|
SCO/IBM Hearing September 15 |
|
Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 04:19 AM EDT
|
It looks like the hearing on the motions in SCO v. IBM will be on September 15th at 2PM, according to Pacer -
#209 - Notice of Hearing filed by defendant Intl Bus Mach Inc : Motion hearing set for 2:00 9/15/04 for [144-1] amended motion to Dismiss, set for 2:00 9/15/04 for [144-2] amended motion or to Stay Count Ten of Counterclaim-Pla IBM's Second Amended Counterclaims Against SCO,, set for 2:00 9/15/04 for [152-1] cross motion for partial summary judgment on claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement To be held before Judge Dale A. Kimball cc:atty ( Ntc generated by: Atty) (blk) [Entry date 07/28/04]
|
|
Authored by: MathFox on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 04:36 AM EDT |
please...
---
When people start to comment on the form of the message, it is a sign that they
have problems to accept the truth of the message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO Moot Court - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 06:57 PM EDT
- SCO Moot Court - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:44 PM EDT
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 05:03 AM EDT |
Thanks in advance.
---
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." --
Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: Calculating Pi in Binary Legally Dangerous!!! - Authored by: Simon G Best on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 05:48 AM EDT
- OT here - Authored by: ff5166 on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 06:42 AM EDT
- OT here - Authored by: jmc on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 07:35 AM EDT
- OT here - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 07:59 AM EDT
- OT here - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 01:37 PM EDT
- OT here - Authored by: Arker on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 12:47 PM EDT
- OT here - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 07:42 AM EDT
- OT : M$ delays 64 Bit windows - Again! - Authored by: Greebo on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 08:37 AM EDT
- Totally OT - Authored by: cpw on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 08:40 AM EDT
- OT: Big Brother is alive and well - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:46 AM EDT
- SCO Criminals or Idiots? - Authored by: blang on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 11:35 AM EDT
- OT: Both parties to the original Caldera v. IBM complaint were nonexistant - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 11:56 AM EDT
- Linux Adoption up 8% in spite of SCO - Authored by: ujay on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 12:52 PM EDT
- Upcoming Legal Events - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 01:16 PM EDT
- Apple vs Real - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 01:27 PM EDT
- OT here: the begining of the open wave - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 02:05 PM EDT
- OT Mock Sco- IBM Trial - Authored by: pfusco on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 02:34 PM EDT
- OT: Server crash wipes FL voting records - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 02:55 PM EDT
|
Authored by: chris_bloke on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 05:04 AM EDT |
What's another month given SCO's current performances..
:-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Pogue Mahone on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 05:23 AM EDT |
Hmm... Battle of Britain day
<churchill>Never in the field of human
conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.</churchill> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 06:09 AM EDT |
A year and a half to start getting some resolution. Unbelievable.
Still, at least it's keeping the SCO lads off the streets, and therefore wallets
unlifted from tourists' pockets, handbags unsnatched from the grasp of elderly
ladies, and sweet candy in the drooling mouths of babes...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- damages - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 06:16 AM EDT
- damages - Authored by: jmc on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 07:40 AM EDT
- damages - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 08:05 AM EDT
- damages - Authored by: jmc on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 08:12 AM EDT
- damages - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 08:29 AM EDT
- dead by the end of 2008 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 08:29 AM EDT
- unlikely.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:09 AM EDT
- unlikely.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:31 AM EDT
- unlikely.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:56 AM EDT
- unlikely.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 07:38 PM EDT
- unlikely.. - Authored by: rlbell on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 12:34 PM EDT
- A solid research arm? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 01:49 PM EDT
- damages - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 10:32 AM EDT
- damages - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 10:47 AM EDT
- damages - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 11:37 AM EDT
- XP functional and stable? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 01:52 PM EDT
- I'll take that bet - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 12:19 PM EDT
- Shorthorn late - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:36 AM EDT
- Re: EFI - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 10:17 AM EDT
- Damages & IBM's CounterClaims - Authored by: Weeble on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 12:13 PM EDT
- Speed - Authored by: Ed L. on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- damages - Authored by: moonbroth on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:20 AM EDT
- punishment... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 10:07 AM EDT
- They are spending all their money - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 10:49 AM EDT
- damages - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 01:25 PM EDT
- damages - Authored by: chaz_paw on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 06:12 PM EDT
- You still don't know how this works, do ya? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 12:11 PM EDT
|
Authored by: nobbutl on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 06:56 AM EDT |
There's nothing in the docket text about SCO's motion to compel. Can we draw any
conclusions from that?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 07:12 AM EDT |
Looking at this schedule, I'd say that SCOG is burning its cash through
pre-trial litigation like it's fake money: the pace of the IBM pleadings and the
hearings is slowing down but certainly not the frantic activity behind the
scenes - at least for SCOG.
