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 and IBM Stipulate to Delay; Ditto SCO-Novell
Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 01:04 AM EDT

SCO and IBM have stipulated to delays in motion due dates. I assume there has now been a postponement of the August 4 hearing, because the parties have stipulated -- and the judge has ordered -- the following schedule:

  • IBM's Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is now due August 16;
  • SCO's Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss is now due August 16;
  • IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Motion to Compel is due on August 4;
  • SCO's Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Compel is due August 18.

Also, Novell has been given until August 6 to answer SCO's Amended Complaint, also on stipulation of the parties.

So, delays. Speaking of which, I have gotten so behind on email, I despair of ever fully catching up, although I'm trying hard, and I hope to at least maintain from here on. If you don't hear from me, please understand and forgive me. I am glad to hear from you, and it's a great help, but once my schedule left me so far behind, all I think I can do is keep my nose above water from here on. I absolutely do read everything but personal matters took up more time than I expected, and I can't do my work and also answer the backlog fully.

  


SCO and IBM Stipulate to Delay; Ditto SCO-Novell | 240 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
SCO and IBM Stipulate to Delay; Ditto SCO-Novell
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 02:32 AM EDT
Correction here please. So that we can learn from our mistakes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Links Here
Authored by: NastyGuns on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 02:32 AM EDT
Please post OT links and other information here.

---
NastyGuns,
"If I'm not here, I've gone out to find myself. If I return before I get back, please keep me here." Unknown.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO and IBM Stipulate to Delay; Ditto SCO-Novell
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 02:36 AM EDT
PJ;

I hope I speak for all. We appreciate what you do with Groklaw, and understand
that you do have a life. I know I received a short response from you and was
quite surprised that you would take the time, I certainly didn't expect it.
Just get your schedule back on schedule, and we'll muddle through. I would also
like you to know how much I enjoy Groklaw - a daily (minimum) vist. Thank you
for all you do.

I'm somewhat miffed about the delay, however. I wanted to see IBM get its
Partial Summary Judgement. I'll just have to wait.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO and IBM Stipulate to Delay; Ditto SCO-Novell
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 03:22 AM EDT

Speaking of email ...

As another poster said, it's great emailing you and getting a reply, and we do realise it's an honour to receive that reply - we know you do get buckets of email...

But PLEASE - change the "mail me" icon to go to a page with the actual mailto url there. And the page should list your email filters so's we can stuff keywords into the subject and make your life easier.

This is *law* and we don't want you "doing a Linus", ie mailing the kernel-devel list saying he's deleted his entire inbox unread because he's overwhelmed ...

Plus, if you have keywords like "legal lead" and stuff, then if you've got any assistance you can just pass that particular mailbox on to an assistant to review, or whatever. At least by filtering, and telling us what the filters are, you can help us make your life easier.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO and IBM Stipulate to Delay; Ditto SCO-Novell
Authored by: ghost on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 03:36 AM EDT
PJ, Why not set up a "general" contact email for Groklaw, and get a
few helpers to sort and screen the mail that is meant for Groklaw related
stuff?

If it is really only you that can answer, i am sure they can forward this to you
in a more ordered fashion.

A few "Santa's helpers" would do you good!

You have been doing a fantastic work so far, but don't overstretch yourself!

All the best!

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: M$ and patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 03:41 AM EDT
Interesting article
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/27/microsoft_refuses_jftc/

Most interesting paragraph:

"Microsoft's Tokyo offices were raided earlier this year when the JFTC went
searching for evidence of uncomfortable business practices. In particular, the
JFTC is concerned that PC makers are forced to agree they will not sue Microsoft
over patent issues as part of the Windows licensing agreement."

Maybe this part of M$ patent war-plan? It's not the first time they use their
licensing to give them an edge.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • oops... sorry - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 03:43 AM EDT
The hardware vendor fallacy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 06:53 AM EDT
I'm starting to feel sick about all this hardware vs.
software vendor nonsense. They don't have so different
interests, really.

Hardware and software need to go together. Just like body
and soul. What IBM (and many old-timers) have is *History*.

In the early times computers would be used by engineers
who were expected to adapt software to local needs. Even
the distintion between OS and applications was often
blurred. In those times, software was very often distributed
with attached source code (at a minimum, enough of it to
allow local customisation). IBM, DEC, Honeywell, ATT and many others did
distribute code *and* managed to get fairly
important returns indeed.

IBM and many old-timers have already worked in a more or
less open "open-source" scenarios and know they managed
to fair well. Why should they fear it? Been there, done
that!

