|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 06:08 PM EDT |
| In anticipation [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 06:44 PM EDT |
| n/t [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 06:45 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 06:46 PM EDT |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:08 PM EDT |
I'm guessing that the judge denied the PSJ motion because it was too broad. To
say that NONE of IBM's Linux activities infringes on SCO's copyrights (whatever
those may be) is way too inclusive. IBM will have to reword and refile the
motion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:09 PM EDT |
To help out some.
I will claim 295
-- David Truog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kevinsnotalawyer on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:10 PM EDT |
I consider myself a relatively intelligent person, but I'm quickly losing my
wits over this deluge of documents.
This sentence, at the beginning of
IBM-294.pdf, makes my eyes bleed:
Claiming that it needs to
address purported new issues
and arguments in SCO's Supplemental Memorandum
Regarding Discovery and
Memorandum in Reply to IBM's Opposition to SCO's Ex
Parte Motion for Leave
to File a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery,
IBM seeks to
postpone the hearing on SCO's pending discovery motion scheduled
before
this Court on September 14, 2004.
I mean, that is
torture to read through. I'm thinking you better be paid
well to even
read this stuff, let alone write it.
And now I'll go wrap a hot towel
around my head, a la Ferris Buehler. ---
Kevin
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Anonymous [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
| I couldn't get AcroRead to open up http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-291.pdf, since
it claimed that it was broken beyond repair. Which is too bad, since I really
wanted to see what SCO considers worthy of being put under seal.
---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry
Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:25 PM EDT |
"Microsoft exec takes aim at open source" is the headline of the
following article on CNET's online news.
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+exec+takes+aim+at+open+source/
2100-1016_3-5368291.html
Lead paragraphs:
"Microsoft has appointed a new executive to persuade business
customers in Europe, the Middle East and Africa to choose its software
over open-source alternatives.
Ashim Pal on Monday became Microsoft's senior director of EMEA
platform strategy, having previously worked as vice president of
technology research services at the Meta Group."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:41 PM EDT |
From IBM-295.pdf:
"From the outset, SCO has made clear that, in
lieu of substantive response to IBM's motions, SCO intended merely to ask the
court to defer briefing on IBM's motions until after fact discovery closes.
Indeed, that is what SCO seeks in it's 80-page (inaptly-titled) "Motion
to Enforce the Court's Amended Scheduling Order Dated June 10, 2004. Put
simply, giving SCO an extension merely to seek further extension (which it has
already sought in a separate motion) makes no sense. Accordingly, SCO's motion
should be denied."
I dunno... I think ineptly wouldn't
be far off the mark when decribing SCO's filings.
Also, is it so
surprising that SCO seeks more delay? One of the few possible reasons for
needing such a delay (other than the obvious doomsday), is that perhaps SCO is
actively seeking investment money to plug the hole on the starboard. After
all, the ship is taking water fast.
If SCO was able to convince some
pushover like Goldfarb, who's to say it couldn't happen again? How do we know
they aren't furiously working their contacts and setting up "snake oil" investor
sessions as we speak (write)?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:41 PM EDT |
Dismissal IBM CC10 granted in part, denied in part.
CC10 PSJ denied without prejudice.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- News is out - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:48 PM EDT
- News is out - Authored by: John Hasler on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:50 PM EDT
- News is out - Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:53 PM EDT
- News is out - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:54 PM EDT
- Correct! n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:55 PM EDT
- News is out - Authored by: sef on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:55 PM EDT
- News is NOT out - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 10:13 PM EDT
- Don't fall for trolls - Authored by: AG on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:57 PM EDT
- I Would If I Could - Authored by: Weeble on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 08:14 PM EDT
- News is out - Authored by: beast on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 08:18 PM EDT
- News is out - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 08:20 PM EDT
- To poster, + Attention: PJ and MathFox - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 09:07 PM EDT
- News is out - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 10:03 PM EDT
- News is NOT out - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 10:09 PM EDT
- Troll, please delete - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 16 2004 @ 06:04 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 08:09 PM EDT |
As far as I can tell, the only redacted bit was from II(a)(1) [IBM's Motion
Depends Upon Its
Mischaracterization of SCO's Contract Claims], end of paragraph
one:
Email from Bill Sandve to Kim Tran, January 22, 2002 at 2
(Exh. 4) ("AIX was derived from System V."); Agreement for
Licensing of AIX
Source Code and Related Products between Argus
Systems Group, Inc. and IBM ¶
8.4 (Exh. 5) ("AIX is derived form
software under license from SCO.");
International Business
Machines Corp. Royalty Statement, June 30, 1987 (Exh.
6) (stating
that AIX is "derived from System V"); IBM/Supplier Technical
Services Agreement at 1 (Exh. 7) ("'AIX Operating System' or 'AIX'
shall
mean the UNIX operating system that operates on the Power,
Power PC, Power
2, Power 3, and Power 4 architectures or
derivatives or follow-on
architectures irrespective of the names
of such architecture." (emphasis
added)); Rodgers Dep. 138
(Exh. 8) ("Dynix/ptx is almost certainly a
derivative work of Unix
System V.").
Are the things referenced
confidential materials that IBM gave to SCO?
If so, this is a big boo-boo on
SCO's part, releasing confidential materials on the web site and in a press
release. ---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but
set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from
Terry Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tangomike on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 08:33 PM EDT |
TSCOG says that IBM's request should be denied because TSCOG filed Aug 19, and
IBM took until **Aug 25** to respond.
