decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO Gets 340,000 Pages of Docs from IBM, Wants More - Updated
Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 11:02 AM EST

Here's SCO's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery [PDF]. They want more discovery. I know that stuns and surprises you. IBM last week turned over 340,000 pages of documents, SCO tells the court, and SCO says that they'll review it and maybe it will turn out that it's enough for some topics, but they want more on others.

Here's what this is really all about:

SCO seeks materials and information to assess the issues and damages at the heart of this case and to prepare for IBM's renewal of its summary judgment motions and for trial.

Yes, they know what IBM is going to do, and they need the discovery to try to block them.

I know. You are as bored as I am listening to them whine about discovery. But sometimes it's helpful when they file these motions. Look at the extremely interesting exhibits they have attached.

We learn who the 30(b)(6) witnesses are that IBM is providing, and what some of them will be testifying about. Actually, the depositions have already occurred. Sam Palmisano's is over, and SCO, it turns out, deposed Louis Gerstner too, in Palm Beach. I'm sure he was thrilled.

We also learn that in July of 2003, there was a meeting of seven companies, the "Chicago 7", "reportedly gathered to oppose SCO's efforts to enforce its proprietary rights in the Linux community." That's one way of looking at it. SCO always puts the cart before the horse. It wishes to claim and enforce "rights" prior to establishing it has any, and that donkey hasn't moved an inch since March of 2003.

But what you'll enjoy reading more than anything, I think, is IBM's Amended Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition. Take a gander at the Topics attached, which tells us what they wished to discuss with SCO's 30(b)(6) witnesses. Sometimes you leave comments saying, in essence, why doesn't IBM say this or that to show the judge X,Y,Z? If you read the list of topics, I think you'll see that they have all the bases covered. Here's my personal favorite topic:

11. Communications relating to this litigation including but not limited to (a) communications with SCO's employees, shareholders, directors or officers; and (b) communications with third parties, including, but not limited to, banks, financing entities, investment banks, venture capital firms, investment analysts, and journalists.

Journalists! Ah, yes. You know who you are. I hope that topic comes up again, because the date of this Notice is March of 2004. A lot of water under the bridge since then.

Number 14 strikes my interest also:

14. SCO's distribution of Linux products, including but not limited to (a) the authority by which they have been distributed; (b) the terms under which they were distributed; and (c) SCO's decision to suspend its distribution of Linux products or code and the availability of Linux products or code for download from SCO's website.

When I was salvaging what I could from my dying hard drive the other day, I came across this screenshot I took on July 23, 2003, months after SCO in May claimed it had stopped distributing Linux:

I took earlier screenshots too, in May and June, and I snapped the next page in June, showing that the distribution was under the GPL and they knew it was:

So, they didn't stop distributing in May, and in June there was still a notice that OpenLinux was being distributed under the GPL, and at the end of July, they were still distributing to the public. I seem to recall I took a later screenshot in December, but I haven't found it yet. I hope I haven't lost it. If I do find it, I'll post it. I never saw any notice that the software being made available for download was intended just for prior customers, either, as SCO claimed. I know they posted a notice later on some distribution locations, because others have told me they saw it, but I never saw any such notice on OpenLinux. You can see in the screenshot there isn't any such notice. And there aren't any notices in any of the screenshots I took, and I know I never saw any. Damages calculations work both ways.

Update: Marbux just sent me this, which he told me I could share with you:

SCO is raising many new issues in a reply brief, which is a breach of etiquette, as it provides IBM with no opportunity to respond under the default briefing procedures. A more appropriate route for SCO to have followed would be to file a motion for a new round of briefing in light of the changed circumstance and for an extension of time to reply pending a ruling on the motion. There are other ways they could have played it as well. As it stands, IBM will undoubtedly move for permission to file a surresponse.

My guess is that Judge Wells will treat SCO's reply brief as such a motion and set a new briefing schedule for the motion to compel, since they are saying they haven't had enough time to evaluate the situation in light of the production. But such an order might well impose the requirement that SCO raise all of the issues it has with the production in its new opening brief, in effect imposing a duty to complete its review of the production quickly. That would cut off SCO later saying something like "look what we just found; now we need even more production," based on SCO's review of the IBM production.

********************

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.

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF SCO'S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

SCO respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum in further support of its motion to compel IBM to produce certain discovery.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

SCO seeks materials and information to assess the issues and damages at the heart of this case and to prepare for IBM's renewal of its summary judgment motions and for trial. IBM refused to produce basic categories of information on the basis of its boilerplate objections to SCO's requests as "overbroad," "unreasonable," or "unduly burdensome." Notwithstanding its refusal for months to produce those materials in response to SCO's document requests, IBM finally produced in response to this Motion over 340,000 pages of documents this past week. IBM offered no explanation for having withheld these materials until the close of SCO's fact discovery (and four days before SCO's reply brief on this Motion was due). SCO is reviewing the nature and sufficiency of this production to determine to what extent to pursue the issues raised in SCO's opening memorandum.

In describing its latest production in its opposition brief, however, IBM does not even purport to have produced documents directly concerning:

  • Profits for IBM's Linux-related offerings, as detailed in Doc. Req. Nos. 163-68;
  • Revenues (actual and projected), profits, and expenses for IBM's AIX-related offerings, other than those attributable to the AIX operating system, as detailed in Doc. Req. Nos. 142, 144, 148, 150, 154, and 155;
  • Revenues (actual and projected), profits, and expenses for IBM's Dynix-related offerings, other than those attributable to the Dynix operating system, as detailed in Doc. Req. Nos. 145 and 151;
  • Non-transaction level data responsive to SCO's damages requests at issue; and

2

    Market size (actual and projected) and market share (actual and projected) data for operating systems and hardware and software products relating to AIX and Dynix, as detailed in Doc. Req. Nos. 172-177.

