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
IBM's Opposition to SCO's Request to Depose Intel, Oracle & Open Group
Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 10:14 AM EST

Now we find out what happened with SCO and The Open Group. Attached to IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Motion for Leave to Take Certain Prospective Depositions, lo and behold, is the subpoena SCO sent to the Open Group. It's as messed up as the other two, the ones to Oracle and Intel which are also attached. That seems impossible to achieve without deliberately filling in the forms wrong. Speaking of which, you'll notice that the subpoena to Oracle IBM attached shows it issuing from the Northern District of California. The one Oracle wrote about did not say Northern. That was one of the defects it listed. Things that make you go hmm.

It's Exhibit 2. (Exhibit 1 is a collection of email between David Marriott and Ted Normand regarding last-minute SCO requests for depositions with Jack Messman and Ed Chatlos, with Marriott agreeing to let them happen after January 27, so long as they are not part of any SCO effort to extend depositions past the deadline; Exhibit 3 is SCO's responses to IBM's First Set of Interrogatories back in October of 2003; and Exhibit 4 is filed under seal.)

IBM's memorandum reminds us, and the court, that Judge Wells has already told SCO they can't extend depositions past January 27:

SCO’s motion seeks an extension of the January 27, 2006 deadline for the purpose of taking additional depositions. Not only did SCO commit that it would not seek to extend that deadline, but the Court expressly ruled that SCO would not be allowed to do so. SCO’s motion therefore should be denied.

SCO being SCO, they are seeking to do exactly that anyway. The problem they have is that they told the court their notice to the Open Group, Intel and Oracle was timely. It wasn't. The Open Group was also sent their subpoena the day before the deposition date, which is no notice at all. It was sent to Massachusetts, when SCO, as an Open Group licensee, should know that the Open Group is headquartered in the UK. It issued from the [blank] District of Massachusetts.

IBM therefore asks the court to deny SCO's motion for the following reasons:

SCO should not be allowed further to extend the deadline for at least five basic reasons: (1) SCO has known about these parties for years, but failed to serve them properly until the day before the close of SCO’s fact discovery 2; (2) the Court ruled in its October 12, 2005 Order that the deadline would not be extended; (3) SCO agreed not to extend the deadline as to depositions beyond those of Messrs. Messman and Chatlos; (4) the Court informed SCO during the January 26 teleconference that the depositions of Intel, Oracle and The Open Group would not be allowed, and SCO’s motion advances no new arguments or reasons for taking these depositions; and (5) it would be prejudicial to IBM to continue to allow SCO to take more depositions—it already has been given leave to take four—during the period when discovery is supposed to be focused on defenses to the allegedly misused material. Accordingly, SCO’s motion for leave to take additional depositions should be denied.

What are the documents The Open Group was asked to bring to the deposition?

1. Documents concerning the creation or development of, and the reasons for creating or developing, Single UNIX Specification 2001.

2. Documents concerning the Open Group's policies and procedures for obtaining legal permission to obtain and use material from third parties in any standard.

3. Documents concerning the inclusion of the following header files in the Single UNIX Specification 2001:

  • difch.h
  • fmtmsg.h
  • ftw.h
  • shm.h
  • ipc.h
  • libgen.h
  • msg.h
  • poll.h
  • sem.h
  • statvfs.h
  • strings.h
  • stropts.h
  • syslog.h
  • ucontext.h
  • ulimit.h
  • utime.h
  • utmpx.h
  • utsname.h
4. Documents concerning any authority from SCO (or any of its predecessors-in-interest) to include any of the header files in Topic 3 as part of Single UNIX Specification 2001.

5. Documents concerning the creation or development of the standards appearing in The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6.

6. Documents concerning the Open Group's efforts to work on UNIX Developer Guide - Programming Interface ("UDG-PI") in order to make Executable and Linking Format ("ELF") binary specifications a publicly available standard for UNIX-on-Intel.

7. Documents concerning the creation or development of the following specification documents for Linux Standards Base:

  • Common Linux ELF Binary Specification
  • Linux for IA-32 ELF Binary Specification
  • Linux for IA-64 ELF BInary Specification
  • Linux for PPC-32 ELF Binary Specification
  • Linux for PPC-64 ELF Binary Specification
  • Linux for S-390 ELF Binary Specification

8. Documents concerning any authority from SCO (or any of its predecessors-in-interest) to include the ELF standards and documentation in Topic 7 as part of any Open Group standards release.

