|
SCO's Reply Memo in Support of Motion to Depose - Sealed |
|
Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:51 PM EST
|
Believe it or not, SCO has already filed its Reply Memorandum in support of its Motion for Leave to Take Certain Prospective Depositions, in response to IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Motion for Leave to Take Certain Prospective Depositions. Is that a record for speed? However, I can't let you read it because it's filed under seal. I didn't know you could file things under seal because they are embarrassing. Joke, joke. I have no idea why it's sealed, of course. And because they probably have to tell what went wrong with the crazy subpoenas and say something after Intel's blazing Response, and it might be humiliating for some lowly person in the firm who is probably Boies Schiller's designated law office failure for the purposes of the memo, I'm glad it's sealed for that person's sake. Job hunting is hard enough. Here's the Pacer info on all the latest flurry of activity from IBM, which is now at full sail into its discovery:
624 -
Filed & Entered: 02/15/2006
Certificate of Service -
Docket Text: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by International Business Machines Corporation of IBM's Seventh Set of Interrogatories (Shaughnessy, Todd)
625 -
Filed & Entered: 02/15/2006 -
Certificate of Service -
Docket Text: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by International Business Machines Corporation of IBM's Eleventh Set of Requests for Admission (Shaughnessy, Todd)
627 -
Filed & Entered: 02/15/2006 -
Certificate of Service -
Docket Text: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by International Business Machines Corporation of IBM's Eighth Request for the Production of Documents (Shaughnessy, Todd)
626 -
Filed: 02/14/2006
Entered: 02/15/2006
Sealed Document -
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** Reply Memorandum in Support of [607] MOTION for Leave to Take Certain Prospective Depositions filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk, )
|
|
Authored by: rc on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 10:11 PM EST |
And be sure to read the 'Important stuff', and PLEASE remember to use HTML mode
whenever appropriate (personally, I'd say whenever possible, but that's
just me ;-)
rc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rc on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 10:13 PM EST |
Which, other than errors in the corrections thread itself, will probably be VERY
short ;-)
rc (not believing that he made BOTH OT and kerrections in the same
day :-)
rc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 10:13 PM EST |
Yup. Always easy to blame subordinates for your failures and inadequacies. I
cannot recall that SCO has pulled that card yet. Will be interesting to hear
about it on the 24th.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RFD on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 10:42 PM EST |
Might the fact that this is sealed cause the hearing on the 24th to be closed.
Anyone planning to attent might call and check.
---
Eschew obfuscation assiduously.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 10:44 PM EST |
"I didn't know you could file things under seal because they are
embarrassing."
LOVE IT! Your commentary, PJ, is more biting these days (and it should be
so...makes for a more entertaining read!)
Your accounts of how the Yarro/McBride clan are directing this beautiful show is
the only news worth reading anymore.
Also: "To Russia, with Love" (Classic...so classic!)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I find it irritating - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 03:15 AM EST
- Then skip over and read the facts - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 03:47 AM EST
- I find it irritating - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 07:41 AM EST
- I find it irritating - Authored by: Aim Here on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 08:03 AM EST
- Shut Up - Child - Authored by: gpfister on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 09:25 AM EST
- PJ knows her stuff. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 09:27 AM EST
- I find it irritating - Authored by: nuthead on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 09:49 AM EST
- Awwww.... - Authored by: NetArch on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 12:12 PM EST
- Lost Keyboards - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 01:25 PM EST
- I find it irritating - Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 01:43 PM EST
- I find it irritating - Authored by: Nnyan on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 02:02 PM EST
- I find it irritating - and so do I - Authored by: Ed Freesmeyer on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 02:54 PM EST
- What I find irritating - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 05:43 PM EST
- Trickle down - Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 08:04 AM EST
- Trickle down - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 10:02 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 10:46 PM EST |
Sealed, hmmmmm....do you think it is possible to seal a blank piece of paper?
After all, I that sums up their entire case...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Dave23 on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 11:14 PM EST |
From reading IBM's reply, I get the feeling that the fate of this round on SCOGs
attempt at late depositions was already decided during the conference in
January.
Since the decision went against SCOG, and SCOG insisted that the
arguments be formally memorialized (for appeal?) all of this is looks to be
pro forma.
I'm 99% certain SCOG will lose this, their motion to
depose.
IANAL
--- Gawker [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: skidrash on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 11:46 PM EST |
Sigh .. when will MOG file to unseal this - she being an unbiased reporter and
all[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 11:47 PM EST |
Didn't Kimball rule on sealed motions back when G2 was whining about the
public's right to know? I thought he indicated that he didn't want to see any
more unless it was absolutely necessary.
