|
|
| More SCO Discovery Games |
 |
|
Friday, February 24 2006 @ 04:36 PM EST
|
I know. I know. You want to know what is news about SCO wanting more discovery. But here we are again, SCO's Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [PDF], filed in redacted form. Another motion to compel. It's not my fault they are repetitive.
Attached are numerous exhibits, Exhibits 1 - 34. Yes. 34. They want IBM to turn over a mountain of documents. IBM, in a letter you can find in Exhibit 2, tells them: Enclosed are IBM's Responses and Objections to SCO's Fifth Request for the Production of Documents. As a general matter, we believe that these document requests are tremendously overbroad and seek irrelevant information, and it is difficult to see what purpose they have other than to harass and impose undue burden on IBM. SCO asks for things like "all transaction-level data for all sales of hardware usable with Linux-based operating systems, AIX operating systems, or Dynix operating systems." Hardware. All data for sales of all hardware. Linux runs on everything, dudes, from watches to supercomputers, which is just one reason why SCO made a life-altering mistake when it dropped Linux and chose to ride off into the sunset on its crippled Unix donkey.
Here is the complete filing, all PDFs:
Exhibit 1 - SCO's Fifth Request for Production of Documents, dated December 20, 2004.
Exhibit 2 - IBM's Responses and Objections to SCO's Fifth Request for the Production of Documents
Exhibit 3-17 - Don't bother. It's all under seal.
Exhibit 18 - SCO's Seventh Request for Production of Documents, dated August 12, 2005
Exhibit 19 - IBM's Responses and Objections to SCO's Seventh Request for the Production of Documents (70 pages)
Exhibits 20, 21 - under seal
Exhibit 22 - SCO's Amended Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition dated August 15, 2005, mostly about Sequent and Novell
Exhibit 23 - Letter from Ted Normand to Amy Sorenson, in which you can see him try to wrest an "admission" from IBM regarding motives for investing in Novell
Exhibit 24-29 - under seal
Exhibit 30 - SCO's Amended Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition- One odd topic for deposition is IBM's reason for "portraying or marketing AIX... as a UNIX System-V operating system, rather than a BSD-based operating system
Exhibit 31 - a December 16, 2005 letter from IBM to SCO regarding an Amended Notice of 30(b)(6) deposition SCO served, and in the letter IBM explains its responses and objections to various topics; includes IBM agreeing to produce a witness to testify about JFS and RCU and SCO asking for all the programmers who were exposed to SCO's Unix products and then contributed to Linux
Exhibit 32, 33 - under seal
Exhibit 34 - a letter to Ted Normand from Dell's Christopher V. Popov, dated November 22, 2005, regarding a subpoena served on Dell
And they'd like all documents IBM has about Project Monterey, "including organizational charts identifying personnel involved in Project Monterey." And again they ask the court to make IBM turn over Linux materials. The court already said no to that. These lawyers need to enter the Olympics, where refusal to give up is a plus. Exhibit 1 also has a little chart, labeled The Works, where SCO lists code IBM has copyrights on, and SCO asks for every scrap of paper having to do with the copyright registrations for each item on the list. That speaks of fear on SCO's part that they really will be fined for violating the GPL. In the second paragraph, SCO admits that they need some of the materials they are asking for to deal with IBM's counterclaims. They say they want all documents that "prove or disprove that IBM's copyrights on the Works are valid and enforceable" and some proof that the copyrighted works are "original and copyrightable." Say, there's an interesting topic for discussion. Does a company actually own the copyrights it is litigating over? Hmm. I have an idea. How about SCO goes first? Between SCO and the Blackberry case, I'm thinking someone needs to rearrange the rules so that a company suing over IP has to first prove it even owns what it's suing about. After that is established, then the discovery could begin. What is this all about? How about harrassment? I also think SCO would like IBM to get sidetracked during IBM's period of discovery by having to respond to SCO's discovery requests, which were supposed to be finished by now.
SCO demurely tells the court, "IBM could produce the foregoing documents and witnesses within the current deadline (March 17, 2006) for the end of all fact discovery." Yeah, if they drop everything else and do nothing but run around in SCO circles. SCO's deadline has already come and gone as of January 27. March is IBM's deadline for *their* defense discovery. SCO was supposed to finish by now, leaving IBM alone to continue discovery into the third period, ending March 17. SCO would like the court to order IBM to produce mountains of documents for SCO instead. Most of what it wants, SCO tells the court, relates to "SCO's theory of damages with respect to its contract, copyright, and tort claims." Now, I've long understood that SCO wants IBM to hand over some money, honey. But until SCO demonstrates at least one viable claim, it seems a bit much to send IBM off on another massive make-work discovery project.
