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
IBM's Memo Attaching & in Support of Proposed Scheduling Order
Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 12:42 AM EST

Here is IBM's Memorandum Attaching and in Support of IBM's Proposed Scheduling Order, as text. I did the text and HTML myself, because every time I tried to read it, I got caught in a mental loop, so typing it out helped me to get the message loud and clear, which I believe is this: IBM is asking the court to please bring this circus to some kind of a foreseeable end. Specifically, they want the court to force SCO to finally tell them with specificity exactly what it is IBM is accused of doing, and they'd like the Court to set deadlines for both parties to disclose the particulars of their claims. And they would like SCO to do it before discovery is ended. Sounds reasonable to you and me, right? SCO begs to differ.

IBM tells the Court that by now, this case should be getting more focused and narrower. That is how it works in litigation, but instead, all this time into the suit, IBM still has no clue what code it is alleged to have misused, and they'd like the Court to set a day for SCO to have to tell. We also get a glimpse at the grounds IBM is apparently using to oppose SCO's attempt to amend its complaint. It seems the Project Monterey contract stipulated that any breach must be brought within two years, it had to be brought in New York State, and a jury trial was contractually waived.

In her January 18 Order, Judge Wells told SCO and IBM to get together and try to work out a new scheduling order and submit it to the court together. Of course, they can't agree on anything. Her encouraging words to shake hands and act like little gentlemen -- or good sportsmanlike football players -- fell on deaf ears, because there are some issues they can't resolve without her, so they are submitting dueling scheduling orders instead. Footnote 1 informs us that even what they initially agreed on, SCO now has backed away from and no longer will agree to. So essentially, nothing is agreed to, but IBM doesn't know why, and so it submitted the scheduling order that the parties originally agreed to. I'm sure Judge Wells will be thrilled. Additionally, IBM is asking for oral argument. So heigh ho, heigh ho, it's back to court we all go.

IBM would like interim dates, by which time SCO has to tell them what IBM has exactly done to misuse their materials. Line by line, they want some specificity, so they can do discovery on SCO's claims, if SCO ever makes any specific claims. What exactly are they supposed to have misused? They want it finally "identified by version, file and line of code" -- methods and concepts too, pretty please.

SCO, on the other hand, wants to reveal the allegedly infringing code after discovery is over, according to IBM. They are in a hard position, though. SCO apparently brought the lawsuit without any concrete evidence, and they still don't have any, as IBM reminds the court Judge Kimball said in his February Order. Now they are awaiting more code, so they can try to prove the methods and concepts claim, and so it's a matter where each side wants time to suit their needs. SCO wants all the time it can get, presumably, to go over the code. And IBM is sick of all this by now, and they'd like some light at the end of the tunnel, so they know they won't spend the rest of their natural born lives waiting for SCO to find some proof of something. SCO at the moment may not know the answer to IBM's question and won't know, until they pore over the code with a fine-toothed comb for 25 man-years, or whatever. So they want time. Not that this is a new desire on their part. IBM is concerned that without a Court-imposed deadline, SCO won't tell until it's too late for IBM to defend itself properly. Its suspicions are heightened because this is a SCO sticking point, but it won't give a reason. Here is how IBM describes it:

SCO, by contrast, insists on a schedule that would allow it to keep IBM in the dark about its claims and deny IBM the right to prepare its defenses to those claims. SCO's proposal, if accepted, would result in further unnecessary disputes and delay.

IBM objects to three of the provisions SCO seeks to include in the scheduling order. SCO seeks to include provisions that would (1) foreclose IBM's motion for reconsideration without substantive review by the Court; (2) re-open the pleadings more than one year after expiration of the deadline for amending pleadings; and (3) require the parties and the Court to participate in monthly status conferences -- on no particular subject -- that would merely invite unnecessary disputes. There is no need for the provisions SCO proposes. In fact, they would operate merely to short circuit existing orders and procedures that are already in place. SCO's proposed provisions should not be included in the scheduling order. . . .

SCO reinforced our concern by refusing to agree to a schedule that would require either an interim or a final disclosure of the Allegedly Misused Material. Although the parties met and conferred regarding their respective proposals, SCO did not offer a reason for its objection to IBM's proposal.