It's more of a problem for "recent" companies built around
secrecy. Secrecy has probably allowed them to use/do many
shameful things (like writing spaghetti code) without
their arts being disclosed and discussed in the open.
Secrecy has awarded them some "protection" through
obscurity... etc... Now, as they grew bigger, fixing up all
their legacy wrongdoings (and note I'm not talking only
legal here) means a significant effort: development, PR,
lawsuits... you name it. They have to be fearful.

Note also how IBM (and others) doesn't just open all
they wrote in the non-open-source years. Instead, they
re-build it to the standards they want to be judged by...

So, bottom line: please don't argue any more about SW vs. HW
interests. They are all in for the same business. It's more
a matter for culture and adaptation: some companies (like
MS) need to change completely the way they do business,
while for others it is just a return to the old way of
doing things.

--
Jose R. Valverde
EMBnet/CNB

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO and IBM Stipulate to Delay; Ditto SCO-Novell
Authored by: eggplant37 on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 07:25 AM EDT
PJ,

Yell if you need help. It sounds like you need a secretary. I've still got
plenty of free time to help out. Just drop a line.

Rich

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Rob Enderle speaks again.
Authored by: Artiken on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 08:05 AM EDT
This is very funny. Enderle article on Linuxpipeline Windows 3 Pillars.

My favorite part, which definetly shows his slant of FOSS, is at the end.

"Rob Enderle heads the Enderle Group. He has been an external IT analyst since 1993. He is contemplating building an open source-free saferoom in his solar-powered home. He can be reached at renderle@enderlegroup.com. Contact the editor of Linux Pipeline at mwagner@cmp.com."

Maybe the saferoom can be operated via any one of the many M$ OS's. Then when the computer crashes the doors will go into emergency mode and lock, the ventilation system will turn off, the sprinkler system will trigger. Thus poor Rob will drown and suffocate, (I know redundant) holding firm to his ill gotten aliance with M$ and continuing to believe that M$ can make a real-time/system critical OS.

Notice even the Enderle Group considers him an "external IT analyst". Almost like Rob is ashamed to be associated with Rob. LOL

This guy once again proves he is a Total Idiot or a Genius Satireist. While managing to keep those FUD Drums beating.
I'm inclined to belive it is the former.
If you read the article as satire. (Reversing all of the statements.) He speaks the truth.

Pipeline? Channel? M$ lingo? Yup! So Linux Pipeline really has nothing to do with actually supporting Linux. I think it has more to do with giving you the shaft. errr. I mean pipeline. So in my understanding, LinuxPipeline has more to do with feeding anyone interested in Linux, FUD. Sewage runs through pipes doesn't it? At least this is what I see running out of this pipe.

I'm a sick puppy.
I found the article humorus.
Artiken

[ Reply to This | # ]

Any indication who requested the delay
Authored by: sphealey on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 08:08 AM EDT
Any indication who requested the delay: IBM or TSG? Or is that not knowable
from the stipulation?

sPh

[ Reply to This | # ]

Looks like scox wins again
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 08:37 AM EDT
Scox clearly wants to delay this forever. That's why scox filed all cr@p a
little while back.

So now it looks like scox wins again. How much you want to bet that scox tries
for another delay after this?

Yea, I know, the court is giving scox enough rope to hang itself, and this way
scox can't appeal, yadda-yadda-yadda.

[ Reply to This | # ]

With a little bit of luck
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 08:40 AM EDT
With a little bit of luck, we won't get bored during the delay, as we'll have a
BayStar v SCO complaint to analyze.

No, I don't know whether or not, BayStar have filed - all I know is that they
said in their press release that they would.

One other point, I can't see how this BayStar/SCO situation can be resolved
without litigation (but maybe I'm just dense?)
- SCO says the deal had closed
- BayStar says the deal had not closed
- Both said it in press releases (to the entire market)
- I don't believe SCO and BayStar can both be right
- Which surely means one or the other gave false, incorrect or misleading
information to the stock market.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Enough delay to avoid sppeals, but ...
Authored by: freeio on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 09:16 AM EDT
It is worthy of note that the delays achieved do not amount to very much this time.  The actual consequences of a few short weeks of delay are miniscule, except for some face-saving on the part of SCOX and a closing of another avenue for appeal by IBM. The former gains virtually nothing, and the latter is important to achieving an air-tight victory, which will be appeal-proof.