SCO needs the mountain of documents to prove its theory of damages, it argues: An obvious aspect of SCO's theory of damages is evidence of how IBM's Linux-related revenues and profits have increased from the late 1990s to the present, during the period in which IBM has undertaken to improve Linux by misappropriating SCO's protected technologies and to benefit from such improvements. A critical component of SCO's damages model will be the evolution of IBM's contributions over time and the fruits of those contributions, which were borne in its revenues in sales of Linux-related hardware, middleware, software, and consulting services. Is that not a scream? What planet are these people on? Damages for what? For crying out loud, what is the billion-dollar crime here, even if you credited SCO's account of things as outstretchedly as your sense of reality will let you? Oh, and they want to know how much money IBM made from AIX since SCO supposedly terminated the license. Now, my memory of that "termination" is that Novell cancelled it, for starters, and it was based on alleged trade secret violations, wasn't it, before SCO acknowledged it has no trade secrets in Unix? (Yup. I went to check. They "terminated" based on alleged trade secret violations, as you can see in this article from June of 2003. SCO claimed there were trade secrets in UnixWare, while admitting there are no trade secrets in Unix. But since SCO dropped that trade secrets claim, where does that leave their "termination"?) They want IBM to provide documents "concerning the market size and market shares for the Linux, UNIX, and Windows operating systems." Why? So SCO can "demonstrate how much of the market IBM has acquired and can expect to acquire as a result, in significant part, of IBM's misappropriation of SCO's proprietary technologies in IBM's contributions to Linux." I'm trying so hard not to snort. SCO wants to use that info "to demonstrate the amount of market share SCO would have realized if IBM had not used its improper contributions to Linux to make it an enterprise-ready operating system that took market share from SCO's UNIX products." SCO needs to read the Houlihan valuation again. Clearly they were not paying attention. Speaking of Houlihan, Dr. Stupid noticed some things I missed: I spotted the following in the evaluation:
Exhibit 22 --
The "fair market" evaluation of SCO's "technology" (i.e. all the
relevant IP it owned) was less than $2m. In contrast the reseller
channel was valued at $13m.
IBM-631A-3.pdf, p7 --
The evaluation of the Server products division (the oldSCO bit) makes
no mention of ownership of underlying UNIX assets. This, in the
context of an evaluation, makes no sense unless either (a) Caldera
didn't own the underlying UNIX assets or (b) they were perceived as of
no value. Neither of which is helpful to SCO.
The server group is described merely as "a vendor of UNIX operating systems"
Later on it is mentioned that oldSCO acquired the "UNIX *business*" from Novell.
IBM-631A.pdf --
Check out page 24 of the PDF, where the major factors are given for a
valuation of the SCO trademark. Strangely, being the owners of UNIX is
not one of them! You'd think it would be a factor - if it were true.
Annoyingly, IBM hasn't filed exhibit 2, the impairment analysis... To see things SCO's way, one must turn off one's brain, because otherwise one might recall that SCO back then was a Linux company that stood to benefit from improvements to Linux itself, which is why its employees helped to make it an enterprise-ready operating system. SCO, duly lobotomized and hence free of such pesky memories, tells the court it will be able to demonstrate "the amount of money IBM should disgorge to SCO as a result of IBM's wrongdoing." Disgorge. That sounds like a lot. In their dreams. And IBM's wrongdoing is what again? I've been watching every single day since this saga began, and I have yet to see it. And if SCO wants market share information, can't it just look on Google? Or hey. Shoot another email to Microsoft. I hear they keep track of such things pretty closely. What else does SCO want? Believe it or not, SCO wants to know all the IBM customers who switched to Linux. They want "all documents concerning IBM's plans, efforts or attempts to market, promote, or advertise (a) hardware products or software products usable with Linux-based operating systems, AIX operating systems or Dynix operating systemss; (b) middleware software usable in a Linux environment; or (c) services (including installation, development, maintenance, consulting, or migration services) associated with Linux-based systems or software products, AIX systems or software products, or Dynix systems or software products." Does that sound a trifle broad, do you think? Just a tad? I must be dense, but how does it damage SCO if an AIX customer switches to GNU/Linux? Wouldn't that hurt IBM instead? Say, this wouldn't be about intimidating companies so they are afraid to switch to GNU/Linux, would it?
