|
|
| IBM Sets 5 More Depositions: including Goldfarb, Lemon, Bawa |
 |
|
Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 10:37 PM EST
|
IBM's discovery keeps rolling on, and now they have set five more depositions, with Opinder Bawa (served at a hotel in Boston, MA), Larry Goldfarb of BayStar, Kimble L. Jenkins of Morgan Stanley, Scott Lemon, and Drew A. Spencer. There's more activity on Pacer to take note of also, and I'll make the PDFs available as I show you the Pacer notations. The overview is that the IBM tank continues to move forward. Let's review who these folks are.
Scott Lemon used to work for SCO, as I am sure you remember. He sort of had Gupta's job, although he was called chief technologist when he was given the job in 2004, until he left SCO a little more than a year later. In 2003, he was on the management team of Vultus, which SCO acquired and then wrote off. You can find him blogging rather snarkily on being subpoenaed here (Wednesday, March 8), and I think his account helps you to quickly discern where his heart is ("My question was 'How much do I get paid for my time?'"). Here he is posting from work in September 2003 to Silicon Investor. Spencer used to be CTO of SCO Group back when it was Caldera and headed by Ransom Love and around the time that Caldera made the Santa Cruz deal, so he has seen plenty. Bawa was Senior Vice President, Engineering and Global Services for Caldera, then SCO until he left very early in the SCO saga. He's the guy who wrote an article, "How to Integrate Linux with Unix," while working for SCO in which he wrote the following about SCO's ABI files and shared libraries:
"Because of their common roots, Unix applications port with relative ease to Linux. It's also possible to run Unix applications directly on a Linux platform without porting. This is accomplished using the linux-abi facility, which is included with most Linux distributions today. Linux-abi enables the Linux kernel to execute a range of x86 binary types. The Linux kernel that has linux-abi enabled will require loadable modules built for it. The linux-abi source can be downloaded from Sourceforge.net at http://linux-abi.sourceforge.net or www.pcunix.com/Linux/linuxabi.html. Unix binaries that don't use shared libraries may run without any further support, but for some executables, it's necessary to obtain shared runtime libraries from the Unix vendor. Many modern Unix vendors will offer these for use on the Linux operating system for a modest fee. Remember, always check to see if the code you are using is licensed. If it is, comply with the license." Poof. There goes SCO's theory that no one was allowed to even look at these super secret materials. Of course, you remember BayStar's Larry "I would not have known about the existence of SCO, but for the introduction by Microsoft" Goldfarb. As for Mr. Jenkins, it appears IBM has found some interesting topics in Morgan Stanley's documents they'd like to ask about in more detail. He was the one who signed the agreement with SCO on behalf of Morgan Keegan, after all, being the Managing Director. The rest of the Pacer activity has to do with SCO asking for leave to write a long opposition memorandum to IBM's motion to dump overboard most of SCO's list of allegedly misused material, and a joint submission by the parties to seal some confidential materials, namely Houlihan valuation materials. Here's what's on Pacer : 639 -
Filed: 03/07/2006
Entered: 03/08/2006
Terminated: 03/08/2006
Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk, )
640 -
Filed & Entered: 03/08/2006
Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: ORDER granting [639] Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages . Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 3/8/06. (blk, )
641 -
Filed & Entered: 03/09/2006
Motion to Seal
Docket Text: Stipulated MOTION to Seal Confidential Documents re [631] Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Shaughnessy, Todd)
642 -
Filed & Entered: 03/09/2006
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE of Issuance of Subpoenas by International Business Machines Corporation (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A # (2) Exhibit B # (3) Exhibit C # (4) Exhibit D # (5) Exhibit E)(Wheatley, Nathan) As far as the Houlihan materials are concerned, since it's a joint request, the judge is pretty certain to so order, so I've taken down the materials. If he by any chance doesn't sign the order, I'll replace them.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: hardmath on Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 10:46 PM EST |
Fresh off the presses, get your corrections here.