So, still harping on ELF, which tells me they have done nearly three years of discovery and have found absolutely nothing.

The Notice has Topics for Deposition attached as follows:

1. The creation or development of, and the reasons for creating or developing Single UNIX Specification 2001.

2. The Open Group's policies and procedures for obtaining legal permission to obtain and use material from third parties in any standard.

3. The inclusion of the following header files in the Single UNIX Specification 2001:

  • difch.h
  • fmtmsg.h
  • ftw.h
  • shm.h
  • ipc.h
  • libgen.h
  • msg.h
  • poll.h
  • sem.h
  • statvfs.h
  • strings.h
  • stropts.h
  • syslog.h
  • ucontext.h
  • ulimit.h
  • utime.h
  • utmpx.h
  • utsname.h

4. Any authority from SCO (or any of its predecessors-in-interest) to include any of the header files in Topic 3 as part of Single UNIX Specification 2001.

5. The creation or development of the standards appearing in The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6.

6. The Open Group's efforts to work on UNIX Developer Guide - Programming Interface ("UDG-PI") in order to make Executable and Linking Format ("ELF") binary specifications a publicly available standard for UNIX-on-Intel.

7. The creation or development of the following specification documents for Linux Standards Base:

  • Common Linux ELF Binary Specification
  • Linux for IA-32 Binary Specification
  • Linux for IA-64 ELF BInary Specification
  • Linux for PPC-32 ELF Binary Specification
  • Linux for PPC-64 ELF Binary Specification
  • Linux for S-390 ELF Binary Specification

8. Documents concerning any authority from SCO (or any of its predecessors-in-interest) to include the ELF standards and documentation in Topic 7 as part of any Open Group standards release.

The bottom line is this, to me. It doesn't matter what the court decides as to the outcome. SCO can depose the Open Group about ELF all day long, and they'll end up exactly where they started: with mountains of absolutely nothing.


  


IBM's Opposition to SCO's Request to Depose Intel, Oracle & Open Group | 323 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Smelling Pisstakes etc go here
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 10:19 AM EST
and any other corrrections

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Here, please
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 10:19 AM EST
I think we all know how by now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Header files under GPL ...
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 10:21 AM EST
I thought that header files basically weren't copyrightable...

And the ones in linux were mostly written from scratch by Linus, any way :-)

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wool can only be pulled so far.
Authored by: Stumbles on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 10:32 AM EST
This point noted by IBM simply astounds me;

(4) the Court informed SCO during the January 26 teleconference that the depositions of Intel, Oracle and The Open Group would not be allowed, and SCO's motion advances no new arguments or reasons for taking these depositions

Emphasis is mine.

With the usual caveats of IANAL, etal. What could SCO possibly be trying to pull here? I mean, come on. It's not like the court order said, "yeah well maybe, um, I don't know we'll cross that bridge when we get to it". It clearly says not allowed.

Frankly I don't get it. Is Boise and crew not communicating with SCO at all? I mean shouldn't the SCO lawyers be saying things like, look we really shouldn't be doing these sorts of things because it costs us integrity, honesty, etc in the eyes of the court. And as PJ pointed out when those things are lost your sunk or at the very least it's like trying to hoe a row through hard pan.

---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Opposition to SCO's Request to Depose Intel, Oracle & Open Group
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 10:37 AM EST
Is it possible that the law firm told them this was a bad idea, but the
executives went and found the forms and had their admin assistants fill them out
when competent counsel said no? Total lack of training might explain the
errors. The consensus of our legal minds was this is a dumb move. Only someone
who was so lost to reality as to act against legal advice would try it. It
brings to mind the cartoon of the two guys chained to the dungeon wall, one says
to the other, "Ok, here's my plan."

Kim Harris

[ Reply to This | # ]

Absolutely Incredible!!!!!!!
Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 11:03 AM EST
It's been awhile since SCOX and BS&F surprised me. But they've really topped
themselves this time.

For the lawyers out there. Has BS&F misrepresented enough in their filings
risk real exposure to being brought up before each lawyer's respective Bar on
ethics/malpractice issues?