In addition, IBM affirmatively refuses to produce:

  • Any transaction-level data responsive to SCO's document requests;

  • Documents relating to IBM customers who migrated to Linux from other operating systems, as detailed in Doc. Req. Nos. 156-59;
  • Management-level and other documents concerning IBM's strategic shift toward Linux and regarding the sales, licensing, or marketing of AIX- and Dynix-related offerings, as detailed in Doc. Req. 160-162;
  • Documents predating 2001 concerning IBM's plans, efforts, and attempts to market, promote, or advertise Linux-related products and services;
  • Rule 30(b)(6) testimony concerning IBM's interpretation of certain restrictions in its AIX and Dynix licenses; and
  • Sufficient Rule 30(b)(6) testimony concerning communications regarding SCO, Linux, AIX, or Dynix among the "Chicago 7."

SCO seeks to avert the trap SCO may face if it does not secure, analyze, and use the materials at issue. While IBM now tells this Court that the materials SCO seeks are "unnecessary," IBM does not deny that it may say the exact opposite when it renews its summary judgment motions and points to SCO's failure to analyze this same body of information at the summary judgment stage of this case. IBM simply cannot have it both ways.

3

ARGUMENT

I. IBM SHOULD PRODUCE DAMAGES-RELATED DOCUMENTS THAT SCO
SEEKS TO ASSESS THE DAMAGES IT HAS SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF
IBM'S CONDUCT

SCO's Motion seeks to compel IBM to produce documents relating to four basic categories of information concerning the damages at the heart of SCO's claims:

  • IBM's Linux-related revenues and profits;
  • IBM's AIX- and Dynix-related revenues and profits;
  • Market Size/Market Shares of operating systems relevant to this litigation; and
  • IBM customers who migrated to Linux from UNIX.

IBM initially argued that the materials SCO requested werre irrelevant. See IBM's Responses and Objections to SCO's Fifth Request for the Production of Documents (Feb. 5, 2005), Nos. 142, 146, 147, 152-59, 163, 165-69, 171-73, 176, 177, 179-81, 194, 195, 197. On that basis, SCO filed its motion to compel, highlighting for the Court the unreasonableness of IBM's view that that these materials are irrelevant.

IBM now seems to have abandoned its argument that the materials SCO seeks are irrelevant in favor of the argument (vague and unsubstantiated) that SCO's requests impose undue burden on IBM. IBM Mem. at 3-4. IBM's opposition brief fails to address the substantive arguments that SCO lays out in delineating the importance and relevance of the materials at issue. This court should reject IBM's continued attempts to withhold these materials.

IBM does not address at all its failure to produce documents concerning:

  • Profits for IBM's Linux-related offerings, as detailed in Doc. Req. Nos. 163-68;

4

  • Revenues (actual and projected), profits, and expenses for IBM's AIX-related offerings, other than those attributable to the AIX operating system, as detailed in Doc. Req. Nos. 142, 144, 148, 150, 154, and 155;
  • Revenues (actual and projected), profits, and expenses for IBM's Dynix-related offerings, other than those attributable to the Dynix operating system, as detailed in Doc. Req. Nos. 145 and 151;
  • Non-transaction level data responsive to SCO's damages requests at issue; and
  • All market size (actual and projected) and market share (actual and projected) data for operating systems and hardware and software products relating to AIX and Dynix, as detailed in Doc. Req. Nos. 172-77.

IBM does not make much more of a showing even when it explicitly opposed producing the remaining categories of materials that SCO seeks. Opposing SCO's requests for transaction-level data, for example, IBM complains only that SCO's requests are overbroad and would impose an undue burden on IBM. IBM's argument reduces to the proposition that since IBM is such a large company -- and since the alleged offense involved such large-scale activities -- IBM should be allowed to either completely withhold categories of information or unilaterally choose its own subset of materials that IBM deems sufficient to produce. IBM does not, and cannot, cite any case law for such a rule. Neither IBM's size nor the magnitude of its alleged offense exempts IBM's discovery obligation.

IBM's sole basis for not producing documents responsive to SCO's remaining damages-related document requests reduces to its blanket objection that SCO's requests are overbroad. SCO details the relevance and importance of those requests in its opening brief. See SCO Mem. at 11-14. IBM does not take issue with the relevance of these requests or with the many reasons SCO cites for needing these materials. Instead, IBM argues that some of the requests can be

5

interpreted in a broad manner that would render them "overbroad," and therefore IBM completely withheld from production any such documents.

The lone example that IBM cites on support of its position is SCO's request for documents concerning IBM customers who migrated to Linux from UNIX. IBM contends that SCO's requests might technically include "all documents concerning such company, whether or not the documents are even remotely connected to any subject matter in this lawsuit," and therefore IBM decided to withhold all documents that are indeed relevant to this litigation. IBM ignores the plain meaning of SCO's request in an effort to create ambiguity. SCO simply seeks a list of IBM customers who migrated to Linux from UNIX, and all documents that are sufficient to show that those customers migrated to Linux from UNIX and the reasons for their migrating to Linux from UNIX. Rather than produce the materials that are relevant to this litigation, IBM decided to oppose SCO's request and force SCO to file the instant Motion to obtain the plainly relevant documents.