We learn from this filing that SCO asked IBM back in August for all documents "concerning the financing, funding, sponsorship, or promotion of Groklaw." It's found in Exhibit 18.
IBM replied in Exhibit 19, beginning on page 11:
In addition to the foregoing general objections, IBM objects specifically to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. IBM also objects to this Request on the grounds that the content of the Groklaw website, a non-IBM, publicly accessible website, is as accessible to SCO as it is to IBM. Subject to, as limited by, and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, IBM states that it does not finance, fund, sponsor, or promote Groklaw; IBM does not have any agreements or arrangements with Groklaw or Pamela Jones, and IBM does not necessarily agree or disagree with the content of any of the material published on Groklaw.
So, there you have it, straight from the horse's mouth. "IBM states that it does not finance, fund, sponsor, or promote Groklaw; IBM does not have any agreements or arrangements with Groklaw or Pamela Jones, and IBM does not necessarily agree or disagree with the content of any of the material published on Groklaw."
That's true. Was SCO trying to intimidate me? Who knows? Maybe it might have if I had known about it at the time. The fact that I am just reading this for the very first time in February ought to tell them they're barking up the wrong tree.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: overshoot on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 04:41 PM EST |
Preview, HTML, clicky links, instructions in red.
Thanks in advance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MathFox on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 04:41 PM EST |
Everyone makes typos
---
When people start to comment on the form of a message, it is a sign that they
have problems to accept the truth of the message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MadScientist on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 04:48 PM EST |
It doesnt damage SCO.
This is rent seeking behavior. SCO feel or pretend that they believe that every
copy of Linux sold/used should result in them aquiring shekels in their bank
account.
They want copies of the IBM sales to estimate how much SCO are owed - under this
logic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 04:49 PM EST |
PJ said:
Between SCO and the Blackberry case, I'm
thinking someone
needs to rearrange the rules so that a
company suing
over IP has to first prove it even owns what
it's suing about. After that
is established, then the
discovery could begin.
What a simple and elegant solution.
---
Anyone who has the power
to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ's brilliance - Authored by: nerdbert on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:18 PM EST
- PJ's brilliance - Authored by: PJ on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 06:39 PM EST
- Prior Art - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:33 PM EST
- Prior Art - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:37 PM EST
- Prior Art - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:11 PM EST
- PJ's brilliance - Authored by: jbb on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 06:57 PM EST
- PJ's brilliance - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 12:49 AM EST
- PJ's brilliance - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:33 PM EST
- PJ's brilliance - Authored by: FrankH on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:34 PM EST
- That makes me think... - Authored by: Marc Mengel on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 06:08 PM EST
- PJ's brilliance - reminds me of Australian (NSW) defamation law - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:04 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 04:52 PM EST |
| This should be rejected automatically. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vulturefu on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 04:54 PM EST |
I don't understand why the heck they think Groklaw is relevant in the case.
I mean, even if IBM -WAS- sponsoring or even RUNNING Groklaw, what does that
have to do with the facts of the case? Absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zilch.
Perhaps Groklaw and GL readers have uncovered stuff that TSG finds, er,
inconvenient, but facts are facts.
Can TSG argue that GL gives IBM an 'unfair advantage' in the courtroom? That'd
be funny.
TSG: "Your honor, since IBM has supporters, aka Groklaw, we request
sanctions to level the playing field."
The Court: "Oh? What's that?"
TSG: "They have to use OUR lawyers!"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Go ahead, make my day... - Authored by: Jude on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 04:57 PM EST
- More SCO Discovery Games - Authored by: stephen_A on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:03 PM EST
- Implied admitiance of a Stock Scheme??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:24 PM EST
- SCOG's Projection - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 06:00 PM EST
- SCO is the support for Groklaw - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 06:42 PM EST
- IBM funding Groklaw, elementary my dear Pamela! - Authored by: lsmft on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:02 PM EST
- More SCO Discovery Games - Authored by: ine on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 03:21 AM EST
- More SCO Discovery Games - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 05:16 PM EST
- No subpoena for Groklaw? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 28 2006 @ 07:47 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: ProphetAl on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 04:55 PM EST |
SCO's deadline has already come and gone as of January 27. March is
IBM's deadline for *their* defense discovery.