IBM therefore has come up with a phased deadline process:

Specifically, IBM proposes an interim deadline of June 11, 2005, by which the parties would identify the Allegedly Misused Material known to them as of that date, and a final deadline of August 11, 2005, by which the parties would identify any and all material that the other party is alleged to have misused. All fact discovery would close on August 11, 2005, except as to defenses to claims relating to the Allegedly Misused Material. The only fact discovery that would be permitted thereafter would be fact discovery relating to defenses to claims relating to the Allegedly Misused Material. No party could contend that another party misused material not identified by the August 11 deadline; no expert could opine as to the misuse of material not identified by the deadline.

Can you imagine having to force the party suing you to tell you what your offense allegedly is? That is usually the first thing they want to tell you, and plaintiffs normally want to tell the judge all about it. But here, IBM is having to petition the Court to try to find out what they are accused of. It's unique, in my experience.

There is one other intriguing element in this memorandum. If you note footnote 5, we get a big hint as to what SCO's request to amend its complaint yet again is all about. We've had a number of hints that it's about Project Monterey. Here's the footnote:

5. As is explained in IBM's opposition to SCO's motion to amend, if SCO wishes to bring the claim it seeks to assert against IBM, then it can seek to assert the claim in the Court in which it is contractually bound to proceed (a New York court).

It does sound like IBM is opposing SCO's request to amend its complaint on the grounds that any Project Monterey complaints are supposed to be brought in the State of New York, where I do believe they eat litigants like SCO for breakfast. That Project Monterey contract has a choice of law/venue clause, choosing New York, and that isn't all it says:

22.3 Choice of Law/Venue

This Agreement shall be governed by, and the legal relations between the parties hereto shall be determined in accordance with, the substantive laws of the State of New York, without regard to the conflict of laws principles of such State, as if this Agreement was executed in and fully performed within the State of New York. Each party hereby waives any right to a trail by jury in any dispute arising under or in connection with this Agreement, and agrees that any dispute hereunder shall be tried by a judge without a jury. Any legal or other action related to a breach of this Agreement must be commenced no later than two (2) years from the date of the breach in a court sited in the State of New York.

Hmm. No jury trial. Now wouldn't that be a hoot? And within two years of the breach you had to bring suit, which SCO didn't, as IBM points out by saying that their request is "untimely", and where? In Utah? No. In the State of New York.

Now this is just an educated guess, but it sounds like the parties are dueling about whether SCO can even bring Project Monterey into this lawsuit in Utah. I'd surely like to see what SCO is coming up with to argue they have the right to ignore this rather clear paragraph, lovers of contracts and sticklers for every jot and tittle that they are. I am wondering too if IBM is pointing out that SCO is not the Santa Cruz Operation, the party that signed the agreement with IBM, but Caldera/SCO.

IBM attaches its proposed scheduling order as an exhibit, but it adds in footnote 2 that if IBM's motion for reconsideration is denied or if SCO is allowed to amend the complaint, then a new, extended schedule will be necessary.

********************************

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
[address, phone, fax]

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,


v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM ATTACHING AND IN
SUPPORT OF IBM'S PROPOSED
SCHEDULING ORDER


ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

1

Pursuant to the Court's January 18, 2005 Order, defendant/counterclaim-plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") respectfully submits this memorandum attaching and in support of its proposed scheduling order.

Preliminary Statement

In its January 18 Order, the Court directed the parties to meet and confer and to submit a proposed scheduling order on or before March 25, 2005. The parties met and conferred and reached agreement on elements of a proposed schedule. 1 Because the parties have been unable to agree in all respects, however, they are submitting competing scheduling proposals. We respectfully submit that the Court should enter IBM's proposed scheduling order, attached as Exhibit A, as the final scheduling order in the case. 2

SCO objects to only one substantive feature of IBM's proposal: that the Court set deadlines for both parties to disclose the particulars of their claims (first by an interim deadline and then by a final deadline) before the close of all fact discovery. IBM proposes that the parties disclose the precise contours of their claims at a time when they will be able to take discovery with respect to those claims and properly prepare them for trial. SCO, by contrast, insists on a

2

schedule that would allow it to keep IBM in the dark about its claims and deny IBM the right to prepare its defenses to those claims. SCO's proposal, if accepted, would result in further unnecessary disputes and delay.

IBM objects to three of the provisions SCO seeks to include in the scheduling order. SCO seeks to include provisions that would (1) foreclose IBM's motion for reconsideration without substantive review by the Court; (2) re-open the pleadings more than one year after expiration of the deadline for amending pleadings; and (3) require the parties and the Court to participate in monthly status conferences -- on no particular subject -- that would merely invite unnecessary disputes. There is no need for the provisions SCO proposes. In fact, they would operate merely to short circuit existing orders and procedures that are already in place. SCO's proposed provisions should not be included in the scheduling order.