I suspect that SCOG buried a lot of litigation costs into the "costs of
SCOsource licensing" item. With a cloud on its registered copyrights
courtesy of Novell and a partial motion to dismiss courtesy of IBM, SCOG's
"IP licensing" program is an exercise in irrelevance. In that context,
a failure to keep the "costs of SCOsource licensing" item down should
set more than a little red flag to SCOG's patsies - er, "investors":
it should be a little red flag flying under a series of red flares and
fireworks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 07:34 AM EDT |
If every two weeks the hearing is set back another month, that means that will
have to show their much touted evidence . . .
Never.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sander123 on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 08:52 AM EDT |
I wonder what IBM's chances are that summary judgment be granted, and
if it is that they win it. And I'm guessing those chances are low.
Let me giva an analogy first.
Suppose, for the sake of argument. I find some of my text in a recent
Forsyth novel. I sue him. Next Forsyth asks me to produce a list of all
his potential copyright infraction in his twenty books. A huge task
especially if I myself produce a lot of text too. And should I fail to
do so, Forsyth might claim I forfeit the right to bring those claims.
That would be very strange of course. But something similar is going on
with counterclaim 10.
I mean, SCO comes to IBM with some claim. Let's not get in to the validity
of those claim right now. But for the sake of argument let's assume they
have found a problem, say the ELF interface contains valid copyrights.
Then IBM responds with, we'll talk about your claim later, but first you
give us a list of all the other things we might be guilty of. This being
in multi million lines of Linux versus millions of lines of tens of
products of SCO source. And if you fail, you essentially give up the rights to
any ip you have overlooked
Isn't that unreasonable?
As I said, I don't see the Judge granting this. Although the fact that
it has moved a month later into discovery is to IBM's advantage.
Sander
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Chances for IBM's Counter Claim 10 are LOW - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:04 AM EDT
- Chances for IBM's Counter Claim 10 are LOW - Authored by: PenguinLust on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:11 AM EDT
- dude! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:16 AM EDT
- Chances for IBM's Counter Claim 10 are LOW - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:18 AM EDT
- Chances for IBM's Counter Claim 10 are LOW - Authored by: darthaggie on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT
- Puzzled by your analogy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:41 AM EDT
- Bad example. - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:42 AM EDT
- Chances for IBM's Counter Claim 10 are LOW - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:48 AM EDT
- you missed IBM's real intention - Authored by: Paul Shirley on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:48 AM EDT
- Chances for IBM's Counter Claim 10 are LOW - Authored by: Jude on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 10:03 AM EDT
- Missing puzzle pieces - Authored by: AllParadox on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 10:24 AM EDT
- Wrong: SCO must identify the specific infraction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 10:26 AM EDT
- You are missing out all the intermediate steps - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 10:26 AM EDT
- Chances for IBM's Counter Claim 10 are LOW - Authored by: walth on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 12:14 PM EDT
- Refining the Analogy - Authored by: Anonomous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 12:22 PM EDT
- Chances for IBM's Counter Claim 10 are LOW - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 12:34 PM EDT
- Chances for IBM's Counter Claim 10 are *not* LOW - Authored by: seeks2know on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 02:12 PM EDT
- Terribly wrong, but probably right - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 02:35 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 09:01 AM EDT |
Someone (Quatermass, I believe) posted, in essence, that motions for summary
judgment are done almost by rote, in that lawyers don't *really* expect them to
go anywhere. From my own experiences, I know that if lawyers don't make that
kind of motion, they could be on the hook for malpractice; especially if it
turns out the motion would have significantly benefited their client.