---
DRM - Degrading, Repulsive, Meanspirited
'Nuff Said

[ Reply to This | # ]

They had over 2 YEARS!
Authored by: blang on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 11:07 AM EST
SCO had over 2 years to ask opengroup.

In 2003, SCO was aware of anc corrected misuse of the unix trademark, but they
also was made a ware that some of their hot smoking gun was APIS included in the
Unix specs.

Desperation, indeed.

Sounds like they are expecting a denial, and then they will moan and groan in
front of the jury that the evil IBM and the judge is trying to cover things up.
Of course, IBM will protest, and Kimball will sustain. But it is a dangerous
game to play. Maybe IBM will instead run with it, and show the jury how SCO
went about trying to get these depositions.

Nothing like the smell of desperation in the morning.

Every time IBM files another motion, it's like they scare up another skunk, as
SCO rushes into the woods.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Blank proof of service?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 11:09 AM EST
Why is the proof of service section in the subpoena (Exhbit 1) blank?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe IBM forgot
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 11:10 AM EST
to say that if SCO is successor in interest to whomever told The Open Group that they could publish the ELF de facto standard as a formal standard, they'd already have the documents in question.

O'course, that's for The Open Group to say, not IBM.

Still, maybe SCO needs some help. Perhaps they can start by looking at Tool Interface Standard (TIS) Executable and Linking Format (ELF) Specification (Version 1.2) from 1995 (pdf), the preface to which says in part:

TIS Committee members include representatives from Absoft, Autodesk, Borland International Corporation, IBM Corporation, Intel Corporation, Lahey, Lotus Corporation, MetaWare Corporation, Microtec Research, Microsoft Corporation, Novell Corporation, The Santa Cruz Operation, and WATCOM International Corporation. PharLap Software Incorporated and Symantec Corporation also participated in the specification definition efforts. This specification like the others in the TIS collection of specifications is based on existing, proven formats in keeping with the TIS Committee's goal to adopt, and when necessary, extend existing standards rather than invent new ones.

About ELF: Executable and Linking Format
The Executable and Linking Format was originally developed and published by UNIX System Laboratories (USL) as part of the Application Binary Interface (ABI). The Tool Interface Standards committee (TIS) has selected the evolving ELF standard as a portable object file format that works on 32-bit Intel Architecture environments for a variety of operating systems.

The ELF standard is intended to streamline software development by providing developers with a set of binary interface definitions that extend across multiple operating environments. This should reduce the number of different interface implementations, thereby reducing the need for recoding and recompiling code.

Since SCO is really the new name for USL :P, that should help them narrow their search. Then of course, they could just read about it on Groklaw.

---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Opposition to SCO's Request to Depose Intel, Oracle & Open Group
Authored by: ledow on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 11:14 AM EST
Okay, so let's assume that SCO are not only incompetent but also willfully going
against court orders here. What would happen if this case were thrown out on
the grounds of bad practice (i.e. doing stuff the court expressly said not to)?

I realise that that day is really a long way off anyway, but say the case gets
thrown out on a problem like that. Does this settle the case once and for all
(you had your chance and messed it up so you can't just KEEP suing people) or
does this mean that a mistrial or something similar would be called and we'd
have to go through it all again (with bad history on the SCOG side, obviously)?

Can bad law practice string a case along indefinitely or is there a point where,
whatever lawyers SCOG can pay to represent them, the case would not be heard
ever again, at least not with any of the same claims?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Move to the UK?
Authored by: sphealey on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 11:18 AM EST
Is my memory failing, or did the Open Group move to the UK at some point? When
the organization was first discussed in the trade press I would have sworn it
was in fact going to be located in Boston. Since most of the copyrights,
trademarks, etc. it manages were originally registered in the US, it seems odd
that their legal headquarters would be in another country.

sPh

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Opposition to SCO's Request to Depose Intel, Oracle & Open Group
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 11:23 AM EST
I can't believe they're bringing up ELF again. That one has long since been put
to bed.

Running out of wiggle-room SCO?

