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
The IBM Subpoenas, as text - Updated
Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 08:26 AM EST

Here are the subpoenas to Microsoft, Sun, HP and Baystar, attached to IBM's Notice of Service of Subpoenas Duces Tecum , as text. Thanks go to Steven J. Lilley, Bernhard Nortmann, Joachim Durchholz, ethericalzen, gumnos, brooker, and Auke Jan Kroon for doing the transcribing.

The story has hit the media. Let's take a look at a few reactions, including from Microsoft and SCO. It seems they barely know each other, to hear them tell it.

First, Jack Loftus has an interview with Tom Carey, a partner with the Boston-based intellectual property firm Bromberg & Sunstein on Search Open Source. Carey says IBM is now asking the question, Was SCO acting alone? He also shares his thoughts on the case going forward:

Q: Is it fair to ask why this SCO case is still around?

Carey: In sense that's still a good question because I think by now the marketplace does not care anymore. In a sense SCO has already lost, but they have invested millions of dollars and have basically bet the company on this lawsuit. So, they just can't stop. ...

Q: What can IBM hope to achieve with these subpoenas?

Carey: IBM has fought back nicely already and I think what this news today is, is that IBM in particular is potentially looking around to see if there is any kind of illegal conspiracy going on that might cause it to name some other party as defendant.

The Seattle Post Intelligencer's Todd Bishop got a reaction from Microsoft:

Jack Evans, a Microsoft spokesman, said the company had not received IBM's subpoena as of Wednesday evening. However, he said, Microsoft is "not involved in any way" with SCO's legal action against IBM.

"SCO's case against IBM is an issue between those two companies," Evans said, reiterating Microsoft's past statements.

Well. Could be. That's their story, and they're sticking to it. Then again, those of us following along closely noted that at the December 20th hearing, we found out that IBM learned when deposing SCO CEO Darl McBride recently that there have been a lot of emails between Darl and Microsoft people, discussing of all things Linux, emails SCO's attorneys had not turned over in discovery, so it wouldn't amaze me if IBM would like to know a bit more about all that. Matt Whipp in PCPro adds this question to the mix:

The depositions set for next month will reveal exactly what was going on.

Similarly they will answer long held questions such as how Sun ever had the rights to open-source an entire Unix platform while Linux users were being sent letters demanding licensing fees for their use of Unix IP in an open-source product.

That's a good question, as in how come Sun can distribute Linux, which it did, with all the allegedly misused materials in it and SCO didn't lift a finger? As for answers, it may not be so simple. As Carey points out in his interview, we may see some pushback from the subpoenaed parties. Blake Stowell puts the SCO spin on the events, interviewed by K.C. Jones of Tech Web:

SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said the subpoenas are a normal part of the discovery process.

"We're fine with whatever it is they want to try to find out," he said. "We're a fairly open book when it comes to those relationships."

Yes. I'm sure that's the very first word you think of when you think of SCO. "Open".

So you can follow along and check the originals, here are the PDFs:

One thing I notice is that Microsoft is being asked for all documents "concerning communications or agreements relating to SCO or this litigation, including all communications with... Canopy..." That would likely mean old Canopy, in effect, back when Ralph Yarro was running it.

Update: Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols at Linux-Watch tried to get reactions from both Sun and Microsoft:

Sun spokesperson Joanne Kisling said that the company would have no comment on the subpoenas that were handed to it by IBM on Tuesday as part of the SCO Group lawsuit against Big Blue.

A Microsoft spokesman responded to Linux-Watch.com later in the day Wednesday with the following statement:

"We haven’t been served but understand we will be shortly.

"SCO’s suit against IBM is an issue between those two companies, now in the hands of the court. Microsoft is not involved in any way with or contributing to SCO's current actions with IBM or other industry actions.

"As in other cases, we will respond to proper discovery in due course. It’s important to note, however, that Microsoft, like many other companies, receives literally hundreds of requests for third-party discovery for cases in which it has no involvement."

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

1. HEWLETT-PACKARD:

EXHIBIT A

1

Issued by the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The SCO Group, Inc.

V.

International Business Machines Corporation
SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE
CASE NUMBER:1 2:03CV-0294 District of Utah
To:
Hewlett-Packard Company
[address, CA]

___YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below to testify in the above case.

PLACE OF TESTIMONY
COURTROOM
DATE and TIME
X YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in the above case. The testimony will be recorded by the following method(s):
[ ] stenographic; [ ] sound; [X] sound and visual
PLACE OF DEPOSITION
LegaLink San Francisco
[address, CA]
DATE AND TIME
March 15, 2006
9:00 a.m.
X YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects):

See Attachment A
PLACE
LegaLink San Francisco
[address, CA]
DATE AND TIME
March 7, 2006
9:00 a.m.
____YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.
PREMISES DATE and TIME
Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officer, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6).
ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT)
[signature of David Marriott] Attorney for International Business Machines Corporation
DATE
February 21, 2006
ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER
David R. Marriott, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, [address] New Yoork, NY [zip, phone]

(See Rule 45 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D on Reverse)

1 If action is pending in district other than the district of issuance state district under case number.

2

PROOF OF SERVICE

Date ________
Place ___________
Served on(Print name) ___________
Manner of Service ___________
Served By (Print name)___________
Title __________

Declaration of Server

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Proof of Service is true and correct.

Executed on
______
DATE

____________
SIGNATURE OF SERVER

_____________
ADDRESS OF SERVER

Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D

(c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS.

(1) A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena. The court on behalf of which the subpoena was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breach of this duty an appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings and a reaonable attorney's fee.

(2) (A) A person comanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, papers, documents or tangible things, or inspection of premises need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless commanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial.

(B) Subject to paragraph (d)(2) of this rule, a person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance if such time is less than 14 days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials or of the premises. If objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect and copy the materials or inspect the premises except pursuant to an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued. If objection has been made, the party serving the subpoena may, upon notice to the person commanded to produce, move at any time for an order to compel the production. Such an order to compel production shall protect any person who is not a party or an officer of a party from significant expense resulting from the inspect and copying commanded.

(3) (A) On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if it

(i) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance
(ii) requirs a person who is not a party or an officer of the party to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides, is employed or regularly transaction business in person, except that subject to the provisions of clause (c)(3)(B)(ii) of this rule, such a person may in order to attend trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the satete in which the trial is held, or
(iii) requires disclosure of priviledged or other protected matter and not exception or waiver applies, or
(iv) subject a person to undue burden.

(B) If a subpoena

(i) requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information or
(ii) requires disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion or information not describing specific events or occurances in dispute and resulting from the expert's study made not at the request of any party, or
(iii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, the court may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify the subpoena or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the subpoena is address will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or production only upon specified conditions.

(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA

(1) A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the demand.

(2) When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that it is priviledged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, comunications, or things not produces that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim.

3

Topics for 30(b)(6) Deposition of Hewlett-Packard Company

1. Agreements relating to any UNIX software product involving Hewlett-Packard and AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, or SCO, including but not limited to software licensing agreements, sublicensing agreements, and letter agreements.

2. Agreements relating to any Hewlett-Packard software product involving Hewlett-Packard and AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, Tarantella, or SCO.

3. Hewlett-Packard's rights and obligations, vis-à-vis AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, Tarantella, and SCO, with respect to any Hewlett-Packard UNIX product.

4. Royalties paid by Hewlett-Packard with respect to any UNIX product.

5. Open sourcing of any Hewlett-Packard UNIX product or public disclosure by Hewlett-Packard of the source code for any Hewlett-Packard UNIX product.