Are you sure
about that? According to the timeline:-
27-Jan-06 - Close of All Fact
Discovery Except As to Defenses to Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused
Material
My reading is that SCOX can still do discovery in relation
to defending IBM's counter claims. I'm not saying these things fall into that
but I think SCOX still has some discovery time left.
---
Comments are
my thoughts only and not to be attributed to any other organisation, individual
or entity [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 04:56 PM EST |
| What else does SCO want? Believe it or not, SCO wants to know all the IBM
customers who switched to Linux.
Hate to have conspiracy theories; but I
can certainly think of another large company or two (each SCO licensees) that
would like that info... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: walth on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 04:57 PM EST |
| Caldera BECAME TSCOG in 2002, only aquired part of SCO in 2001, so how
can they claim that ANYTHING that happened BEFORE THEY EXISTED could have
relevance to this case?
How can the court say that information from 1985 is
relevent?
Why am I asking YOU?
Trying to figure out TSCOGs stupid
requests makes my head hurt!
heheh
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: WirelessComGuy on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 04:58 PM EST |
Wow...
I just don't know what to say. "Tenacious" doesn't begin to describe
SCOX.
Just, wow....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:03 PM EST |
I realize in matters of justice, you want to give people a fair chance to prove
their case, both the plaintiff and the defender. Personally, though, having
watched this little drama from afar for the last 3 years, I would say that the
court has possibly been too favorable to SCO, doing injustice to IBM by
prolonging the case with unreasonable requests, causing undue financial and
administrative burdens on IBM.
I realize that IBM is a big company that 'can afford it', but it still seems
unjust to me. The court really needs to get a backbone and say enough is enough,
this has gone on for too long.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ewilts on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:03 PM EST |
SCO seems to be spending a lot of discovery trying to determine the extent of
the alleged damages. IANAL, but the judge should defer all of these requests
until it's been proven that IBM did actually damage SCO. Then let the extra
discovery begin (or more likely, dropped completely, since SCO won't be able to
prove it). Right now it's a waste of everybody's time looking at things like
transaction-level detail for an IBM mainframe sale or every PC that IBM sold.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Zarbo on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:08 PM EST |
At least we finally know what TSCOG really is after from IBM during
discovery. We have the answer and it is short and
simple:
"The Works"
I really hope that
IBM ends up giving them "the works", and I also hope I am close enough to Utah
to hear the slapping sounds from the courtroom this
afternoon.
++Zarbo--;
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:20 PM EST |
IBM
enter Linux announcements
The
swf movie is good (whether truth or not at the time, I
dunno, but
this was 5
years ago - so SCO must have known then
too).
Nick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tufty on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:20 PM EST |
'IBM, please let or moles go through every single business transaction you have
ever made and give us every document and data file you have' - simple?
---
There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want its hide.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:22 PM EST |
| Dude, that's not a Discovery request, it's called "gathering competitive
intelligence". IMHO, IANAL ---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:27 PM EST |
> SCO's deadline has already come and gone as of
> January 27. March is IBM's deadline for *their*
> defense discovery.
Are you really sure of that? I more and more get the impression that SCO will
have nothing at all against IBM, while IBM will have a lot against SCO. Isn't
the second phase about defense? So it perfectly fits desperate SCO...
cb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PSaltyDS on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:29 PM EST |
PJ: I'm thinking someone needs to rearrange the rules so that a company suing
over IP has to first prove it even owns what it's suing about. After that is
established, then the discovery could begin.
Wow, Is that just too
simple, elegant, and beautifull to actually be done? Put the burden on the
plaintif to demonstrate ownership before proceding with discovery on the
defendant in IP cases?
In my ignorance before SCOX(E) and Groklaw, I
probably would have assumed that was how it worked (though I wouldn't have
thought about it much one way or the other). Now I wonder if such plain common
sense is even possible in the law.
---
"Any technology
distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." - Geek's Corrolary to
Clarke's Law
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:33 PM EST |
Getting Interesting Again:
We had seen some remarkably repetitive and inaccurate demands from SCO
Week after week after.... (you get the picture....
and no big mouth Darl to at least relieve the boredom :)
But now the boot is on the other foot (regardless of this inane request for more
discovery)
It's IBM's turn now...
