|
|
| What SCO Asked Oracle to Produce and.. um... Where |
 |
|
Monday, February 06 2006 @ 02:12 AM EST
|
Here, as text, is, first, SCO's subpoena [PDF] to Oracle, telling them to bring documents demanded with them to a deposition to be held in Boies Schiller's offices in Oakland, CA, on January 27th at 9 AM and at the same time this Notice of Deposition [PDF] tells them to show up for a deposition on January 27th at 9 AM in Boies Schiller's offices in Armonk, New York. The subpoena as Oracle reads it seems to say it issued from the District of California, which according to Oracle's Motion to Quash doesn't exist. To my eyes, it looks more like it could be SCO just left the place on the form blank in haste, which is perhaps why Oracle called the subpoena "slapdash".It's quite a list of items SCO asked Oracle to produce in Exhibit A, attached to the subpoena. Why they bothered with a list at all is the question, because they end up asking for the kitchen sink. If you're going to be slapdash, why not just write: "Give us everything you've got. We'll paw through it, hoping to find something somewhere." No wonder Oracle told the court SCO's requests were overbroad. I can't imagine a nonparty being required to produce all that SCO here asks for (Example: "7. Documents concerning the identification of all instances in which Oracle has been asked to certify any version of any Oracle software product for operation on any operating system, but has refused to do so, since January 1, 1995."). For starters, SCO asked for documents such as agreements between Oracle and Caldera Systems, Inc. and Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. I know. You're thinking what I'm thinking: If they really were SCO's predecessors in interest, as SCO insists in its theory of the case, wouldn't SCO already have those agreements? It'd be like me suing you for crashing into my car and demanding that you produce my medical records regarding the accident. Yes, you'd likely have them, but then, so would I, and it's a lot easier to ask myself to turn them over to me, myself and I. It's an inexplicable request, unless SCO Group really *isn't* Santa Cruz Operation, for example. Now there's a theory with legs. Actually, that isn't a perfect analogy, because Oracle isn't even a party to this case. So it'd be more like I demanded your insurance agent turn over my medical records to me forthwith and show up for a deposition so I can ask him some hard-hitting questions about the state of my health. Yes, I'm teasing SCO. I can't help it. It's just so goofy.
For that matter, if we're going back to 1995, and SCO is asking for documents as old as that (despite 1995 predating the first alleged offense in the case, IIRC), what about Caldera International? What about Canopy? Don't they want any agreements with them too? Why only Caldera, Inc. and Santa Cruz? Did they forget those other hops? Sheesh. Now I've gone and done it. I hope this doesn't prompt them to seek to amend. Unless there is something they know about, some specific agreement between Oracle and Santa Cruz and/or Caldera, Inc.? But if that were the case, why not just ask for it? You normally either try to get everything in a sweep, which this doesn't do, or you go for the exact piece you are looking for, which this also doesn't do. The subpoena is dated January 10, 2006, and the Notice the 11th, and they are both signed by Edward Normand, who is no doubt being teased mercilessly in Armonk. Or Oakland. At least he didn't fall asleep in the middle of a hearing. I'll just delicately mention in passing that Boies Schiller attorneys told one journalist back in October the firm admires my attention to detail. When I read that, I puzzled over why they'd pick that quality, because I wouldn't pick it as my strong suit. I get it now. Look at the lists, and seriously ask yourself if it would be humanly possible for Oracle to find all the documents, examine them, and decide on privilege and third-party confidentiality issues in such a short time frame. To add to the difficulty, where do you show up? See what happens when you procrastinate, end up rushing, and don't pay attention to detail? I'm sorry, Ted. But it is funny. Hey, you could always blame the paralegal. That usually works. ************************************
|
Issued by the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
_________ DISTRICT OF ______ California_____________
|
The SCO Group, Inc.,
V.
