|
|
| SCO Would Like To Do 25 More Depositions |
 |
|
Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 08:10 PM EDT
|
SCO has asked the court to allow them 25 more depositions on top of the 40 each side is allowed, which they promise they can do without having to delay the trial. They discussed it with IBM, they tell us, but IBM opposes the motion. SCO thinks if they can just keep digging, they'll find something, someday, somehow. They'll probably get at least some of what they are asking for, because they raise one point that will likely carry some weight: that the amount of depositions each side was granted was decided before IBM added its counterclaims, and the patent claims alone require some additional depositions. However, undermining the weight of that argument is a footnote, in which they tell the judge that actually they are going to ask at some point to separate the patent counterclaims from the main case. They earlier asked for that, IBM said it was premature and the court agreed, so SCO is here just letting them know that they didn't drop that desire, and they'll be asking for it as soon as such a motion is "appropriate". If that happens, then their most solid argument for more depositions melts away, of course, because an entirely new schedule will be drawn up for the separate patent case. Here is their Plaintiff's Expedited Motion and Supporting Memorandum for Leave to Take Additional Depositions [PDF]. The main impression I get is that SCO is quite concerned about the IBM counterclaims, and are in a defensive posture now. However, I can't help but note that their Motion and Memorandum are all in one thrifty little document, only 7 pages long, which can't hold a candle to the motion practice that we witnessed when SCO was flush with money and there was no legal cap on the immediate horizon.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 08:31 PM EDT |
| When does it stop? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: WayneStPaul on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 08:34 PM EDT |
| Place Corrections Here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: WayneStPaul on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 08:35 PM EDT |
Please include HTML links and a brief description of the content of the page
being linked.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Amusing - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 10:01 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 08:54 PM EDT |
Perhaps they would also like a prediction of what will happen when IBM resubmits
the requests for summary Judgement that were refused earlier with the message
that they were premature. That way they could really target their resources.
;-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 08:56 PM EDT |
>SCO has asked the court to allow them 25 more depositions
SCO can have an extra deposition if SCO would not desposit
Samuel Palmisano, who does not have much knowledge about
the fine points of the cass anyway...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
It would appear the another of Microsoft's shill has taken to using the dead to
support the cause.
<a
href="http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/871631">
Like Microsoft Supported by Dead People</a>
Takes the old phrase, over my dead body to a whole new level"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mdchaney on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 09:08 PM EDT |
I haven't closely read about the cap agreement that SCO and Boise are operating
under, but here's a question. If IBM's counterclaims were separated into a
separate suit, would that suit still fall under the cap?
Purely speculation, but could this be a way to get more money out of SCO?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sk43 on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 10:12 PM EDT |
SCO's motion gives six arguments for why it should be allowed more depositions,
which ultimately boil down to two: one is that the case has grown since it was
first filed (IBM's 14 counterclaims), and the other is that, now that discovery
is well along, they find they need to depose more people than anticipated.
The fact that this motion is EXPEDITED makes the first argument puzzling - IBM's
14 counterclaims were filed over a year and a half ago, so why is this motion
being filed so late? Further, the limit of 40 depositions originally agreed to
was done before any discovery had been done and SCO was fine with that then;
have things changed so drastically in the interim now that discovery is well
along? Of all their arguments, the only one that might hold water is number 5
(and then only the first half), which argues that SCO needs to take depositions
to learn about the early history of AIX code, for which IBM cannot provide a
proper history.
Otherwise, this motion sounds like someone on SCO's legal team has been asleep
at the wheel and suddenly woken up. Oh wait, I see that Robert Silver on the
list of attorneys ...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 10:17 PM EDT |
I think they just told the court that they won't meet the preliminary and final
deadlines for identifying the allegedly misused material.
Note in the motion, they saw these depositions of programmers to identify the
allegedly misused material (and they blame the need for these depositions on
IBM's alleged discovery short comings).
And when do they say they expect to finish these depositions?
Answer: March 17th 2006. i.e. after the deadlines for disclosing the allegedly
misused materials.