6. Origin of any UNIX source code publicly disclosed or open sourced by Hewlett-Packard.

7. Competition between Hewlett-Packard's operating system products and UnixWare and OpenServer, including but not limited to the identity and the qualities and characteristics of the products.

8. Restrictions or prohibitions on Hewlett-Packard employees having access to any UNIX product, including, but not limited to, its source code.

9. All communications between Hewlett-Packard and SCO since June 28, 2002.

10. All agreements involving Hewlett-Packard and SCO.

11. The identity of and contact information for all representatives of Hewlett-Packard who have had access to and worked with or developed UNIX source code, and the other projects/products on which they have worked.

4

ATTACHMENT A TO SUBPOENA TO Hewlett-Packard Company

You are instructed to produce the following documents at the time and place specified in the subpoena.

Documents To Be Produced

1. All documents concerning any agreement or license between Hewlett-Packard and SCO or between Hewlett-Packard and any of SCO's predecessors in interest for the use of any UNIX source code, including but not limited to all documents relating to the terminability of any such license.

2. All documents concerning any agreements relating to any Hewlett-Packard software product involving Hewlett-Packard and AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, Tarantella, or SCO.

3. All documents concerning Hewlett-Packard's rights and obligations, vis-à-vis AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, Tarantella, and SCO, with respect to any Hewlett-Packard software product.

4. All documents concerning royalties paid by Hewlett-Packard with respect to any UNIX product.

5. All documents concerning open sourcing of any Hewlett-Packard UNIX product or public disclosure by Hewlett-Packard of the source code for any Hewlett-Packard UNIX product.

6. All documents concerning the origin of any UNIX source code publicly disclosed or open sourced by Hewlett-Packard.

5

7. All documents concerning competition between Hewlett-Packard's operating system products and Unixware or OpenServer, including but not limited to the identity and the qualities and characteristics of the products.

8. All documents concerning restrictions or prohibitions on Hewlett-Packard employees having access to UNIX source code.

9. All documents concerning any communications between Hewlett-Packard and SCO.

10. The identity of and contact information for all representatives of Hewlett-Packard who have had access to and worked with or developed UNIX source code, and the other projects/products on which they have worked.

11. All documents concerning any decision by any current or prospective customer to use HP-UX instead of OpenServer or UnixWare occurring after March 7, 2003.

12. All documents concerning any efforts to ensure or maintain the secrecy or confidentiality of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods, including but not limited to: (a) any rule, policy, practice or procedure relating to the confidentiality or secrecy, or lack of confidentiality or secrecy, of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods; any breach of any such rule, policy, practice or procedure; (c) the use by any person of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods; and (d) the disclosure or availability of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods to any person.

13. Documents sufficient to identify all licensees, sublicensees or assignees of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods and all

6

persons to whom any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods has been disclosed.

14. All documents concerning SCO's rights concerning UNIX or Linux.

15. All documents concerning any agreement or understanding (written or oral) concerning SCO.

16. All documents concerning any decision, plan or offer by Hewlett-Packard (contemplated or actual) to indemnify customers concerning SCO's alleged rights concerning UNIX or Linux.

17. A copy of all UNIX materials and all soffivare materials (in electronic form, where available), including but not limited to source code and user manuals, obtained from SCO or any of SCO's predecessors in interest (including AT&T, USL, Novell or Tarantella).

Definitions and Instructions

Defendant IBM hereby incorporates by reference all instructions, definitions and rules contained in Rules 30, 33, 34, and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules or individual practices of this Court and supplements them with the following definitions and instructions;

A. Definitions

1. The term "communication" shall mean any transmittal of information, whether oral or written, including correspondence, electronic mail and other internet transmissions, web pages, Internet Relay Chat logs, telex, facsimile transmissions, telecopies, recordings in any medium of oral communication, telephone and message logs, notes or memoranda relating to written or oral communications.

7

2. The term "concerning" shall mean relating to, referring to, reflecting, describing, evidencing, referencing, discussing or constituting.

3. The term "document" shall be synonymous in meaning and usage to the broadest scope of the term used in Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The term document shall include without limitation all written, phonic, graphic or recorded matter, including without limitation, information stored on computers, disks, tapes (i.e., magnetic or other storage media), World Wide Web pages, electronic mailing lists or automated fax support systems. The term "document" specifically includes electronic mail, electronic correspondence, or electronic peer-to-peer messages ("e-mail") and any attachments and files created and maintained in electronic form in the normal course of business.

4. The term "include" or "including" shall mean including without limitation.

5. The term "object code" shall mean output from a compiler or assembler which is itself executable machine code or is suitable for processing to produce executable machine code.

6. The term "person" refers to natural persons or all private or public entities.

7. The term "Santa Cruz" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., and/or all other persons acting on behalf of The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.

8

8. The term "SCO" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The SCO Group, Inc., and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, distributors, dealers, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were in part or in whole acquired by or merged with Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The SCO Group, Inc., affiliates, subsidiaries or predecessor companies of Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The SCO Group, Inc., and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The SCO Group, Inc. This includes 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 "source code" shall mean the human-readable form of a computer program written in the original and preferred form for human inspection and modification, and includes but is not limited to source code listings; compiler and/or assembler output listings for such source code; source code listings for macros or "includes" (both executable and mapping) listings used in such source code; job control language files; and/or other files required to create an executable version of a program, including but not limited to user interface components; panels; screen definitions and help text; and c-lists.

10. The term "HP-UX" shall mean the UNIX-branded operating system distributed and/or developed by Hewlett-Packard, including all prior versions, releases and maintenance modifications.

9

11. The term "Hewlett-Packard" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, Hewlett-Packard Company and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, distributors, dealers, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with Hewlett-Packard, subsidiaries of Hewlett-Packard, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Hewlett-Packard.

12. The term "UNIX" shall mean any and all versions, flavors, or other variants of any UNIX computer operating system, including but not limited to all operating systems certified as conforming to the UNIX-brand standards set by The Open Group, the owner of the UNIX trademark.

13. The term "AT&T" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, AT&T Corporation and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with AT&T, subsidiaries of AT&T, including but not limited to AT&T Technologies, Inc., and/or all other persons acting on behalf of AT&T.

14. The term "USL" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, UNIX Systems Laboratories, Inc. and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with USL, subsidiaries of USL, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of USL.

15. The term "Novell" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, Novell, Inc. and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees,

10

consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with Novell, subsidiaries of Novell, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Novell.

16. The term "Tarantella" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, Tarantella, Inc. and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with Tarantella, subsidiaries of Tarantella, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Tarantella.

B. Instructions

1. Each paragraph should herein be construed independently and, unless otherwise directed, without reference to any other paragraph for the purpose of limitation.

2. The use of any definition for the purposes of this request shall not be deemed to constitute an agreement or acknowledgment on the part of defendant that such definition is accurate, meaningful or appropriate for any other purpose in this action.

3. Unless otherwise specified, the documents requested are the responsive documents in your possession, control or custody that were prepared, written, sent, dated, received, applicable or in effect at any time up to the date of your compliance with this demand.

4. Each requested document shall be produced in its entirety. If a document responsive to any request cannot be produced in full, it shall be produced to the extent possible with an explanation stating why production of the remainder is not possible.

11

5. Each page or sheet produced is to be marked with a consecutive document control number.

6. All documents produced in response to this subpoena shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained in the ordinary course of business and, where attached, shall not be separated or disassembled.

7. With respect to any document responsive to this request that is withheld from production based upon a claim of privilege, please provide the information required pursuant to Rules 26(b)(5) and 45(d)(2) of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

8. If, for reasons other than a claim of privilege, you refuse to produce any document requested herein, state the grounds upon which the refusal is based with sufficient specificity to permit a determination of the propriety of such refusal.

