|
SCO Motion Re Linux Denied; 10 More Depositions Each - Updated |
|
Friday, October 07 2005 @ 03:55 PM EDT
|
Well, I guess this makes it universal. Nobody likes the games SCO is pulling in discovery, including Judge Wells now, from what Frank Sorenson reports. Wells denied SCO's motion regarding discovery, told them they had misinterpreted her rulings, and that IBM has, as Frank puts it,
"appropriately interpreted the Court's order.
She finds that SCO's interpretation takes her words out of context, and
that IBM has complied with the Court's orders. SCO's Motion to Compel
is DENIED."
Frank is just back from the court hearing in SCO v. IBM, and here is his first report:
Here's the basic result:
Wells ruled from the bench.
Wells didn't seem very pleased with SCO. She was not happy with how SCO
was interpreting the orders, etc.
Denied SCO's Motion for all of everything related to Linux (to the
extent that IBM had already agreed to provide everything linux-related
from those programmers who SCO would be deposing)
Wells _did_ modify the number of Depositions each side could take, but
not by the 25 SCO wanted, just by 10. However, she did require that
everything fit within the timeframe already specified.
She deferred the motion to compel production from the execs by saying
that a lot of discovery has happened in the interim, and based on
rulings, etc. she would like SCO to refile their original motion, with the court
by Friday, Oct 21.
All remaining motions will be heard at a hearing Dec. 20th 10AM Aaron adds some details: SCO's motion was denied. IBM has fully complied with it's discovery
obligations per Judge Wells previous orders.
Each side will be allowed 10 more depositions. IBM cannot do 2-day
depositions of the same person instead of 10 additional people.
IBM's motion concerning the privilege log will be heard on Dec. 20th 10am. So, IBM has fully complied, eh? So, it's not off with their heads? Tick...tock...time is running out of the hourglass for SCO. So, tell us, do: what code specifically do you allege is infringing in Linux? Your deadline to tell us looms. And delay is looking unlikely. Poor SCO. Paying the piper is always the hardest part. Update: The Minutes from the hearing are already up on Pacer: 524 -
Filed & Entered: 10/07/2005
Order on Motion to Compel
Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Brooke C. Wells: Motion Hearing held on 10/7/2005 re [503] MOTION to Compel discovery filed by SCO Group,, [508] MOTION for Discovery filed by SCO Group. The Court hears arguments and rules from bench: denying [503] Motion to Compel, granting in part and denying in part [508] Motion for Discovery - see order for specifics. Counsel for IBM to prepare the order. Hearing set for 12/20/05 at 10:00 a.m. as to dft's remaining motion to compel and pla's renewed motion to be filed by 10/21/05. The Courtroom is to be determined, a notice of hearing will be sent. Court is adjouned. Attorney for Plaintiff: Stuart Singer, Attorney for Defendant David Marriott.(Court Reporter Kelly Hicken.) (alp, ) IBM drawing up the order means they won. The winner usually gets "anointed" to draw up the order, as I've explained before. The word adjourned is misspelled in the original, by the way, but I never correct any court filings or notations in the docket. Misspellings happen when you are in a hurry, of course, and it seems like the only one wanting to slow down now is SCO. Whatever will they dream up next to try to get a delay? This should be a fun hearing transcript to read when it's ready, unless you are SCO's attorney for the day. SCO has a stable of lawyers, and they throw in whoever they feel can best handle each event. David Marriott stands up every time for IBM. Have you noticed? Aaron says that Brent Hatch got there 45 minutes late, and he sat in the audience section.
2d Update: Frank has lots more details for us: SCO was represented by Stuart Singer, Ted Normand, and Mark James (other
lawyers present as well, but only Singer argued).
IBM was represented by David Marriott, Todd Shaughnessy, and Peter Ligh
(others present, but only Marriott argued).
Wells wanted to clear the record regarding the January 2005 order.
There was a docketing error that made it appear that she had granted a
Motion from SCO. Also, a lot of discovery has occurred since then, and
she would like SCO to refile (by Friday, October 21, 2005) their
original motion, taking into account rulings, etc. since then.
Wells noted for the record that she had read in depth, and also reviewed
all the filings, memos, exhibits, rulings, etc.
SCO's Motion to Compel Production of everything related to Linux,
everything related to Linux development, everything related to IBM's
Linux contributions, and everything else (for good measure) [Note: not
an official title]
Stuart Singer argued that SCO's Motion goes to the very heart of the
issue. He talked of IBM's failure to produce their non-public work
related to their Linux contributions and the development thereof. He
says that IBM has admitted they have not looked for such information,
let alone produced it [see the Frey Declaration describing the work
it would take]. He says that in IBM's responses, they have agreed to
produce it all, but have not done so. Talks about Wells' ruling
[paragraph 3 talking about Linux related 'information'].
Wells asks whether SCO saw paragraph 3 as an expansion of paragraph 2?
Singer claims that there's no legitimate basis that a rough draft or
programming notes isn't covered. Says that the Executive materials are
also related. Says IBM assured the court that they had complied with
orders, and produced, but clearly has not. If IBM was uncertain as to
what The Court had ordered, they should obtain clarification from the court.
Wells asks whether SCO acknowledges that they have the same obligation?
Singer replies "Of course."