International Business Machines Corp.
|
SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE
Case Number. 2:03CV00294 District of Utah
Judge: Dale A Kimball
|
TO:
Oracle Corporation
[address]
___ YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date and time specified below to testify in the above case.
|
PLACE OF DEPOSITION
|
COURTROOM
|
|
|
DATE AND TIME
|
|
X YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in the above case.
|
PLACE OF DEPOSITION
Boies, Shiller & Flexner LLP
[address], Oakland, CA 94612
|
DATE AND TIME
Jan. 27, 2006 9 a.m.
|
X YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date and time specified below(list documents or objects):
See attached Exhibit A.
|
PLACE
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
[address] Oakland, CA 94612
|
DATE AND TIME
Jan. 27, 2006 9 a.m.
|
|
__ YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below
|
PREMISES
|
DATE AND TIME
|
|
Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officer, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6).
|
ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE(INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT
[Signature of Edward Normand]
|
DATE
1-10-06
|
ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER
Edward Normand, Esq., Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLLP
[address] Armonk, NY [zip, phone]
|
[Subpoena page 2 is a form, blank]
2
Exhibit A
You are instructed to produce the following documents at the time and place specified in the subpoena:
1. Documents concerning any communications with IBM from and after June 1, 2001, relating to SCO.
2. Documents concerning any communication with IBM from and after January 1, 2003, relating to SCO's current lawsuit against IBM, SCO's current lawsuit against Novell, Inc., and SCO's current lawsuit against AutoZone, Inc. or the possibility of legal action by SCO against any of the identified parties.
3. Documents concerning Oracle's decisions to certify any version of any Oracle software product, or to decline to certify any such version of any Oracle software product, for operation on any version of SCO's UnixWare or OpenServer products at any time since January 1, 2000.
4. Documents concerning Oracle's communications, both internally and with any third party, regarding its decision(s) to certify or decline to certify any version of any Oracle software product for operation on any version of SCO's UnixWare or OpenServer products since January 1, 2000.
5. Documents concerning Oracle's business and contractual relationships with SCO, Caldera Systems, Inc., and The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., including:
a. All certifications issued by Oracle for any Oracle software product for operation on any version of UnixWare or OpenServer at any time;
b. All software agreements by which Oracle licensed any version of UNIX System V binary or source code from SCO or a predecessor (including any version of OpenServer and Unix Ware);
c. All agreements of any kind by which Oracle obtained access to any version of UNIX System V (including any version of OpenServer and UnixWare) binary or source code; and
d. The purpose, scope, duration and subject matter of all agreements of any kind between Oracle and SCO, Caldera Systems, Inc. and/or The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. since January 1, 1995.
6. Documents concerning the identification of all versions of all Oracle software products that Oracle certified for operation on any version of any
3
UNIX-based operating system, including but not limited to UnixWare, OpenServer, AIX, HPUX, Irix, Dynix, and Linux, since January 1, 1995.
7. Documents concerning the identification of all instances in which Oracle has been asked to certify any version of any Oracle software product for operation on any operating system, but has refused to do so, since January 1, 1995.
Instructions and Definitions
A. Definitions
1. The term "AIX" shall mean the UNIX-based operating system known by that name distributed and/or developed by IBM, including all prior versions, releases and maintenance modifications. The term "AIX" shall include, but not be limited to, all versions of the "AIX for Power PC" and "AIX for Itanium" operating systems.
2. The term "concerning" shall mean relating to, referring to, reflecting, describing, evidencing, referencing, discussing, or constituting.
3. The term "document" shall be synomymous in meaning and usage to the broadest scope of the term used in Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The term "document" shall include without limitation, information stored on computers, disks, tapes (i.e., magnetic or other storage media), World Wide Web pages, and electronic mailing lists. The term "document" specifically includes electronic mail ("e-mail") and any attachments and files created, maintained, or existing in electronic form.
4. The term "Dynix" shall mean the UNIX-based operating system known by that name distributed and/or developed by Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. and/or IBM, including all prior versions, releases, derivative works, methods, and modifications. The term "Dynix" shall include, but not be limited to, all versions of the "Dynix/ptx" operating system.
5. The term "include" or "including" shall mean including without limitation.
6. The term "Linux" shall mean any version of Linux.
7. The term "UNIX" shall mean any and all versions, flavors, or other variants of any UNIX computer operating system, including, without limitations, all operating systems certified as conforming to the UNIX-brand standards.
4
B. Instructions
1. Each paragraph herein should be construed independently and, unless otherwise stated, without reference to any other paragraph for the purpose of limitation.
2. Unless otherwise specified, the documents requested are the responsive documents in your possession, control or custody that were prepared, written, sent, dated, received, applicable or in effect at any time up to the date of your compliance with this demand.
3. Each requested document shall be produced in its entirety. If a document responsive to any request cannot be produced in full, it shall be produced to the extent possible with an explanation stating why production of the remainder is not possible.
4. All documents produced in response to this subpoena shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained in the ordinary course of business and, where attached, shall not be separated or disassembled.