Argument

I. THE COURT SHOULD ENTER A SCHEDULING ORDER IMPOSING A DEADLINE FOR THE PARTIES TO IDENTIFY ALLEGEDLY MISUSED MATERIAL.

From the beginning of this litigation, IBM has endeavored to learn the specific identity of the material (including source code, methods, concepts and so on) that IBM is alleged to have misused. To that end, IBM has met and conferred with SCO and filed two motions to compel, resulting in discovery orders requiring SCO to disclose its alleged evidence. Yet, as the Court recognized in its February 9 Order, SCO has failed to adduce any evidence that IBM has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights. (See 2/9/05 Memorandum Decision and Order at 10 ("it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities").) That is so despite SCO's repeated public statements that it has mountains of evidence of IBM's alleged misconduct. (Id. at 8-9 (listing certain of SCO's public statements about its alleged evidence).)

3

As a result, IBM has long been concerned that, absent a final, court-imposed deadline for the parties specifically to identify the materials they contend one another misused (the "Allegedly Misused Material"), SCO will not disclose the identity of the Allegedly Misused Material until it is too late for IBM to prepare a defense with respect to that material. SCO reinforced our concern by refusing to agree to a schedule that would require either an interim or a final disclosure of the Allegedly Misused Material. Although the parties met and conferred regarding their respective proposals, SCO did not offer a reason for its objection to IBM's proposal. There is not, we submit, any good reason for not imposing firm deadlines, in advance of the close of all fact discovery, for the parties to disclose the Allegedly Misused Material. 3

If and when SCO properly identifies the Allegedly Misused Material, IBM will obviously need to take discovery with respect to that material. For example, if SCO were to identify Linux code that it contends is derived from AIX, Dynix, or UNIX System V and was improperly contributed to Linux, then IBM would need to take discovery to determine the facts relating to the code in question, including but not limited to (i) who wrote the code, when, how, and why, (ii) whether and to what extent it is in the public domain and (iii) whether and to what extent it is protectable by contract or copyright. Unless the Court imposes a deadline by which the parties must identify the Allegedly Misused Material, then they may not learn the identity of the material they are alleged to have misused until after the close of fact discovery and potentially even expert discovery when it would be too late to prepare a defense to claims relating to the material.

4

Under IBM's proposal, the parties would be required specifically to identify the Allegedly Misused material on a staged basis before the close of all discovery. 4 Specifically, IBM proposes an interim deadline of June 11, 2005, by which the parties would identify the Allegedly Misused Material known to them as of that date, and a final deadline of August 11, 2005, by which the parties would identify any and all material that the other party is alleged to have misused. All fact discovery would close on August 11, 2005, except as to defenses to claims relating to the Allegedly Misused Material. The only fact discovery that would be permitted thereafter would be fact discovery relating to defenses to claims relating to the Allegedly Misused Material. No party could contend that another party misused material not identified by the August 11 deadline; no expert could opine as to the misuse of material not identified by the deadline.

Imposing an interim deadline, as IBM's proposal does, allows the parties to undertake discovery relating the Allegedly Misused Material as soon as possible, without having to wait until the final deadline for disclosing Allegedly Misused Material. There is no reason to defer discovery relating to the parties' defenses, which cannot reasonably be undertaken until the Allegedly Misused Material has been identified, any longer than necessary. Imposing a final deadline, before the close of all fact discovery, for the parties to disclose all of the Allegedly

5

Misused Material, ensures that the parties learn what each other's case is about at a time when they can take fact discovery necessary to prepare a defense. If the Court does not impose a real deadline by which the parties must disclose the Allegedly Misused Material and then allow discovery with respect to the material disclosed, then IBM will remain in the dark as to the particulars of SCO's claims and be denied the opportunity to take discovery regarding the material that IBM is alleged to have misused.

Moreover, requiring the parties to disclose the Allegedly Misused Material before the close of all fact discovery will allow the parties to engage in meaningful expert discovery and refine the issues in dispute for summary adjudication. The parties may or may not require the assistance of experts to identify the material they contend one another misused. If they do, then their experts can assist them in making their disclosures. Expert discovery is not the time, however, for identifying the Allegedly Misused Material. It should be done in advance of expert reports so that the parties' experts can focus on what is really in dispute. It would make no sense, and would plainly be unfair, to allow either party to identify the Allegedly Misused Material for the first time by way of the report of one of its experts.