Wells says she wants SCO to address what appears to be SCO's failure to
raise the issue with respect to Linux. In her review of the transcript
of the original hearing, she found no mention by Mr. McBride about
Linux. SCO did not raise that issue, and the order does not address it.
The Linux issue was not raised. She says that both sides have the
responsibility to obtain clarification if necessary.
Singer states that the Linux contributions are even more relevant. He
states that the Court ordered that documents from the files of 3,000
programmers be produced, and that in the order about reconsidering, the
Court "deferred," but did not remove IBM's obligations. IBM is not
interpreting these orders to include Linux. The court has held that SCO
needs access to such information, and did not limit IBM's obligations
with respect to Linux, and that it was clear as day that all non-public
Linux contribution "information" be produced. He says that IBM has
woefully failed to fulfill their obligations, and this goes to the very
core. Says that the position IBM is taking is that all or virtually all
of their Linux contributions were public, but that there is clearly
information (programmer's notes, versions of code, etc.) that they
haven't produced. States that it's clear that the AIX and Dynix
development history must include the information related to Linux as well.
Wells asks that if SCO is not receiving things, and IBM does not
interpret things the same way, why did SCO not request clarification?
Singer responds that IBM's position is that they are not required.
Contends that IBM never did what they said they would, and asks on what
basis IBM can say they have complied if (according to Mr. Frey's
Declaration) they have not conducted the search, and doing so would be
too burdensome. States that IBM surely wouldn't have embarked into the
litigation without searching for such information.
Wells points out that it is SCO who began the litigation by suing IBM.
Singer says that they need files from programmers before SCO can take
depositions of those programmers. In Frey's Declaration, he was asked
whether he had complied, and he responded, "I turned over everything."
Singer mentions SCO's 7th request for the production of documents, and
says that SCO asked for very specific requests. He says that IBM's
response was that they were duplicative of earlier requests. Singer
notes that sanctions may be in order.
...
Marriott's response next... Frank is typing furiously. Stay tuned. 3rd Update: Frank picks up the story, as David Marriott stands up to speak:
part 2
Marriot says that in SCO's motion, they're trying to mislead the court,
says that IBM has endeavored to comply, and that IBM believes they have
gone above and beyond. He says that SCO's present motion is
"astonishing" in its premise that SCO asked for everything related to
Linux, the Court so ordered, and IBM then thumbed their nose at the Court.
Marriott mentions the plethora of public claims and quotes from
Kimball's order about SCO's "astonishing" lack of evidence. He says
that SCO is now requesting all revisions and versions of IBM's Linux
contributions [pre-contribution work]. He says that IBM has never
agreed to produce every document in the whole company related in any way
to Linux.
Marriott uses SCO's large charts to show that SCO's requests are related
only to IBM's Linux contributions. He mentions that Linux is developed
in the public domain, and that "non-public" contributions would only
occur when someone sent directly to Linus Torvalds, but those
contributions would normally be rejected. He characterizes these
contributions as unsuccessful.
Marriott mentions that IBM objected to SCO's requests for documents, but
did not deny that they would produce relevant, non-privileged. IBM
never indicated they would produce every document in the company related
to Linux. They undertook a reasonable search, responded, and provided a
production log of everything. He points out that _none_ of the SCO
lawyers in court today were present during those discussions, but that
Mr. Shaughnessy and Mr. Ligh [both in court today for IBM] were.
Marriott points out that SCO's Reply Brief is in stark opposition to
their opening brief [in that the opening brief states that IBM refused
to produce Linux-related info, and reply brief claims IBM agreed to
produce it, but has not done so]. IBM does not presume to tell the
Court what she ordered, but IBM's understanding of the Court's orders is
that she never ordered the way SCO contends.
Marriott mentions that in IBM's view, SCO has still failed to explain
what the case is all about. He points out that the first hearings were
about whether IBM had to produce AIX and Dynix information, not Linux.
Marriott says that their understanding of the Court's order was that it meant that
they were to produce documents "relevant to IBM's Linux strategy," not
everything related to Linux. He claims that SCO's sweeping
interpretation of paragraph 3 of the order is in opposition to paragraph
2 where it says that "IBM is not required to produce publicly-available
contributions". He says that SCO is misreading the Court's orders, and
trying to circumvent the Court's protocol. He says that contrary to Mr.
Singer's assertion, they can't just send out an email to everyone in the
company, and wait for responses, and that searching the files of
everyone in IBM's 330,000 person company strains credulity.
Marriott says that IBM communicated with SCO regarding their
understanding of the Court's orders, and that in IBM's judgment, one can
not reasonably interpret them to mean every document relating to Linux,
Linux development, or Linux contributions. IBM feels that there is no
reason to require IBM to produce everything, given the Court's protocol
(and considering IBM's 13th Interrogatory). It would be an enormous
burden, and not a small undertaking.
Wells gives Singer 10 minutes to respond.
Singer says that these requests are not directed at everything in the
company, but are targeted towards IBM's actual contributions within the
Linux Technology Center. He says that the fact that Linux is developed
in public does not obviate the usefulness of all drafts, versions,
programming notes, etc.
Wells asks, "Didn't Mr. McBride argue with respect to AIX and Dynix? He
didn't address Linux."
Singer says that even accepting that argument, the Court ordered IBM to
produce _all_ information related to Linux. He says that there is no
serious argument that this information is not relevant, and that the
Court should either order that IBM was required to produce, but did not,
or _now_ order so.