So I've been wondering about IBM's intent. It seems to me that they may have
been motivated tactically - trying to shake up SCO, keep them back on their
heels and reacting to IBM instead of the other way around. And that's a fine
reason to make the motion.
As events have fallen out, however, it looks like this hearing for PSJ is
rapidly becoming the Whole Ballgame - the strategic, not just tactical, hinge of
the whole case, indeed the hinge of SCOG's entire litigation business.
This leaves me with a whole bunch of question about the whole strategy and
tactics of case management, and I was hoping some of the legal folks would
discuss this further:
Was IBM making a strategic move, or just a tactical one by filing the PSJ?
Would the PSJ actually dispose of issues on the merits? Or are there further
steps to nail things down?
Do you think IBM got caught slightly off-step as the ramifications of their move
emerged? Has IBM agreed to delay the hearings almost 6 weeks so they can get
their ducks in the row, now that they have an opportunity to truly hammer SCO?
If not, why?
Assuming IBM gets the PSJ (which is by no means a given) - what are the best and
worst case outcomes for us?
Curious questions from a YANL (yet another non-lawyer)...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 11:08 AM EDT |
I posted the 2nd part of this before (apologies for duplication). I know
several other people have commented on the Harrop declaration in other places
too.
IMHO whether IBM gets their PSJ, likely depends on four
things:
(i) Whether SCO did or didn't fully answer IBM interrogatory 12
in response to the court orders. SCO now says (Harrop declaration - see
quote below) they didn't. Personally, I believe at the time they said they did,
subject to point (ii).
(ii) Whether SCO's limitation on their
certification (i.e. they limited it to information in their possession) is
likely to be accepted by the court.
(iii) Whether SCO's rule 56f plan
can be expected to uncover any evidence relevant to proving a copyright
infringement claim by IBM (I'm personally rather doubtful of this)
(iv)
Whether IBM's wording is too broad (personally I'm not sure it is, and it's
possible Kimball could write a narrower judgement anyway), but I know several
smart people have raised this question.
Regarding point (i), I think we
need to look at the orders and the Harrop declaration. Under the line is a copy
of my earlier comment on it.
I'm interested in commnets on any of these
points.
------------
(1) December 12th Order, instructs SCO
to:
2. To respond fully and
in detail to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and
13 as stated in IBM's Second Set of
Interrogatories.
These
interrogatories read:
INTERROGATORY No.
12:
Please identify, with specificity (by file and
line of code), (a) all source
code
and other material
in Linux (including but not
limited to the Linux kernel, any
Linux operating
system and any Linux distribution) to which plaintiff has
rights; and (b) the nature of plaintiff's rights,
including but not limited
to
whether and how the code
or other material derives
from UNIX.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
For each line of code and
other material identified in
response to
Interrogatory
No. 12, please state whether
(a) IBM has infringed plaintiff's
rights, and for any
rights IBM is alleged to have infringed, describe in
detail
how IBM is alleged to have infringed
plaintiff's rights
.
(2) March 3rd Order, instructs SCO
to:
1. To fully comply within 45 days of the
entry of this order with
the court's previous order
dated
December 12, 2003. This is
to include those items that SCO had difficulty in
obtaining
prior to the Court's previously ordered deadline of
January 12,
2004.
...
4. SCO is to provide and identify with
specificity all
lines of code in Linux that it claims rights
to.
(3) Harrop
declaration
22. Further SCO has
not purported to have identified in
discovery, nor has it certified that it has
identified, all of the source code
in Linux to which SCO claims any
"rights.". Indeed, at the time that IBM
propounded its discovery requests, the
question of copyrights SCO has in source
code in Linux was not at issue in the
litigation. At that time, there was no
copyright claim in the case at all: SCO
had not even brought its narrow
copyright
claim.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tredman on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 11:40 AM EDT |
Here's a question for the smart masses out there.