9. If there were no documents responsive to any paragraph or subparagraph set forth in the requests, please provide a written response so stating.

12

2. BAYSTAR CAPITAL:

EXHIBIT B

1

Issued by the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The SCO Group, Inc.

V.

International Business Machines Corporation
SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE
CASE NUMBER:1 2:03CV-0294 District of Utah
To:
Baystar Capital
[address, CA]

___YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below to testify in the above case.

PLACE OF TESTIMONY
COURTROOM
DATE and TIME
X YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in the above case. The testimony will be recorded by the following method(s):
[ ] stenographic; [ ] sound; [X] sound and visual
PLACE OF DEPOSITION
LegaLink San Francisco
[address, CA]
DATE AND TIME
March 16, 2006
9:00 a.m.
X YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects):

See Attachment A
PLACE
LegaLink San Francisco
[address, CA]
DATE AND TIME
March 7, 2006
9:00 a.m.
____YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.
PREMISES DATE and TIME
Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officer, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6).
ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT)
[signature of David Marriott] Attorney for International Business Machines Corporation
DATE
February 21, 2006
ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER
David R. Marriott, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, [address] New York, NY [zip, phone]

(See Rule 45 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D on Reverse)

1 If action is pending in district other than the district of issuance state district under case number.

2

PROOF OF SERVICE

Date ________
Place_________
Served on(Print name)_________
Manner of Service___________
Served By (Print name)________
Title ________

Declaration of Server

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Proof of Service is true and correct.

Executed on
______
DATE

____________
SIGNATURE OF SERVER

_____________
ADDRESS OF SERVER

Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D

(c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS.

(1) A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena. The court on behalf of which the subpoena was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breach of this duty an appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings and a reaonable attorney's fee.

(2) (A) A person comanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, papers, documents or tangible things, or inspection of premises need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless commanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial.

(B) Subject to paragraph (d)(2) of this rule, a person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance if such time is less than 14 days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials or of the premises. If objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect and copy the materials or inspect the premises except pursuant to an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued. If objection has been made, the party serving the subpoena may, upon notice to the person commanded to produce, move at any time for an order to compel the production. Such an order to compel production shall protect any person who is not a party or an officer of a party from significant expense resulting from the inspect and copying commanded.

(3) (A) On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if it

(i) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance
(ii) requirs a person who is not a party or an officer of the party to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides, is employed or regularly transaction business in person, except that subject to the provisions of clause (c)(3)(B)(ii) of this rule, such a person may in order to attend trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the satete in which the trial is held, or
(iii) requires disclosure of priviledged or other protected matter and not exception or waiver applies, or
(iv) subject a person to undue burden.

(B) If a subpoena

(i) requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information or
(ii) requires disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion or information not describing specific events or occurances in dispute and resulting from the expert's study made not at the request of any party, or
(iii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, the court may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify the subpoena or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the subpoena is address will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or production only upon specified conditions.

(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA

(1) A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the demand.

(2) When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that it is priviledged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, comunications, or things not produces that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim.

3

Topics for 30(b)(6) Deposition of Baystar Capital

1. Communications between Baystar and SCO.

2. Agreements involving Baystar and SCO.

3. Baystar's relationship with SCO.

4. Statements made by Baystar about SCO.

5. Baystar's investment in SCO.

6. Baystar's knowledge of SCO's business.

7. Communications between Baystar and Microsoft regarding SCO, IBM, or this litigation.

8. Baystar's response to and efforts to comply with this subpoena and IBM's subpoena to Baystar dated May 10, 2004.

4

ATTACHMENT A TO SUBPOENA TO BAYSTAR CAPITAL

You are instructed to produce the following documents at the time and place specified in the subpoena.

Documents To Be Produced

1. All documents concerning communications between Baystar and SCO.

2. All documents concerning agreements involving Baystar and SCO.

3. All documents concerning Baystar's relationship with SCO.

4. All documents concerning statements made by Baystar about SCO.

5. All documents concerning Baystar's investment in SCO.

6. All documents concerning Baystar's knowledge of SCO's business.

7. All documents concerning communications between Baystar and Microsoft regarding SCO, IBM, or this litigation.

Definitions and Instructions

Defendant IBM hereby incorporates by reference all instructions, definitions and rules contained in Rules 30, 33, 34, and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules or individual practices of this Court and supplements them with the following definitions and instructions:

A. Definitions

1. The term "communication" shall mean any transmittal of information, whether oral or written, including correspondence, electronic mail and other internet transmissions, web pages, Internet Relay Chat logs, telex, facsimile transmissions, telecopies, recordings in any medium of oral communication, telephone and message logs, notes or memoranda relating to written or oral communications.

5

2. The term "concerning" shall mean relating to, referring to, reflecting, describing, evidencing, referencing, discussing or constituting.

3. The term "document" shall be synonymous in meaning and usage to the broadest scope of the term used in Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The term document shall include without limitation all written, phonic, graphic or recorded matter, including without limitation, information stored on computers, disks, tapes (i.e., magnetic or other storage media), World Wide Web pages, electronic mailing lists or automated fax support systems. The term "document" specifically includes electronic mail, electronic correspondence, or electronic peer-to-peer messages ("e-mail") and any attachments and files created and maintained in electronic form in the normal course of business.

4. The term "person" refers to natural persons or all private or public entities.

5. The term "SCO" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The SCO Group, Inc., and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, distributors, dealers, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were in part or in whole acquired by or merged with Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The SCO Group, Inc., affiliates, subsidiaries or predecessor companies of Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The SCO Group, Inc., and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The SCO Group, Inc. This includes the Server Software and Professional Services divisions

6

acquired in 2001 by Caldera International, Inc. from Tarantella, Inc., f/k/a The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.

6. The term "Baystar" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, Baystar Captial and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, representatives, direct and indirect contractors, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Baystar Capital.

7. The term "Microsoft" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, Microsoft Corporation and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, representatives, direct and indirect contractors, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Microsoft Corporation.

B. Instructions

1. Each paragraph should herein be construed independently and, unless otherwise directed, without reference to any other paragraph for the purpose of limitation.

2. The use of any definition for the purposes of this request shall not be deemed to constitute an agreement or acknowledgment on the part of defendant that such definition is accurate, meaningful or appropriate for any other purpose in this action.

3. Unless otherwise specified, the documents requested are the responsive documents in your possession, control or custody that were prepared, written, sent, dated, received, applicable or in effect at any time up to the date of your compliance with this demand.

4. Each requested document shall be produced in its entirety. If a document responsive to any request cannot be produced in full, it shall be produced to the

7

extent possible with an explanation stating why production of the remainder is not possible.

5. Each page or sheet produced is to be marked with a consecutive document control number.

6. All documents produced in response to this subpoena shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained in the ordinary course of business and, where attached, shall not be separated or disassembled.

7. With respect to any document responsive to this request that is withheld from production based upon a claim of privilege, please provide the information required pursuant to Rules 26(b)(5) and 45(d)(2) of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

8. If, for reasons other than a claim of privilege, you refuse to produce any document requested herein, state the grounds upon which the refusal is based with sufficient specificity to permit a determination of the propriety of such refusal.

9. If there were no documents responsive to any paragraph or subparagraph set forth in the requests, please provide a written response so stating.

8

3. MICROSOFT:

EXHIBIT C

1

Issued by the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

The SCO Group, Inc.

V.

