all....then I can hope Microsoft pays me a large some of money to go away.
This is extortion of the highest degree...and for those of you who say
"don't worry, SCO will lose and then be bankrupt". Try telling that
to IBM, when they only get the last of SCOs worth (probably less than 1 million
after their legal bills), and IBM had to spend thrice that on their own legal
fees. This is abso-frickin-lutely making me sick.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I think I'll vomit - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 09 2004 @ 11:26 AM EDT
- Cost - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 09 2004 @ 02:53 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 11 2004 @ 10:29 AM EDT |
Does anybody care to speculate on the likelihood of success of this motion?
1. Is it likely to be granted or denied.
2. Is it likely that some sort of additional discovery be ordered?
3.Is it likely an appeal on this basis of denial of this motion would be
granted?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