If TSG, by some blind stretch of the imagination, provides explicit and exact
proof of pilfered code from SysV within Linux, in response to IBM's
interrogatory, how admissible is it depending on where the information came
from? Would IBM try to invalidate the evidence if it came from one of TSG's
fishing expeditions, or even could they?
I guess my point is, with the millions of lines and mountains of code that SCO
purported to have in public statements prior to these festivities, is it
allowable for them to stall presentation of evidence until after AIX/Dynix
discovery, particularly if that evidence come solely from their discovery?
Lacking proof of wrongdoing before discovery, can it be ruled by IBM that
presentation of such discovery-related evidence is tantamount to illegal search
and seizure?
As I understand it, you can't reach an indictment in a criminal court without
enough evidence to prove that a trial would not be a total and complete waste of
time. Even search warrants prior to a grand jury hearing have to be issued by a
judge after law enforcement has shown some kind of evidence that wrongdoing has
been committed. Shouldn't this same standard be used in a civil case? Is this
a case of the legal system being twisted by an individual entity, or do things
work differently in civil and federal court?
Tim[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO/IBM Hearing September 15 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 11:51 AM EDT
- SCO/IBM Hearing September 15 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 11:55 AM EDT
- Analogy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- Analogy - Authored by: ihawk on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 08:00 PM EDT
- SCO/IBM Hearing September 15 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 11:51 AM EDT
- SCO/IBM Hearing September 15 - Authored by: phrostie on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 12:11 PM EDT
- SCO/IBM Hearing September 15 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 12:31 PM EDT
- SCOX fishing - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 12:54 PM EDT
- SCO/IBM Hearing September 15 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 02:50 PM EDT
- SCO/IBM Hearing September 15 - Authored by: John Hasler on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 08:36 PM EDT
- WAKE UP! There is no pilfered code in Linux. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 08:45 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
I've just finished reading the 9/11 commission report. This is a compelling, and
sobering read. The quality and clarity of the report is impressive -
particularly in light of the bi-partisan commission that produced it.
I recommend that anyone interested review it, it is well worth the effort.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: geoff lane on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
said the lawyer in The
Wizard of Id.
(I'm amazed the strip is still going - I first discovered
it in a book I bought in Assisi, Italy 35 years ago!)
Anyway, it's pretty
obvious that at the current burn rate, TSG will run out of cash before they
have to appear in court and face down IBM.
So what is going to
happen? Are they going to find a few dollars down the back of the sofa? Or is
a mystery backer going to pass over a few bags of unmarked small
bills?
--- Ten Truths Of Linux --
http://zoe.mcc.ac.uk/tentruths.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tomas on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 06:37 PM EDT |
September 15, 1909
The Imaginary Patent
George Selden is rarely mentioned in accounts of automobile history, often lost
among names like Ford, Daimler, and Cugnot. However, Selden reigned as the
"Father of the Automobile" for almost 20 years, his name engraved on
every car from 1895 until 1911.
He held the patent on the "Road Engine," which was effectively a
patent on the automobile - a claim that went unchallenged for years, despite the
many other inventors who had contributed to the development of the automobile
and the internal combustion engine. Almost all of the early car manufacturers,
unwilling to face the threat of a lawsuit, were forced to buy licenses from
Selden, so almost every car on the road sported a small brass plaque reading
"Manufactured under Selden Patent."
Henry Ford was the only manufacturer willing to challenge Selden in court, and
on this day a New York judge ruled that Ford had indeed infringed on Selden's
patent.
This decision was later overturned when it became plain that Selden had never
intended to actually manufacture his "road engine." Selden's own
"road engine" prototype, built in the hope of strengthening his case,
only managed to stagger along for a few hours before breaking down.
(Lifted from The History Channel)
---
Tom
Engineer (ret.)
"Friends don't let friends use Microsoft."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|