|
|
| Forbes and CNET Joinder in Motion to Intervene and Unseal |
 |
|
Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 04:03 AM EST
|
I think it would be hard to say any less than Forbes and CNET do in their Joinder in Motion to Intervene and Motion to Unseal Court Files [PDF]. They want to join the G2 party. That is it. Same law firm as G2, so the gang's all here. If I were that law firm, I'd have been worried that a publisher of two newsletters might not have the weight and substance in the judge's eyes as a Forbes or a CNET. No doubt they are very glad to have allies say, "Me too, Your Honor." And, hey. What are friends for? The judge might realize, though, how Forbes has propped up SCO's story from day one, because I believe some of their articles have been attached as exhibits, as have O'Gara's. Even discounting those two, though, he probably won't see the subtlety of a CNET. So I'd say this does indeed give more weight to G2's motions, because it looks like the public at large is simply clamoring to poke through all the court documents. They list stats for Forbes' readership in print, and I was surprised that they weren't higher, but they don't say anything about their readership on the Internet. CNET doesn't say either, but their SEC filings indicate their readership is substantial. Of course, so is Groklaw's, but no matter how you slice it, it is saying to the judge that a lot of people will be affected by this ruling, so he very likely will take it more seriously than before, when it was looking more like an individual's personal quest. SCO? Their role is to play this to their advantage, even if they didn't make it happen -- and I don't know that they didn't, I just don't get that impression -- and try to use the opportunity to flash IBM's private emails to the world. What is odd is that no more effort went into this. I note the law firm still misspells David Marriott's name, which is either deliberately disrespectful or careless.
**************************************
Michael P. O'Brien (USB #4894)
Andrew H. Stone (USB #4921)
JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & McDONOUGH PC
[address, phone]
Attorneys for G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc., CNET Networks, Inc., and Forbes Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION, a New York corporation,
Defendant.
|
JOINDER IN MOTION TO
INTERVENE AND
MOTION TO
UNSEAL COURT'S FILES
Civil No. 03CV0294
Judge Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
CNET Networks, Inc. ("CNET"), and Forbes Inc. ("Forbes"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby join in the motions of G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc. ("G2") to intervene in this action and unseal the Court's file.
CNET is a global interactive content company providing, among other content, information and news regarding personal and business technology. It is the publisher, among other websites, of www.cnet.com, CNET News.com (www.news.com.com), and www.zdnet.com. Both of these sites regularly cover issues concerning computer technology and the high-tech industry.
Forbes is the publisher of Forbes, the nation's leading business magazine and its international edition, Forbes Global, which together reach a worldwide audience of nearly five million readers. Forbes also publishes www.Forbes.com, a leading business website. Forbes' publications regularly cover business, technology and computer industry issues.
CNET and Forbes respectfully incorporate G2's Motion to Intervene and Motion to Unseal Court's Files as though fully set forth herein and further request that they be permitted to intervene on the same terms as G2.
Respectfully submitted this 19th day of January, 2005.
JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & McDONOUGH PC
By: ___[signature]___
Michael P. O'Brien
Andrew H. Stone
Attorneys for G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc., CNET
Networks, Inc., and Forbes Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 19th day of January, 2005, I caused a true and correct copy
of the foregoing to be sent as indicated below to the following:
Brent O. Hatch (via facsimile & hand delivery)
Mark F. James
Hatch, James & Dodge, P.C.
[address]
David Boies (via facsimile & 1st class mail)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
[address]
Stephen N. Zack (via facsimile & 1st class mail)
Mark J. Heise
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
[address]
Todd Shaughnessy (via facsimile & hand delivery)
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]
Advid Marriott (via facsimile & 1st class mail)
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]
Donald J. Rosenberg (via facsimile & 1st class mail)
[address]
___[signature]___
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 04:09 AM EST |
| <A HREF="http://www.example.com">Clickable link</A> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- This is an important decision - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 07:31 AM EST
- The Salt Lake Tribune, Perens, Stowell and Enderle re: DCC - Authored by: fudisbad on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 08:04 AM EST
- OT: For Enderle 'fans' - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 08:42 AM EST
- nofollow - Authored by: maroberts on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 08:50 AM EST
- nofollow - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 09:16 AM EST
- OT - Authored by: AntiFUD on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 08:57 AM EST
- Your thinking of the Daddy Forbes not the current one - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 09:08 AM EST
- OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 09:10 AM EST
- OT - Authored by: ctrawick on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 11:29 AM EST
- OT - Authored by: jerven on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 12:04 PM EST
- OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 01:36 PM EST
- radio talk show on IBM's 500 patents - Authored by: chrism on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 01:30 PM EST
- My name is McBride, Darl McBride - Authored by: Darkelve on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 01:43 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 04:10 AM EST |
| Where and what... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 04:14 AM EST
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 05:17 AM EST
- Corrections - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 06:11 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 04:16 AM EST |
You said in the second paragraph that Judge Kimball would probably not see the
subtlety of CNET's involvement, what do you mean by that?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jlar on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 07:18 AM EST |
"I note the law firm still misspells David Marriott's name, which is either
deliberately disrespectful or careless."