5. With respect to any document responsive to this request that is withheld from production based upon a claim of privilege, please provide the information required pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
6. If, for reasons other than a claim of privilege, you refuse to provide any document requested herein, state the grounds upon which the refusal is based with sufficient specificity to permit a determination of the propriety of such refusal.
7. The deposition will be recorded by stenographic and audio-visual means.
5
*************************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (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.
|
SCO'S NOTICE
OF 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rules 26 and 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, counsel for plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), will take the deposition upon oral examination of Oracle Corporation ("Oracle"), on January 27, 2006, beginning at 9:00 a.m.. This deposition will be taken at the offices of SCO's counsel Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP, [address], Armonk, New York, and will be taken pursuant to Rules 26 and 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Oracle is directed, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), to designate one or more officers, directors, managing agents or other person(s) who consent to testify on its behalf concerning matters known or reasonably available to Oracle, concerning the topics specified below. The deposition will be taken before a Notary Public authorized by law to administer an oath and will continue from day-to-day until completed. The deposition will be recorded by stenographic and videotape means. SCO incorporates all instructions, definitions and rules contained in Rules 30 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules or individual practices of this Court.
DATED this 11th day of January, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver
Stuart H. Singer
Stephen N. Zack
Edward Normand
___[signature of Edward Normand]___
Counsel for The SCO Group, Inc.
2
TOPICS FOR DEPOSITION
1. Any communications with IBM from and after June 1, 2001, relating to SCO.
2. Any communication with IBM from and after January 1, 2003, relating to SCO's current lawsuit against IBM, SCO's current lawsuit against Novell, Inc., and SCO's current lawsuit against AutoZone, Inc. or the possibility of legal action by SCO against any of the identified parties.
3. Oracle's decisions to certify any version of any Oracle software product, or to decline to certify any such version of any Oracle software product, for operation on any version of SCO's UnixWare or OpenServer products at any time since January 1, 2000.
4. Oracle's communications, both internally and with any third party, regarding its decision(s) to certify or decline to certify any version of any Oracle software product for operation on any version of SCO's UnixWare or OpenServer products since January 1, 2000.
5. Oracle's business and contractual relationships with SCO, Caldera Systems, Inc., and The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., including:
a. All certifications issued by Oracle for any Oracle software product for operation on any version of UnixWare or OpenServer at any time;
b. All software agreements by which Oracle licensed any version of UNIX System V binary or source code from SCO or a predecessor (including any version of OpenServer and UnixWare);
c. All agreements of any kind by which Oracle obtained access to any version of UNIX System V (including any version of OpenServer and UnixWare) binary or source code; and
d. The purpose, scope, duration and subject matter of all agreements of any kind between Oracle and SCO, Caldera Systems, Inc. and/or The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. since January 1, 1995.
6. Identification of all versions of all Oracle software products that Oracle certified for operation on any version of any UNIX-based operating system, including but not limited to UnixWare, OpenServer, AIX, HPUX, Irix, Dynix, and Linux, since January 1, 1995.
7. Identification of all instances in which Oracle has been asked to certify any version of any Oracle software product for operation on any operating system, but has refused to do so, since January 1, 1995.