-- hm
---
"We are a leadership brand. We don't copy anyone." Intel VP Ann Lewnes on
sponsoring BMW to compete with AMD/Ferrari[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tufty on Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 10:48 PM EST |
licky clinks
---
There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want its hide.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 10:48 PM EST |
one of life's Ironies -
The subpoena served at the Courtyard Marriot was signed by David Marriot. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tufty on Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 10:52 PM EST |
Just for us non-legal types, please what is an extra pages request. While on the
subject of explanations I am a bit hazy on over-long reply requests as well.
There may be a few newbies and IANL types around it may help as well.
Ta.
---
There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want its hide.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sschlimgen on Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 11:00 PM EST |
I wonder if IBM will go after the PIPE fairies now they're identified?
---
Meandering through life like a drunk on a unicycle.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 11:23 PM EST |
Who are Opinder Bawa, Scott Lemon, and Drew A. Spencer?
---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and
he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I worked on a project [mine] with Drew... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 11:42 PM EST
- Who are some of these people? - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 11:55 PM EST
- Who are some of these people? - Authored by: WhiteFang on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 12:13 AM EST
- -heh- - Authored by: WhiteFang on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 12:30 AM EST
- -heh- - Authored by: PJ on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 01:20 AM EST
- -heh- - Authored by: PJ on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 01:21 AM EST
- -heh- - Authored by: stend on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 01:33 AM EST
- -heh- - Authored by: darkonc on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 02:29 AM EST
- -heh- - Authored by: PJ on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 04:18 AM EST
- -heh- - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 08:45 AM EST
- Nice Catch! - Authored by: GLJason on Saturday, March 11 2006 @ 06:54 AM EST
- A Big Load! - Authored by: resst on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 05:34 AM EST
- -heh- - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 01:30 PM EST
- -heh- - Authored by: darkonc on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 02:25 AM EST
- Declaration vs. Subpoena? - Authored by: grouch on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 12:22 PM EST
- -heh- - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 03:57 PM EST
- Google is a good start. :) - Authored by: stend on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 05:12 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Rocketman56 on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 12:00 AM EST |
I understand why the materials have been removed, as it is the proper thing to
do under the circumstances..
My question is about the timeliness of sealing after it's been published...
Isn't that a little bit like locking the barn after the horse has run-off?? Not
sure of the legal precedents there...
Thanks for any insight..
Steve[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 02:02 AM EST |
GPL... and Public
domain
About Linux ABI Project
The Linux abi is a
patch to the linux kernel that allows a linux system to run foreign binaries.
For further details please see the project homepage.
Download Linux
ABI Project
Project Admins: dwmw2, fwenzel, hch
Operating
System: All POSIX (Linux/BSD/UNIX-like OSes), Linux, Linux
License: GNU
General Public License (GPL), Public Domain [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: xtifr on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 04:13 AM EST |
I hope it's granted. It's been a while since we had a really big, meaty
pile of desperate arguments from SCO to pick apart (and, usually, to make fun
of). And in this case, it should be particularly entertaining. Do you suppose
that they'll go with the "IBM knows what they did wrong, we shouldn't have to
prove it" argument, or the "it's all IBM's fault--they refused to provide us
with the discovery we needed" argument? Maybe the old "hearsay and conjecture
are kinds of evidence" approach? Or the classic, "I object because it
would be prejudical to my case." :)
Heck, maybe they need to file an
overlength memo because they want to try all those approaches at once!
:)
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them
soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 04:34 AM EST |
Scott Lemon: "I was working for a very innovative startup called Vultus. I
joined a team of guys at Vultus who were working on this amazing technology that
used Javascript, XML, and HTTP to create active 'applications' that ran within a
browser. Yes ... today that is called AJAX ... but we were doing it years before
that term came about. (Shipping product in 2002!)"
Vultus was acquired by SCO and then written off, circa 2003.
Simply another lost opportunity, or was this potential M$ headache deliberately
killed off?
Or were SCO too busy following litigation orders to chase after real business?