I expect one or more of:
Either, there may be a follow-up SCO motion to move the deadlines. (particularly
if the depositions are granted)
Or, they may interpret any court order granting the depositions, as moving the
deadlines.
Or, they may try and spring late surprise "evidence", allegedly found
as a result of the depositions, after the deadlines, and try and justify it on
the basis of the depositions motion being granted.
Or, they may try and spring late surprise "evidence", allegedly found
as a result of the depositions, after the deadlines, and use that to effectively
force a new schedule, and further push-back in the trial date.
I'm sorry that I think the worst of SCO every time, it's just my opinion, but I
really don't see how else to view the motion, especially in light of their past
behavior.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Bill The Cat on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 10:20 PM EDT |
SCO Now asks the Court for leave to take an additional twenty-five
depositions. SCO would not oppose any request from IBM to take the same number
of additional depositions. HA HA HA HA HA. There aren't 25 people
left at SCO to take depositions from!!!!---
Bill Catz [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 10:26 PM EDT |
It sounds like they haven't used up the depositions they have already got, not
by a long chalk.
And they want 25 more, including many of IBM programmers.
And they would need to complete and analyze all the programming related
depositions by the final deadline for disclosure of allegedly misused material
(about 3 months away), if the purpose of deposing IBM programmers, is, as they
say, truly to help them identify allegedly misused code.
Even if they have 30 depositions total left, assuming motion is granted (25 new
ones + 5 of the 40), they have to do 1 per week to finish them all by March
17th.
And if they have 40 or 50 depositions total left, assuming motion is granted (25
new ones + 15/25 of the 40), they have to do nearly 2 per week to finish them
all by March 17th.
And if 20 of the depositions are of IBM programmers (to somehow identify the
allegedly infringing code, which is what they claim), and even if take no time
to analyze, they need to do approx 2 of these per week, to meet the final
disclosure of code deadlines. (Even assuming their motion is more or less
immediatetly granted).
And if 20 of the depositions are of IBM programmers (to somehow identify the
allegedly infringing code, which is what they claim), and even if they take
approx 1 months post deposition to anlayze, they need to do approx 3-4 of these
per week , to meet the final disclosure of code deadlines. (Even assuming their
motion is more or less immediatetly granted).
And if the motion is granted, either the discovery and disclosure deadlines are
going to be pushed back further, or SCO's lawyers are going to busy very an
extremely punishing schedule of depositions.
In fact, didn't SCO complain during the previous scheduling arguments, that IBM
wanting to do about 1 deposition per week was too much work in too little time?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 11:55 PM EDT |
Why am I constantly reminded of Steve Martin in 'the Jerk'... Just picture this
with Martin's whiney voice...
I'd be happy to go to trial right now! All I need is this truckload of code!
Millions of lines of code, that's all I need! Oh, and these breached
contracts...
Millions of lines of code and contracts, that's all I need!
And discovery. Tons of code, the contract and discovery. That's it. Well...
maybe a road map...
Truckload of code, contract, discovery and a road map, that's all I need! And
some copyrights.
That's right, code, contracts, discovery, map and copyrights! And CMVS...
Code, contracts, discovery, map, copyrights and CMVS... and depositions, more
depositions...
Code, contracts, discovery, map, copyrights, CMVS, depositions, thats it! Oh,
and 25,000 man years...
Yeah... code, contracts, discovery, map, copyrights, CMVS, depositions, 25,000
years
And more discovery... code, contracts, discovery, map, copyrights, CMVS,
depositions, 25,000 years, more discovery... yep, we're ready to go to trial
right now!
Oh, and some expert opinion! Code, contracts, discovery, map, copyrights, CMVS,
depositions, 25,000 years, more discovery, expert opinions... only take a
sec...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: UglyGreenTroll on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 11:56 PM EDT |
| SCO's Unix business is winding down. Their SCOSource licensing scheme is a bust.
Their lawsuits are proceeding slowly, with SCO seemingly doing everything in
their power to delay them further. They have no real prospects for a settlement
from any of their cases. Their cash is dwindling at a ferocious rate.
