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
SCO Exhibits Attached to Jeremy Evans' Declaration
Sunday, June 19 2005 @ 06:24 AM EDT

We have some more paper exhibits we've scanned in for you. They are more documents from the pile of exhibits SCO attached to the Declaration of Jeremy Evans, which in turn was in support of SCO's sealed Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims, Docket Number 348.

We have Frank Sorenson to thank for picking these exhibits up at the courthouse and scanning them all. I haven't read them all yet myself, because just getting them organized was enough of a job for today, so we can read them together, and if anything stands out I can write about it later.

This is history, in the sense that this IBM motion was denied without prejudice to renew or refile after discovery is complete. But it's very likely it will be resurrected by IBM, because, for one thing, it wasn't fully briefed or argued before Judge Dale Kimball decided it just wasn't the time for any such motions, and so in that sense it's not history. And believe it or not, someday discovery will be over, and then we'll likely see all these documents reappear and become timely. Now we're ready.

In trying to decide how to present them, I thought maybe the best way would be to reproduce the Evans Declaration, making it clickable this time. The ones that are new are so marked, in red text. There are still exhibits listed that were filed under seal, but it is possible some of them will end up being unsealed. IBM, in its report on what documents it thought could be unsealed, said that all of them could be unsealed as far as they were concerned, except for two:

16. 12/01/04 SCO Sealed Exhibits to the Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims, except for Exhibits S-4 and S-6

SCO, in its report, said it thought only one of them, exhibit S1, could be unsealed, the Deposition of David Rodgers.

Update: One of the sealed exhibits, S7, "IBM Linux Strategy", is most likely this document [PDF].

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

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC
[address, phone, fax]

Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]

Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH


THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-
Defendant,
vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-
Plaintiff.
DECLARATION OF JEREMY O. EVANS
IN SUPPORT OF SCO'S MEMORANDUM
IN OPPOSITION TO IBM'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT ON BREACH
OF CONTRACT CLAIMS


AUTHORITIES

Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells



Table of Contents

EXHIBITS




Exhibit No.

Date

Description

1

04/18/85

Software Agreement between AT&T Technologies, Inc. and Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

2

02/01/85

Software Agreement between AT&T Technologies, Inc. and IBM Corp.

[ As text. ]

3

02/01/85

Side Letter Agreement between AT&T Technologies, Inc. and IBM Corp.

[ As text.]

4

11/04/04

Declaration of Evelyn Davis

[As text.]

5

11/15/04

Deposition of Geoffrey Green [Cited Excerpts]

[As text.]

6

02/01/85

Sublicensing Agreement between AT&T Technologies, Inc. and IBM Corp.

[As text.]

7 NEW

11/23/04

Declaration of Burton Levine

8

09/07/04

Declaration of Martin Pfeffer

[As text.]

9

06/24/04

Declaration of Ira Kistenberg

[As text.]

10 NEW

11/12/04

Declaration of Ira Kistenberg

11

04/26/04

Declaration of Otis Wilson

[As text.]

12

12/10/92

Deposition of Otis Wilson [Cited Excerpts]

[As text.]

13

11/12/85

Educational Software Agreement between The Regents of the University of California and AT&T Information Systems, Inc.

[As text.]

14

11/04/04

Declaration of Mitzi Bond.

[As text.]

15 NEW

07/27/87

Letter from O. Wilson to IBM Corp.

16 NEW

07/27/87

Letter from O. Wilson to Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

17

06/10/04

Deposition of Otis Wilson [Cited Excerpts]

[As text.]

18

03/28/04

Declaration of David Frasure

[As text.]

19

12/08/92

Deposition of David Frasure [Cited Excerpts]

[As text.]

20

06/08/04

Deposition of David Frasure [Cited Excerpts]

21 NEW

10/07/03

Declaration of David Frasure

22

06/17/04

Declaration of Geoffrey Green

[AS text.]

23

11/05/03

Declaration of David Rodgers

24

12/09/92

Deposition of Mitzi Bond [Cited Excerpts]

25

12/11/03

Declaration of Otis Wilson

26 NEW

02/21/85

Letter from O. Wilson to Digital Equipment Corp.

27

06/18/90

Letter from O. Wilson to F. Kovacs

[As text.]

28 NEW

06/29/90

Letter from O. Wilson to B. Factor

29 NEW

08/03/90

Letter from O. Wilson to R. Tevonian

30

05/06/86

Software Agreement between The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. and AT&T Information Systems, Inc.

31 NEW

01/04/89

Software Agreement between Systech Computer Corp. and AT&T Information Systems, Inc.

32 NEW

03/01/90

Software Agreement between Gates Rubber Co. and AT&T Information Systems, Inc.