---
SCO: hunting for snarks in an ocean of sharks
---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 05:44 AM EST |
"As far as the Houlihan materials are concerned, since it's a joint
request, the judge is pretty certain to so order, so I've taken down the
materials. If he by any chance doesn't sign the order, I'll replace them."
I was suprised when I read the documents. It seemed to me that the information
contained in them should have been sealed.
Is IBM not guilty of the same thing as SCOG when they tried to get those IBM
emails in the public domain?
IANAL
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dark on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 08:01 AM EST |
From his blog: "used to work for SCO. Yes ... Santa Cruz Operation ... the
ones in the big lawsuits with IBM and Novell".
Amazing how you can work somewhere for a year without knowing which company it
is.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Guil Rarey on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 09:39 AM EST |
I'm not second-guessing PJ in the least, but the situation is curious, and I
wondered about a hypothetical where the public interest is not served by sealing
the information.
Given that someone has obtained information legally and properly from a court
filing, and the judge is ruling retroactively to seal that information, what is
that someone's legal (not ethical) obligation here? Does the judge have any
ability to prevent further publication of the information once the cat is out of
the bag?
I ask because in this day and age I don't find it difficult to imagine a
hypothetical situation where information that shouldn't be, gets sealed by a
court.
The example I have in mind: HyperAgressivePharm Corp. gets sued by someone on
the basis that their latest wonderdrug actually turned the plaintiff's liver
into lumpy purple goo. HAPCo decides it's best choice is to settle, if and only
if the plaintiff agrees to seal the record, which thereby inhibits public
knowledge about the facts that the wonderdrug purees livers and the test data
given the FDA was bad to the point of being fraudulent.
Suppose GrokPharm obtained that information due to an unsealed court document,
legally and properly. What is their obligation in this case? What recourse
does HAPCo have?
Just wondering
Guil[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 10:12 AM EST |
I went over and read his blog, and apparently IBM offered to meet him anytime,
anywhere, to assemble and sign a letter of declaration. He declined, on the
grounds that, well they weren't paying him for his time.
So now, he gets to be deposed in the presence of attorneys for both sides, in a
process that I understand to be long, arduous, and annoying. And still not
getting paid for his time.
Way to stick to your principle, big guy! Good on ya!
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 11:29 AM EST |
| So, over on his blog he says:
"I'll make sure to blog about
the experience."
Legally how detailed could he be about
this experience? Would he be able to repeat any question he was asked, or
answer he gave? I assume, given his little tirade about not getting paid,
he is going to have nothing good to say and will just harp on the IBM lawyers,
but hey he lives in a free country and this is his right (no matter how wrong we
feel he is ;-). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 11:33 AM EST |
"We went out one day and our Unix cows were missing," McBride said he
told his father in trying to explain the case to him. "We looked in the
Linux pen, and there's a bunch of them in there that have our brand on them . .
. in this case the copyright. Someone took our cows and we want 'em back -- it's
as simple as that."
I dont think I need to comment. Every time I have read that thing since the WP
article appeared, I just about die laughing.
---
Clocks
"Ita erat quando hic adventi."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mexaly on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 11:42 AM EST |
> Is Judge Kimball cutting SCOX(E) a lot of slack on this
As has been said before, he may be posturing to kill the eventual appeal by SCO
when they lose.
If SCO gets only a little slack, it's easier for them to paint the judge as
unfair to their case. Then Kimball has to justify himself, even if he's done no
wrong.
If SCO gets lots and lots of slack, the court of appeals will just laugh while
the bailiff shows them the door with his foot (if courts of appeals even have
bailiffs, but you get my drift).
If Kimball is a smart judge, and I believe he's smarter than I can appreciate,
as IANAL, he knows how to give SCO lots of slack where slack makes no
difference, and rein them in when it makes a difference.
With plaintiffs like SCO, the judge is on "our" side (i.e. the
public's) in a very real sense. We just need to give him time to do his best
work.
---
My thanks go out to PJ and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