International Business Machines Corporation
SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE
CASE NUMBER:1 2:03CV-0294 District of Utah
To:
Microsoft Corporation
[address, WA]

___YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below to testify in the above case.

PLACE OF TESTIMONY
COURTROOM
DATE and TIME
X YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in the above case. The testimony will be recorded by the following method(s):
[ ] stenographic; [ ] sound; [X] sound and visual
PLACE OF DEPOSITION
Premiere Realtime Reporting and Video
[address, WA]
DATE AND TIME
March 14, 2006
9:00 a.m.
X YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects):

See Attachment A
PLACE
Premiere Realtime Reporting and Video
[address, WA]
DATE AND TIME
March 7, 2006
9:00 a.m.
____YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.
PREMISES DATE and TIME
Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officer, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6).
ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT)
[signature of David Marriott] Attorney for International Business Machines Corporation
DATE
February 21, 2006
ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER
David R. Marriott, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, [address] New York, NY [zip, phone]

(See Rule 45 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D on Reverse)

1 If action is pending in district other than the district of issuance state district under case number.

2

PROOF OF SERVICE

Date ________
Place _________
Served on(Print name)________
Manner of Service __________
Served By (Print name)__________
Title ______________

Declaration of Server

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Proof of Service is true and correct.

Executed on
______
DATE

____________
SIGNATURE OF SERVER

_____________
ADDRESS OF SERVER

Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D

(c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS.

(1) A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena. The court on behalf of which the subpoena was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breach of this duty an appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings and a reaonable attorney's fee.

(2) (A) A person comanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, papers, documents or tangible things, or inspection of premises need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless commanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial.

(B) Subject to paragraph (d)(2) of this rule, a person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance if such time is less than 14 days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials or of the premises. If objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect and copy the materials or inspect the premises except pursuant to an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued. If objection has been made, the party serving the subpoena may, upon notice to the person commanded to produce, move at any time for an order to compel the production. Such an order to compel production shall protect any person who is not a party or an officer of a party from significant expense resulting from the inspect and copying commanded.

(3) (A) On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if it

(i) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance
(ii) requirs a person who is not a party or an officer of the party to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides, is employed or regularly transaction business in person, except that subject to the provisions of clause (c)(3)(B)(ii) of this rule, such a person may in order to attend trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the satete in which the trial is held, or
(iii) requires disclosure of priviledged or other protected matter and not exception or waiver applies, or
(iv) subject a person to undue burden.

(B) If a subpoena

(i) requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information or
(ii) requires disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion or information not describing specific events or occurances in dispute and resulting from the expert's study made not at the request of any party, or
(iii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, the court may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify the subpoena or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the subpoena is address will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or production only upon specified conditions.

(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA

(1) A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the demand.

(2) When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that it is priviledged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, comunications, or things not produces that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim.

3

Topics for 30(b)(6) Deposition of Microsoft Corporation

1. Agreements relating to any UNIX product involving Microsoft and AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz or SCO, including but not limited to: (a) the software licensing agreements with AT&T executed by Microsoft on December 1, 1981, August 13, 1986 and May 27, 1988; (b) the sublicensing agreement with AT&T executed by Microsoft on October 9, 1986; (c) the letter agreements with AT&T acknowledged by Microsoft on October 13, 1983, June 3, 1984, January 17, 1985, September 30, 1985, December 10, 1985, August 21, 1986, October 1, 1986, June 26 1989, January 31, 1990, June 6, 1990, and July 20, 1990; (d) the letter agreement with USL acknowledged by Microsoft on June 16, 1992; (e) any SCOSource license agreement with SCO; and (f) the Release, License and Option Agreement with SCO effective as of April 29, 2003, and amendments thereto.

2. Agreements relating to any Microsoft UNIX product involving Microsoft and AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, or SCO.

3. Microsoft's rights and obligations, vis-à-vis AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, and SCO, with respect to any Microsoft UNIX product.

4. Royalties paid by Microsoft with respect to any UNIX product.

5. Origin of any UNIX source code publicly disclosed or open sourced by Microsoft.

6. Competition between Microsoft's operating system products and UnixWare and OpenServer, including but not limited to the identity and quantities and characteristics of the products.

7. Restrictions or prohibitions on Microsoft employees having access to any UNIX product, including, but not limited to, its source code.

4

8. The antitrust litigation brought against Microsoft by Caldera, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.

9. All communications between Microsoft and SCO since June 28, 2002, including but not limited to Darl McBride's May 2003 communication with Steven Ballmer regarding SCO's rights to the UNIX operating system.

10. All agreements involving Microsoft and SCO.

11. The identity of and contact information for all representatives of Microsoft who have had access to and worked with or developed UNIX source code, and the other projects/products on which they have worked.

12. Microsoft's business strategy regarding Linux.

13. All communications or agreements relating to SCO or this litigation, including all communications with Baystar, Royal Bank of Canada, and Everyone's Internet, Ltd.

5

ATTACHMENT A TO SUBPOENA TO MICROSOFT CORPORATION

You are instructed to produce the following documents at the time and place specified in the subpoena.

Documents To Be Produced

  1. All documents concerning agreements involving Microsoft and AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, or SCO relating to any UNIX product.
  2. All documents concerning Microsoft's rights and obligations, vis-à-vis AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, and SCO, with respect to any Microsoft UNIX product.
  3. All documents concerning royalties paid by Microsoft with respect to any UNIX product.
  4. All documents concerning the origin of any UNIX source code publicly disclosed or open sourced by Microsoft.
  5. All documents concerning competition between Microsoft's operating system products and UnixWare and OpenServer, including but not limited to the identity and the qualities and characteristics of the products.
  6. All documents concerning restrictions or prohibitions on Microsoft employees having access to any UNIX product.
  7. All documents concerning the antitrust litigation brought against Microsoft by Caldera, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.
  8. All documents concerning any communications between Microsoft and SCO since June 28, 2002.
  9. 6

  10. All documents concerning any agreements involving Microsoft and SCO, including but not limited to Darl McBride's May 2003 communication with Steven Ballmer regarding SCO's rights to the UNIX operating system.
  11. All documents concerning the identity of and contact information for all representatives of Microsoft who have had access to and worked with or developed UNIX source code, and the other projects/products on which they have worked.
  12. All documents concerning Microsoft's business strategy regarding Linux.
  13. All documents concerning communications or agreements relating to SCO or this litigation, including all communications with SCO's employees, shareholders, directors, officers, Baystar, Canopy, Royal Bank of Canada, and/or Everyone's Internet, Ltd..
  14. All documents concerning any contracts relating to UNIX or Linux, including but not limited to licenses, licensing agreements, software agreements and sublicensing agreements.
  15. All documents concerning communications or agreements relating to SCO or this litigation, including all communications with Baystar, Royal Bank of Canada, and Everyone's Internet, Ltd.
  16. A copy of all UNIX materials and all software materials (in electronic form, where available), including but not limited to source code and user manuals, obtained from SCO or any of SCO's predecessors in interest (including AT&T, USL, Novell or Tarantella).

7

Definitions and Instructions

The instructions, definitions, and rules contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including in particular Rules 30, 33, 34, and 45, and the local rules or individual practices of this Court are incorporated herein by reference and supplemented with the following definitions and instructions:

A. Definitions

1. The term "communication" shall mean any transmittal of information, whether oral or written, including correspondence, electronic mail and other internet transmissions, web pages, Internet Relay Chat logs, instant messages, telexes, facsimile transmissions, telecopies, recordings in any medium or oral communication, telephone or message logs, or notes or memoranda concerning written or oral communications.

2. The term "Canopy" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, The Canopy Group, Inc. and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, representatives, direct and indirect contractors, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of The Canopy Group, Inc.