And
somewhere in the back of their minds, they have to start wondering if they did
something illegal.
Given this dismal scenario, what would you do if you were
Darl McBride? What is your strategy?
I guess one idea is to poke around in
IBM's source code till you find something that supports your case, but that is
looking increasingly like a long shot. And even if you do find something, IBM
can fight it till the next ice age using the best lawyers on the
planet.
Another is to hope for more funding from a company which has an
interest in undercutting Linux. Microsoft, however, cannot appear to act too
much like a monopoly. The feds are watching.
Darl McBride is either brave or
delusional or both. I actually kind of respect him. If I were head of SCO, I
would not have the strength to come into the office. And I would have no idea
what to do except cut and run, and hope legal problems, civil or otherwise,
don't follow me.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jamesw on Thursday, September 22 2005 @ 06:42 AM EDT |
Maybe I haven't been keeping up to date, but this seems
new:
Similarly, IBM has refused to produce material
concerning the development of the source code "patches" that IBM and its
affiliates have contributed to Linux.
(My emphasis).
In
the past, they've been demanding the contributions themselves. Now they're
demanding "material concerning": presumably programmers notes, previous
versions, whatever. I assume they hope to prove that Bob looked at the AIX
version of foo.c (which came from SysV foo.c) while he was writing Linux bar.c.
If they can prove that, then a few lines in common (or even methods in
common) between foo.c and bar.c become a lot more significant.
It's my
understanding that IBM doesn't work that way, and I thought IBM had a license to
do that anyway... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, September 22 2005 @ 07:12 AM EDT |
TSG filed this request on the 20th. DUCivR 7-1 allows IBM up to fifteen days
to object, and TSG up to seven to reply to IBM's objection. How in the world
does TSG think they can get this thing heard by October 7th, seventeen days
after they filed it? Or does "Expedited" mean "whenever TSG is in a hurry" and
DUCivR 7-1 no longer applies?
---
"When I say something, I put my
name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Timing? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 22 2005 @ 08:31 AM EDT
- Their hope... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 22 2005 @ 03:32 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 22 2005 @ 07:48 AM EDT |
SCO: "I'd like to have another hank of rope and another
foot gun, please."
It truly seems that the more SCO delays, the more lies
they spin and the hole just gets deeper. At some point
the walls will collapse completly and a lot more will come tumbling down on top
of them besides dirt. All kinds
of things may show up when that happens.
;)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 22 2005 @ 08:03 AM EDT |
Delay, delay, delay, delay......
Isn't there anyway that IBM can force SCO to show that they are actually doing
something with the massive amounts of discovery already provided?
I guess if I were IBM and I knew for sure that they were putting lots of effort
into working on the discovery, I would say "sure". But, if they are
just doing this to delay again, I would call them on it.
How do we know they are doing anything (other than wasting money asking for more
delay)?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 22 2005 @ 08:04 AM EDT |
| Well, sure. They obviously don't have any offensive posture to speak of... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 22 2005 @ 09:44 AM EDT |
Sorry if this has been mentioned before - I could not find it.
Say SCO deposes 25 IBM employees who are sick, on leave, posted abroad etc. Can
it then use the excuse of the difficulty in obtaining the depositions for
further delays? The delays would of course not be SCO's fault, "Please,
your honour, IBM allowed this employee to die, it is therefore IBM's
fault."
Alan(UK)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Is this a trick? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 22 2005 @ 12:37 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: drichards1953 on Thursday, September 22 2005 @ 08:42 PM EDT |
It appears that SCO Group is trying to buy a new company, Zebco, manufacturers
of fishing rods and reels. <LOL>
Obviously they are trying to go fishing. Could they be trying to become Zebco
Group? <ROFL>
---
Dennis
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 24 2005 @ 10:41 AM EDT |
should become a proverb. I wouldn't have dreamed with how little a company can
get so far. An out-of-cash-error on SCO's part seems the only possible chance
that it will finally come to an end.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