II. IBM SHOULD PRODUCE ALL DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO SCO DOCUMENT REQUEST NOS. 293-98 AND 372

A. Requests Nos. 293-98: Documents Directly Related to Project Monterey

IBM states that its updated production "includes documents concerning the process, procedures, and guidelines for making a GA release or a PRPQ release of a product." IBM Opp. Mem. at 5. SCO understands IBM to represent that, with last week's document productions, IBM has produced all documents in its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to SCO's Document Request Nos. 293-98. With this understanding, and pending review of IBM's last-minute production, SCO may withdraw its Motion to compel with respect to those

6

documents. Should SCO discover that documents are still outstanding, SCO will continue to pursue those documents through this Motion, and this Court should order IBM to produce them.

In light of IBM's agreement to produce even "additional" responsive documents, IBM cannot credibly argue that it has not acknowledged both the relevance of those documents and the lack of undue burden in producing them. Moreover, IBM does not dispute that it is not entitled to decide unilaterally either (a) that SCO's requests only seek documents that "describe the terms 'GA' and 'PRPQ' for AIX," or (b) that IBM may produce only documents that in its own view are "sufficient to describe" that subset of SCO's requests. Accordingly, IBM should not be permitted to limit its production of these highly relevant documents.

B. Request No. 372: Documents Related to IBM's Ongoing Linux-Related Activities

Continuing unilaterally to impose the restriction without any explanation, IBM refuses to produce documents predating 2001 concerning IBM's plans, efforts, or attempts to market, promote, or advertise Linux-related products and services.1 IBM's argument that those documents are irrelevant to any of claims or counterclaims is flatly wrong.

First, such documents, from any time period, are directly relevant to IBM's own Tenth Counterclaim, which seeks a clean bill of health with respect to all of IBM's Linux-related activities. Because it cannot, IBM does not address, much less dispute, the relevance of those documents to its Linux activities, nor the relevance of its Linux activities to its Tenth Counterclaim. In fact, documents concerning IBM's efforts to market, promote, and advertise

7

Linux are essential to any inquiry concerning the propriety of IBM's Linux activities and are therefore plainly central to proving or disproving the Tenth Counterclaim.

Second, the documents are relevant to SCO's damages theories. In its contract and tort claims, SCO alleges that IBM made improvements to Linux in violation of SCO's proprietary rights. SCO expects that the documents at issue will show when and how IBM relied on those improvements in backing Linux and bringing its Linux-related products to the marketplace. In proving damages, SCO will thus be able to rely on those documents to show the value that IBM itself accorded to its wrongful contributions to Linux, as well as when those unlawful contributions were made. Thus, both to prove liability and damages, SCO is entitled to any documents that tend to reveal the range in time (including prior to 2001) when IBM initiated efforts to market, promote, or advertise its Linux-related offerings.

In addition, IBM does not dispute that it is not entitled to decide either (a) that SCO's request seeks only documents that in its own view are "sufficient to describe" that subset of the request. IBM thus concedes that it cannot properly limit the scope of its search for responsive documents that are deemed relevant.

C. Any and All Versions of AIX from 1985 to 1990

IBM argues that nothing in SCO's Motion "provides IBM or the Court with additional information as to where any such pre-1991 source code might be found." IBM Mem. at 6. Even if SCO were obligated to provide that information, SCO has repeatedly met that purported obligation. As SCO explained in its opening memorandum:

8

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

If IBM were to represent to the Court that it has looked for the source code at that and every other potential location, SCO would withdraw this part of its Motion. Otherwise, for the reasons set forth herein and in its opening brief, SCO submits that IBM should be ordered to produce pre-1991 AIX source code, which has been outstanding since the Court's January 18, 2005 Order.

III. IBM SHOULD PRODUCE A WITNESS TO TESTIFY ON RELEVANT RULE 30(B)(6) TOPICS

IBM admits that it has not produced a witness to testify on Topics Nos. 9 and 10 of SCO's Notice of November 11, 2005. IBM also failed to provide any substantial testimony regarding Topic No. 17 of the same Notice. 2

A. Topic Nos. 9 and 10

In these Topics, SCO asks IBM to produce a witness to address its interpretation of specific restrictions in its AIX and Dynix licenses. IBM argues that these Topics are irrelevant

9

and overbroad and that in any event "SCO can review these licenses for itself." IBM Mem. at 7. None of these arguments has any merit.

First, IBM misapprehends the relevance of the Topics. SCO seeks testimony on IBM's interpretation of the language used in its AIX and Dynix licenses because that language closely parallels language used in its System V licenses with AT&T. SCO seeks that testimony to test the credibility of IBM's interpretation of those UNIX licenses, not because SCO is interested in the terms by which IBM licensed its products to third parties.

Second, IBM grossly exaggerates the breadth of the Topics. SCO does not seek testimony on the "legal interpretation of every term of every AIX and Dynix source code license IBM has ever entered into with any third party." IBM Mem. at 7. By their very terms, the Topics seek testimony only concerning IBM's interpretation of specific restrictions. These restrictions appear to be common to all the AIX and Dynix source code licenses that IBM has produced to date, and IBM admits that such licenses are in the "dozens." The testimony that SCO seeks thus reduces to a set of core restrictions common to most, if not all, of IBM's "dozens" of AIX and Dynix licenses.3

Third, IBM argues that "SCO can review these licenses for itself." Such a review would suffice if SCO were interested in its own interpretation of those licenses. As explained, SCO seeks IBM's interpretation, including for the purposes of testing its credibility. 4

10

B. Topic No. 17

SCO seeks testimony concerning any communications among the "Chicago 7," a consortium of companies that have reportedly gathered to oppose SCO's efforts to enforce its proprietary rights in the Linux community. After SCO filed this Motion, IBM agreed to produce Karen Smith to testify only concerning "a meeting held in Chicago on July 7, 2003 between representatives of IBM, Computer Associates, Oracle, Dell, Intel, Novell, and Hewlett-Packard, and any follow-up meetings or communications between IBM and any of those parties concerning the subject matter of the July 7, 2003 meeting." Letter from T. Shaughnessy to E. Normand dated January 20, 2006 (Exh. 2), at 4.

