|
|
| SCO v. AZ, Ex. C, Email re Document Production, as text |
 |
|
Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 04:29 AM EDT
|
Here's SCO's Exhibit C, another of the exhibits attached to SCO's Report Regarding Discovery Pursuant to the Order of the Court Dated August 6, 2004 in SCO v. IBM, as text, thanks to juliac. It's a January 2005 email from AutoZone attorney David Stewart to SCO's Chris Iannicelli and David Stone, asking a few pleasant questions regarding document production. In it, we learn that SCO provided AutoZone with a script to search for files. AutoZone asks if they want them to do things this way or like that. We see the same pattern with most of the defendant in the SCO litigations. They start out -- except for DaimlerChrysler, who came out swinging at the first bell -- polite and gentlemanly and straightforward, the kind of lawyering you typically see. Then, at some point, each realizes that they are dealing with what Illuminata analyst Jonathan Eunice back in July of 2003 called SCO -- a "psycho killer", metaphorically speaking. (One hopes.)
I believe AutoZone must have now figured out just what they are dealing with, after reading SCO's Report, and I hope they now grasp that with SCO, you should admit absolutely nothing but name, rank, and serial number. If you acknowledge the tiniest, stupidest, most insignificant nit, the kind of thing that normally would be no issue at all, they will give it an enormous, ugly SCOtwist, and that nit will end up costing you the pain of hearing yourself called names in some document in the litigation. At a minimum. Hardball is apparently the only game SCO knows, their world view of software is their own, and they appear to me to use legal documents as PR opportunities. And you can't even sue them for the name calling, because they do it in legal filings. AutoZone knows the SCO M.O. now, though, I'm guessing, so I expect we'll see some changes in tone when AutoZone answers the SCO Report, to correct, as they have said they will, what they call SCO's "material misstatements".
************************************
| Document Production Questions | Page 1 of 2 |
Chris Iannicelli
____________________________________
From: Stewart, David [email address]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 6:08 PM
To: Chris Iannicelli; David Stone
Subject: Document Production Questions
Chris and David:
This follows-up on my conversation with Chris this afternoon about several questions we have related to the
mechanics of the document production. These questions are as follows:
1. AutoZone has run the script you provided on the store load machine at AutoZone's headquarters. The
script identified 15 SCO-ELF and Xenix files. AutoZone is making a copy of these files and will produce them to
you. Each of these files likely also exist on all 3,500 AutoZone store servers. We are assuming that production of
the 15 files from the load machine will be sufficient and that you do not need copies of the files from each of the
3,500 individual store servers, or an identification of which servers have copies of the files and which do not.
Please confirm.
2. AutoZone will run the script you provided on each of the individual store servers remotely. If the
program identifies additional SCO-ELF or Xenix files on any store servers, is it sufficient if we simply provide you
with a copy of each file without an identification of which store server each additional file was on?
3. In the prior production, with your client's permission, AutoZone deleted the SCO files it found on its
computers after making copies to provide to you. I am assuming that this is the same protocol we should follow
with the current production. However, if it is not, please let me know as soon as possible.
4. David had originally indicated that he would like to receive images of ten random store servers. We
have discussed previously the difficulties of imaging store servers, and I requested that this number be reduced to
five. Please let me know if that number is acceptable. We are in the process of obtaining a master store list, and
will provide it to you as soon as possible so that you can select the store servers you wish to have imaged.
5. Finally, it is probably appropriate to at least pencil in a date for the deposition you plan to take. Can
you give me dates that work for you so that I can try to lock them down with the appropriate AutoZone witness?
Thanks much,
David J. Stewart
Alston & Bird LLP
[address, phone, email]
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: ak on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 04:52 AM EDT |
I would really like to see that script.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: martimus on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 05:48 AM EDT |
Please post your off-topic stuff here, and, if appropriate, use the clickable
link format provided on the comment page. Thanks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cybervegan on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 05:51 AM EDT |
One to kick off with:
Where it says "...with most of the defendant in the SCO
litigations..." shouldn't that be defendants, in the plural?
Regards,
-cybervegan
---
Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
Waving their arms, shouting, and claiming some entire class of software
"their copyrighted IP" when it is not.
Also in Exhibit B "Please also let me know when I can expect to receive
supplemental responses to our client's outstanding discovery requests."
How unlike SCO.
Autozone's reply will be a revelation of real facts just like every other debunk
reply to SCO accusations since the begining of the current SCO dynasty.
A leopard never changes it's spots.