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing SCO'S NOTICE OF 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
was served by mail on Defendant, IBM, on the 11th
day of January, 2006, by facsimile and U.S. Mail to:
Oracle Corporation
[address]
David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]
Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]
and by U.S. Mail to:
Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]
____[Signature]____
4
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 02:49 AM EST |
Well, I guess it makes sense that SCO wants its evidence produced by (The)
Oracle! :p[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IRJustman on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 03:08 AM EST |
| Make 'em clickable, post as HTML, yadda-yadda. Ya know the drill by now. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Grocksters Delight - Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 08:06 AM EST
- DRM and libraries - Authored by: RogerB on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 08:17 AM EST
- Microsoft FUD from the Institute for Policy Innovation in EU anti-trust. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 09:20 AM EST
- Spare me - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 10:09 AM EST
- Microsoft lies ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 11:26 PM EST
- Very OT - but might be of interest here - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 10:40 AM EST
- French cops ditch IE (The Register) - Authored by: klog on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 11:53 AM EST
- Attn Wireless Providers, have you submitted your FCC form 477 yet? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 02:12 PM EST
- And we thought SCO had chutzpah... - Authored by: Jude on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 04:13 PM EST
- Abolish software patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 08:00 PM EST
- ConsortiumInfo speaks to the ODF opposition - Authored by: nerd6 on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 08:40 PM EST
- "Weapons of Business Destruction" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 08:51 PM EST
- Off-topic linkage - Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 08:56 PM EST
- " Amateurs again threaten to tip world upside down" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 09:14 PM EST
- OSgram - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 12:07 AM EST
- Off-topic linkage - Authored by: analyzer on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 02:58 AM EST
- "Microsoft Faces First EU Antitrust Fines" - IDG News Service - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 03:40 AM EST
- "Free software for NGOs: a toolkit" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 03:49 AM EST
- If Linus snubs new GPL, is that it for 'open source'? - Authored by: Naich on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 04:08 AM EST
- If Linus snubs new GPL, is that it for 'open source'? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 01:42 PM EST
- If Linus snubs new GPL, is that it for 'open source'? - Authored by: rcsteiner on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 01:43 PM EST
- If Linus snubs new GPL, is that it for 'open source'? - Authored by: artp on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 01:58 PM EST
- No, but it could make life easier for DRMists. - Authored by: pogson on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 02:26 PM EST
- Fate of GPL and Open Source are not linked that tightly - Authored by: artp on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 02:41 PM EST
- If Linus snubs new GPL, is that it for 'open source'? - Authored by: sgsax on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 04:54 PM EST
- US Court Structure - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 09:07 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: IRJustman on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 03:10 AM EST |
| Post 'em if ya got 'em. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 03:30 AM EST |
"1. Any communications with IBM from and after June 1, 2001, relating to
SCO."
Wouldn't it be delicious if Oracle provided some communications between their
people and IBM's discussing exactly how dumb they think SCO and its lawyers
are?
"Dumber than a decapitated chicken."
"Dumber than a dung beetle's dinner."
"Dumber than burnt toast."
...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 04:19 AM EST |
| Just curious really, I'd put tenacity near the top of the list. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: argee on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 04:28 AM EST |
The document production is supposed to go to Oakland,
California. The depositions regarding those documents
etc at Armonk, New York.
The subpoena distinguishes between SCO and Santa Cruz.
It seems the documents requested are pretty specific;
I do agree it would take some time to dig and make sure
they are all obtained, read, vetted etc. The time
frame is very iffy, but all else looks Kosher to me.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bcomber on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 04:36 AM EST |
As I started to read these documants, I was somewhat taken aback by the
language. Now I don't know if it's the way it was originally typed, but Bold
letters stating YOU ARE COMMANDED to do such and such doesn't seem appropriate.
Is this proper legalese?
Just curious..
Mike[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 05:56 AM EST |
Yes, SCO left it blank. And Oracle quoted it literally, omitting the
underscores.
Oh, what fun!
---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 06:10 AM EST |
"You are instructed to produce the following documents at the time and
place specified in the subpoena:
"1. Documents concerning any communications with IBM from and after
June 1, 2001, relating to SCO."
Trouble is, SCO aren't nearly paranoid enough.
---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: capt.Hij on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 06:27 AM EST |
See what happens when you procrastinate, end up rushing, and
don't pay attention to detail? I'm sorry, Ted. But it is funny. Hey, you could
always blame the paralegal. That usually works.
Perhaps
the law firm realizes it has run out money and has little hope of getting any
more? They may have lost a great deal of motivation. Besides, the attorneys and
paralegals who do the day to day stuff on this case for SCO's side must really
be tired of this nonsense. Surely, they understand what is going on. Those folks
must surely be sick of this and perhaps it is starting to show?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 06:37 AM EST |
The deadline was the 27th of January. SCO asked for depositions on that date. If
Oracle had any reasonable excuse for not turning over these documents on that
day at all, and asking a judge for a decision, so that the depositions don't
happen on the 27th of January, doesn't that mean it's too late for SCO anyway?
For example, with the amount of data SCO asked for, Oracle could _reasonably_
claim that it is too much and ask the judge whether they have to turn over
everything or not. If the judge had told them on the 28th of January that they
indeed have to turn over everything, wouldn't that mean it misses the deadline
anyway and these depositions can never be used in court anyway?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 08:01 AM EST |
PJ:"See what happens when you procrastinate, end up rushing, and don't pay
attention to detail?"
What happens when you carefully plan depositions so flawed the victims aren't
expected to reply, plan on telling a pack of lies to several courts about the
depositions, have a history of gaming the system? You get delay, you get extra
discovery, you get away with this sort of stunt.