REDACTED

SCO does not agree with IBM's conclusion that its testimony, on a self-selected and insubstantial portion of the Topic, has rendered this part of SCO's Motion moot. It remains undisputed that the testimony that SCO seeks is relevant (at least) to SCO's tort claims. IBM therefore should be required to provide adequate testimony concerning this Topic.

11

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, SCO respectfully requests that this Court order IBM to produce documents and witnesses in response to SCO's discovery requests.

DATED this 1st day of February, 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

Counsel for The SCO Group

____[signature]____


1 IBM does even address the other categories of documents that SCO asked for in Request No. 372, including documents concerning IBM's plans, efforts, and attempts to market, promote, or advertise AIX- and Dynix-related products and services. SCO submits that these categories of documents are also highly relevant and would not be an undue burden to produce, and that IBM should be ordered to produce them.

2 Subsequent to SCO's filing this Motion, IBM agreed to produce Daniel Frye to testify on Topic Nos. 7 and 8 of the November 11, 2005 Notice.

3 By comparison, IBM has noticed topics as expansive as: "All agreements or communications between SCO, Microsoft, Sun, Hewlett-Packard, or SuSE, relating to Unix or Linux." Topic No. 23 of IBM's Amended Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition dated March 19, 2004 (Exh. 1).

4 SCO notes that it appears that IBM has not produced AIX and Dynix source code licenses for its "dozens" of licensees. To date, SCO has found fewer than ten such licenses. SCO will search for additional such licenses in IBM's productions of the week of January 27, 2006.

12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply Memorandum in Further Support of SCO's Motion To Compel Discovery was served on Defendant, International Business Machines Corporation, on the 1st day of February, 2006, by U.S. Mail, to :

David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]

Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]

Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]

____[Signature]____

13

EXHIBIT 1

14

SNELL & WILMER LLP
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
[address]
[phone]
[fax]


CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,

-against-

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM-
PLAINTIFF IBM'S
AMENDED
NOTICE OF 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION


Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK
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 defendant/counterclaim-plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") will take the deposition upon oral examination of plaintiff/counterclaim-

15

defendant The SCO Group, Inc. ("plaintiff"), on April 2, 2004, beginning at 9:30 a.m., and continuing thereafter until completed. This deposition was previously scheduled for December 18, 2003. This deposition will be taken at the offices of defendant's counsel, Snell & Wilmer, [address], and will be taken pursuant to Rules 26 and 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), plaintiff is directed 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 plaintiff, concerning the topics specified below.

The deposition will be taken before a Notary Public authorized by law to administer an oath, and continue from day-to-day until completed. The deposition will be recorded by stenographic and videotape means.

Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff is requested to produce on April 2, 2004, at the aforementioned location all documents and tangible things that relate or refer to the topics specified below.

IBM hereby incorporates by reference 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 and in IBM's June 13, 2003 First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for the Production of Documents, and supplements them as follows:

1. The term "Berkeley Packet Filter" means internet firewall software created at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, which was first deployed on the 4.3 BSD system produced by the University of California at Berkeley.

16

2. The term "GPL" or "General Public License" means the "GNU General Public License" published by the Free Software Foundation, Inc.

3. The term "Hewlett-Packard" means collectively and/or individually, Hewlett-Packard Company, its subsidiaries, and all its and its subsidiaries' directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, sales representatives, distributors, dealers, direct and indirect contractors.

4. The term "Linux" shall mean any and all versions, or other variants of any Linux computer operating system, including but not limited to any Linux kernel and/or GNU tools suite.

5. The term "Linux Kernel" means that part of the Linux operating system and applications software code that (1) controls the allocation and usage of hardware resources of a computer, including but not limited to processor scheduling, memory management, file systems, and control of peripheral devices and network connections, and (2) provides a system call interface and platform for developing and running applications.

6. The term "Linux Kernel Personality" means the feature of the Open UNIX8 operating system distributed by SCO that enables the installation and direct, native execution of Linux applications.

7. The term "Microsoft" means collectively and/or individually, Microsoft Corporation, its subsidiaries, and all its and its subsidiaries' directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, sales representatives, distributors, dealers, direct and indirect contractors.

17

8. The term "SCO" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, The SCO Group, Inc., Caldera Systems, Inc., or Caldera International, Inc., and all of its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were in part or in whole acquired by or merged with The SCO Group, Inc., Caldera Systems, Inc., or Caldera International, Inc., affiliates, subsidiaries or predecessor companies of The SCO Group, Inc., Caldera Systems, Inc., or Caldera International, Inc., and/or all other persons acting on behalf of The SCO Group, Inc., Caldera Systems, Inc., or Caldera International, Inc. This does not include Tarantella, Inc., other than the Server Software and Professional Services divisions acquired in 2001 by Caldera International, Inc. from Tarantella, Inc., f/k/a The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.