Wells says that she is ready to rule. She finds that IBM did not agree
to produce everything as SCO contends. She finds that the issue of
discovery related to Linux was _not_ contemplated or ordered by The
Court, and that IBM has appropriately interpreted The Court's order.
She finds that SCO's interpretation takes her words out of context, and
that IBM has complied with the Court's orders. SCO's Motion to Compel
is DENIED. Stay tuned, for the part about the depositions. Frank is still typing like a madman. Meanwhile, Aaron has shared with me another interesting detail. He says that his impression is that while Singer appeared to him to be a good lawyer, Wells kept interrupting him. He felt that she was very unhappy with SCO. She didn't interrupt Marriott. But later, when she issued her decision, he understood that her questions were to give SCO a chance to alter her views and answer her concerns, but that they didn't avail themselves successfully of the opportunity. He says he figures there were only about 15 or so people in the audience this time, aside from the lawyers, a lower figure than usual. Bob Mims was there, so I think we can look for an article from him.
4th Update: Frank now addresses the issue of additional depositions.
part 3:
SCO's Motion for Leave to do an Additional 25 Depositions
Judge Wells is reminded by her assistant that there has been some
discussion of dismissal of the patent counterclaims. She will keep that
in mind while listening to arguments.
Singer claims that dropping the patent counterclaims does not remove the
need for additional depositions. He says that every part of this case
has been contested by IBM. He says it is such a complex case that SCO
really needs 60 or 65 depositions, and that they can still be done
within the current schedule. He states that there are many other
witnesses who have material knowledge.
Marriott says that at the outset of the case, it was known it would be a
complex case, and the parties came to an agreement to do 40 depositions
per side. He says that 40 Depositions is 4 times the presumptive limit,
and that there is no need for additonal depositions. If SCO gets to
depose additional people, IBM should be allowed to schedule extra time
(extra day) with those people IBM is deposing. IBM requests that SCO's
motion be denied.
Singer states that the 40-deposition limit was decided before any
counterclaims were asserted.
Wells says that she is prepared to rule. She will increase the
allowable depositions by 10 rather than 25, but they must be completed
within the current deadlines. The Court does not want to entertain
additional delays. She denies IBM's request for additional time with
the deponents.
Marriott stood, I think just before she ruled, and suggested to the court that IBM
would be willing to undertake the reasonable search of the files of
the 20 programmers that SCO has said it has selected to depose, and to produce
relevant Linux documents from them.
SCO's motion was denied in all respects _except_ this one. In
reality, it was a decent argument from SCO that they'd be going into the
depositions blindly, and it seemed like a reasonable offering from IBM.
Wells asks how much time IBM would need to produce documents from the
files of the 20 developers SCO would like to depose. IBM responds that
they need up to 60 days, but hope to complete long before then. SCO
asks whether this can be done on a rolling-production basis, so that the
depositions do not all need to be done so late, and IBM and Wells agree.
IBM's Motion to Compel Production of Documents from SCO's Privilege Log
and other outstanding Motions will be heard at a hearing December 20,
2005 at 10:00 am.
Wells speaks with counsel at the bench, then announces she has asked IBM
to prepare the order, have SCO approve it for form, and present it to
her for signing no later than Wednesday [October 12, 2005].
|
|
Authored by: jbeadle on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
You know the drill...
Thanks,
-jb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off Topic, links here, please... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:12 PM EDT
- dahind, pcmcia-cs, and the SCO Confidential code comparison. - Authored by: Mecha on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:25 PM EDT
- The press reaction so far. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 10:15 PM EDT
- "A New Deserter from the HD-DVD Camp: Warner Bros" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 11:58 PM EDT
- Some Real Astroturf - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 12:37 AM EDT
- Some Real Astroturf - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 05:19 AM EDT
- Not quite... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 06:33 AM EDT
- SCOX - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 09:19 AM EDT
- creative use of 'media' ;-) - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 01:14 PM EDT
- "Reg readers take the Dell 'Open-source PC' challenge" - more comedy. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 01:36 PM EDT
|
Authored by: MathFox on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
If there are any ;)
---
When people start to comment on the form of a message, it is a sign that they
have problems to accept the truth of the message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OK, I'll start... - Authored by: jbeadle on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:13 PM EDT
- Corrections Here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- Corrections Here... - Authored by: jbb on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:55 PM EDT
- Corrections Here... - Authored by: jbb on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- thsir -> their - Authored by: rgmoore on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:42 PM EDT
- duplicitive --> duplicative - Authored by: Rudisaurus on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:43 PM EDT
- Corrections Here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:44 PM EDT
- contributions) -> contributions" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- Corrections Here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:54 PM EDT
- Frank should be exempted from corrections... - Authored by: cybervegan on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 06:23 PM EDT
- 2d Update: =>> 2nd Update: - Authored by: bbaston on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 08:47 PM EDT
- Corrections Here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 11:37 PM EDT
- s/public domain/public/ - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 03:00 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:08 PM EDT |
So what spin are we going to see on this "Victory for SCO"?
wb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:11 PM EDT |
That they have to supply IBM with specificity what their charges are? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: overshoot on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
I got the distinct impression that her previous ruling that overturned Judge
Kimball's scheduling order led to a conversation between the two judges.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:22 PM EDT |
All who said that Wells would give SCO whatever they asked for, because she
always had, well, you folks can have a little undercooked crow for your
suppers.