/Scary laughter
---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"
Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:35 PM EST |
"We learn from this filing that SCO asked IBM back in
August for all documents "concerning the financing,
funding, sponsorship, or promotion of Groklaw." It's found
in Exhibit 18. IBM replied in Exhibit 19, beginning on
page 11:"
I have made a few posts here on GL. I want PAYING IBM,
LIKE NOW...
Heh.
Sometimes this saga appears to be a joke - but now, it
surely is a joke.
Pam, you really opened a can of worms (for the good!)
here.
Good on you!
Nick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:44 PM EST |
| Well no, it would not necessarily hurt IBM if a client switched from AIX to
Linux.
For AIX, you pay IBM for permission to use a copy, and you get a
year's promise that any bugs will be fixed at no charge.
For Linux, you don't
pay IBM for permission to use a copy, but if you want IBM to promise to fix the
bugs for a year so that it will support your business, then you negotiate a
contract with IBM accordingly.
Arguably it's like switching from typewriters
to wordprocessors, or punch-cards to hard disks. Progress. IBM does it before
someone else does.
Of course, there's nothing to stop a client from deciding
to switch the other way, if it suits his business better. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: snorpus on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:45 PM EST |
| All information pertaining to...
- The Winchester disk
drive
- APL
- The "golf-ball" Selectric typewriter
- Hollerith
codes
---
73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi
Comments Licensed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tredman on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:46 PM EST |
"And IBM's wrongdoing is what again? I've been watching every single day
since this saga began, and I have yet to see it. And if SCO wants market share
information, can't it just look on Google? Or hey. Shoot another email to
Microsoft. I hear they keep track of such things pretty closely."
That wouldn't go very well, either. I think the "Get The Facts"
campaign goes to show that MS thinks that Unix and Linux are doomed. According
to them, SCOX's claimable damages amount to about $0.38, allowing for cost of
living increases.
Seriously, this just keeps getting better and better. A tiny part of me will be
sad when it's all over. It'll be like the watching the last episode of a season
of Fox's "24", where I won't know what to do with myself afterwards.
---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:55 PM EST |
I'm thinking someone needs to rearrange the rules so that a company
suing over IP has to first prove it even owns what it's suing about. After that
is established, then the discovery could begin.
Now that sounds
like an excellent idea.
<cynical>Unfortunately this is
such a sane idea, and it makes so much common sense idea that it will probably
never be carried out.</cynical> ---
Intellectual Property is an
oxymoron. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 05:58 PM EST |
I'm sure there are others here who knows this history better than me, but I
believed that AIX was a fearly clean sysV system with little BSD code. So why
would IBM market AIX as a BSD system if it is'nt? Strange question.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 06:08 PM EST |
SCO's discovery is over. So now their lawyers have nothing to do. Is this
demand for new discovery, a month after their deadline, along with the last
minute depositions just a ploy to force IBM's attourneys to divert resources
from their discovery to dealing with a stream of ridiculous motions?
That's like a guy hitting a golf ball first, then screaming at the top of his
lungs while waiting for his opponent to take a stroke.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 06:11 PM EST |
Discovery ain't done, 'till SCO has won.
---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It's the old theory - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 06:50 PM EST
- Florida: - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 01:14 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 06:12 PM EST |
They say they want all documents that "prove or disprove that
IBM's copyrights on the Works are valid and enforceable" and some proof that the
copyrighted works are "original and
copyrightable."
Frm TSG's Second Amended
Complaint:
Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 410(c), the certificates of
copyright registrations for each Copyrighted Program constitute prima facie
evidence of the validity of the copyrights and of the facts stated in the
certificates. SCO and its predecessors' registered copyrights in the Copyrighted
Programs are entitled to such statutory presumptions.
(emphasis
added)
So, let me get this straight... The Court must assume that The
SCO Group's copyrights are valid and enforceable, but IBM must prove the same
for their copyrights? Give me a break.
---
"When I say something, I
put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 06:36 PM EST |
PJ, what beautiful imagery! Darl riding off into the sunset, an ass on a
donkey!
I just couldn't resist.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:31 PM EST |
The SCO motions being heard at today's hearing were both denied, with SCO having
30 days to renew the second if their
2-week review of IBM's recent document dump turned up something *specific* they
needed to pursue.
Darl McB was there, and on the way out something like this to the geek side of
the gallery: "Guess you guys won this round".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:49 PM EST |
It seems that every time SCO tries to scam more discovery, or whatever, IBM has
to file a counter motion responding and objecting that motion. As if the motion
were possibly valid.