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by
stupidity."
I can't remember who said it:-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 08:00 AM EST |
I doubt it. As previously mentioned, Firefox is trivially easy to get from their
review page, though they don't offer Linux flavor, just Mac and Windows. And
secondly, it's a bit unreasonable to expect the judge to know that a particular
piece of software is available in one place and not another on cnet's website,
especially when said software is irrelevant to the case, and cnet is not a party
to the case. Nevermind basing a decision on that knowledge.
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: agriffin on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 08:30 AM EST |
In the filing is the claim "... Forbes, the nation's leading business
magazine ...". A quick check for circulation numbers shows that Forbes
ranks 84th behind Businessweek (77th), Smart Business (72nd), and U.S. News
& World report (24th).
Source[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 08:42 AM EST |
I say unseal the whole thing. IBM may have to hang its head in shame, but better
now than later.
We should be careful not to confuse the community's interest in this and IBM's
interest. We are on the same side here but thats not necessarily for all time. A
few years down the road, new management and a diffrent fork in the road and IBM
may be on the other side.
I would much rather see all the evidence pro and con openly on the table than be
trying to guess what the sealed evidence was in the IBM case, when another suit
comes along.
IBM might not thrive on openness but the community does. We may not have a right
to know, but its better if we do.
emk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 08:43 AM EST |
'because it looks like the public at large is simply clamoring to poke through
all the court documents.'
But we are, aren't we?
Basically IBM have the 'oomph' to protect their interests and the majority of
the documents that will be unsealed are SCO's.
These will then be available for analysis and refutation.
So let's wish Ms O'Gara, Forbes and CNET every success![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 08:59 AM EST |
If I thought that they'd read, <em>comprehend</em> and then
<em><b>accurately report</b></em> the facts of this
case. But the record is somewhat against them on that.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 09:25 AM EST |
"They list stats for Forbes' readership in print, and I was surprised that
they weren't higher, but they don't say anything about their readership on the
Internet. CNET doesn't say either, but their SEC filings indicate their
readership is substantial."
I am pretty sure that the readership among the various magazines and broadcast
networks that reported on the Lindberh trial was pretty substantial. However,
that readeship had no right to impinge on the litigants' right to due process
and a fair trial and tun the courtroom into a circus - which they did.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 10:58 AM EST |
As I recall, Forbes got in trouble when an author named Dan Lyons published some
things that were allegedly not factual from what I remember.
A CEO of one of the Linux companies wrote a point-by-point article with
refutation all of Mr. Lyons assertions and turned the whole "Linux
Crunchies" lines on Mr. Lyons.
Somehow Tim Forbes got the brunt end of the article for not researching Mr.
Lyons allegations before publishing his article. I believe there have been many
anti-Linux articles published on Forbes that have been from authors that have
and agenda.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 11:12 AM EST |
If it's possible, I am sure it would help a lot to stop this "we want it
all given to us on a silver plate" movement, no? Judge would have official
filing for both sides and have a clear picture of what is going on.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 11:43 AM EST |
PJ, this may not be your style, but have you considered entering your own motion
to unseal on behalf of the Groklaw community?
I am curious to see all the filings. I bet, with your level of expertise, you
could do it "Pro Per", if that is possible with this kind of motion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 12:07 PM EST |
Will be out of context and misconstrue the facts so this isn't intended to
benefit readers!