The big news: No delay. SCO can't delay the day of reckoning. Ten more
depositions won't do them any good - they won't find anything with them just
like they didn't with anything else. But they didn't get any delay out of
this.
My prediction: A blizzard of new motions, "emergency" motions, all
kinds of wailing and screaming, about how they need more and IBM won't give it
to them, as the deadline approaches. Then silence.
MSS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: WhiteFang on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
What a pleasant start to the weekend.
:-)
Works for me!
---
emerge addict since Gentoo version 1.2, 2002.
warning: value of "Trust Microsoft" always fails.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
Sometime ago PJ and others speculated that the case was going to be 'actively'
managed by Judge Kimball.
Having realised that one of the litigants is
playing the game using a set of rules that cannot be found on the planet, would
anyone like to speculate if this is Judge Kimball's "active case management"
manifesting itself through Judge Wells?
I for one certainly hope so......
:-)
================
I will remember my password....one day.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
I speculated two stories back,
that perhaps SCO, when arguing for sanctions on IBM, without every specifying
what sanctions they wanted, were trying to build up, for asking for dispositive
Rule 37 sanctions on IBM (of course they'd need to get Kimball involved for this
to happen).
These are the bits of rule 37 (emphasis added) that I was
referring to.
(2) Sanctions by Court in Which
Action Is
Pending.
If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a
party
or a person designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a) to testify on
behalf of a
party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,
including an
order made under subdivision (a) of this rule or Rule 35, or if
a party fails
to obey an order entered under Rule 26(f), the court in which the
action is
pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just,
and among
others the following:
(A) An order that the matters
regarding which
the order was made or any other designated facts shall be taken
to be
established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of
the
party obtaining the order;
(B) An order refusing to allow
the
disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses,
or
prohibiting that party from introducing designated matters
in
evidence;
(C) An order striking out pleadings or parts
thereof,
or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or
dismissing the
action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a
judgment by default
against the disobedient party;
(D) In lieu of
any of the foregoing
orders or in addition thereto, an order treating as a
contempt of court the
failure to obey any orders except an order to submit to a
physical or mental
examination;
(E) Where a party has failed to comply
with an order under
Rule 35(a) requiring that party to produce another for
examination, such orders
as are listed in paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this
subdivision, unless the
party failing to comply shows that that party is unable
to produce such person
for examination.
In a separate
discussion on Groklaw, with webster (again you can find it 2 stories back), I
guessed they might either (A) plan to mention rule 37 for the first time in
today's hearing if it was going well, or (B) use today's hearing as
stepping-stone toward a future request for such sanctions.
Of course,
we might think this is a longshot desparate plan, and the odds of its success
are miniscule. We might also think, this plan, if it ever existed, is shot
after the results of today's hearing.
Anyway, there's an interesting
follow-up. If you check out Maureen O'Gara's Linuxgram site (which whatever her
faults, many us of think she has some inside link to SCO's
thinking).
Anyway MOG speculates (and a good question is why she
speculates, or whether somebody put that speculation in her mind): emphasis
added: "Sanctions can be monetary or, as SCO might like better, the
sacrifice of certain claims like, say, the allegation that Linux didn't come
from AIX and Dynix."
Now Maureen's report looks to me like it was
published before the court hearing today finished, although I can't confirm
it.
So the question is - Did SCO mention rule 37
today?
(Of course, the rule 37 plan could have been in their
mind, even if they didn't mention in court. And, of course, the chances of the
rule 37 plan succeeding, may be remote, and probably even remoter after today.
But if we got some indication of the rule 37 plan in today's hearing, it might
also give us a hint as to SCO's thinking regarding the upcoming deadline for
revealing misused material - because the rule 37 plan would be essentially an
attempt to end-run it, without ever revealing/finding infringing
code).
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
What?? No sanctions against IBM?? Shocked, I am, at such an outrage!!
;)
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Fredric on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
LOL
That's it! I need a new keyboard now.
This must be the funniest
quote from this case so far. Any other candidates?
--- /Fredric
Fredricson
--------
[Funny sig temporarily removed for tests on Salisbury Plain] [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:09 PM EDT |
(Singer:) States that IBM surely wouldn't have embarked into the litigation
without searching for such information.
Wells points out that it is SCO
who began the litigation by suing IBM.
Absolutely
priceless!!
--- "When I say something, I put my name next
to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:18 PM EDT |
-Wang-Lo.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: markhb on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:18 PM EDT |
There was a Judge Wells who lived in a shoe...
If IBM was uncertain
as to what The Court had ordered, they should obtain clarification from the
court.
Who had so many lawyers she didn't know what to
do!
Wells asks whether SCO acknowledges that they have the same
obligation?
Singer replies "Of course."
She gave them some
broth, without any bread...
Wells says she wants SCO to address what
appears to be SCO's failure to raise the issue with respect to Linux. In her
review of the transcript of the original hearing, she found no mention by Mr.
McBride about Linux. SCO did not raise that issue, and the order does not
address it.
The Linux issue was not raised. She says that both sides
have the responsibility to obtain clarification if necessary.
...
then whipped them all soundly and sent them to bed!
