|
|
| IBM Files 2 Executives' Declarations |
 |
|
Monday, January 09 2006 @ 02:58 PM EST
|
You'll recall that at the last hearing, Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells decided that IBM should provide affidavits from a couple of more executives as to what they did to comply with SCO's discovery requests, as Frank Sorenson's report told us: SCO's Motion to Compel Production from IBM's Execs: Wells took a short recess to read up on a few things before making a finding that IBM has acted in good faith with respect to the production of documents from Palmisano & Wladawsky-Berger. In light of wording used in the February 2004 hearing, the March 2004 order was meant to include Paul Horn & Nick Bowen. IBM has stated that they have produced documents from their files, and should provide affidavits stating that IBM has performed a reasonable search of their files and produced responsive, non-privileged documents. If SCO believes the production is insufficient, they should ask the individuals during depositions (which, if taken, won't count against the 50 allowed). SCO's Motion is therefore GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. Friday was the day for IBM to do that, and IBM filed two executive declarations on Friday. One affidavit is from Nicholas S. Bowen [PDF], Vice President, Software Development, IBM Systems & Technology Group, and the other is from Paul M. Horn [PDF], Senior Vice President, IBM Research, as ordered. They both say that the lawyers told them what to look for, and they did, and they turned it over to the lawyers for review, and that they believe all the responsive materials were provided to SCO. Mr. Horn's administrative assistant helped him look, as did the lawyers, in December. Mr. Bowen looked, with the lawyers, in September and turned over what they found initially, and since then, he's found more and turned that over as well. So, that's that. Of course, if SCO could ever find anything that the two executives hid in a shoebox somewhere on purpose, or trip them up in a deposition somehow, they could undermine the credibility of the two executives and hence IBM could be punished by the judge or whatever. You'll remember how IBM showed by deposition material that William Broderick's claim in his declaration that he had been uninterruptedly employed by SCO or its purported predecessors turned out not to be precisely true. As a result, the court ruled that his affidavit was insufficient to establish transfer of privilege, and IBM won its motion to compel production of documents on SCO's privilege log. That's the kind of thing SCO is hoping for. But frankly, you don't normally get to be a Vice President at IBM by hiding things in shoeboxes and then lying about it in affidavits. Consequently, I don't expect anything like what happened to Mr. Broderick to happen to either of these two, but I'm just explaining the purpose of the affidavits, so you understand the underlying chess moves.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Chani on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 03:17 PM EST |
whee! I'm first!
remember to make links clicky, and put a space in
somewhere harmless so that the link doesn't get broken up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wikipedia - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 04:44 PM EST
- Wikipedia - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 05:44 PM EST
- Wikipedia - Authored by: Wol on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 06:08 PM EST
- Wikipedia - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 06:24 PM EST
- Wikipedia - Authored by: LocoYokel on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 07:44 PM EST
- Wikipedia - Authored by: RPN on Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 04:18 AM EST
- WikipediaNeutrality disputed - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 09:57 PM EST
- Wisconsin DRE source code law gutted - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 08:27 PM EST
- Office open? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 08:45 PM EST
- Office open? - Authored by: Ed L. on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 10:17 PM EST
- Office open? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 01:39 AM EST
- Office open? - Authored by: zcat on Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 02:44 AM EST
- Ambigous language - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 06:36 AM EST
- New US law threatens anonymous posting - Authored by: gdeinsta on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 08:59 PM EST
- I can't make up my mind about this interview on SCOG?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 09:45 PM EST
- Way OT - Groklaw RSS Feeds - Authored by: tredman on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 09:50 PM EST
- Has Google gone to the Darkside? - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 11:45 PM EST
- Newspick: DRM Kills Award Chances for Movie "Munich" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 03:30 AM EST
- Way OT: Releasing my boss's app under GPL - Authored by: Sander Marechal on Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 04:56 AM EST
- 2 BECTA Reviews - UK ICT Education - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 05:21 AM EST
- Interesting - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 06:57 AM EST
- Verizon locks out non Microsoft users - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 05:53 AM EST
- Google Earth: the black helicopters have landed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 07:16 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Chani on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 03:24 PM EST |
it just took me 3 minutes to find the "reply" button.
I'll go sit in the corner now. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 03:34 PM EST |
| Even if I give it the IP address (38.113.7.197) instead of the hostname. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kjb on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 03:41 PM EST |
| No problem here.
ConsortiumInfo.org
this should be in OT
thread ---
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: Latesigner on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 05:01 PM EST |
following this all along.
Just what are the chances of the judge granting their request for the
copyrights?
---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 05:27 PM EST |
I note that all of IBM's people (as far as I can remember) have declared their
declarations to be true under penalty and perjory. Have SCO produced anything
like that, e.g. William Broderick's? If his was, was would happen then, to him
as his original answer was not completely true?
---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 06:21 PM EST |
So SCO's "granted in part" motion won them -- these 2 brief
documents, and no substantive information or advantage.
Whereas SCO's "denied in part" motion requires them to disgorge
documents sought by IBM, which reveal the inner discussions and evaluations from
counsel to mgmt regarding earlier transactions and sales of the UNIX business.
Way to go, SCO!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jcjodoin on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 06:42 PM EST |
All,
FWIW (for what its worth), when I was younger (a mere toddler), my family lived
next door to and my dad was in
graduate school with one of the mentioned execs. Our
families were good enough friends that we visited them
in several locations across the country and they've since
visited with my parents. The night my mom went in to labor
for my sister's birth, they watched me. I can vouch,
assuredly, that for at least one of the execs (and I would
dare say for both of the execs), that a shoebox full of
Linux information doesn't exist.
Just my two cents, you mileage may vary,
jeffrey
"The five fingered hand in the ocean ... swimming
with aligator fishes ..."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