--JUGGLER

[ Reply to This | # ]

In case anybody forgets about ELF
Authored by: long_hair_smelly on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 11:31 AM EST
Be sure to read A Tall Tale About ELF - by Frank Sorenson, Dr Stupid and PJ, from way back in 2004.

It's a good read.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hungarian Courts
Authored by: edal on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 11:40 AM EST
It's a good job that these guys are not moving through the Hungarian court
system. If the lead magistrate in charge of your case spots any mistakes in the
court documentation then your case is automatically moved to the bottom of the
queue.

Last week a ninety one year old woman was in court as part of a property
dispute. After finding out that the numbered paragraphs in a document went 1-14
then 18-21 the magistrate adjourned the case until May 2008.

Ed Almos
Budapest, Hungary

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Header Files
Authored by: the_flatlander on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 11:55 AM EST
So, just for giggles, I wondered how does that list compare to Ryan Tibitt's
"Dear Linux User" letter...

From the subpoena:

difch.h
fmtmsg.h
ftw.h
shm.n
ipc.h
libgen.h
msg.h
poll.h
sem.h
statvfs.h
strings.h
stropts.h
syslog.h
ucontext.h
ulimit.h
utime.h
utmpx.h
utsname.h

From the letter:

include/asm-alpha/errno.h
include/asm-arm/errno.h
include/asm-cris/errno.h
include/asm-i386/errno.h
include/asm-ia64/errno.h
include/asm-m68k/errno.h
include/asm-mips/errno.h
include/asm-mips64/errno.h
include/asm-parisc/errno.h
include/asm-ppc/errno.h
include/asm-ppc64/errno.h
include/asm-s390/errno.h
include/asm-s390x/errno.h
include/asm-sh/errno.h
include/asm-sparc/errno.h
include/asm-sparc64/errno.h
include/asm-x86_64/errno.h
include/asm-alpha/signal.h
include/asm-arm/signal.h
include/asm-cris/signal.h
include/asm-i386/signal.h
include/asm-ia64/signal.h
include/asm-m68k/signal.h
include/asm-mips/signal.h
include/asm-mips64/signal.h
include/asm-parisc/signal.h
include/asm-ppc/signal.h
include/asm-ppc64/signal.h
include/asm-s390/signal.h
include/asm-s390x/signal.h
include/asm-sh/signal.h
include/asm-sparc/signal.h
include/asm-sparc64/signal.h
include/asm-x86_64/signal.h
include/linux/stat.h
include/linux/ctype.h
lib/ctype.c
include/asm-alpha/ioctl.h
include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h
include/asm-arm/ioctl.h

include/asm-cris/ioctl.h
include/asm-i386/ioctl.h
include/asm-ia64/ioctl.h
include/asm-m68k/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips64/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips64/ioctls.h
include/asm-parisc/ioctl.h
include/asm-parisc/ioctls.h
include/asm-ppc/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc/ioctls.h
include/asm-ppc64/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc64/ioctls.h
include/asm-s390/ioctl.h
include/asm-s390x/ioctl.h
include/asm-sh/ioctl.h
include/asm-sh/ioctls.h
include/asm-sparc/ioctl.h
include/asm-sparc/ioctls.h
include/asm-sparc64/ioctl.h
include/asm-sparc64/ioctls.h
include/asm-x86_64/ioctl.h
include/linux/ipc.h
include/linux/acct.h
include/asm-sparc/a.out.h
include/linux/a.out.h
arch/mips/boot/ecoff.h
include/asm-sparc/bsderrno.h
include/asm-sparc/solerrno.h
include/asm-sparc64/bsderrno.h
include/asm-sparc64/solerrno.h

ipc.h looks to me to be all that's held in common. errno.h is notably missing
from the inquiry to the Open Group.

The Flatlander

[ Reply to This | # ]

Appellate Bonds
Authored by: mwexler on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 12:15 PM EST
Lets say that SCO loses this case and ends up with a judgement against them of
$100,000,000 due to the counterclaims.
If they appeal, don't they need to file an appellate bond for $100,000,000.00?
What if the PIPE fairy doesn't fund this? Can they not appeal?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bad SCO, Bad Bad
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 12:22 PM EST
Did anyone other than myself notice that BSF retrospectively fixed the flawed
notice to Oracle before they filed it with the court?