9. The term "SCOsource" means SCO's business division to manage its Unix System intellectual property.

10. The term "SCOsource Update" refers to the August 18, 2003 presentation by Chris Sontag and Mark J. Heise at the SCO Forum 2003 in Las Vegas.

11. The term "SuSE" means, collectively and/or individually, SuSE AG and SuSE Inc., their subsidiaries, and all their and their subsidiaries' directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, sales representatives, distributors, dealers, direct and indirect contractors.

12. The "Technology License Agreement" means the Technology License Agreement between Novell, Inc. and The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., dated December 6, 1995.

18

DATED this 19th day of March, 2004.

Snell & Wilmer LLP

___[signature]___
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott

Counsel for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

Of counsel:

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Donald J. Rosenberg
Alec S. Berman
[address, phone]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

19

Topics

1. The organization and structure of SCO since its inception.

2. SCO's responses to IBM's discovery requests.

3. SCO's allegations of misconduct by IBM and the factual basis of those allegations.

4. All source code and other material in Linux, including but not limited to the Linux Kernel, any Linux operating system and any Linux distribution) to which SCO has rights (identified, where appropriate, by product, file and line of code); and (b) the nature of SCO's rights, including but not limited to whether and how the code or other material derives from UNIX.

5. With respect to each product identified by SCO in response to IBM's Interrogatory No. 11, (a) the identify of the persons to whom SCO has marketed or distributed those products; (b) the dates on which SCO has marketed or distributed those products; and (c) the terms on which each was marketed or distributed.

6. The development of the Linux Kernel Personality, including but not limited to: (a) the reasons for its development; (b) the period of its development; (c) the process of its development; (d) the persons involved in its development; (e) the identity of the code of which it is comprised (by file and line of code); (f) the precise origin of that code (by file and line of code); (g) the extent to which it incorporates code, methods, concepts, ideas, techniques, know-how, sequences, structures or the look-and-feel of Linux.

20

7. All agreements and communications from December 2002 to the present between SCO and any other person, other than IBM, concerning SCO's intent to sue persons distributing or using Linux products without license from SCO.

8. SCOsource, including but not limited to its charter, licensing programs, licensees, and licenses, including all licenses for Linux.

9. Unix materials, including manuals, received by SCO from AT&T, USL, Novell, or Tarantella.

10. The sale of assets by Tarantella to SCO, including but not limited to Tarantella's Server Software and Professional Services divisions.

11. Communications relating to this litigation including but not limited to (a) communications with SCO's employees, shareholders, directors or officers; and (b) communications with third parties, including, but not limited to, banks, financing entities, investment banks, venture capital firms, investment analysts, and journalists.

12. Material disclosed by SCO to any person relating to SCO's allegations that IBM or others have misappropriated, misused or infringed SCO's intellectual or other property rights or have otherwise breached an obligation to SCO.

13. SCO's education programs and educational materials concerning Linux and Unix.

14. SCO's distribution of Linux products, including but not limited to (a) the authority by which they have been distributed; (b) the terms under which they were distributed; and (c) SCO's decision to suspend its distribution of Linux products or code and the availability of Linux products or code for download from SCO's website.

21

15. The GPL, including but not limited to (a) the meaning and application of the GPL; (b) SCO's use of the GPL; (c) the extent to which SCO has distributed products under the GPL; (d) whether SCO has ever breached the GPL; and (e) SCO's compliance with the GPL.

16. Any analysis, assessment, opinion, or statement relating to SCO's allegation that IBM or others have misappropriated, misused or infringed SCO's intellectual or other property rights or have otherwise breached an obligation to SCO.

17. All documents concerning the unfair competition lawsuit brought by SCO against Microsoft and the alleged destruction of those documents.

18. The identity of all Linux, open source, or public domain source code and object code ever manufactured, marketed, distributed, disclosed or made available by SCO, including but not limited to all releases of Caldera OpenLinux and SCO Linux.

19. The identity of IBM source code or object code or product documentation in SCO's possession, custody or control.

20. The Technology Licensing Agreement, including, but not limited to, (a) SCO's purported rights under that agreement, and (b) SCO's public assertion that Novell's acquisition of SuSE will result in a violation of that agreement.

21. The lawsuit, Unix System Laboratories, Inc. v. Berkeley Software Design, Inc., filed April 20, 1992 in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, including but not lilmited to all pleadings and documents relating to the suit and to the settlement of the suit.

22. SCO's purported proprietary rights to the Berkeley Packet Filter.

22

23. All agreements or communications between SCO, Microsoft, Sun, Hewlett-Packard, or SuSE, relating to Unix or Linux.

24. Public statements by SCO concerning comparisons of Unix and Linux source code, including but not limited to (a) the identities of the persons performing the underlying comparisons; (b) the dates on which the comparisons were performed; (c) the specific lines of code compared and their presence within Unix and/or open source products; and (d) the SCOsource Update.

23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 19th day of March, 2004, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was delivered to the following:
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]

Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

Kevin McBride
[address]

___[signature]___

24

EXHIBIT 2

25

[Snell & Wilmer letterhead]

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION

DATE: January 10, 2006
TO: Edward Normand
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
[Fax number, phone number]

Brent Hatch
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[Fax number, phone number]

FROM: Todd M. Shaughnessy
[Phone number]
RE: SCO v. IBM

MESSAGE:
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT: Will be sent
CONFIRMATION No.:
PLEASE RETURN TO: Debbie
REQUESTOR: Todd M. Shaughnessy
NUMBER OF PAGES (Including Cover): 3
CLIENT MATTER NO: 43649.0001
PERSONAL FAX: No
DIRECT LINE: [number]
IF YOU HAVE NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED THIS TELECOPY, PLEASE CALL US AT [phone number]. OUR FACSIMILE NUMBER IS [fax number].