Did anyone else get
the feeling that the SCO lawyer's stomach got the "called to the principal's
office" feeling when she asked about "the smae obligation"?--- IANAL, but
ITRYINGTOCHILLOUT... et SCO delenda est! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cybervegan on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
This is so tight it hurts!
News at the speed of Internet... awesome.
Frank Sorenson comes through again - I'd just like to say "Thankyou, Frank
and Aaron".
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 | # ]
|
- Go Frank, Go Aaron! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:38 PM EDT
- Go Frank, Go Aaron! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:40 PM EDT
- Go Frank, Go Aaron! - Authored by: AdamBaker on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 07:30 PM EDT
- Go Frank, Go Aaron! - Authored by: ghost on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 08:30 PM EDT
- Go Frank, Go Aaron! - Authored by: Latesigner on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 01:13 AM EDT
- Heartfelt thanks - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 06:01 AM EDT
- The Frank and Bob show - Authored by: mnuttall on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 02:15 PM EDT
- Hear, hear! (n/t) - Authored by: ile on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 09:16 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
Marriott hinted strongly at why SCO may have chosen not to use the same lawyers
as for prior hearings. This allows the new set of lawyers to claim an
understanding of prior rulings that could not plausibly be claimed by anyone who
was there. They obviously hoped that Magistrate Judge Wells would be too busy
to fully review all the materials and might have a hazy recollection of the
prior hearings herself: potentially leading to favourable rulings today.
Magistrate Judge Wells pointedly indicated that she had prepared very carefully
for the hearing and I think this was partly a message to SCO that they would not
be getting away with anything.
IANAL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO's change of lawyers - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 06:04 PM EDT
- SCO's change of lawyers - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 12:13 AM EDT
- Subtle - Authored by: Ed L. on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 02:38 AM EDT
- Subtle - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 07:55 AM EDT
- Subtle - Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 08:45 AM EDT
- Subtle - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 09:19 AM EDT
- Subtle - Authored by: Ed L. on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- Subtle - Authored by: jmc on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 05:15 PM EDT
- Subtle - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 08:20 PM EDT
- Horses heads...... - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 08:56 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
His inability to respond creatively to the Judge's questions is, IMHO, telling.
Boise, Shiller have got all the cash they're likely to get out of SCO.
So I reckon it's now down to who loses the game of straws, sweepstakes,
rock/paper/scissors, whatever.
Loser has to stand up in court and be knocked down by both Marriott and the
Judge while he reads out a prepared statement.
Frankly I feel sorry for the guy - this isn't going to feature prominently on
his CV in future, I'd venture.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pscottdv on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
"Marriott stood, I think just before she ruled, and suggested to the court
that IBM would be willing to undertake the reasonable search of the files of the
20 programmers that SCO has said it has selected to depose, and to produce
relevant Linux documents from them."
If this happened the way Frank reported, what class Marriot has! Hidden
sub-text
"Excuse me, your honor, but we both know that SCO is going to try to waste
more of your time trying to get further discovery and delay as soon as they
depose our engineers, so why don't we just cut their legs out from under them
right from the get-go."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MrCharon on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 06:21 PM EDT |
So is IBM still going to drop there patent infringement counterclaims? I get
the impression (feeling) that they are not going too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- They'll drop them - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 08:23 PM EDT
- They'll drop them - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 05:45 AM EDT
- IBM's Patent counterclaims - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 12:41 AM EDT
- no - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 04:29 AM EDT
- no - Authored by: LarryVance on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 11:25 AM EDT
- no - Authored by: danb35 on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 03:44 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
"In reality, it was a decent argument from SCO that they'd be going into
the depositions blindly, and it seemed like a reasonable offering from
IBM."
Not quite clear on this... the only reason they're going in blind is because
they had no evidence to start with, and haven't done the depositions they were
supposed to so far. If they'd had a case in the first place, they'd have done
more than 16 depositions by now, and having done those, they'd know exactly what
they were going for now.
Rather than a decent argument from SCO, it instead sounds like Wells just threw
them a bone so they couldn't say she stonewalled them completely, but she knows
all along that when the deadline comes SCO probably still won't even have done
the original 40. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if they ask for more time to
do them because they were surprised by the Thanksgiving holidays... ;-o)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BrianW on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 06:45 PM EDT |
I've submitted my hearing reports to PJ in the past, but she cites “journalistic
integrity”, whatever that menas, when she refuses to publish them. So I decided
that this time, I'd just post my report as a comment. Oh, it's okay, though.
I'm wearing a tee-shirt that says “Journalistic Integrity” even as I type.
I successfully carried out my designated mission of infiltration and espionage.
What follows is my report of the SCO vs. IBM hearing held on October 7, 2005.
According to standard procedure, I skulked outside the courtroom for an hour
before the hearing began. Just before they shut the door, I slipped inside,
unnoticed. I took a seat in the back row. But just as I was sitting down, I
made eye contact with a young woman across the room. I know that PJ sends
redundant spies to a single location and that we’re not supposed to know about
each other, but It was pretty obvious to me that this woman was another one of
PJ's fully-deputized Groklaw Secret Agents. She kept pointing to her “Groklaw
SECRET AGENT ” baseball cap. I mean, she was just pointing right at it! Then
she pointed to me and mouthed the words “TURN IT OFF” in exaggerated fashion.