Isn't there some mechanism where IBM could instead directly ask the magistrate
or presiding judge for a ruling? Something along the lines of "Please
instruct SCO that they are to file no more motions for discovery now that the
deadline has passed".
If there isn't then there should be!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:57 PM EST |
You know, it might be worth noting that the size of IBM's "windows
business"
is now effectively zero, since they sold that part of the business to
Lenovo.
Maybe SCO should subpoena them...and sue China next. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: David Dudek on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:58 PM EST |
The only potential losses SCO may have is the loss of their own customers. They
know who they are (or were).
They should subpoena THEIR OWN customers. Find out if they are planning to
escape or why they did switch. Ask why they were induced to switch and who did
it.
Nothing like a subpeona to improve your customer relations!
---
David Dudek[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Observer on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:17 AM EST |
| IBM probably doesn't agree with us here when we roll around on the floor kicking
and screaming in laughter over SCO's latest huffing and puffing about getting
more discovery. No, no. They are much too staid for that kind of
silliness!
They just snicker quietly and go back to sharpening their
sabers...
---
The Observer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:24 AM EST |
Totally fascinating. The document reads like something that was put together as
a marketing document, and the only thing that it could be marketing is TSCOG
shares (at least that I can see). There is several usages of the word
"disgorge" as if the case has already been decided in TSCOG's favor,
and that the only issue left is the amount that the court will award!
And of course there's the repetition - we've seen the same soft of requests
several times before. There's something very strange here - the TSCOG lawyers
are now sounding like Stepford Wives...
---
Wayne
http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Naich on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 04:31 AM EST |
The Perry Mason moment didn't happen, so they are now trying Columbo's favourite
tactic - wait until the questions are over and then "Oh, just one more
thing..."
Well, it worked for him. IBM will get so enraged at the hassling that they'll
blurt out something incriminating. It's a fiendishly clever tactic.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 09:15 AM EST |
"I must be dense, but how does it damage SCO if an AIX customer switches to
GNU/Linux? Wouldn't that hurt IBM instead?"
Actually no, that is IBM's plan.
I work at a hospital which runs ~100 IBM RS 6000s, from blades to machines which
fill several large racks each. Our marketing representative has told us that
IBM plans to support AIX for another few (~10?) years, but that we should plan
to migrate to Linux on their hardware.
It makes sense to me - IBM sells hardware and HW/SW support services. You get
AIX free either with the hardware or with the support contract. AIX development
is an overhead cost that produces no revenue. Porting Linux to their hardware
is a much smaller cost.
The only possible downside that I can see (for IBM) is that once a customer has
migrated their software from AIX to Linux, they are much more
hardware-independent. So IBM lose a measure of customer lock-in.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sirwired on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 10:09 AM EST |
They are complaining already about having to digest a puny few hundred-thousand
pages of data. Does SCO realize how many countless billions of dollars of
business all "Linux-compatible" machines covers? It covers everything
from EVERY PC IBM has sold since the first decrepit IBM 386 to the the Blue
Gene/L, currently the fastest computer in the world.
Has SCO forgotten that at no time in it's entire 100+ year corporate history has
IBM NOT been the largest provider of IT to the world?
Have they forgotten that EVERY server IBM sells at the current time will run
Linux? In addition, Linux is embedded in many other products besides servers.
Moreover, IBM has no clue which of those servers run Linux. Since Linux is:
1) Available for free.
2) Downloadable by anybody.
3) Not downloaded from IBM in most cases.
IBM will not be able to supply complete information on which customeers have
migrated. Certainly IBM can guess, based on who purchased servers without an OS
license, and who paid for Linux support, but a complete accounting is not
possible.
SirWired[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sjlilley on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 08:40 PM EST |
I don't see a record of who's doing what (apologies if I've overlooked it).
Exhibits 18 and 19 are on the way, I'll start on Exhibit 1.
---
Steven J Lilley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 28 2006 @ 04:28 PM EST |
I can give you a list of systems that used to run SCO Unix but don't any more.
Should they be suing the company they switched to? Humm...
Now I know people here prefer Linux. But the fact of the matter is these
people switched to Windows based servers. (Sorry, my influnce wasn't
sufficient, so feel free to beat me about the head and shoulders.)
But tell me, if a customer drop SCO Unix in favor of Widows because their Unix
was not being properly supported, should SCO sue the manufacture of the Windows
OS?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