If Oracle hadn't spoilt the plan with a timely response SCO would now have a
better than 50% chance of winning something from this stunt. SCO are now so
desperate to head of IBM's renewed PSJs in July they'll try anything for delay,
don't make the mistake of thinking they aren't serious about it or that there's
any manouevre too sleazy to try.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 08:01 AM EST |
6. The term "Linux" shall mean any version of Linux.
7. The term "UNIX" shall mean any and all versions, flavors, or other
variants of any UNIX computer operating system, including, without limitations,
all operating systems certified as conforming to the UNIX-brand standards.
Since Linux is posix compliant (correct me if I'm wrong), does that mean they
refer to linux when they say unix, since they say "without
limitations".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Cornishman on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 08:51 AM EST |
The form says for the Issuing Officer to indicate if s/he is attorney for
plaintiff or defendant. Ted doesn't. I wonder if BSF think the case is so
famous, and so many people have read Groklaw already, that Oracle Corporation
folks are *sure* to know who it is that Mr. Normand represents... Nope, it's
just a case of not reading the instructions, folks.
---
(c) assigned to PJ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 08:56 AM EST |
3. Each requested document shall be produced in its entirety. If a document
responsive to any request cannot be produced in full, it shall be produced to
the extent possible with an explanation stating why production of the remainder
is not possible.
Does this mean that SCO can get the full minuites of
meetings even if only one item on the agenda for that meeting was about them?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apendex B - Authored by: PJ on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 04:07 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 09:21 AM EST |
Hey, you could always blame the paralegal. That usually
works.
I'm guessing that there's not a little personal experience
behind that statement...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 09:25 AM EST |
I don't know how big a deal this is, but it occurs to me that Mr. Normand failed
to indicate that he was an attorney for the plaintiff (the subpoena form clearly
states "INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT" by the
issuing officer signature line). Is this even significant, or am I just
nitpicking?
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 09:57 AM EST |
Clearly, the case will need to be appealed and started completely over, based on
what is clearly incompetent legal representation. Ha! Ha![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO's Plan - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 10:43 AM EST
- Civil Case? - Authored by: vrimj on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 10:56 AM EST
- Civil Case? - Authored by: PJ on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 03:58 PM EST
- I can just hear Darl... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 03:30 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: aaron_tx on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 10:16 AM EST |
This may have been covered by threads for a previous article on this topic so
forgive me. In the past three years, has Oracle refused to certify their
products on SCO's operating systems? If they have you really can't blame them,
I would not want anything to do with touching SCO code. It seems to me that SCO
is trying to prove that IBM was responsible if that is the case. SCO has been
dredging the bottom of the barrel since the beginning of this whole ordeal, but
now they are getting to the scraps of the scraps.
out[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 11:09 AM EST |
Looking at the list of SCO-requested docs, SCO appears to be attempting to find
further evidence to support their “Unfair Competition” cause of action.
Specifically, SCO is looking for evidence that would show that Oracle, after
communications with IBM, decided not to certify Oracle software with an SCO OS,
and for further evidence that this was an exceptional decision by Oracle that
would not have been made absent meddling by IBM.
So – are there facts out there, i.e., an Oracle refusal to certify, that would
provide any merit to this SCO theory? For example, has Oracle done anything to
isolate SCO, like refusing certification? Is yes, was this in fact an unusual or
atypical decision by Oracle, i.e., non-standard business practice?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grundy on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 12:51 PM EST |
It stuck me as significant that all the lawyers mentioned
were happy to rattle on about the cases but:
"David Marriott ... said his client did not wish to discuss the case in the
media."
Clearly, as we already knew, some lawyers are more professional than others.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 01:37 PM EST |
Perhaps we are looking at SCO's strategy wrong here. They delivered to 3
different companys subpoenas and notices of deposition, all it appears for the
last day of discovery, January 27. Now if all documents were defective in the
same way we have 6 possible deposition locations (or as a minimum 4). Now IBM's
lawyers have to break off what they thought they were doing and should have been
doing and spend three days (a day of prep, a day of travel and a day for the
deposition at a minimum) just to go take a deposition which wasn't going to
happen (remember despite the haste SCO is using snail mail service, IBM will be
getting the notice that the deposition is "postponed" about now). SCO
has suceeded in using up 14 days of lawyer time minimum right at the critical
end of case and possibly as many as 36 days (you often send two lawyers to a
desposition so they can cover each other), eliminating those 4 to 12 lawyers
from going through those 7 magic boxes of Sco's.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 01:44 PM EST |
"See what happens when you procrastinate, end up rushing, and don't pay
attention to detail?" PJ
SCOG must have thoroughly and hopelessly confused the Japanese invented
Just-In-Time (JIT) inventory and workflow processes management with my favorite
action rule as a college age adult: "Procrastinate, then
precipitate."