That’s when I realized that the red and amber LEDs on my own “Groklaw SECRET
AGENT” baseball cap were still flashing. My bad. Luckily, I was able to switch
the LEDs off just before Judge Wells entered the courtroom.
After that, there was a bunch of stuff where everybody said their names and
stuff, and it seemed like forever before they got to the good stuff. Judge
Wells looked really angry, and I drew stick figures with army helmets and
machine guns in my notebook. Finally, Judge Wells asked one of the lawyers (I
think it was the SCO side) something about eunuchs. Then she asked the other
side (IBM, maybe?) about “sample misano”, what ever that is, and desponitions.
One side of the courtroom was all, “They did this, and they did that, and they
won’t even tell us what they did wrong, boo-hoo, blah, blah, blah!” And the
other side was all like, “Your Majesty, they just therefore and hitherto
admitted they don’t even know that we wherefore did anything wrong, so BURN,
BABY, BURN!!!” It was so great! You should’ve seen the SCO (I think it was
SCO) guys squirm. (Sorry if I got any of the Latin words wrong in my
transcript. It’s a dead language, you know.)
The court recessed for a bathroom break, and I, very inconspicuously, mind you,
made my way toward the brunette with the “Groklaw SECRET AGENT” baseball cap.
When she introduced herself, It sounded like she said her name was Ruth.
Doesn’t she know that, like “PJ”, we’re not supposed to use our real names while
on official Groklaw business? We decided to head over to the Howard Johnson’s
down the street for a bite to eat.
When we got to Howard Johnson’s there was a large table with about a dozen
people with “Groklaw SECRET AGENT” baseball caps sitting together. Most of them
had their flashing LEDs turned on, so Ruth and I turned ours on and joined them.
It was great! Instead of working the crossword puzzle on the paper placemats,
we all tried to come up with anagrams of “Pamela Jones” to see if we could find
out she REALLY is. (Of course, if we ever found out, as fully-deputized Groklaw
Secret Agents, we would NEVER divulge her secret identity, I assure you.) But
the best I could come up with was “Pamela Nosej”. Ruth’s was better. She came
up with “Page Melanoma”. But then someone pointed out that it has an extra “M”
and “A”, exchanged a “G” for a “J”, and didn’t even use the “S”. Ruth said it
still counted, though, since she used a different color crayon for the letters
she added. She’s way better at anagrams than I am, I have to admit.
There was another table with a few people wearing “Groklaw Cadet” tee-shirts,
but we wouldn’t let them sit with us. I mean, come on -- like they can’t afford
the $75 a month it takes to become a fully-deputized Groklaw Secret Agent and
get a real baseball cap with flashing LEDs. Get real! They kept taunting us,
telling us that they knew who you really were, but that they weren’t going to
tell us. How immature. We threw spitballs at them until they shut up.
There was another table of people wearing sunglasses and trench coats with the
words “Groklaw Elite” embroidered on the back. I approached them intending to
ask them why their trench coats were embroidered while our baseball caps just
had an iron-on transfer, but they wouldn’t even talk to me. I couldn’t believe
it! What a bunch of snobs! They even threw spitballs at me until I went away.
But the energy at our table was electrifying. I’m now convinced there is
nothing we can’t do! (Except anagrams, of course.) Our post-hearing analysis
over soft-serve ice cream revealed a stunningly intelligent gestalt at work as
we pored over the facts of the case with devastatingly accurate precision. At
one clarifying point, Ruth stuck two straws up her nose and said, “Look at me!
I’m Darl McBride! Blah, blah, blah! Give me your money!” Perhaps you had to
be there, but her analysis was, as I said, stunningly accurate.
I used to think that the word “terrorist” was too strong a word for our enemies
to use to describe us. But when I looked back at the condition in which we left
that Howard Johnson’s restaurant, with tables and chairs all asunder, cellophane
cracker wrappers on the floor, and paper napkins wadded up all
higgledy-piggledy, I wondered if we might actually be living up to such
vilifying characterizations. Is it any wonder why SCO fears us? I mean, with
destruction like that, who wouldn’t be afraid to cross our path?
After seeing the Howard Johnson's laid waste to our mighty shenanigans, I
believe it’s time to step up our revolt and substantiate the fear we instill in
our enemies! If Darl McBride thinks we’re revolting now, he ain’t seen nothin’
yet!
Eventually we all noticed that it was dark and the courthouse was probably
closed, so we decided to call it a day. The waiter rolled his eyes at us when
we told him we wanted separate checks. (Ha! I’ll bet he works for SCO!) Ruth
asked if she could write a check, and the waiter said a check was fine, and I
noticed that she didn’t sign her check as “Ruth”, but instead signed it as
“/root”. That’s when I realized that she had been using her Groklaw Secret
Agent name all along, and I had just misunderstood when she first introduced
herself. No wonder she looked at me as if I were an idiot when I jokingly told
her that we were “Ruthless” while she was in the women’s restroom. (“Ruthless”
-- Get it?) Even so, “/root” is a pretty pretentious name for her to pick for
herself, don’t you think? I mean, really. I don’t even log in as “root” on
machines I own. Still, I think it’s cool that she signs her checks that way.
Well, that’s my report on the SCO vs. IBM hearing. As Groklaw's most dedicated
agent, I’m committed to our organization’s objectives for world domination, and
I eagerly await my next assignment. I’m so proud to be a member of PJ's
super-secret army. (Who could have possibly foretold that clicking on the “Hey!