---
constructive irrelevance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hrvatska on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 12:20 PM EST |
If something like this was granted, who would decide what could be unsealed? It
seems that there are some items that should remain sealed for a variety of
reasons, and someone would have to sift through all of the sealed documents and
decide on a case by case basis what should and should not remain sealed. Also,
is there a precedent for unsealing documents in a civil suit?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 01:20 PM EST |
Is perhaps all these motions to disclose "secrects" a plan to later,
when their motions have been denied, tell the world that the court was on IBMs
side and helped them to hide some nasty secrets? Myths have spread far easier in
the past![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Excuse? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 06:00 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 02:04 PM EST |
Team,
Another theory for you to consider.
We've seen some
interesting motions from SCO just recently. I can't help but wonder if there
hasn't been a major change of tactic beneath the surface down in Lindon,
Utah.
Let's see what you make of this... I'm going to start with IBMs
PSJs. These are honed like a surgeon's knife: sharp, on-target, and
ultra-efficient. SCO have seen these and need to react. If they don't SCO fear
the entire case will be thrown out and they walk away empty-handed. They are now
desperately seeking any way of walking out of this with any tiny shred of
victory. Without it, I dare say that Darl McBride and his fellow officers will
become the targets of law suits themselves, brought by shareholders who accuse
him of failing to act in the best interests of the company. In short, he has to
have something. It almost doesn't matter what SCO come away with, as long
as there is a tiny partial victory for Darl to point at and say, "Look, I'm
vindicated, I was right after all!" Without this, I suggest, he's
toast.
There is an outward show here that SCO are taking a tactic of
demanding more discovery, digging through CVS, trying to depose IBM's top brass,
all in a desperate attempt to get the case before a jury. At least, that's what
Darl McBride and his colleagues at SCO have been telling us.I think it has more
to do with making as much of a nuscience of themselves as they legally
can.
If we think about that in terms of SCOs recent activities, I see a
definite shift away from this alleged desire to go to trial. Instead, I see a
whole slew of irritants, a series of peurile and senseless motions, delaying
tactics, accusations and the like. Anything and everything that they can do in
order to create the seed of doubt in the minds of the public that IBM have
something to hide.
In short, I suspect that the emphasis has now
switched to some very serious behind-the-scenes negotiations between the parties
to reach a settlement. SCO are now pulling the stops and trying to strong-arm
IBM into settling. Their discovery motions have nothing to do with
finding evidence of IBM in breach of contract [because we all know that this is
a pointless exercise - thanks Novell!] but is instead an attempt to find some
nice juicy little bit of dirt that SCO can demand gets an airing in public under
the dubious claim that it relates to the trial.
Of course, they are
going to be seriously clever about this. No hint or suggestion of the tactic
would be made. Instead they would try and find something, anything, that they
can allege relates to the trial and suspect would upset IBM if revealed. Think
about it:
If SCO were to push for disclosure [OK, they "accidentally"
read a piece of an email in open court] then it would be obvious to the judge
that they were trying to publicly embarrass IBM. Instead, what they are doing is
to continue to push the case, knowing that IBM would rather the information did
not become public. SCO, then, are trying to set themselves up as "the lesser of
2 evils". In short, they are saying to IBM: "So, you want to avoid email 'X'
going public? We might be able to help you there. Let's make a deal..." At the
same time - and behind the scenes, they are using the likes of G2 and Laura
diDio to provoke exactly the situation that they want to happen. See? If they
look like they are behind this motion, the judge will throw the book at them.
They have to look all sweet and innocent. "Us, your honour? Why no, your Honour!
We wouldn't do that... In fact, just this morning I gave my colleague Mr
Marriott another settlement proposal..." And thus SCO maintain the illusion of
being squeaky clean and having nothing to do with such a dirty tactic. This - if
I am right - may be an unimaginably dangerous ploy for several reasons. Firstly,
if the judge even suspected SCO of trying this, they would be in trouble.
Secondly, if they have miscalculated, and the information is not as sensitive to
IBM as they hope, then the misjudgement could cost them the case.
But
what have they got to lose? Nothing.
This case has now stopped being
about IP theft, contracts, or SCO Code in Linux. All that is left now is a
desparate attempt to prevent disgruntled shareholders from suing the pants off
of Darl McBride and his management team for the idiotic way they have
senselessly committed corporate suicide. If I'm right, there is one final
dimension to think about. IBM, knowing that they are innocent of charges, are
going to think long and hard about the marketplace harm that would befall them
if they settled with SCO. I dare say that they want a settlement that completely
vindicates them of all charges. SCO, meanwhile, no longer care if they get a
dime out of this deal. They just need to save their skins...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