Boy, if I wanted to really get some people upset, I'd complain that it took a
whole 6 days to respond.
TSCOG really need to get back on their prescription medications.
---
The SCO Group's secret project to develop Artificial Stupidity has obviously
succeeded!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rharvey46 on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 08:47 PM EDT |
It appears that SCO is saying to IBM - You are not permitted to request any
delays.
It appears that SCO is saying to the court - We need delays.
Yet, SCO is claiming that, due to IBM's delays, the court case can not go
forward in a timely manner.
Who has been requesting the most delays - IBM or SCO?
The requests for delay sometime appear to be requests for information, but I am
sure they are requests for delay instead.
Personally, I am tired of the delays. But the delays have been caused by SCO,
not IBM.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tangomike on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 08:48 PM EDT |
TSCOG is attempting to overwhelm the court, and IBM, with paper. That's why
their various documents are so bad. It's much more difficult to deal with them
than with well written work. Clearly this is a conscious effort to bog down the
court. I'm one of the people who's been wondering why BS&F stuff was so bad.
In order for this to work, it had to be fairly poor from the start, or it would
have been suspicious. Now it's beginning to work.
So, they did know at the outset they had a loser of a client. The aim was delay.
Discovery abuse is one tactic. Playing off cases against each other is a second.
Here's another:- lousy work, and lots of it. It really increases the opponent's,
and the court's, workload. It's garbage truck law practice.
So, can Kimble and Wells get some help?
---
The SCO Group's secret project to develop Artificial Stupidity has obviously
succeeded!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cxd on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 08:50 PM EDT |
The commenter deleted his comment [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Back from court I - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 08:56 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: cxd on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
Ok.
Back from the court.
I will not try to give a detailed play by play of todays session. I will
however give my overall impressions and feeling for today.
First... Judge Kimball gets it. He asked SCO very detailed questions today.
He kept them on point. He corrected them. In the end he took all motions under
advisement.
SCO today spent a lot of time arguing that permissive was the rule of the day
and Judge Kimball had no right to rule on that issue. In the end they said in
the least Judge Kimball it is in your discretion to stay that until later.
Judge Kimball says.... yes you are correct it is within my discretion if I would
want to stay it. Look for it in the official transcript it was wonderful to see
how the judge kept them in line today.
We had a lawyer Mr. Silver get up today to speak about the inconstancy's of
SCO's many stories. The judge actually told him “ look do you have something
new to say then say it.... if you are going to say what the gentleman before you
said then you should sit down now.
Later when Mr. Silver was finished later in the hearing he actually fell asleep
during the session. All of us had a great hoot about this after the session. I
wonder how he will bill SCO for his nap today? Will that count as court time or
nap time?
Mr Hatch today was waving and waving. At one time when he was going to proceed
he actually had to ask the court for a small recess so he could get the next
song and dance ready. That was a 10 min time out for the SCO team. Later
during his presentation, for a period of over 1:20 Hatch did not say a word
while he stumbled for his next thought at the podium. He was shuffling like
crazy attempting to find something to talk about. The quality of the law firms
came out today plain as day.
There was lots of talk about non literal copying again today.
Oh.. there was a mystery email that was given to IBM just before the session
today from 1999 about a code dive done on Linux. SCO actually attempted to say
that this is the code dive that was done and all other references to code to
this point by SCO executives were as they said in court “ Mr McBride miss
characterizes the claims of code examination quite a bit. Wow I would say.
From 3 teams of scientists to we really have not done a close examination yet.
They actually attempt to say that there has not been any code analysis up until
this point and they should not be required to do that dive now just to fit IBM's
view of the case. What for the transcript you will not believe it.
Oh the mystery email today was called the Davidson e-mail. Who is this? I do
not know but IBM used it to turn on SCO own argument in court today. Wow use
there last minute surprise memo to impeach their own argument in court. What
for the transcript you will not believe it.
The Judge actually said to SCO today. So what is it that you actually need from
IBM to prove no UNIX sys IV in Linux. He gets it ... I know he gets it.
SCO actually said in court today that modern tools of code comparison are not
effective. That is the experience we have found. Modern tools are not going to
help us.
They said to the court “ We were going to go out and hire experts at this point
in the case because that would take too much time and be too expensive. They
actually accused IBM of attempting to stall the proceedings while SCO's cash is
burned up.... or to say it as they did “ put us out of business.” Poor SCO....
my heart was just breaking.
Oh they actually talk about symbols being the same. They showed several slides
in court today with code samples on both sides. The new lawyer actually said.
“IBM wants to force us to do tracking.” Well dah... do you think????
Oh they said today wait for it.........” MIT scientists are not relevant.”
Oh my did they just say that.... wait for the transcript you will see.
When it came down to it Mr. Marriott said it best. What they have chosen not to
do they have chosen not to do. Wait for the transcript.
So overall I was very happy today at court.
If I can say one great thing it is........ wait for the transcript you will roll
on the floor.
I actually had to be stopped from laughing at court today.
Have a super day.
Karl
cxd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: elderlycynic on Thursday, September 16 2004 @ 04:29 AM EDT |
Two more over-long memoranda from SCO. The judges must be
getting a little irritated with the verbose repetition.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