3. The term "concerning" shall mean relating to, referring to, reflecting, describing, evidencing, referencing, discussing or constituting.

4. The term "document" shall be synonymous in meaning and usage with the broadest scope of the term used in Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The term "document" shall include without limitation all written, phonic, graphic or recorded matter, including without limitation, information stored on computers, disks, tapes (i.e., magnetic or other storage media), World Wide Web pages,

8

electronic mailing lists or automated fax support systems. The term "document" specifically includes electronic mail, electronic correspondence, or electronic peer-to-peer messages ("e-mail") and any attachments and files created and maintained in electronic form in the normal course of business.

5. The term "including" shall mean including without limitiation.

6. 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.

7. The term "Microsoft" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, Microsoft Corporation and all of its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, representatives, direct and indirect contractors, and/or all persons acting on behalf of Microsoft Corporation.

8. The term "person" shall mean any natural person or any private or public entity.

9. The term "Santa Cruz" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., and/or all other persons acting on behalf of The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.

10. The term "SCO" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, plaintiff Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The SCO Group, Inc., and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were in part

9

or in whole acquired by or merged with Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., affiliates, subsidiaries or predecessor companies of Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. This includes 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.

11. The term "source code" shall mean the human-readable form of a computer program written in the original and preferred form for human inspection and modification, and includes but is not limited to source code listings; compiler and/or assembler output listings for such source code; source code listings for macros or "includes" (both executable and mapping) listings used in such source code; job control language files; and/or other files required to create an executable version of a program, including but not limited to user interface components; panels; screen definitions and help text; and c-lists.

12. The term "UNIX" shall mean all predecessors to, and versions of, the UNIX System V computer operating system, including but not limited to: UNIX System III; UNIX System IV; UNIX System V; UNIX System V Release 2; UNIX System V Release 3; UNIX System V Release 4; UNIX System V/286; and/or UNIX System V/386.

14. The term "AT&T" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, AT&T Corporation and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, direct and indirect contractors,

10

entities that were acquired by or merged with AT&T, subsidiaries of AT&T, including but not limited to AT&T Technologies, Inc., and/or all other persons acting on behalf of AT&T.

15.The term "Baystar" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, Baystar Capital and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, representatives, direct and indirect contractors, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Baystar Capital.

16. The term "USL" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, UNIX Systems Laboratories, Inc. and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with USL, subsidiaries of USL, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of USL.

18. The term "Novell" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, Novell, Inc. and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with Novell, subsidiaries of Novell, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Novell.

19. The term "Tarantella" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, Tarantella, Inc. and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with Tarantella, subsidiaries of Tarantella, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Tarantella.

11

20. The term "Everyone's Internet, Ltd." shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, Everyone's Internet, Ltd. and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with Everyone's Internet, Ltd., subsidiaries of Everyone's Internet, Ltd., and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Everyone's Internet, Ltd.

B. Instructions

1. Each paragraph should herein be construed independently and, unless otherwise directed, without reference to any other paragraph for the purpose of limitation.

2. The use of any definition for the purposes of this request shall not be deemed to constitute an agreement or acknowledgment on the part of IBM that such definition is accurate, meaningful or appropriate for any other purpose in this action.

3. Each requested document shall be produced in its entirety. If a document responsive to any request cannot be produced in full, it shall be produced to the extent possible with an explanation stating why production of the remainder is not possible.

12

4. Each page or sheet produced is to be marked with a consecutive document control number.

5. All documents produced in response to this subpoena shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained in the ordinary course of business and, where attached, shall not be separated or disassembled.

6. All documents produced in response to the subpoena shall be produced, where available, in electronic or machine-readable form.

7. With respect to any document responsive to this subpoena that is withheld from production upon claim of privilege, please provide the information required pursuant to Rules 26(b)(5) and 45(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

8. If, for reasons other than a claim of privilege, you refuse to produce any document subpoenaed herein, state the grounds upon which the refusal is based with sufficient specificity to permit a determination of the propriety of such refusal.

9. If there are no documents responsive to any paragraph or subparagraph set forth in the subpoena, please provide a written response so stating.

13

4. SUN MICROSYSTEMS:

EXHIBIT D

1

Issued by the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The SCO Group, Inc.

V.

International Business Machines Corporation
SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE
CASE NUMBER:1 2:03CV-0294 District of Utah
To:
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[address, CA]

___YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below to testify in the above case.

PLACE OF TESTIMONY
COURTROOM
DATE and TIME
X YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in the above case. The testimony will be recorded by the following method(s):
[ ] stenographic; [ ] sound; [X] sound and visual
PLACE OF DEPOSITION
Bell & Myers
[address, CA]
DATE AND TIME
March 7, 2006
9: 00 a.m.
X YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects):

See Attachment A
PLACE
Bell & Myers
[address, CA]
DATE AND TIME
March 7, 2006
9:00 a.m.
____YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.
PREMISES DATE and TIME
Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officer, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6).
ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT)
[signature of David Marriott] Attorney for International Business Machines Corporation
DATE
February 21, 2006
ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER
David R. Marriott, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, [address] New York, NY [zip, phone]

(See Rule 45 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D on Reverse)

1 If action is pending in district other than the district of issuance state district under case number.

2

PROOF OF SERVICE

Date _______
Place _________
Served on(Print name) __________
Manner of Service ___________
Served By (Print name) _________
Title __________

Declaration of Server

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Proof of Service is true and correct.

Executed on
______
DATE

____________
SIGNATURE OF SERVER

_____________
ADDRESS OF SERVER

Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D

(c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS.

(1) A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena. The court on behalf of which the subpoena was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breach of this duty an appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings and a reaonable attorney's fee.

(2) (A) A person comanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, papers, documents or tangible things, or inspection of premises need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless commanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial.

(B) Subject to paragraph (d)(2) of this rule, a person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance if such time is less than 14 days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials or of the premises. If objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect and copy the materials or inspect the premises except pursuant to an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued. If objection has been made, the party serving the subpoena may, upon notice to the person commanded to produce, move at any time for an order to compel the production. Such an order to compel production shall protect any person who is not a party or an officer of a party from significant expense resulting from the inspect and copying commanded.

(3) (A) On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if it

(i) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance
(ii) requirs a person who is not a party or an officer of the party to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides, is employed or regularly transaction business in person, except that subject to the provisions of clause (c)(3)(B)(ii) of this rule, such a person may in order to attend trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the satete in which the trial is held, or
(iii) requires disclosure of priviledged or other protected matter and not exception or waiver applies, or
(iv) subject a person to undue burden.

(B) If a subpoena

(i) requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information or
(ii) requires disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion or information not describing specific events or occurances in dispute and resulting from the expert's study made not at the request of any party, or
(iii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, the court may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify the subpoena or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the subpoena is address will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or production only upon specified conditions.

(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA

(1) A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the demand.

(2) When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that it is priviledged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, comunications, or things not produces that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim.

3

Topics for 30(b)(6) Deposition of Sun Microsystems, Inc

1. Agreements relating to any UNIX software product involving Sun and AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, or SCO, including but not limited to: (a) the software licensing agreements with AT&T executed on July 17, 1985, April 24, 1986, and May 21, 1986; (b) the sublicensing agreement with AT&T executed on August 7, 1986; (c) the letter agreements with AT&T acknowledged by Sun on January 12, 1986, January 12, 1987, February 20, 1987, June 19, 1987, August 11, 1987, March 17, 1988, July 19, 1989, September 13, 1990, December 14, 1990; (d) the letter agreement with USL acknowledged by Sun on October 3, 1992; (e) the software licensing agreement with Novell executed on March 17, 1994; and (f) the software licensing agreement with SCO executed on February 25, 2003.