You wanna become a Groklaw Secret Agent?” link would have given me access to the
inner sanctum of Groklaw’s global machinations?) And even though I’m six months
behind on my Groklaw Secret Agent membership dues, I am, as always, at your
service.
Yours in Secrecy,
SuperSysAdmin
---
//Brian
#define IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Red LEDs? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 07:10 PM EDT
- Here's my hearing report. (Humor) - Authored by: blacklight on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 07:44 PM EDT
- You desperately need a life - Authored by: kawabago on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 07:49 PM EDT
- If you... - Authored by: RedBarchetta on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 08:16 PM EDT
- Here's my hearing report. (Humor) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 08:34 PM EDT
- Here's my hearing report. (Humor) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 10:03 PM EDT
- Thanks for the kind words, but... - Authored by: BrianW on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 11:23 PM EDT
- But on the other appendage... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 11:43 PM EDT
- Thanks for the kind words, but... - Authored by: urzumph on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 01:58 AM EDT
- Thanks for the kind words, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 05:59 AM EDT
- Thanks for the kind words, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 08:02 AM EDT
- I couldn't stop laughing as I read it... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 01:29 PM EDT
- Nah, made me grin - n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 05:02 PM EDT
- Great... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 11:13 PM EDT
- Groklaw Secret Agent Kit - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 02:18 AM EDT
- Subtle Humour - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 06:31 AM EDT
- To many names. (Humor) - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- Here's my hearing report. (Humor) - Authored by: shiptar on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 11:50 AM EDT
|
Authored by: kjb on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 06:54 PM EDT |
Thanks for all the work. Your efforts are really
appreciated.
--- keith.burt at gmail dot com
Copyright info in bio
"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
- Yoda [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kaemaril on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 06:55 PM EDT |
she has asked IBM to prepare the order, have SCO approve it for
form
I wonder if SCO will complain about the wording ... or the
punctuation ... or the spelling of the lawyer's names ... or the sort of paper
it's printed on ... or ... well, anything they can, basically ... :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 06:57 PM EDT |
Would Judge Wells be more comfortable with a consistent appearance of One lawyer
from the IBM side than the musical chairs of the other. To my mind it would lend
a little more credence. Also would it make it easier for the one standing up to
remember what was said before?
I get the sense of a judge well ticked off about how her previous rulings had
gone down down. Totally denying the rulings would lead to cries of'we were
denied'. This way they can't.
Tufty
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
Thanks to Frank and Aaron. Speed and reliability are highly valued.
Judge Wells has thoroughly recovered from prior embarassments. [prior order
modified, betrayed ignorance] She came prepared. She interrupted, she
asked questions, she was confident, she ruled immediately from the bench!! She
didn't even take it under advisement and consult Kimball. (Remember she has had
thousands of cases and hearings since this case began and she became a MJ.) Her
ruling is unassailable, only a SCO would try.
She threw SCO a dubious bone, ten more depositions. Dubious because IBM gets
ten more, too, and they have more to work with. They get no delay. The Court
was upset with SCO Lies, i.e. distorting her ruling. She took the reasonable
view, i.e. IBM has complied with her prior clear ruling. With this premise
there should be nary a breath about sanctions. [OT: Should I feed the meter or
finish this comment? It's raining so meter folk don't work.] It is looking
"astonishingly" bad for SCO. Marriotts concessions ooze a disdain for
the SCO position. Can't wait for the annotated stranscipt.
---
webster
>>>>>>> LN 3.0 >>>>>>>>>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 07:27 PM EDT |
Not quite lost the plot, but the chapters are looking a bit blurry at the
moment. Must come from reading too many of SCO's motions and depositions in one
sitting!
Where are we now with exactly who has to do what, and when, between now and
Xmas?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 07:37 PM EDT |
"Singer claims that dropping the patent counterclaims does not remove the
need for additional depositions."
"Singer states that the 40-deposition limit was decided before any
counterclaims were asserted."
So which is it? Or are they talking about other counterclaims besides the patent
counterclaims?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Translation... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 08:00 PM EDT
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 11:01 PM EDT |
A bit off topic here, maybe, but I think I see some vague parallels between this
case and the book of Esther in the Bible. I assume some of you have at least
read Esther?
Anyway, quick summary. Esther is an orphaned Jewish girl raised by her uncle,
Mordecai. And the king has chosen Esther to be queen. One of the king's high
officials, Haman, is mad because Mordecai won't bow down to him and do him
homage. So he decides he's not only going to do away with Mordecai, he's going
to wipe out all the Jews too, and tricks the king into signing a decree allowing
him to do this. The king has a sleepless night, and while reading the archives
finds out that Mordecai had earlier exposed a plot on his life by two of his
chamberlains. It looks like everything is going hunky-dory for Haman until
Esther gets wind of Haman's plot and exposes him for the sniveling little
schemer he is. And Haman ends up getting hanged on his own gallows, and those
who sided with him end up getting massacred instead of the Jews.
Now the parallel. Everything seems to have been going SCOG's way up until now.
Now the judges are wise to SCOG's schemes, and it's going to be downhill for
them from here on out. They're about at the point Haman was right after Esther
exposed him. And who knows what might happen to BSF?