33 NEW

11/24/92

Software Agreement between Information Foundation, Inc. and UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.

34 NEW

06/21/94

Software Agreement between Green Hills Software, Inc. and Novell, Inc.

35 NEW

03/28/96

Software Agreement between Modcomp/Cerplex L.P. and The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.

36 NEW

09/05/84

Letter from O. Wilson to Digital Equipment Corp.

37

08/85

$ echo Newsletter

[As text.]

38

09/19/95

Asset Purchase Agreement between The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. and Novell, Inc.

[As text.]

39

10/1/04

Declaration of Ed Chatlos

[As text.]

40

11/23/04

Declaration of Jim Wilt

[As text.]

41

12/16/96

Amendment 2 to the Asset Purchase Agreement between The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. and Novell, Inc.

42 NEW

11/19/04

Declaration of Steve Sabbath

43

12/06/95

Amendment 1 to the Asset Purchase Agreement between The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. and Novell, Inc.

[As text.]

44 NEW

11/30/04

Declaration of Jean Acheson

45

03/23/04

Press Release, Novell, Inc., Novell Finalizes IBM Investment (3/23/04)

46

11/05/03

Hiawatha Bray, Novell to Buy SuSE Linux for $210M; Firm's Commitment to Software Boosted, The Boston Globe, Nov. 5, 2003.

47

03/25/04

Bob Mims, Novell, IBM and HP unite efforts to put Linux on top; Three companies unite to boost Linux and topple Microsoft, The Salt Lake Tribune, Mar. 25, 2004, at E1.

48

12/06/95

Technology License Agreement between Novell, Inc. and The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.

49

11/30/04

Declaration of Christopher Sontag

[As text.]

50

11/30/04

Declaration of Erik Hughes

[As text.]

51

 

IBM Dictionary of Computing, 18 (George McDaniel ed., 1994)

52

10/24/03

Computerworld: IBM's Mills sets sights on middleware, Linux, Oct. 24, 2003

53

 

"IBM Small and Medium Business Advantage," Frequently Asked Questions, http://www-1.ibm.com/partnerworld/pwhome.nsf/weblook /smb_offerings_sol_linux_faq.html

54

1/28/86

Sublicensing Agreement between Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. and AT&T Information Systems, Inc.

55 NEW

10/28/04

Letter from E. Normand to D. Marriott

56 NEW

 

Schedule for UNIX System V, Release 2.0 Version 1

57

10/16/96

Amendment X to Software and Sublicensing Agreements between AT&T Technologies, Inc. and IBM Corp.

[As text.]


SEALED EXHIBITS

Exhibit No.

Date

Description

S1

06/10/04

Deposition of David Rodgers [Cited Excerpts]

S2

11/03/97

E-mail from Ron Smith to Terry McKenna

S3

01/22/02

E-mail from Bill Sandve to Kim Tran

S4

02/09/99

Agreement for Licensing of AIX Source Code and Related Products between Argus Systems Group, Inc. and IBM Corp.

S5

06/30/87

IBM Royalty Statement

S6

02/02/01

IBM/Supplier Technical Services Agreement between IBM Corp. and CETIA

S7

 

IBM Linux Strategy Presentation Version 1.0

S8

11/22/04

Declaration of Michael Davidson



Authorities

A

Brightway Adolescent Hosp. v. Health Plan of Nev.,
No. Civ. 2:98CV0729C, 2000 WL 33710845, (D. Utah Sept. 20, 2000)

B

HotSamba, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.,
No. 01 C 5540, 2004 WL 609797, (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2004)

C

EPN Ingenieria S.A. de C.V. v. General Electric Co.,
No. 92 Civ. 1563 (KMW), 1996 WL 531867, (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 1996)

D

Viacao Aerea Sao Paulo, S.A. v. Int'l Lease Fin. Corp.,
859 F.2d 924, 1988 WL 103286, (9th Cir. 1988)

E

Ramming v. Barnard,
No. E030334, 2002 WL 393118, (Cal. Ct. App. March 13, 2002)

F

McDarren v. Marvel Entertainment Group Inc.,
94 CIV. 0910 (LMM), 1995 WL 214482, (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 1995)

G

T.W.A. Trading, Inc. v. Gold Coast Freightways, Inc.,
No. 2001-900 KC, 2002 WL 1311648 (N.Y. App. Term. Apr. 2, 2002)

H

Dunlop-McCullen v. Pascerella,
No. 97 Civ. 0195 (PKL) (DFE), 2002 WL 31521012, (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2002)

I

King Airway Co. v. Rouit County,
No. 97 CJ C.A.R. 563, 1997 WL 186256, (10th Cir. Apr. 17, 1997)

J

Holt v. Wesley Med. Ctr., LLC,
No. 00-1318-JAR, 2002 WL 31778785, (D. Kan. Nov. 25, 2002)

K

Quark, Inc. v. Harley,
141 F.3d 1185, 1998 WL 161035, (10th Cir. 1998)




Exhibits/ Attachments to this document have not been scanned.