2. Agreements relating to any Sun software product involving Sun and AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, Tarantella, or SCO.

3. Sun's rights and obligations, vis-à-vis AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, Tarantella, and SCO, with respect to any Sun software product.

4. Royalties paid by Sun with respect to any UNIX product.

5. Open sourcing of any Sun UNIX product or public disclosure by Sun of the source code for any Sun UNIX product.

6. Origin of any UNIX source code publicly disclosed or open sourced by Sun.

7. Competition between Solaris and UnixWare and OpenServer, including but not limited to the identity and the qualities and characteristics of the products.

8. Restrictions or prohibitions on Sun employees having access to any UnixWare product, including, but not limited to, its source code.

4

9. All communications between Sun and SCO since June 28, 2002, including but not limited to: (a) communications between SCO and Sun from February 2003 to May 2003 relating to any software licensing agreements; (b) Darl McBride's May 2003 communication with Scott McNealy regarding SCO's rights to the UNIX operating system, and (c) discussions of business opportunities between SCO and Sun.

10. The identity of and contact information for all representatives of Sun whohave had access to and worked with or develloped UNIX source code, and the other projects/products on which they have worked.

11. Involvement by Sun in the development of Linux.

5

ATTACHMENT A TO SUBPOENA TO SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.

You are instructed to produce the following documents at the time and place specified in the subpoena.

Documents To Be Produced

1. All documents concerning any agreement or license between Sun and SCO or between Sun and any of SCO's predecessors in interest for the use of any UNIX source code, including but not limited to all documents relating to the terminability of any such license.

2. All documents concerning any agreements relating to any Sun software product involving Sun and AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, Tarantella, or SCO.

3. All documents concerning Sun's rights and obligations, vis-à-vis AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, Tarantella, and SCO, with respect to any Sun software product.

4. All documents concerning royalties paid by Sun with respect to any UNIX product.

5. All documents concerning open sourcing of any Sun UNIX product or public disclosure by Sun of the source code for any Sun UNIX product.

6. All documents concerning the origin of any UNIX source code publicly disclosed or open sourced by Sun.

7. All documents concerning competition between Solaris and Unixware and OpenServer, including but not limited to the identity and hte qualities and characteristics of the products.

6

8. All documents concerning restrictions or prohibitions on Sun employees having access to UNIX code.

9. All documents concerning any communications between Sun and SCO, including but not limited to: (a) communications between SCO and Sun from February 2003 to May 2003 relating to any software licensing agreements; (b) Darl McBride's May 2003 communications with Scott McNealy regarding SCO's rights to the UNIX operating system, and (c) disclosed of business opportunities between SCO and Sun.

10. The identity of and contact information for all representatives of Sun who ahve had access to and worked with or developed UNIX source code, and the other projects/products on which they have worked.

11. All documents concerning any decision by any current or prospective customer to use Solaris instead of OpenServer or UnixWare occuring after March 7. 2003.

12. All documents concerning any efforts to ensure or maintain the secrecy or confidentiality of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods, including but not limited to: (a) any rule, policy, practice or procedure relating, to the confidentiality or secrecy or lack of confidentiality or secrecy of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods; any breach of any such rule, policy, practice, or procedure; (c) the use by any person of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods; and (d) the disclosure or availability of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods to any person.

7

13. Documents sufficient to identify all licensees, sublicensees or assignees of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods and all persons to whom any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods has been disclosed.

14. All documents concerning SCO's rights concerning UNIX or Linux.

15. All documents concerning any agreement or understanding (written or oral) concerning SCO.

16. All documents concerning involvement by Sun in the developed of Linux.

17. All documents concerning any decision, plan or offer by Sun (contemplated or actual) to indemnify customers concerning SCO's alleged rights concerning UNIX or Linux.

18. A copy of all UNIX materials and all software materials (in electronic form, where available), including but not limited to source code and user manuals, obtained from SCO or any of SCO's predecessors in interest (including AT&T, USL, Novell or Tarantella).

Definitions and Instructions

Defendant IBM hereby incorporates all instructions, definitions and rules contained in Rules 30, 33, 34, and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules or individual practices of this Court and supplements them with the following definitions and instructions:

8

A. Definitions

  1. The term "communication" shall mean any transmittal of information, whether oral or written, including correspondence, electronic mail and other internet transmissions, web pages, Internet Relay Chat logs, telex, facsimile transmissions, telecopies, recordings in any medium of oral communication, telephone and message logs, notes or memoranda relating to written or oral communications.
  2. The term "concerning" shall mean relating to, referring to, reflecting, describing, evidencing, referencing, discussing or constituting.
  3. The term "document" shall be synonymous in meaning and usage to the broadest scope of the term used in Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The term document shall include without limitation all written, phonic, graphic or recorded matter including without limitation, information stord on computers, disks, tapes (i.e., magnetic or other storage media), World Wide Web pages, electronic mailing lists or automated fax support systems. The term "document" specifically includes electronic mail, electronic correspondence, or electronic peer-to-peer messages ("e-mail") and any attachments and files created and maintained in electronic form in the normal course of business.
  4. The term "include" or "including" shall mean including without limitation.
  5. The term "object code" shall mean output from a compiler or assembler which is itself executable machine code or is suitable for processing to produce executable machine code.
  6. 9

  7. The term "person" refers to natural persons or all private or putlic entities.
  8. The term "Santa Cruz" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. and all of its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
  9. The term "SCO" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The SCO Group, Inc., and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, distributors, dealers, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were in part or in whole acquired by or merged with Caldera Systems, Inc. Caldera International, Inc., or The SCO Group, Inc., affiliates, subsidiaries or predecessor companies of Caldera Systems, Inc., or The SCO Group, Inc., and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The SCO Group, Inc. This includes 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.
  10. The term "source code" shall mean the human-readable form of a computer program written in the original and preferred form for human inspection and modification, and includes but is not limited to source code listings; compiler and/or assembler output listings for such source code; source code listings for macros or "includes" (both executable and mapping) listings used in such source code; job control

    10

    language files; and/or other files required to create an executable version of a program, including but not limited to user interface components; panels; screen definitions and help text; and c-lists.
  11. The term "Solaris" shall mean the UNIX-branded operating system distributed and/or developed by Sun, including all prior versions, releases and maintenance modifications.
  12. The term "Sun" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, Sun Microsystems, Inc. and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, distributed dealers, direct and indirect control, entities that were acquired by or merged with Sun, subsidiaries of Sun, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Sun.
  13. The term "UNIX" shall mean any and all versions, flavors, or other variants of any UNIX computer operating system, including but not limited to all operating systems certified as conforming to the UNIX-brand standards set by The Open Group, the owner of the UNIX trademrk.
  14. The term "AT&T" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, AT&T Corporation and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired or merged with AT&T, subsidiaries of AT&T, including but not limited to AT&T Technologies, Inc., and/or all other persons acting on behalf of AT&T.
  15. The term "USL" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. and all its directors, officers, authorized

    11

    agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, dirct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired or merged with USL, subsidiaries of USL, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of USL.
  16. The term "Novell" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, Novell Inc. and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with Novell, subsidiaries of Novell, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Novell.
  17. The term "Tarantella" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, Tarantella, Inc. and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with Tarantella, subsidiaries of Tarantella and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Tarantella.