In sum, the Court should set deadlines for both parties to disclose the particulars of their claims (first by an interim deadline and then by a final deadline) before the close of all fact discovery. It is difficult to imagine how such a requirement could prejudice SCO, particularly since SCO has been ordered (twice) to provide this information to IBM.

II. THE PROVISIONS SCO SEEKS TO INSERT INTO THE SCHEDULE ARE EITHER UNNECESSARY OR INAPPROPRIATE.

As stated, SCO's proposal includes three provisions not included in IBM's proposal. Those provisions seek to (1) deny IBM the relief sought by its motion for reconsideration of the Court's January 18 Order; (2) re-open the pleadings more than a year after the expiration of

6

the deadline for amending pleadings; and (3) require monthly status conferences -- on no particular subject -- that would merely encourage unnecessary disputes. None of these provisions is either necessary or appropriate.

First , SCO includes in its proposal a provision requiring IBM to complete on or before May 3, 2005 production of the discovery ordered by the Court on January 18, 2005. There is already an order in place requiring IBM to complete that production (insofar as it is not the subject of IBM's motion for reconsideration) by May 3, 2005. (See 3/17/05 Order Re IBM's Motion for 45-Day Extension to Comply with 1/18/05.) There is therefore no reason for the scheduling order to address the issue as well. SCO failed to offer any reason for this redundant provision during the parties' meet-and-confer; we assume, however, that SCO seeks this provision solely to secure an order requiring IBM to produce the discovery at issue in IBM's motion for reconsideration. The Court already has addressed that issue as well, however. In its March 17, 2005, order, the Court expressly ruled that "IBM shall not be required to produce [the discovery at issue on its motion for reconsideration] until the Court has ruled on that motion". (Id.) Accordingly, there is no reason for the scheduling order to include a provision requiring IBM to complete production of the discovery required by the January 18 Order on or about May 3, 2005.

Second, SCO seizes upon the Court's request that the parties submit a new scheduling order as an opportunity to reopen the pleadings. The deadline for amending the pleadings passed more than one year ago, without any request by SCO to extend it. Yet SCO proposes that the parties be allowed until June 17, 2005, to submit new pleadings. In an Order dated June 10, 2004, the Court ruled that it would not change the scheduling order in the case "absent extremely compelling circumstances". There is no reason -- and certainly there are not extremely compelling circumstances -- for the Court to reopen the deadline for amending the pleadings.

7

That is especially so since SCO clearly seeks this adjustment solely as a means to gain an advantage in connection with its pending -- and untimely -- motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 5 At this state, the case should be getting smaller, not bigger.

Third, SCO seeks to require the Court and the parties to participate in monthly status conferences. During the parties' meet-and-confer, SCO offered no valid reason for including such a requirement. IBM is willing to participate in status conferences if the Court believes they are necessary, but we respectfully submit there is no reason for monthly status conferences. If SCO wishes to bring an issue to the Court's attention, it can do so by filing an appropriate motion after satisfying its obligation to meet and confer with IBM. Requiring the parties to participate in monthly status conferences would merely invite unnecessary disputes. Indeed, we believe, respectfully, that a monthly status conference would multiply not decrease discovery issues -- inviting the parties to raise issues with the Court without first properly propounding discovery requests, conferring in good faith regarding disagreements, and submitting appropriate briefing.

8

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, IBM respectfully requests that the Court enter IBM's proposed schedule as the final scheduling order in the case.

DATED this 25th day of March, 2005.

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

___[signature]____
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy
Amy F. Sorenson

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

Of counsel:

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Donald J. Rosenberg
Alec S. Berman
[address, phone]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

9

1During several lengthy phone conversations, local counsel for IBM and local counsel for SCO discussed each of the scheduling deadlines, making clear they would need to confer with their respective co-counsel before finally agreeing. Local counsel reached a tentative agreement on everything other than the four issues addressed in this memorandum. Local counsel for IBM then contacted counsel for SCO and informed him that these tentative deadlines were acceptable to IBM. This afternoon, counsel for SCO informed us that SCO would not agree to these tentative deadlines. The proposed scheduling order submitted herewith includes the tentative deadlines, and though we do not know what SCO finds objectionable about them, they represent a compromise and we respectfully submit they are reasonable.