---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 01:51 PM EST |
And I thought until now that I am the only person on the face of the Earth who
could put in CRASS in the word pro-CRAS-tinate. SCOG is definitely a party
pooper, so far as I am concerned.
---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 02:51 PM EST |
Darl & Co aren't stupid (much) and neither are Boise Schiller (nor
slapdash).
They *are* many things that PJ's rules of the board prohibit us from uttering!
But most of all they're now desperate.
Anything that delays the inevitable, or allows for an appeal, they're throwing
into the mix.
Because they know as well as we do that once IBM are given leave to resubmit
their PSJs all the wheels come off their little bandwagon!
Someone above said that maybe their latest tactic would be to try to restart the
case based on inadequate representation. And laughed.
I wouldn't put it past them at this stage!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 04:39 PM EST |
So, it seems as though SCOG is trying to in someway prove that if it
"weren't for those meddling kids" at IBM that Oracle would have
certified their products on more of SCO's platforms.
<sarcasm>
In the last three years has this happened? You bet!! And it is all IBM's
fault. If IBM had not stolen copyright's, trade secrets, concepts and methods,
from SCOG's UNIX, and illegally insert them into Linux, then SCO would have had
to sue IBM and make outrageous claims it can not back up with fact, which makes
SCOG sue other customers to make them really look like they've been tampered
with, forcing other partners and customers to avoid them like the plague, which
forced Oracle to stop certifying their products because they did not want SCOG
Unix anywhere near there computers, therefore it is IBM's fault gosh gall darn
it....
<sarcasm off>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 04:51 PM EST |
"There is a problem with the page you are trying to reach and it cannot be
displayed."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 08:11 PM EST |
Looks to me like the blank line was really a form to fill in the name if the
district and they just got the name wrong. Whoever filled out the form didn't
realize that California has a Northern and a Southern District and just goofed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tredman on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 08:16 PM EST |
Here's a thought...
I can only help but wonder if this has any connection to the recent MySQL
agreement just issued not too long ago. Perhaps MySQL may have been their
second choice as a partner. Number one might have been, oh, say, the largest
database company on the planet (I believe they were something like the #3
software company in the world not too long ago; may still be). Might this be
SCOX feeling spurned about not being able to ink a deal with a database player
that would have certainly brought in some serious revenue into Lindon?
I can only wonder how that conversation went:
Darl: Mr. Ellison, I'd like to propose a partnership between our two companies,
so that we may build synergistic alliances and leverage each other's
greatest...Mr. Ellison? Sir, please get up off the floor, your hysterical
laughing is embarrassing me...nevermind, I'll find my own way out, thanks...
---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skidrash on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 09:38 PM EST |
I have always, ALWAYS thought, from that attention to detail was always and
everywhere the sine qua non of legal practice.
But looking at BSF, I may be persuaded otherwise ....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skidrash on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 09:55 PM EST |
(let me try again, without the errors this time)
I have always, ALWAYS thought that attention to detail was always and everywhere
the sine qua non of legal practice.
But looking at BSF, I may be persuaded otherwise ....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 11:15 PM EST |
What's the difference between
Darl "do business with me and I'll see you in court" McBride
and
Darl "don't do business with me and I'll see you in court" McBride?
Answer: No difference, same guy.
---
Are you a bagel or a mous?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: argee on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 12:23 AM EST |
So what happens if mega-buck corporation brings a suit
against pennyless Andy? If he cannot even retain a lawyer
to reply?
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 09:23 AM EST |
I wonder when any company who they bother just BUYS SCO!?
They keep "begging" them to do so for years and at least Oracle has
been rather aggressive buying other firms. Of course a
<b>USELESS</b> piece of shit company with an even more useless (and
userless) OS like SCO is not really what Larry Ellison usually expects under the
Christmas Tree...
So maybe the next one they bother might have to provide them this "Mercy
Shot"...?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 08:02 PM EST |
Maybe SCOG should also ask for urine and feces samples from the top management
of Oracle along with samples of their pubic hair - After all, these samples
"go right to the heart of the case". SCOG should want to make sure
that Ralph Ellison is who he claims to be, right?
---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