Doesn't that mean that -
a) That BSF can now be accused of forgery?
b) Their certification that this is a true and correct copy is perjury?
c) That they are attempting to decieve the court?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO even got a file name wrong
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 12:40 PM EST
There's a common ELF header named dlfcn.h. There is none named difch.h.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Single UNIX Specification ... 2001?
Authored by: bmcmahon on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 01:10 PM EST

Maybe I'm missing something really obvious, but I don't know what that means. I know there was Single UNIX Specification version 2, known as UNIX 98, and Single UNIX Specification version 3, known as UNIX 03, but what the heck is this "Single UNIX Specification 2001" that they're yammering about?

Put another way, how much of this subpoena is not broken?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Opposition to SCO's Request to Depose Intel, Oracle & Open Group
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 01:42 PM EST
("District of Massachusetts" is correct, because we only have one
federal judicial district here in Massachusetts.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

X/Open, The Open Group & USL/oldSCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 01:59 PM EST
This is pretty funny. USL, Novell and oldSCO had representation on the base
kernel working group throughout the decade of the 1990's. Starting with XPG/2,
through XPG5 there was always representation. For newSCO not to know that, and
have all relevent documents already is another sign of corporate incompetence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Request to Depose Intel, Oracle & Open Group
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 02:39 PM EST
If I read this right on 1/20 IBM agreed to two late depositions, subject to
conditions that there would be no more requests.

By 1/26 they had asked for 6 more, got 2 and the Judge, (presumably Wells) said
they could not depose the others.

SCOG then filed a motion to do just that.

I found the comment by Normand that "IBM does not want to be on the
call" especially snarky, as IBM's lawyers clearly were trying to find
someone to be in a teleconference SCOG called at the last minute, despite their
representations that they wouldn't do that.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

The main thing that bothers me about the attempts at depositions is:
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 07:44 PM EST

Possibilities, given documented evidence so far:

1) Boise Schiller collectively went out to lunch - and left the office cat to
draw up the paperwork;

2) David Normand had already been to lunch and came back very much the worse for
wear [disclaimer below];

3) Recreational chemicals are involved [disclaimer below];

4) Boise Schiller and/or Normand allowed massively incompetent paperwork to be
drawn up in their name;

5) The paperwork didn't come from BS/N;

6) What?

None of the above makes any kind of sense and [disclaimer] I do not contend for
one second that any of the above scenarious could possibly apply.

So:

7) It was deliberate because they *think* they have a plan.

I repeat - What?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Grasping at Straws
Authored by: ChrisP on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 09:51 PM EST
Pure speculation of course ;-)

BSF have been working on the AIX and Dynix code for nearly two years with
minimal help from TSG because of the protective order. They or their outside
technical assistants come up with about two hundred nearly plausible allegations
of misuse, (later increased to nearly three hundred), and then Todd's letter
arrives disputing the specificity of the claims. Ted's a busy litigator with a
heavy workload, not a computer expert, and doesn't really think about that
letter, or maybe doesn't get a second opinion on the allegations, until the
Christmas break.

Then the light dawns and he realises that TSG and the case are busted, and with
motions to come soon (now) from IBM, everyone else will know that too. The case
might not even make it to trial! What to do? Meetings and brainstorming sessions
happen at the beginning of January. Result? Widen the scope of the suit by:

a) Suggesting implicitly that Oracle, and by extension other large companies,
acted illegally, perhaps at the instigation of IBM, by dropping support for
their products from TSGs operating systems. This might have a positive business
side-effect of getting TSG Unixes put back on the supported list

b) suggesting implicitly that the Chicago 7 meeting was an illegal cartel
intended to cut down TSG

c) undermine the legal basis for ELF in Linux and UNIX in POSIX.

This strategy might keep the FUD going for a while longer.

With respect to c) and looking at the Intel and OpenGroup deposition subjects, I
think BSF know they can neither challenge the OpenGroup's legal authority to
maintain and update the Single UNIX specification, nor to specify ELF on
official UNIX. But where is the OpenGroup's authority (in copyright terms) to
transfer rights to use of those UNIX files in the POSIX specification, or to use
the ELF specification in Linux? Do those original assignments of rights to the
OpenGroup back in the early '90s permit this?