---
Are you a bagel or a mous?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Thoughts - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 10:25 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
| Last I checked, ELF is ELF is ELF, regardless of vendor. Nobody says "Msft
POSIX" or "GNU POSIX". It is simply "POSIX". Same goes for TCP/IP and a whole
host of other standards. I guess all the vendors want to either own (or at
least control) the standard, or they all have their own standards. That
scenario leaves me out in the cold as a consumer, and is aggravating. None of
the vendors should expect a sale in that case. For some reason, the whole
Xenix thing just gives me the creeps. ---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: zjimward on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 11:02 AM EDT |
I'd love to know what this script is that AZ got from SCO. Is it part of the
Exhibits for the public to see?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
| I often ask myself the questions, how can people/companies act so terribly and
what's really going on in these cases..The best insights I get are not looking
at them through the case law which tends to be self referential but through the
social sciences, here's a piece by the anthropologist Jared Diamond from his
book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
In 1835 a armed
group of Maori arrived on the Chatham Islands and told the local Moriori
residents that they were now their slaves and killed those who objected. " An
organized resistance by the Moriori could still then have defeated the Maori,
who were outnumbered two to one. However, the Moriori had a tradition of
resolving disputes peacefully. They decided in a council meeting not to fight
back but to offer peace, friendship, and a division of resources. Before the
Moriori could deliver that offer, the Maori attacked en masse. Over the course
of the next few days, they killed hundreds of Moriori , cooked and ate many ..."
.... "A Maori conqueror explained, "We took possession... in accordance with
custom and we caught all the people. Not one escaped. Some ran away from us,
these we killed, and others we killed-but what of that? It was in accordance
with our custom".
My point, from this book I learned the answer to the
question "how can people act so terribly", To the Maori there was not anything
wrong with what they were doing, based upon the laws of their culture this act
was fine. What if no group/individual feels guilty for their "somewhat dubious"
actions because they belief system says it's ok to act that way.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 01:10 PM EDT |
I had to read the article to see that it was Illuminata, Inc.
For a minute there, I had some view of a twisted Illuminati plot, setting up SCO
to suicide itself to champion the rise of Linux, even to the point of displacing
Microsoft via their utter failure in litigation, so that the secret Illuminati
fnord code would be copied onto every computer in the world...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Illuminata? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 01:50 PM EDT
- Illuminati? - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- Bilderberg Group - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 13 2005 @ 06:51 AM EDT
- Fascinating... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 14 2005 @ 06:32 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: BobDowling on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
I hope they now grasp that with SCO, you should admit absolutely
nothing but name, rank, and serial number. If you acknowledge the tiniest,
stupidest, most insignificant nit, the kind of thing that normally would be no
issue at all, they will give it an enormous, ugly SCOtwist, and that nit will
end up costing you the pain of hearing yourself called names in some document in
the litigation.
I find this comment immensely amusing. When
you are arrested or even simply helping the police with their enquiries one of
the main reasons for exercising your right to a lawyer before making any
statement or answering any of their questions is so that there is someone to
stop you from saying things in all innocence that the prosecution can then twist
to help their case. And now we find someone else discovering this truth the
hard way. Why do I find it funny? Because it's a lawyer making this
discovery! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: red floyd on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 06:15 PM EDT |
"We are assuming that production of the 15 files from the load machine will
be sufficient and that you do not need copies of the files from each of the
3,500 individual store servers, or an identification of which servers have
copies of the files and which do not."
Bets that SCOX will whine and cry about the witholding of valuable discovery on
this one, should the case ever be resumed?
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 10:02 PM EDT |
You know, if SCO really does think they have some killer piece of evidence that
makes all of unixland theirs, then they probably believe that they must
establish that they are trying to defend every aspect of their property rights.
It's like the vacant lot next door that we own. We really don't mind people
crossing it that much, but if we fail to put a fence up, we'll eventually lose
the right to keep them off. (If we ever develop the lot.)
SCO sees the property value rising because Microsoft is beginning to see that
they've got to do the same thing Apple did, put UNIX underneath their OSses so
they have a stable, standard foundation. So SCO is trying to put their fences up
before they lose the right to put the fences up.
So, yes, we do have to realize that they are trying to turn back the clock and
undo the BSD agreements. That's exactly where they've been headed all along. If
they succeed in even a very small part, they will make huge money, but only if
they have something to defend.
Also, we have to bet that Gates and Ballmer are on the edge of their seats,
waiting to see how strategic investment in SCO can own them the UNIX world.
JDZ
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BassSinger on Monday, June 13 2005 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
PJ,
> ...And you can't even sue them for the name calling, because they do it in
legal filings.
Can you explain why you can't sue soneone for slander if it is done in a legal
filing? I'd be very interested in knowing why those documents are protected
from what is one of our basic protections from liars.
---
In Harmony's Way and In A Chord,
Tom ;-})
Proud Member of the Kitsap Chordsmen
Registered Linux User # 154358[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