Please see the case file.


  


SCO Exhibits Attached to Jeremy Evans' Declaration | 108 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: so23 on Sunday, June 19 2005 @ 06:34 AM EDT
... because we don't want any misteaks ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: so23 on Sunday, June 19 2005 @ 06:38 AM EDT
Post links like this ...
<a href="http:\foo.barpage.html"> here </a>
and don't forget to select HTML post mode.

Or we could all just get the linkify firefox extension and not worry about it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I've lost track
Authored by: lifewish on Sunday, June 19 2005 @ 08:08 AM EDT
When *is* discovery scheduled to end?

---
To err is human but, to really screw up, you need a computer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Persons of Interest postings here
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 19 2005 @ 08:08 AM EDT
The latest updates on Mr. Wallace, JVM and Mr. Low Profile (R. Yarro).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thoughs
Authored by: MadScientist on Sunday, June 19 2005 @ 10:39 AM EDT
This is a lot of new material to digest. Thanks Frank.

Reading over the new stuff here are my first impressions of the relevent bits..

+++++++++++++++++

Burton Levin (Lawyer)

Paragraph 8.

Deliberate obfustication. Says nothing of use.

+++++++++++++++++++

Ira Kistenberg (AT&T Account executive)

Paragraph

$ Echo article was not intented to be binding.
An ammendment was also issued by AT&T clarifing that "home grown
code" was the property of the licencee. This is the paragraph 2.01 refered
to in later licences.

+++++++++++++++++++

O Wilson to IBM

Second last paragraph on distributors of sublicenced products.

Essentially you cant distribute a sublicenced product without permission from
AT&T. Here 'sublicenced products' are derivates of Unix SysVr2.

This agreement does not prohibit any use of "home grown code."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

David Frasure (Engineer and licening manager)

Paragraphs 13 & 15 are dynanmite to SCO's case. Essentially home grown code
is the licenees.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Software Agreement between Systech Computer Corp. and AT&T Information
Systems, Inc.
Software Agreement between Information Foundation, Inc. and UNIX System
Laboratories, Inc.
Software Agreement between Green Hills Software, Inc. and Novell, Inc.
Software Agreement between Modcomp/Cerplex L.P. and The Santa Cruz Operation,
Inc.

All have this "Paragraph 2.01"

Letter from O. Wilson to Digital Equipment Corp. (paragraph 3)

This part of the licence says: What the licenee writes the licencee owns.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Steve Sabbath (lawyer)

Paragraph 5. Obfustication

Paragraph 6 (The important bit) The APA and amendment 2 did not transfer any
copyrights but merely memorialised that Novell intended to do so.

So where *is* the subsequent transfer of the copyrights to oldSCO? That is if
there really was one.

++++++++++++++

Jean Acheson (Account manager for SCO)

SCO hasnt been paid by Sequent since 2003. Im not sure what this is intended to
achieve.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

These are all filings by SCO - believe it or not. Jts abou all confirm the
preexisting opinion that what the licencee writes the liceence owns and SCO
derivative theory is simply hoey (=nonsense). Why SCO thought these woul support
their case I dont know.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Initial Fee makes it difficult to run on a computer at home. n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 19 2005 @ 10:43 AM EDT
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

Volumous reading material...
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Sunday, June 19 2005 @ 11:41 AM EDT


Heh - and I was supposed to be cleaning up the house today! Guess I'll be
reading instead.



---
Wayne

telnet hatter.twgs.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

55 - Letter from E. Normand to D. Marriott
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, June 19 2005 @ 12:22 PM EDT
Doesn't this letter directly contradict SCOGs reasons for not turning over the
report of the famous Rocket Scientists?

Other than that there seems to be very little new information here. The argument
continues to be about what is a "derivative work" and what are
"resulting materials."

The apparent contradictions between statements are less than meets the eye. If
IBM's definition is correct, and I think it is, then everyone agrees but SCOG
carefully avoids addressing that point.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO will try to have it never end
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 19 2005 @ 01:30 PM EDT
SCOX lawyers own the court, but they cannot get it to give them a win as their
case is too weak and doing such could damage the career of certain judges.
However, they will be able to keep discovery going on a REAL long time and thus
put off the inevitable. Expect more twists and turns, more extensions, more BS,
more "taking under advisement," many more delays. Also expect SCOX to
not run out of money, ever. They will find some way to keep getting fed from
their sugardaddy, strictly on the Q.T., of course.

[ 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 )