|
|
| IBM-477 - Ron Saint Pierre Memo - Exhibit 10 to Evans Declaration |
 |
|
Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 04:19 AM EDT
|
And we're off and running with the transcriptions of the newly redacted SCO documents. This is Exhibit 10 to the Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans in Support of SCO's Reply Brief in Further Support of its Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery, #477 on the docket. Our thanks to chotchki for doing it for us. It's his first time volunteering, so welcome aboard. He had to view it at 300% just to make it out, so he picked a hard one. Happily it's short. If anyone can figure out why SCO offered this exhibit, please inform the rest of us. It looks to me like it proves IBM's point, that IBM did in fact sincerely try to get Project Monterey airborne.
*************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]
|
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
Sean Eskovitz (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
|
Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
|
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
|
|
Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.
|
|
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.
|
EXHIBIT 10 TO THE DECLARATION
OF JEREMY O. EVANS IN SUPPORT
OF SCO'S REPLY BRIEF IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
REGARDING DISCOVERY
[Docket No. 317]
(REFILED IN REDACTED FORM)
Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
1
[handwritten: Toronto's Approval
(negative confirmation)]
Ron Saint Pierre
06/12/2000 10:06 AM
To: Helene Armitage/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc: Teri Hunt/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Sharon Dobbs/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Terry Mc Elroy/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
From: Ron Saint Pierre/Austin/IBM@ibmus
Subject: Approve additional ISVs for Monterey Beta Program
Importance: Urgent
Helene, Sharon - please approve the following ISVs for inclusion in the Monterey Beta program.
Some of these companies are nominated by IBM, some by Bull, and one by Intel. The nominating
company provides first-level support.
Teri - the detailed company info from the Bull and Intel nominees is appended below.
Terry - your approval is assumed if I don't hear from you in 48 hours.
Nominated by IBM:
Storix
Compuware
Facet Corp.
Scriptics Corp.
Nominated by Bull:
Eastman Software
DST Innovis
BEA Software
Nominated by Intel:
Infosec Technologies Company
REDACTED
AT IBM'S REQUEST
CONFIDENTIAL 1710057360
2
REDACTED
AT IBM'S REQUEST
Ron Saint Pierre [phone]
Manager, Monterey OEM/IHV Support and Diagnostics
Austin, Tx. 78758
CONFIDENTIAL 1710057361
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on Defendant IBM on the 5th day of July, 2005 by U.S. Mail to:
David Marriot, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE LLP
[address]
Donald Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]
Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
___[signature of Laura K. Chaves]____
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
| Perhaps some of the beta testers has offered testimony in SCO's favour? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
Well, here we are! A totally content-free
exhibit.
My guess is that someone came across a memo
that mentioned "Monterey." "Wow! It must be
important," exclaimed the SCOG expert.
---
Peter H. Salus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 01:29 PM EDT |
| Don't get too excited -- we have no idea what was redacted... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: waltish on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
Make clickable Links.
w
---
To speak the truth plainly and without fear,Is powerfull.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- UKPO patentability of software - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 01:33 PM EDT
- NGSCB, Next Generation Secure Computing Base, the infamous platform formerly known as Palladium. - Authored by: waltish on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- "Avnet, Novell Team On Linux Channel Program" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 03:13 PM EDT
- "Linux vendors ready Asianux 2.0" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 03:33 PM EDT
- "Linux and MacOS X on X360?" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 03:47 PM EDT
- Enderley says SCO litigation is done - Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- Enderley says SCO litigation is done - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- Translation: "I've finally dumped my stock" (n/t) - Authored by: greyhat on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 04:22 PM EDT
- Notice what he doesn't say? - Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 04:29 PM EDT
- Enderley says other things also - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 04:33 PM EDT
- Insightful Analysis of a Fast-Breaking ne**! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 04:41 PM EDT
- It sounds personal - 3 questions for Enderle - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- Misled investors? hmm...exit strategy in the chum! - Authored by: dyfet on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 07:11 PM EDT
- Enderley says SCO litigation is done - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 07:48 PM EDT
- hmm, he's talking about himself?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 08:03 PM EDT
- ECT newsnetwork FUD warning. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 04:33 PM EDT
- "Wanted: 20,000 IBM Mainframe Specialists" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 08:32 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 02:09 PM EDT |
Might be wrong and I'm sure some one will tell me, but I dug a little more -
specifically looking at the companies IBM nominated. A quick google on the
companyn names and the only one that has any correlation to Open Source is
Scriptic.
The company of John Ousterhout, CEO, Scriptics Corp. and creator of the Tcl
scripting language.
So is/are SCO trying to make some sort of connection I wonder?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Infosec - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- DST Innovis - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 04:50 PM EDT
- Eastman Software - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 04:53 PM EDT
- Facet Corp - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- Storix - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 04:58 PM EDT
- Why Scriptics? - Authored by: Kevin on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 09:31 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
"...Terry - your approval is assumed if I don't hear from you in 48
hours..."
doesn't this sound slightly strange ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
I use this frequently when negotiating permissions for distributing freeware
programs on our cover CD, in particular the wording I have in their license is
unclear. If I state my intention clearly to an appropriate person, and they
don't reply, I've done due dilligence.
Of course, on more intricate agreements and contracts it's not that simple, but
it's a very workable way to get simple things done fast. In this context, it
looks like a routine remark from someone keen to go ahead on the project.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jaywalk on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
| Since there doesn't seem to be anything juicy in what we have here, I'm guessing
that the good stuff is in the section that's still missing. Judging from the
context, I'd guess that the missing text implies that IBM wasn't trying hard
enough. ---
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. ===== [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Still redacted. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 03:55 PM EDT
- Still redacted. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 06:49 PM EDT
- Still redacted. - Authored by: stend on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 04:23 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
When the document says "REDACTED AT IBM'S REQUEST", is that
necessarily so or can this be mileading in any way...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- misleading? (nt) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 06:44 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 06:17 PM EDT |
And all they care about is the
"at IBM's request"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 25 2005 @ 02:14 AM EDT |
IN the top right corner it says:
[handwritten: Toronto's Approval
(negative confirmation)
There seems to be a page 2 whicxh has been redacted entirely.
Is it possible that the next page was Terry's answer from Toronto and that it
was a negative confirmation?
Another possibility is that the email addresses themselves were redacted. Enough
to identify the persons, without revealing the actual email addresses?
I'm just guessing wind here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 25 2005 @ 02:42 AM EDT |
Haha, this guy is so full of grudges. He is making a carreer out of blasting
people who did him wrong: IBM, Linux, SCO.
The longer he lives, the longer the list will become.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