2 In the event the Court were to deny IBM's motion for reconsideration of the January 18 Order and require IBM to provide discovery from the files of thousands of individuals or to grant SCO's motion to amend its complaint yet again and allow SCO to expand the case, IBM's proposed schedule would obviously have to be modified. In such circumstances, the proposed deadlines would need to be extended.

3 IBM's proposal imposes a reciprocal disclosure obligation. We are not suggesting that the Court impose on SCO an obligation that would not also be imposed on IBM. The reason SCO is uninterested in IBM being required to disclose the material it alleges SCO has misused is that IBM has already done so with great particularity.

4For this purpose, the Allegedly Misused Material must be identified by version, file and line of code. For example, to the extent a party contends the other party has infringed its copyrights, the accusing party must identify and match up the allegedly infringing and allegedly infringed material by version, file and line of code. To the extent a party contends that the other party has breached its contractual obligations by contributing code to Linux, the accusing party must identify the material alleged to have been contributed improperly by version, file and line of code, and to the extent the allegedly contributed material is not Unix System V code, but is any sense alleged to have been based on or resulted from Unix System V code, the version, file and line of Unix System V code from which the allegedly contributed material is alleged to derive or result.

5 As is explained in IBM's opposition to SCO's motion to amend, if SCO wishes to bring the claim it seeks to assert against IBM, then it can seek to assert the claim in the Court in which it is contractually bound to proceed (a New York court).


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK

I hereby certify that on the 25th day of March, 2005 a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following:

Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]

Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

Robert Silver
Edward Normand
Sean Eskovitz
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

____[signature]____
Amy F. Sorenson

10


  


IBM's Memo Attaching & in Support of Proposed Scheduling Order | 132 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 12:48 AM EST
To make them easier to find.

---
SCO cannot violate the covenants that led to and underlie Linux without
forfeiting the benefits those covenants confer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

jury trial
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 01:30 AM EST
You know, I've been wondering about all of the talk about a jury trial since
this began. I used to work for IBM and every contract that I saw seemed to have
the same boilerplate including waiving a jury trial. I assume it is because IBM
is a big company and a jury may not look favorably when they think IBM has
damaged a small company like SCO. Not sure why this is just coming up now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Memo Attaching & in Support of Proposed Scheduling Order
Authored by: cmc on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 01:37 AM EST
"I'd surely like to see what SCO is coming up with to argue they have the
right to ignore this rather clear paragraph".

Silly, silly PJ. They'll obviously pull another amendment 2 out of their filing
cabinet which no one else has any recollection of. And then they'll tell the
court that the original contract signed with IBM doesn't really mean what it
says. And it goes without saying that they'll say they really are Santa Cruz
Operation, or at least their "successor in interest" without even
attempting to prove it.

I find it funny and sad that they're trying to amend their complaint more than
18 months into the trial. A question for the legal minds - what right does SCO
have to refuse to tell IBM what it is they allegedly did wrong? As IBM points
out, don't they specifically need to know what they're accused of in order to
properly defend themselves?

Lastly, I doubt that SCO will come up with the Allegedly Misused Material, even
if ordered by the court. After that, they've ignored that order twice so far.
Third time's the charm?

cmc

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Here
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 01:42 AM EST
You know the drill. Clickable links. Post in HTML mode.

---
SCO cannot violate the covenants that led to and underlie Linux without
forfeiting the benefits those covenants confer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

not the first time! :)
Authored by: xtifr on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 02:01 AM EST

"Can you imagine having to force the party suing you to tell you what your offense allegedly is? That is usually the first thing they want to tell you, and plaintiffs normally want to tell the judge all about it. But here, IBM is having to petition the Court to try to find out what they are accused of. It's unique, in my experience."
Not so unique. I call your attention to the case of SCO (of course) v Autozone, where one of the earliest filings was AutoZone's Motion to stay or in the alternative for a more definite statement, wherein AZ also wanted to know what, exactly, it was they were being sued for. Still one of my favorites of the documents posted on GL! :)

---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can IBM say "Here's what we think they're doing"?
Authored by: Anthem on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 02:03 AM EST
Will IBM ever point out that the code SCO originally found in both operating
systems was from BSD? The thing that got the whole ball rolling was BSD code,
right?