A little far fetched? Maybe. But that's the way I see it.
---
What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger it grows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BrianW on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 11:20 PM EDT |
I find this exchange odd:
Singer claims that dropping the
patent counterclaims does not remove the need for additional
depositions.
Marriott says that at the outset of
the case, it was known it would be a complex case, and the parties came to an
agreement to do 40 depositions per side.
Singer
states that the 40-deposition limit was decided before any counterclaims were
asserted.
Emphasis is clearly mine. I searched the
comments, but I couldn't find anyone else who noticed this contradiction on
Singer's part. So which is it? Does SCO need the extra depositions because of
the counterclaims, or not? --- //Brian
#define IANAL [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cmarcum on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 11:33 PM EDT |
Looks like the spin has started.
Article by Stephen Shankland on new.com.com
IBM
drops patent claims against SCO
cnet link --- Carl [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 12:18 AM EDT |
I have long believed that Judge Wells was thrown into this case as an unprepared
novice. The latest reports suggest that Wells has either grown into her position
or been given significant 'counseling'. In either case she is doing much better.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 08:02 AM EDT |
SCO lost this hearing pretty badly.
1. SCO did not get to delay the deadlines.
2. SCO did not get sanctions on IBM. Rather the thought blew up right in
their faces. Judge Wells ruled completely for IBM's interpretation of her
order.
SCO's lawyer could only WHIMPER about sanctions as he walked to his seat.
Judge Well did throw a bone at SCO - to have 10 more depositions. She also
threw them another - she gave them the opportunity to argue again about
Linux in another motion.
IBM threw a bone at SCO - to drop the patent charges. This can be spun by
SCO as a loss for IBM.
IBM did throw another bone at SCO - to voluntarily search for programmer's
notes, etc. regarding EVERYTHING related Linux for the 20 IBM programmers
SCO is suppose to depose. IBM did not need to do this. But it did see how
this would avoid another SCO attempt at delay or a possible appeal which
would have lead to another delay. And it's good P.R. work with the judge that
IBM is trying to be reasonable. IBM already knows it has nothing to fear since
SCO will get no evidence anyway from the documents.
IBM did try to get the opportunity to depose people from SCO a second time -
the better to catch SCO associates in a lie. But this was denied by Judge
Wells. Oh Well.
I think SCO lost its Hail Mary Pass to use Rule 37 sanctions as a run-around
to avoid having to show its evidence. I'm happy Judge Wells completely
agreed with IBM's interpretation of her order.
I think IBM has won big-time since SCO could not institute more delay in the
proceedings. It's about time that SCO shows its hand. No more bluffing.
SCO SHOULD be able to do all those depositions. Heck, it has a TON of
lawyers. Each one can take on one deponent. All the depositions can be
done in a week.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 09:48 AM EDT |
Just a hypothetical here ...
If IBM did, indeed, drop it's counterclaim from the suit, would it be able to
file a completely separate suit based on the assertions in the counterclaim?
If that were possible, would that not blow SCO's "fee cap" on their
original lawsuit? Would SCO now have new legal fees to pay for defending
themselves in a separate suit?
Inquiring minds wanna know.
IANAL!!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 10:16 AM EDT |
So -- let's analyze the status of the IBM patent claims, should IBM's proposal
be accepted. Are the claims preserved or waived?
I would think that the question depends on whether the claims were compulsory
counterclaims or merely elective, which was argued before the court when the
claims were initially added. IBM made the argument that they WERE compulsory. Of
course, that doesn't prevent IBM from arguing, at some later date if they
reintroduced the claims later, that they were not. SCO argued that they were not
compulsory, and that they could and should be separated for this action.
So, if the court took up IBM's offer, I suppose SCO would want a atipulation
that the claims were compulsory and need to be therefore waived -- and IBM would
argue that they were preserved, ie, withdrawn without prejudice.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Saturday, October 08 2005 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
The hearing is
written by Paul Foy of the Associated Press.
The article contains this
gem of a paragraph:
IBM has contributed to Linux
versions of Unix it says it owns outright, and which SCO claims borrows from its
Unix rights. This disagreement goes to the heart of the case, which has gone on
for nearly three years.
How completely wrong can you
get? The Salt Lake Tribune normally reports accurately. IBM has never
contributed UNIX code to Linux; what use would 15 year old code be? And it just
does not work like that. You cannot just cut and paste stuff, it will not
work
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wharris on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 01:03 AM EDT |
This is great news! For me, the biggest news isn't that a SCO discovery motion
was denied for the first time ever -- the biggest news was the court seems to
have lost patience with SCO. Since the beginning, SCO has been full of lies.
They
lie about Linux, they lie about Unix, they lie about copyright, they lie about
contracts, and they lie about court orders. This is the first time that I
noticed the
court reacting to SCO's lies. Not only did the court certify that IBM correctly
interpreted the court order (and thus SCO's motioins lied about what was
ordered), but she also called SCO out when they claimed that IBM should have
prepared information in advance of SCO's suit against them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:08 AM EDT |
Pardon me, but having the judge say her original order means what it originally
meant and not some variant - refracted, filtered, interfered and distorted
through the veil of a delusionary SCOtwist universe - can't really be called a
victory for IBM. A victory for common sense and basic sanity, more like.
Still a victory though.
Let there be more sanity instilled in this loony-tune fiasco.
---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|