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL, OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE US POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU.

26

[Snell & Wilmer letterhead]

January 10, 2006

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Edward Normand
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

RE: SCO v. IBM; IBM v. SCO

Dear Ted:

I write to follow up on my January 5, 2006 letter and our discussion this afternoon concerning deposition dates. The schedule for IBM witnesses to be deposed is as follows:

Samuel Palmisano - January 11, 2006, at 1 p.m. - Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP in New York, New York

Martin Bligh - January 16, 2006 - Cupertino, California

Roger Swanson - January 17, 2006 - Portland. Oregon

Tony Befi (individual and 30(b)(6) witness as to topics 12 and 13 of SCO's August 15, 2005 notice) - January 18, 2006 - Austin, Texas

Nicholas Bowen1 - January 18, 2006, at 2 p.m. - Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP in New York, New York

Irving Wladawsky-Berger - January 19, 2006 - Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP in New York, New York

Paul Horn2 - January 19, 2006, at 2 p.m. - IBM's office in Yorktown Heights, New York

27

Paul McKenney (30(b)(6) witness as to topic 2 of SCO's November 11, 2005 notice) - January 19, 2006 - Portland, Oregon

Dan Frye (30(b)(6) witness as to topic 8 of August 15, 2005 notice; topics 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 22 of SCO's November 11, 2005 notice; and topic 11 of SCO's December 27, 2005 notice) - January 20, 2006 - Portland, Oregon

Bryan Harold (individual and 30(b)(6) witness as to topics 6 and 7 of SCO's December 27, 2005 notice) - January 20, 2006 - Austin, Texas

Karen Smith (individual and 30(b)(6) witness as to topic 17 of SCO's November 11, 2005 notice) - January 24, 2006 - Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP in New York, New York

Jeffrey Mobley - January 24, 2006 - Williamsburg, Virginia

May Cherry - January 25, 2006 - Austin, Texas

Louis Gerstner3 - January 26, 2006, at 1 p.m. - Palm Beach, Florida (IBM will arrange the location)

Scott Handy (30(b)(6) witness as to topics 18 and 19 of SCO's August 15, 2005 notice) - January 26, 2006 - Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP in New York, New York

Joan Thomas (30(b)(6) witness as to topic 1 of SCO's December 23, 2005 notice) - January 27, 2006 - Austin, Texas


1 We are making Mr. Bowen available to testify only concerning his January 6, 2006 declaration. Please let us know as soon as possible if you do not intend to take his deposition.

2 We are making Mr. Horn available to testify only concerning his January 6, 2006 declaration. Please let us know as soon as possible if you do not intend to take his deposition.

3 Mr. Gerstner's deposition will be limited to four hours, and we agree that Mr. Gerstner's and Mr. Palmisano's depositions will count as a single deposition.

28

With respect to topics 7 and 8 of SCO's November 11, 2005 notice, subject to IBM's earlier objections, we are producing Daniel Frye to testify on those topics.

With respect to topic 17 of SCO's November 11, 2005 notice, which refers to what you call the "Chicago 7", subject to IBM's earlier objections, we are producing Karen Smith to testify concerning a meeting held in Chicago on July 7, 2003 between representatives of IBM, Computer Associates, Oracle, Dell, Intel, Novell, and Hewlett-Packard, and any follow-up meetings or communications between IBM and any of those parties concerning the subject matter of the July 7, 2003.

The production of witnesses in response to SCO's December 23, 2005 and December 27, 2005 notices of 30(b)(6) deposition is made subject to, as limited by, and without waiving our objections to those notices, which we will provide to you by the end of the week. On the topics for which we will produce witnesses (including the ones referenced in the table above), we plan to produce the witnesses for depositions between January 17 and January 27.

Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,

---[signature---
Todd M. Shaughnessy

TMS:dw
cc: Brent Hatch
David Marriott
Peter Ligh
Amy Sorenson
Curt Drake

29

EXHIBIT 3
(REMAINS UNDER SEAL)

30


  


SCO Gets 340,000 Pages of Docs from IBM, Wants More - Updated | 230 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off topic here please
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 11:23 AM EST

Please post in HTML, and put in those links; instructions are at the end of the posting page. If you cannot do this, post it anyway.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: Will Taber on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 11:45 AM EST
Corrections here if needed so that PJ can find them.
You know the drill.

Will

[ Reply to This | # ]

Certificate of Service date
Authored by: freeio on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 11:48 AM EST
"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 19th day of March, 2004, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing was delivered to the following:"

Let's get this straight: Discovery absolutely ends 27 January 2006, and this
legal paper, dated 10 January 2006 and not served until 19 January 2006 is to be
responded to just exactly how? What I see here is tomfoolery of the legal sort,
where the impossible is demanded beyond the date at which it could possibly be
achieved, without modifying the schedule.

Since delay is TSG's friend, this document seems to be about nothing more than
pushing back the schedule by any means possible.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

---
Tux et bona et fortuna est.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Gets 340,000 Pages of Docs from IBM, Wants More
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 11:53 AM EST
ARGUMENT
I. IBM SHOULD PRODUCE DAMAGES-RELATED DOCUMENTS THAT SCO SEEKS TO ASSESS THE DAMAGES IT HAS SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF IBM'S CONDUCT
I thaught you only got to play with damages after you won the case. Why are they asking for this documentation before the trial.
IANAL so their could be some Leagal reasion why this is nessacerry

[ Reply to This | # ]

Discussion of IBM's deposition topics here
Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 12:18 PM EST
Might as well centralize it...