I've always understood the process to have gone like this:

1. Some SCO kernel programmer's looking at Linux code (I'd think that would be a
no-no, but anyway).
2. Said programmer sees something and says "That looks familiar."
3. They walk it up the chain of command and everyone says "Yup, that's the
exact same code!" Word-for-word, with comments!
4. They gather a bunch of this stuff (say a hundred differnet instances) and
hype it to the world.
5. The first time they show the code, it's shot down in under an hour. It's
open-source code that SCO had (legally) used in their product.
6. This is when things started to get weird. Up until this point, SCO was
talking about lines of code. After this, we started getting into methods,
concepts, and nonliteral copying. At this point, SCO is in too deep to back
off. It would be business and legal suicide for the company, and professional
suicide for Darl and Company.

I'd love to see IBM say something like "Your Honor, we believe that SCO
made a mistake (and here is the mistake and how they made it) and is now trying
to hide from the effects for as long as possible." I would think that
would be preferable to "We don't have the foggiest idea what they're
talking about."

Of course, I don't have the foggiest idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to law. Is my timeline or scenario off? Is there a reason something like that
is dangerous for IBM?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Memo Attaching & in Support of Proposed Scheduling Order
Authored by: moosie on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 02:14 AM EST
With the fear of violating a (TM) phrase, "It's not nice to upset the
Nasgul"

Thankfully, they have struck back. I was waiting for this (when they stopped
playing nice)

Copyrights attributed to "It's not butter", et al.

- Moosie.

[ Reply to This | # ]

They can't play Alphonse/Gaston forever...?
Authored by: Latesigner on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 03:16 AM EST
Who'd have thought it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why don't I have faith.....
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 03:51 AM EST

that the court will want to enforce any deadline on SCOG?

Past performance has shown that the judges have given SCOG every opportunity to avoid making any charges with specivity. Why do I believe that SCOG will say they cannot agree to a deadline because they have not seen all of IBM's code and the judge will agree with them even if that means putting back the trial date?

Why do I believe that the court won't accept the Monterey contractual clause at face value and will give SCOG a chance to argue in court, sometime this Summer, just why it should not be heard in New York, but in fact it's connection with SCOG's accusations when they come with specivity mean that the contractual dispute should be heard in Utah to decide whether it is relevent to SCOG's main charges?

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The court should be sactioning SCO for this mindless stunt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 04:02 AM EST

Are SCO clasping at straws or what?

The contract clearly says that any disputes go to NY and there is a 2yr
deadline.

The court should be sanctioning SCO for even mentioning Montenerary (sp?) - this
is another slam dunk blatantly obvious abuse and waste of the court's time.

If SCO suffers no sanction for blantanly ignoring the contract and wasting
everyone's time, the court has failed yet again.


[ Reply to This | # ]

"I am wondering too if IBM is pointing out that SCO is not the Santa Cruz Operation"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 05:25 AM EST

Re: "I am wondering too if IBM is pointing out that SCO is not the Santa Cruz Operation"...

Exactly, as the Monterey agreement had a termination clause that if there was a change of control, where it seemed that if this happened that all bets were off!

Project Montere y Agreement “Change of Control” clause :

    1. Change of Control

      Notwithstanding Section 15.1, IBM shall have the right to terminate this
      Agreement immediately upon the occurrence of a Change of Control of SCO
      which IBM in its sole discretion determines will substantially and
      adversely impact the overall purpose of the cooperation set forth by
      this Agreement and applicable Project Supplements or will create a
      significant risk or material and adverse exposure of IBM's confidential
      and/or technical proprietary information (which is subject to, and to
      the extent of, confidentiality restrictions) ("Information"). For
      purposes of this Agreement, control shall be deemed to be constituted by
      rights, contracts or any other means which, either separately or jointly
      and having regard to the consideration of fact or law involved, confer
      the possibility of exercising decisive influence (other than by an
      entity currently exercising such influence or any entity controlled by
      or controlling such entity) on SCO by:

      1. owning more than half the equity, capital or business assets, or

      2. having the power to appoint more than half of the members of the
      supervisory board, board of directors or bodies legally
      representing SCO, or

      3. having the right to directly manage SCO's business activities.