So Ted has a plan, and it has to be implemented quickly before time runs out, so
he does it himself. But he's a litigator not a paralegal, and it's a rush job,
and he gets it all wrong. By the time the corrected documents are ready and
signed, the 26th., it's way too late. Better add this to the last minute
conference call with the judge about the other depositions to try and salvage
something and save face.

---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

No idea where this one will land
Authored by: AllParadox on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 10:41 PM EST
This motion is completely outside my experience.

I know me, and I can assure you that my personal experiences, the related
experience of my friends, confidants, professors, and the tens or hundreds of
thousands of appellate opinions I have read, are very broad. Way too broad.
All too often, I can cite a case directly on-point to some arcane issue, and
when I can't, I still have a very good "feel" for how it will come
out.

Not this time.

I have never heard of this one.

I have never heard of anyone stupid enough to take up a motion with a judge in a
telephone conference, have it denied, then write it up, without referencing the
Court's earlier denial, and file it with the same judge again.

There is only one cause I can imagine that would have this kind of knee-jerk,
malappropriate, result: a direct order from an immediate superior attorney. It
is the same kind of senseless, overbearing, dictatorial conduct that would cause
subpoenas to be sent out for depositions that a Judge had clearly refused.

I hope that Judges Wells and Kimball take this into account when considering Mr.
Normand.

I dearly hope that his immediate superiors are required to be present when he is
roasted for his conduct, and are under oath to tell their side of the story, in
detail.

On the flip side, I wouldn't give a nickel to be in his position. The
unpleasentness will only increase.

---
PJ deletes insult posts, not differences of opinion.

AllParadox; retired lawyer and chief Groklaw iconoclast. No legal opinions,
just my opinion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

absolutely *nothing*
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 12:55 AM EST
The bottom line is this, to me. It doesn't matter what the court decides as to the outcome. SCO can depose the Open Group about ELF all day long, and they'll end up exactly where they started: with mountains of absolutely nothing.
Hmmm - "absolutely nothing" - those words sound strangely familiar - now where could I possibly have heard them before?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prolonging The Case
Authored by: dodger on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 02:36 AM EST
In 1994 I visited Microsoft in Redmond. I was given a tour of the campus. I was
shown the 'Museum' of computers.

In that museum there was a 20 minute, expensively produced, video that was
playing in a loop, which described the fumbling of the american court system as
regards the AT&T anti-trust suit. It said something like 'AT&T was
brought to court over 80 times, and nothing came of it. We are not worried that
Microsoft is challenged by the American judicial system. It is incompetent. We
will ultimately prevail.'

These SCO cases (IBM, NOVELL, RED HAT) precisely follow this pattern of
thinking. They make a mockery of the justice system and at the same time
squander time and resources.

It is no coincidence that Microsoft purchased a license from SCO. It is no
coincidence that Bay Star, whose PIPES with Microsoft were well documented, was
brought in to invest in SCO.

The European Commission on Anti-Trust Violations and the American Judicial
System should take note. This is not a "new invention" but a variation
on the theme of rape, pillage and destroy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Diappointing omission
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 02:58 AM EST
So they subpoena the Open Group...and they don't ask about their Unix trademark.
Frankly, I'm disappointed.

bkd

[ Reply to This | # ]

If the judge doesn't impose some sanctions we have serious problems
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 03:19 PM EST
Hello,

We have here blatant lies by SCO / their lawyers. This is after the lawyers
"accidently" read out a priviledged email in court.

The lawyers are supposed to be paid professionals. They should be sanctioned for
their incompetence / deliberately misleading the court.

If not we will have an extremely bad precedent set. Future lawyers can game the
system, BLATANTLY LIE, and say "the SCO lawyers didn't get penalised so
respectfully your honour we shouldn't as well".

I hope Judge Kimball finally provides at a bare minimum a slap on the wrist.

[ Reply to This | # ]

TSG's Already Responded! Wow!
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:31 PM EST
According to PACER, TSG has already filed their Reply Brief (their answer to
this document), and they filed it the very next day after IBM filed this one
(even though court rules give them seven days to reply). They must be in one
whale of a hurry to take these depositions.

Sadly, TSG's Reply brief is filed under seal. (Imagine that...)


---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"

[ 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 )