I loved #22 - "SCO's purported proprietary rights to the Berkeley Packet
Filter."

IBM is calling them on their "Here's the Evil Code!!!!" stuff...




---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Gets 340,000 Pages of Docs from IBM, Wants More
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 12:50 PM EST
PJ, your first screenshot merely shows that some directories with interesting
names exist. They could in fact be empty. It's not proof of distribution.

...Stu

[ Reply to This | # ]

Exhibit 1
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 12:58 PM EST
Exhibit 1 is very interesting. I am curious about how deep
IBM's drill might be able to go with this. It looks like
SCO, and perhaps some others, will be trying to find rocks
to hide under. Perhaps this is related to the reports
that information on the "net" related to this has been
slowly disappearing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well written for a change
Authored by: rweiler on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 01:04 PM EST
Except for the 'Linux are' bit. I don't know how on earth IBM is supposed to
know what their *customers* are doing w/r/t to migrating to Linux. Presumably,
at best, they know how many AIX boxes they sold to each account, and how many
boxes with Linux installed. To make matters worse, a high percentage, perhaps
even the majority of those boxes, went through one or more resellers before they
reached an end user. How is IBM supposed to know that? Even SCO probably has
very limited visibility into their much smaller channel organizations. The only
problem I see for IBM is that taken at face value, this might sound reasonable
to a Judge. But IBM isn't the local hardware store, it is a multi-national
corporation with literally thousands of independent resellers as well as a
direct sales force.

---
Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from
being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush

[ Reply to This | # ]

Endless Discovery -- A Theory
Authored by: ElvishArtisan on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 01:10 PM EST
I've had a theory for some time as to why SCO seems so perpetually enamoured of discovery (beyond the obvious opportunities for delay, that is), so here it is:

This whole sorry mess of a lawsuit is based on an a priori assumption of Darl & Co. that the FOSS model can't work. It simply can't -- all this fancy talk about collaboration and contribution is really just a smoke screen for massive code stealing behind the scenes. Hence, there must be 'mountains of infringing code' out there.

Given this assumption, it's easy to see why the SCOundrels thought discovery would be an easy way to cherry-pick whatever 'infringements' they liked. Imagine the chagrin when, after 100k's of pages of materials, they find nothing. "But there's got to be something there, there just has to!! We mustn't be looking in the right place -- we need broader discovery!".

Hence, the endless discovery requests. It's the sound of total, panicked desperation at the discovery [pun intended] that the FOSS model actually works. The whole exercise not only shows Darl & Co. to be dull-witted to the point of the comatose, but also shows them up as the due-diligence dunderheads of the century.

Cheers!

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm not clear what's going on - IBM is re-issuing their notice from 2004 ? Did those deposi
Authored by: skidrash on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 01:39 PM EST
Did those depositions that IBM want to do never happen, and IBM wants to finish
them up now?

Or is this Groklaw catching up with paperwork?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Wants More
Authored by: bcomber on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 02:00 PM EST
<sarcasm on>
I think I just figured out a way for SCO to get what they need. Why don't they
just buy IBM? I mean, they've tried everything else to string this out, and now
they want more? I really think it would be much easier for them to buy IBM and
be done with it. Then they wouldn't have any more problems.. or would they? ;-)
<sarcasm off>

Mike

[ Reply to This | # ]

Old financial data
Authored by: philc on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 02:06 PM EST
How can SCO demand old financial data? Corporations are required by law to keep
7 years of financial records. Why should they expect anything earlier than 7
years before they file the suit?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Old financial data - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 02:32 PM EST
off topic
Authored by: philc on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 02:33 PM EST
It seems in observing this case that the legal system has processes in place
that result in cases taking the most time and costing the most. For example,
here the SCO vs IBM case is doing discovery on all possible aspects of the case.
After this there will be some motions followed by trial etc.

It seems that this case could be divided into a series of mini-cases that
address the key points on the case. Each minicase could have its own discovery,
motions, hearing and result before moving on to the next. This could
dramatically cut down on the total time and money needed to resolve this case.

There are some key points that could be addressed early that could directly
impact most of the case. These immediately come to mind, there are likely
others.

1) Who owns the copyrights?
2) What does the contract say about derivitive works?
3) Can Novell override SCO's decisions?

The answers to these questions greatly impact the discovery that is needed. We
start out assuming that SCO's interpretation is correct and do discovery based
on that. The court answering these questions (through the accepted processes)
would refine the scope and nature of the remainder of the complaints. This could
greatly speed up the case and dramatically reduce costs. Actually, if SCO
doesn't own the copyright, and Novell can override SCO, there is not much left
of the case. These questions can be answered with a small fraction of the time
and cost to date.

Just a thought.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are they actually asking for anything new?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 02:44 PM EST
They seem to be implying that the things they are asking for, are things they
already asked for and which IBM had not delivered. For instance they comment
that IBM had previously argued against having to deliver (some of/ many of/ all
of?) these things.