B. Instructions

  1. Each paragraph should herein be construed independently and, unless otherwise directed, without reference to any other paragraph for the purpose of limitation.
  2. The use of any definition for the purposes of this request shall not be deemed to constitute an agreement or acknowledgment on the part of the defendant that such definition is accurate, meaningful or appropriate for any other purpose in this action.
  3. Unless otherwise specified, the documents requested are the responsive documents in your possession, control or custody that were prepared, written

    12

    sent, dated, received, applicable or in effect at any time up to the date of your compliance with this demand.
  4. Each requested document shall be produced in its entirety. If a document responsive to any request cannot be produced in full, it shall be produced to the extent possible with an explanation stating why production of the remainder is not possible.
  5. Each page or sheet produced is to be marked with a consecutive document control number.
  6. All documents produced in response to this subpoena shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained in the ordinary course of business and, where attached, shall not be separated or disassembled.
  7. With respect to any document responsive to this request that is withheld from production based upon a claim of privilege, please provide the information required pursuant to Rules 26(b)(5) and 45(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
  8. If, for reasons other than a claim of privilege, you refuse to produce any document requested herein, state the grounds upon which the refusal is based with sufficient specificity to permit a detrmination of the propriety of such a refusal.
  9. If there are no documents responsive to any paragraph or subparagraph set forth in the requests, please provide a written response so stating.

13


  


The IBM Subpoenas, as text - Updated | 174 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT Here, please
Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 08:30 AM EST
Previewed posts in HTML with clicky links are nice, thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Smelling Pistakes
Authored by: Wol on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 08:33 AM EST
et al here (why Al, I don't know :-)

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | # ]

Page layout error in IE6
Authored by: AndyC on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 08:38 AM EST
Everything is over to the right hand side when viewed in IE6 (Win2000 ona work
pc, I use Firefox at home).

Is anyone else seeing this?

Andy

[ Reply to This | # ]

Typo in Sun's subpeona
Authored by: DrStupid on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 08:47 AM EST
Where it says

"(e) the software licensing agreement with Novell executed on March 17,
1998; "

it should be

"(e) the software licensing agreement with Novell executed on March 17,
1994; "

Check the original PDF.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Was SCO acting alone?"
Authored by: PSaltyDS on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 09:06 AM EST
"Was SCO acting alone?"

Of course not, it was the shadowy serial litigator on the grassy knoll!

Except, in this case, the unknown conspirators hired an incompetent boob who fired at the wrong target, missed, and ran his mouth continuously in public. The real target was later shown to also be impervious to type of ammunition chosen.

---
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." - Geek's Corrolary to Clarke's Law

[ Reply to This | # ]

The IBM Subpoena Strategy
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 09:07 AM EST
The MS and Sun supoena certainly seems very specific about certain AT&T
issues/agreements.

Is IBM fishing? I once heard that good lawyers already know the answers to the
questions they ask... But certainly the documents being requested is of quite a
significant volume.

Maybe part of IBM's strategy is to get one of these third parties to bury SCO
just to save the inconvenience of being forced to open some competitive strategy
they may have in the works.

I wonder if IBM served a subpoena to Microsoft requesting that electronic
communication with SCO be maintained thus nullifying that 30 day policy they may
have. Certainly IBM is aware of such a policy and would take measures to
protect their interest.

Lastly those skeletons from the previous MS anti-trust case are being rattled.
I am curious as to why.

Anyway it seems pretty good for a first volley of subpoenas.

Leo

[ Reply to This | # ]

Please remind me, what is this case about?
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 09:25 AM EST

I have now lost track of what this case is all about. After three years of twisting and turning, I have lost the plot.

If it is about releasing GPL code, here is SCO press release

Maintenance Pack 3 for UnixWare 7.1.4 customers is now available and provides single certification support for customers to execute native OpenServer 6 applications on UnixWare. In addition, the maintenance pack provides updates to many open source packages including security enhancements with OpenSSL and OpenSSH, the latest Samba server, the common UNIX printing system (CUPS) and Mozilla browser.

So SCO are releasing GPL software, and are advertising that fact.

Is it about UNIX "methods and concepts"? Caldera released the ancient source code, using a BSD licence. Here is the history

Things do tend to come full circle. It was Caldera that, on January 23 of this year, disencumbered the entire source code of Unix, up to and including the Seventh Edition (1979) and its VAX port "32V" from which BSD had started the development that led to 4.0BSD. (32V is basically V7, minus some bits that were written in the PDP-11 assembly language, and the remainder was adapted to work on the VAX.) This seems to mean that BSD Unix is, at last, fully disencumbered, even the few parts that couldn't be used in the various BSD systems over the years due to residual AT&T copyrights.

This is ancient code, on unpacking it is dated May 5 1979. But the methods and concepts are the same as a modern UNIX. A quick list of the bin directory show many friends:

chgrp diff3 grep make pr roff t300 true ac chmod du icheck man prep sa t300s tsort adb chown dump iostat mesg primes sed t450 tty ar clri dumpdir join mkdir prof sh tabs uniq arcv cmp echo kill mv ps size tail units as col ed ld ncheck pstat sleep tar uucp at comm egrep learn neqn ptx sort tbl uulog awk cp enroll lex newgrp pwd sp tc uux bas crypt eqn lint nice quot spell tee vplot basename cu expr ln nm random spline tek vpr bc date f77 login nohup ranlib split test wc cal dc factor look nroff ratfor strip time who calendar dcheck false lookbib od refer struct tk write cat dd fgrep lorder osh restor stty touch xget cb deroff file ls passwd rev su tp xsend cc df find m4 pcc rm sum tr yacc checkeq diff graph mail plot rmdir sync troff yes

The man pages are there too; also troff to read them; so the way UNIX works was released by Caldera. Using its BSD license I can run this system and study it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The IBM Subpoenas, as text
Authored by: PSaltyDS on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 09:47 AM EST
SUN will be interesting. If the argument for SCOX(E) not going after them is
that they bought a license, then it can be demanded EXACTLY what was being
licensed.

I seems to me part of the frustrating fuzziness in the $699 scam was what one
would be paying for. As part of the general scam of non-specific claims and
nebulous FUD, one was expected to pay for SCOX(E)'s IP in Linux, whatever that
might be, without them saying what or where it was. Maybe this is an
opportunity to pin them down on how they were not charging for GPL material, and
what exactly was paid for (including what may be owed to Novell out of that).


---
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." - Geek's
Corrolary to Clarke's Law

[ Reply to This | # ]

I like this one
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 09:54 AM EST
To Sun

::
(f) the software licensing agreement with SCO executed on February 25, 2003
::

Novell has been trying to get that ever since it was executed (see the Novell -
SCO correspondence page), and we here have been suspicious of whether the
agreement required Novell's approval.

Now it seems we may find out (although not necessarily directly).

PeteS
[not logged in]

[ Reply to This | # ]

The IBM Subpoenas and Canopy not.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 10:14 AM EST

No subpoena for Canopy?

But Canopy has not been driving this scam for over a year now. Mr. Mustard has been in charge. He must have been a busy man, trying to separate Canopy's legitimate business investments from all the other "goings on" whilst it was under the control of Ralph Yarro.

As he walked into the Canopy offices on that Winter morning just before Christmas, I wonder what his plan of action was?

They were neither ready nor prepared for his arrival and he was greeted with hostility as he ordered the immediate freezing of their business system's and doubtless began his search through their paperwork and correspondence, even the emails on their PC's and the paper stored in those old tin filing cabinets. I wonder what he found? Not just from Canopy but also from their portfolio companies including SCOG.

He had a really big problem. How to make the most of Canopy's remaining assets whilst fending off an angry bear called IBM who wanted to eat the lot.