So what constitutes necessary? SCO trying to wave some out-of-context e-mails
from IBM to Oracle in an attempt to get Larry to apply pressure to IBM? We've
seen the caliber of SCO's urgent discoveries before...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wharris on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 11:48 PM EST |
IBM's repsponse astounded us because we learned that SCO was already
denied the very depositions that they are seeking now. But SCO knew this and
thus nothing in IBM's response came as a surprise to SCO. That might explain
why they were able to file their reply so quickly (but it does give the
impression that they barely read IBM's response).
What I don't understand is why they are able to seal their reply. My
understanding is that a reply can not bring up any new topics not mentioned
in the original motion nor response; since neither of these were sealed, why
is SCO able to seal this one UNLESS their real argument was saved for this
one, denying IBM the chance to respond to it? But the tactic (if this is their
plan) won't work because IBM will respond to it at the hearing.
I can see only one reason to file this doomed motion: So that in their next
progress letter to RedHat, they can mention "SCO has filed a motion seeking
additional depositions ...". The only other plausible reason I can see is
to
establish a record for apeal, but it gives not just IBM but the court itself a
chance to clearly explain how stupid SCO's position is.
The motion has in a sense already been denyied, so it will not acheive delay;
it doesn't seem suited for press release material either; it does not advance
their case or arguments --- other than the earlier posted theories on internal
politcs between SCO, its counsel, and Normal vs BSF I can see nothing else
that gives even a partial motive for their recent actions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 11:59 PM EST |
Yeah, as always. Sealed again.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bcomber on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 02:15 AM EST |
Well, hopefully.. If someone could translate it into legalese it might make more
sense..
Aww, come on Judge, Pretty please? We just gotta have this. Pretty please??
Pretty please with a cherry on top? We promise not to do anything so utterly
stupid again. Honest. Honest Injun.. Cross our heart and hope to die! We really,
really, really need it. Without it, we don't have a case, and we are really
hoping that we find something in these depositions. Pretty Please?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Buzzword Bingo - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 09:45 AM EST
|
Authored by: Pogue Mahone on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 04:26 AM EST |
Apologies if someone has already floated the idea.
I've been wondering if
there's some behind-the-scenes horsetrading going on. Is SCO trying to settle
with IBM and get out of the counterclaims relatively cheaply? Is IBM refusing to
negotiate, or setting the price higher than SCO can afford? Can this last minute
nonsense all be explained by such a theory?
Your opinions, please...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Is SCO trying to settle with IBM? - Authored by: thechuckster on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 05:15 AM EST
- TSG would spin a settlement as a victory.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 05:26 AM EST
- I have no doubt... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 05:36 AM EST
- Is SCO trying to settle with IBM? - Authored by: elderlycynic on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 06:13 AM EST
- Is SCO trying to settle with IBM? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 08:12 AM EST
- IBM to SCOX: DELENDA EST!! - Authored by: rkhalloran on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 08:42 AM EST
- Is SCO trying to settle with IBM? - Authored by: blang on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 09:16 AM EST
- Is SCO trying to settle with IBM? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 01:29 PM EST
- Is SCO trying to settle with IBM? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 01:38 PM EST
- IBM will not settle! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 02:31 PM EST
- Why on earth would IBM ever settle?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 06:58 PM EST
- Is SCO trying to settle with IBM? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 08:26 PM EST
|
Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 07:59 AM EST |
Haven't we been here before?
As I recall it, Judge Kimball ordered that the
parties either file unsealed (preferred) or, in case of agreed-upon reasons to
seal, file redacted versions.
I notice we're once again getting whole series
of motions under seal with no redacted versions submitted. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 08:54 AM EST |
I don't think the motions or the depositions are the move being made. What is
being diverted for the 2/24 date because of this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Earnings.....? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 01:10 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 09:15 AM EST |
Why doesn't IBM formally object to shannanagins?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: skidrash on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 11:47 AM EST |
If IBM comes to the table (or to the court or the jury) with documentation from
IEEE ( are the POSIX standards issued by IEEE? )
Open Group
ISO
ANSI
NIST
and others, and brings copies of the books that released SysV code and
techniques with (real)SCO's knowledge
Will Caldera/SCOG be able to get that evidence excluded because Caldera was not
allowed to do these depositions?
Or would IBM be allowed to do that, and since Caldera/SCOG took their jolly
bloody time, it's just too bad for them?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 07:00 PM EST |
It just occurred to me that Judge Wells scheduled a hearing on this motion, even
though neither side requested oral argument. Is that in any way significant, or
am I just reading too much into that little fact?
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 12:28 PM EST |
I think they filed under seal because all the memo says is
Oh <expletive deleted> we're <expletive deleted>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|