      Subject to a plan deemed adequate by IBM to protect its Information, the
      parties will agree to a wind-down period for activities under this
      Agreement in case of termination for Change of Control. Such wind-down
      period will take into consideration the party's outstanding commitments
      relating to this Agreement and will not be less than 6 months. Any New
      Entity (defined below) identified in Attachment B shall not be entitled
      to any benefit of licenses granted by IBM under this Agreement in
      relation to the IA-64 Product and shall not be entitled to receive any
      Information, (including during any wind-down period). "New Entity" means
      the entity assuming control as described in subparagraphs 1 through 3
      above and all of such entity's then current subsidiaries and affiliates.
      IBM's right to the Project Work upon a Change of Control shall be in
      accordance with Section 15.4.

As PJ said the entire Project Monterey Agreement is found attached to the Santa Cruz' 10 Q for December 31, 1998. ht tp://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/851560/0000891618-99-000561.txt

< P>Sample of one definition in the agreement (you need to read the entire agreement to get an idea as to what is going on here):

    1. "Derivative Work" shall mean a work which is based upon one or more
      pre-existing works, such as a revision, enhancement, modification, translation,
      abridgment, condensation, expansion, compilation, or any other form in which
      such preexisting works may be recast, transformed, adapted, or included, and
      which, if prepared without authorization of the owner of the copyright in such
      preexisting work, would constitute a copyright infringement.

What part of this agreement is SCO looking to stick IBM with? There are more definitions that pertain to language in the contract? and there is the language in the contract that the definitions relate to. Read it. What do you find that SCOxe is seeing that they think that they have a case. Given that Santa Cruz Operation does not “control” the UNIX asset anymore, is this agreement null and void, and like PJ said, if Caldera (now SCOxe) could have brought a complaint to court over this, then they had a time limit and a location where they had to do it! But, todays SCOxe is not the SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) of yesterday (a point I am sure that SCOxe of today wishes to confuse a Utah jury with). SCOxe is pulling a fast one with the smoke and mirrors.

Can you see any place in the agreement where today's SCO has any leg to stand on?



[ Reply to This | # ]

The Beginning of the End?
Authored by: elderlycynic on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 05:37 AM EST
As I read it, IBM is asking the judges to lock the gates to
the circus, and let the gladiators fight it out. My guess
is that they will get that, even if SCO is given a few sops
in the way of minor conditions.

Assuming that they do, IBM will submit a motion for summary
judgement on August Twelfth (known as the Glorious Twelfth
in shooting circles).

I get the impression that IBM are playing down the Project
Monterey contract because they are sure of winning any oral
argument and don't want to start any more hares. This means
that the onus is on SCO to persuade the judge why the
contract should be ignored and it added to this case. Not
the easiest task in the world :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO can't sue over Monterey
Authored by: fudisbad on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 06:11 AM EST
From the Project Monterey agreement
22.3 Choice of Law/Venue

This Agreement shall be governed by, and the legal relations between the parties hereto shall be determined in accordance with, the substantive laws of the State of New York, without regard to the conflict of laws principles of such State, as if this Agreement was executed in and fully performed within the State of New York. Each party hereby waives any right to a trail by jury in any dispute arising under or in connection with this Agreement, and agrees that any dispute hereunder shall be tried by a judge without a jury. Any legal or other action related to a breach of this Agreement must be commenced no later than two (2) years from the date of the breach in a court sited in the State of New York.

So they can't sue for four reasons:
  1. Not according to the laws of the state of NY
  2. They asked for a jury trial.
  3. It's more than two years since IBM dropped Monterey
  4. It won't be heard in a NY court.

So why did they?

---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
Darl McBride, file your 10-K and your 10-Q!

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM missed a bet
Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 07:55 AM EST
The trouble is, they haven't covered themselves against the same trick that
SCOXE pulled before: claiming every line of every file in every version of the
Linux kernel, as against their supposed rights to every line of every file of
every version of Unix.

Sure, it may be a little broad, but the extra can be trimmed away at trial.

[ Reply to This | # ]

pg 4 "(ii) whether and to what extent it"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 09:47 AM EST
this just jumped out at me.

sounds like they are preparing to make use of all the info that has shown up
about the BSD case

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can IBM motion for a change of venue?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 10:37 AM EST
Clearly, these Utah judges dislike big bad IBM, and these judges will jump up
and salute every time their favorite little Utah "good faith" company
snaps their fingers.

Could IBM make a case that the Utah judges are unfair, or ineffective, or even
biased?

For example, IBM could out that after 2+ years, IBM still doesn't know why scoxe
has filed the lawsuit. Or the onerous and pointless discovery that the judges
routinely order. Or how scoxe rountinely gets away with acts of contempt, such
as turning over discovery a few hours before a trial begins?