But bears like honey and Mr. Mustard was in charge of the hive. Perhaps he could rescue most of it if he could distract the bear by breaking off the sweetest, juiciest part the bear was interested in?

Perhaps IBM may just want to confirm the correspondence they now have in their possession corresponds to that supplied by those they have subpoena'd?

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The IBM Subpoenas, as text
Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 10:48 AM EST
"...at the December 20th hearing, we found out that IBM learned when
deposing SCO CEO Darl McBride recently that there have been a lot of emails
between Darl and Microsoft people, discussing of all things Linux, emails SCO's
attorneys had not turned over in discovery,..."

We mean, the same Darl McBride who claims he does not use email in response to
earleir dicovery demands by IBM?



---
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 | # ]

In the end, Sun may be the biggest loser from this mess....
Authored by: HockeyPuck on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 11:15 AM EST
After this SCO mess; it is quite likely that SCO’s business will be no more.
That puts IBM, Redhat and Novell in strange position. It is highly unlikely that
any of these parties will recover damages from SCO; especially when they won’t
have the money or will probably file for bankruptcy protections. Under
bankruptcy (at least with my experience) SCO employees will be paid first, then
comes vendors (probably including Bois) followed by legal payouts (IBM, Novell
in this case). By the time money reaches either of them; there will be nothing
left. It won’t make it past the vendors.

Here is the issue in my eyes. If the court finds that MS, Sun indeed purchased
UNIX licenses (in the Novell case, which I assume would continue regardless),
then Novell is entitled to 95% of those fees (I know MS is in this pickle, but
I’m not sure if SCO is holding back Sun’s fees). SCO says they are not entitled
because they didn’t sell MS (or Sun?) any UNIX license to them. If the court
says these are in fact UNIX licenses; then SCO owes Novell money. If they can’t
pay; does that breach their APA? If so, does Novell regain UNIX control because
SCO breached contractual obligations?

And regardless of the breach; it seems apparent that SCO’s UNIX situation will
be back on the market. Can SCO sell their stake in UNIX? Can they auction them?
Can they pick and choose who to sell to? What bothers me is MS could afford to
snap this up. But the other side, IBM or Novell could also snap this up
(possible Novell in lieu of monetary damages). If Novell (or maybe IBM gains
control, (though IBM has more at stake because of AIX and Dynix) they could
release the entire code to open source. I see the biggest loser here to be Sun
since they have a huge stake in UNIX.


Could this be the end of UNIX as we know it? Just a thought.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Raising hand from back of room
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 11:18 AM EST
All documents concerning any agreement or license between Hewlett-Packard and SCO or between Hewlett-Packard and any of SCO's predecessors in interest for...

There have been questions concerning "predecessors in interest" in the past, as in, the who is SCOx, really? Who were they? and the such.
so does the above phrase leave loopholes open? Or is it a gentlemens aggreement that means anyone who MAY be a predecessor?
wb

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun's standing to open Solaris, etc.
Authored by: rkhalloran on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 11:42 AM EST
Given that SysVr4 was a blending of the old AT&T & SunOS codebases, my
suspicion is that Sun has a stronger standing to open-source their code than
most of the other vendors.

They also probably have enough background documentation from that era that they
could bust SCOX's case to rubble if it suited them. But with their bipolar
attitude about Linux, it was at least temporarily to their advantage to help the
FUD campaign.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Conspiracy?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 12:02 PM EST
Can it be a conspiracy if no one joins?

SCOG apparently attempted to enlist Novell into its scheme and were turned down,
according to Novall. It seems likely they also tried Microsoft and possibly Sun.
None of those companies were particularly committed to Linux and Sun was
struggling with IBM. All of them had more money than SCOG. Someone at Microsoft
apparently steered SCOG to Baystar, why would they have done that?

Let me suggest that SCOG told Microsoft;
"We're going after Linux, but we need some of your money money"
Microsoft replied;
"Sorry we can't help you. But I'll call my buddy, he might be able to come
up with something."

These are old questions and possibly IBM has some answers after their
depositions. I can't imagine they didn't ask Darl. We may finally get some
answers.

---
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 | # ]

MS statement
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 12:31 PM EST
"Microsoft is not involved in any way with or contributing to SCO's current
actions with IBM or other industry actions."

("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.")

Note: "SCO's current actions".

Maybe they did intend a categorical denial, but it sounds like they're saying
they cut ties with SCO at some point (while implying that they were never
involved).

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft knows nut! tink! - The IBM Subpoenas, as text - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 01:41 PM EST
Isn't part of the documentation being requested concerning MS licensing of SCO
IP? Wouldn't Novell want to know about that too, or did they already subpeona
MS?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reading Microsoft's statements ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 02:39 PM EST

... they clearly know what we and IBM suspect regarding their involvement.

Which unfortunately doesn't bode well for getting to the truth of the matter.

M$'s lawyers are probably the only ones who could give the Nazgul a run for
their money - witness how they manage to drag out antitrust lawsuits over years
(getting close to decades).

Plus there's M$'s famous document non-retention policy.

And finally their senior execs have previously been seen to suffer the
occasional memory lapse when testifying during their own brushes with the law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Something I'd like to see....
Authored by: pyrodave on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 04:10 PM EST
I wonder... What would it look like if you overlapped the timelines for the SCO vs IBM court proceedings and those of Sun vs Microsoft?

I mean, Sun and MS did settle, I just wonder if there were any unwritten terms of that settlement....

Sun : "Tell ya what...... Help us get rid of a major competitor and old rival of yours, and we won't even file a lawsuit against you for infringing on our virtual machine patents."
MS : "hrmmmm...interesting..."

I know I am wayyyyy off into speculation-land...but I did notice that there was a loooong lull between court proceedings and the settlement as seen on www.sun.com/lawsuit/

A lull which just happened to coincide with some of the SCO events... Like the beginning of the trial?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did anybody else notice...
Authored by: ChefBork on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 06:26 PM EST

...that Anderer still thinks (hopes?) that IBM will have to settle?

From the Linux-Watch article:

    Mike Anderer, a veteran software developer and entrepreneur (Realm) who wrote the now-famous "Halloween X" document and helped arrange BayStar's $50 million investment in the SCO Group, responded to a Linux-Watch query late Wednesday night via email.

    "I do not think these subpoenas surprised anybody, I think all the lawyers expected them," Anderer wrote. "I suspect that they just waited until the last minute so they could get the maximum amount of information ... Once Discovery closes and the depositions are completed, it will probably be reduced to a bunch of procedural moves over the next 9-12 months, leading up to a court date (assuming the case survives all the procedural moves, which at least some of the claims probably will survive until the court date -- just a guess on my part).

    "At that point, I guess everybody evaluates their position and the risk of any type of loss, and maybe they will settle on the way to the courthouse. I do not think any court case is a sure thing and the stakes are so large I cannot imagine even IBM not wanting to at least trying to settle, but who knows?"

Just wishful thinking on his part maybe?

One has to wonder if he got something for his "assistance" in bringing BayStar to the table? Like tSCOg stock, maybe?

If so, then it's definitely wishful thinking.

---
If two heads are better than one, then why are liars two-faced and being of two minds indecisive?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • IBM settle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:23 AM EST
satete
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 10:15 PM EST
"any such place within the satete in which the trial is held,"

This must be a mistake in the common form, it shows up in several (3)(b)
sections.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • satete location - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 10:17 PM EST
In other words....
Authored by: darkonc on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:48 PM EST
"It’s important to note, however, that Microsoft, like many other companies, receives literally hundreds of requests for third-party discovery for cases in which it has no involvement."

Translation: "Ignore the man behind the curtains. I'm harmless."

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ 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 )