SCO may have wanted lots more time, but since they agreed to stipulate this, they are stuck with it.

Marty

---
Tux et bona et fortuna est.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rejoyce and be glad
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 09:46 AM EDT
What would we do for entertainment if all the SCO cases went away now?

:-)

--

MadScienist

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ doesn't have to make excuses...
Authored by: MikeA on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 10:17 AM EDT
PJ,

It's nice that you let people know that you have been too busy to get through all your email, just don't feel bad about it. No matter what, our personal lives are more important than anything we can be doing online. (Unless, of course, your personal life IS online!)

Reading through the brief SCO 8k filing from yesterday; how is it that SCO can file their press release with the SEC about the Baystar deal? I am assuming that it must have been filed AFTER Baystar challenged (denied) the agreement, since they did that in 2 hours from the original press release. So how can SCO still claim that the deal is legit? That seems like really risky behaviour, even for our favorite stunt-idiots. Wouldn't that be a false filing?

---
Change is merely the opportunity for improvement.....
but I can't think of a better signature yet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO and IBM Stipulate to Delay; Ditto SCO-Novell
Authored by: oldgreybeard on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 10:57 AM EDT
Must be vacation time.

---

LAMPs light the way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OSDL pays defense AutoZone
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 02:51 PM EDT
William Weinberg, newly appointed architecture specialist at the Open Source Development Labs:
We're putting money forward to defend AutoZone.

H@ns

[ Reply to This | # ]

Settlement talks?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 03:35 PM EDT

With IBM in the driver's seat, might it not be prudent for IBM
to offer a settlement on its own terms?

SCO and its familiars might be a lot better off cutting a deal,
like conceding the summary judgment and copyright issues
in return for IBM dropping its patent claims -- and perhaps
agreeing not to seek criminal charges.

This new "delay" might be a good time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Redhat news? AZ?
Authored by: MplsBrian on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 03:42 PM EDT
Any other news for the groklaw junkies? Anyone know when we get to hear whether
Redhat will go forward? Could the judge arbitrarily un-sua-sponte the stay? Or
does Redhat have to ask specifically? Same for AZ? If SCO has been claiming
that the DC case would resolve some of the AZ issues, can AZ refile for
dismissal despite a stay being in place? Or must they wait for a conclusion in
IBM-SCO? More specifically, if, say, IBM wins the summary judgement that linux
contains no copyright infringement, is that enough to get action in other suits,
or will they wait until the entire suit is resolved?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Red Hat already asked - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 04:26 PM EDT
  • A guess - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 06:32 PM EDT
What if ...
Authored by: Jeffrey on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 05:22 PM EDT
QUESTION: With Baystar in the position to truly yank the chain of SCOG
(certainly won't be giving them any more $$$) and with all remaining surrounding
cases waiting for outcomes from the IBM and Novell case so that suing anyone
else cannot bring any kind of quick cash via settlement ... <big breath>
... what will happen if SCOG simply runs out of cash and goes bankrupt?

Does the right to collect Unix license fees go back to Novell?
Can someone buy the remaining SCOG assets and we start this whole mess over?
Can anyone speculate on how this can actually end.

Thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's 8/16 reply - Harrop paragraph 72
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 08:37 PM EDT
I have been organizing the arguments related to IBM's reply to SCOG, which is now due on August 16.

A discussion on arguments to be considered in this reply is in SCOG infringement claims. The claims that I focused on were from paragraph 72:

72. "In addition to the foregoing, SCO reasonably expects that further comparisons of source code will permit SCO to present evidence in opposition to IBM's Tenth Counterclaim. Examples of facts from discovery to date that show copying of material from UNIX into Linux include
(i) substantial similarity of the Read-Copy-Update ("RCU") routine in Linux to a routine in UNIX;
(ii) copying of UNIX System V init (SYS V init) code in Linux version 2.6;
(iii) substantial similarity of the user level synchronization (ULS) routines in Linux and similar routines in UNIX;
(iv) copying of SCO's UNIX System VIPC code in Linux 2.4.20;
(v) copying of SCO's copyrighted UNIX "header and interfaces" in Linux; and
(vi) copying of SCO's UNIX Executable and Linking Format (ELF) codes in Linux. (Gupta Decl. ffl[ 3-86.)
The foregoing evidence demonstrates copying from UNIX into Linux -- and is probative even if SCO is not seeking to assert copyright in the foregoing material."

I would appreciate any comments. If you want to add anything to that page, feel free.

[ 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 0.05 seconds