[ Reply to This | # ]

Couple of points
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 10:38 AM EST
1. Imagine for a moment [thought experiment]

(a) that IBM have correctly characterized SCO's position on the schedule

(b) And that SCO's position on the schedule were to be accepted by the court

What could happen?

Answer:

- On the last day of expert discovery, SCO presents an expert report (experts'
reports tell you what the expert is going to testify about at trial) saying
Linux is full of SCO code. This could be SCO code that they never identified
before. An extreme eversion, that expert may not even still identify what code
is at issue

- At this point it's too late for IBM to do fact discovery to find out if (a)
SCO really owns the code at issue, (b) what the code is, (c) when/who wrote the
code, etc.

- SCO then want to turn up in front of the jury and their expert will say
"IBM stole A, B and C". IBM's rebuttal expert then has to respond to
this, without having any facts/research at his fingertips, and perhaps even
finding out what A, B and C are for the very first time, while listening to the
trial (so completely unprepared)


2. Regarding the 3rd amended complaint, apart from the venue (New York) and
contract issues (no jury trial, 2 years, etc.), I think it's also worth
pointing out:

- The deadline for amended pleadings expired in February 2004

- SCO didn't take any action to suggest this deadline should be extended (indeed
in one of their briefs they explicitly argued that the 2nd amended complaint was
going to be their last amendment), until they filed a motion for a 3rd amended
complaint - months later. To me, this also seems like *another* reason to tell
them to deny their motion for a 3rd amended complaint.

- If SCO's motion for a 3rd amended complaint were to be denied, it's not like
they've lost the right to seek relief for any alleged damages for alleged
wrongful action by IBM.... IBM even explicitly asks them to start a separate
case in New York.


Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well finally....
Authored by: Latesigner on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 10:43 AM EST
I've been waiting for this forever.
You brought the suit now show your evidence!
Yes, I know they don't/didn't have any but it's way past time they were made to
admit this in court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • relax - Authored by: NemesisNL on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 12:12 PM EST
Boies' fee structure
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 11:16 AM EST
IBM seems to be claiming that SCO's new amendments to their complaint or some
portion of the existing complaint should be tried in a New York court. If IBM
prevails and portions of the case are moved to a New York court how does that
affect Boies' fees? SCO's fees to BSF is capped. But the cap excludes new
trials. If another case is opened in New York will SCO have to pay additional
legal fees, either to Boies or another firm, to pay for the New York contract
case?

------------------
Steve Stites

[ Reply to This | # ]

favorite jab
Authored by: MplsBrian on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 11:25 AM EST
From the footnotes:
IBM's proposal imposes a reciprocal disclosure obligation. We are not suggesting that the Court impose on SCO an obligation that would not also be imposed on IBM. The reason SCO is uninterested in IBM being required to disclose the material it alleges SCO has misused is that IBM has already done so with great particularity.

I love it! "Your honor, we're prepared to live by the same rules - in fact we already have!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where is SCO's Memo Attaching & in Support of Proposed Scheduling Order
Authored by: MplsBrian on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 11:28 AM EST
Was not SCO also obliged to submit such an order last Friday? If so, did they
meet that obligation, or is it in the same file cabinet as their financial
filings?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jury without a job?
Authored by: blang on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 01:09 PM EST
How much of the stuff so far presented by SCO is fit for a jury?

The only dispute of fact I have seeen so far is about the SYSV contracts, and
what the contract means, with scores of people from AT&T supporting IBM's
position, Novell waiving, plus the clarification in the echo newsletter. I
guess a bit of room for interpretation, but still weak evidence on teh SCO
side.

As far as can tell, SCO has completely given up any dispute of any code copying,
or derivative works. The Contracts are both clear and explicit that IBM owns
their own work. IBM provided a reputable expert witness that examined the code,
and found no copyright breach. SCO has not offered such testimony at all, as
far as we know, otherwise, why would IBM still ask for it?

I doubt that the judge will allow the case to go to jury, in Perry Mason style,
with lots of surprise evidence. That's what discovery is for, so that defendants
can get a chance for a fair trial.

Kimball's language last time around was pretty unabiguous. SCO was clearly told
that they would need to clean up their act, or suffer the consequences. He even
allowed them to ask for the moon in discovery to prevent them from using the
discovery process for more tactical shenanigans. I see no sign of SCO clearing
up their act.

[ 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 )