Of course this is SCO. Judge W. has already smacked them upside the head for
demanding things that she had told them they couldn't have.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I love it....
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 03:10 PM EST

"...and the reasons for their migrating to Linux from UNIX"
Wouldn't it be hilarious if 80% of the reason SCOG found for the migration was: I don't want to be sued by SCOG.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Peach of a Topic
Authored by: dobbo on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 03:55 PM EST

In the article PH wrote:

But what you'll enjoy reading more than anything, I think, is IBM's Amended Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition. Take a gander at the Topics attached.... Here's my personal favorite topic:

PJ I think you missed the real peach of a topic

6. The development of the Linux Kernal Personality, including but not limmited to: (a) the reasons for its development; (b) the period of its development; (c) the process of its development; (d) the persons involved in its development; (e) the identity of the code of which it is comprised (by file and line of code); (f) the precise origin of that code (by file and line of code); (g) the extent to which it incorporates code, methods, concepts, ideas, techniques, know-how, sequences, structures or the look-and-feel of Linux.

How did SCO get LKP to work? Did they clean room it? If not, do you think there just might be some code that was copied from Linux. If so what license did they use? It can't have been the GPL beacuse the GPL would have required that they distribute the source code. LKP is part of UnixWare (from this page that I found) so I believe that UnixWare would have had to be relased under the GPL too. I also found this page which shows LKP as part of Open UNIX 8.

For me this is the most damaging part. From th is Register article dated Aug 2000 which predates the start of the SCO case (March 2003) we see that LKP was available before the SCO case stated. IANAL, so anyone who is please correct me. But I believe that if IBM could show that SCO/Caldera including GPLed Linux code in their own products, and this happened before IBM's alleged coping the other way, then would not IBM's alleged coping be okay because the code they copied from should have been released under the GPL? I think "You broke the law first" is a defence, but I could be wrong.

Dobbo

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let me get this straight . . .
Authored by: Jaywalk on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 04:02 PM EST
IBM finally produced in response to this Motion over 340,000 pages of documents this past week. ... SCO is reviewing the nature and sufficiency of this production to determine to what extent to pursue the issues raised in SCO's opening memorandum.
So what SCO is saying is that IBM gave them a ton of stuff which might answer their objections, but they haven't read it yet. So now -- after the close of discovery -- they're looking for a court order for IBM to produce what SCO might already have?

Are they deliberately trying to irritate the judge?

---
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Gets 340,000 Pages of Docs from IBM, Wants More - Updated
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 04:06 PM EST
The bad news is that SCOG is still intent on playing discovery games. The good
news is that it is more and more apparent that SCOG has nothing else to work
with: SCOG is playing a guitar that has just one string, and that string is
getting worn to the point where it could snap at any moment.


---
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 | # ]

Yer know
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 04:47 PM EST
When I read this a picture (or movie) of the Monkey dance started playing in my
head except 'developers' got replaced with 'discovery'. Now I have it ringing in
my ears and I CAN'T GET IT OUT - yugh!

Tufty

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Yer know - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 05:52 PM EST
Damned if they do, damned if they don't
Authored by: Nice Kitty on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 05:41 PM EST
IBM gives SCO several *hundred* thousand doc's, and SCO wants "tons" more. IBM refuses to give SCO documents, and SCO wants IBM sanctioned (or whatever). Is there *NO* judge within this near-literal "abortion" of sanity with an *ounce* of what *used* to be known as "Common Sense"?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Most annoying part of the filing:
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 07:27 PM EST


SCO respectfully submits...

Yeah, right.




---
Wayne

http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not very clever sophistry
Authored by: DrHow on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 07:39 PM EST
SCO writes, "While IBM now tells this Court that the materials SCO seeks
are 'unnecessary', IBM does not deny that it may say the exact opposite when it
renews its summary judgment motions and points to SCO's failure to analyze this
same body of information at the summary judgment stage of this case. IBM simply
cannot have it both ways." This "does not deny" form of argument
could be used to bring up strawmen consisting of all sorts of absurd things
which would never even be contemplated by the 'accused' party. If there is some
legal angle which makes meaningful this line of argument (which seems totally
fallacious to me), I'd like to hear about it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Intel calls SCO liars
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 07:47 PM EST
Read IBM #613

Its a hoot!

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's interpretation
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 08:39 PM EST
of their own licenses which have "similar wording".

Now SCO is trying to play on what they hope will be IBM's fear of examining
their own licenses, I think.

Collateral damage. If we must go down in flames, threaten to burn the whole city
down. Hope that will get a fire engine directed their way. Settle out of court.
Settle out of court!

FUD, FUD, ...

(Microsot should be the ones scared, and if anyone sends a fire engine around,
we can bet we know who it's registered to. SCO may actually destroy the whole
shrink-wrap license gambit before they are done. We may have even more reason to
be glad they sued a suit they couldn't win.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

A question
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 09:50 PM EST
One for the legal beagles here. Just how does a law firm handle and analyse
340,000 pages? My eyes would have permanently glazed over after the first 340!
Just curious.

Tufty

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Gets 340,000 Pages of Docs from IBM, Wants More - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 11:49 AM EST
I came here expecting to find everybody talking about Darl McBride's new podcast
but nobody is but me!!! That means I'm either the first or the last to hear
it.

Will somebody please listen to this thing and tell me whether I'm nuts for
thinking it is like the Rosetta Stone for understanding Darl??? Honestly, and no
flaming please, I found myself sort of sympathizing with him. He gives some very
interesting context. And the music is just awesome, too.

Has anybody else heard
it? I just looked at the site http://www.businessjive.com and it's there to
download, only about 10 minutes long.

[ Reply to This | # ]

BPF isn't a firewall
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 02:21 PM EST
> 1. The term "Berkeley Packet Filter" means internet firewall >
software

That's wrong. BPF isn't a firewall. It's a filter for tcpdump
which is a network analysis tool.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )