|
|
| SCO's Files Objections to Judge Brooke Wells' Order - Sealed |
 |
|
Friday, July 14 2006 @ 04:29 AM EDT
|
Here it is, right on time, SCO's objections to the recent order by Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells, but it's sealed! Is that not a hoot? So much secrecy in this SCO litigation. They are filing objections under seal, challenging an order that sanctioned them for holding back evidence. Ironic, no?: I think maybe SCO chose the Cathedral method, because there are too many eyeballs in the Bazaar. Bob Mims has a bit more, but he includes comments from two analysts who have yet to get one thing right about SCO that I can recall. In fairness to SCO, I don't see any way to evaluate their chances on *this* filing until we can read it. Still, the valuable information is that apparently SCOfolk told him the basis of their objections: The appeal, technically an "objection" seeking Kimball's review, argues that Wells' reasoning confused SCO's contractual allegations over IBM's alleged export of the code with SCO's Unix copyright claims.
SCO attorney Brent Hatch said the appeal, which [it] was filing electronically with the court clerk's office Thursday night, also contends Wells took out of context some of the case law she cited to support her ruling. So they are claiming mistake of law. Good luck, dudes. Export of the code? Does that mean export out of the US? Or export from AIX or Sequent to Linux? I can't tell from the article. I view this objection as more of a placeholder anyway, to preserve the issue for appeal at the end of the case, after SCO loses at trial. If it gets that far. If you read this article, you'll understand a bit about preserving issues for appeal. It's in a criminal context, but the concepts are more or less the same. What else did you expect them to do? If they don't object, they sink like a stone. Even a long shot is better than that. So they have decided to take their shot, their long shot.
It's possible they will file a redacted version later. They are supposed to, if they can. I gather it was nip and tuck to get it filed on time anyhow, so let's not leap to the conclusion that we'll never get to see any part of it. I'm sure you've seen by now that it tends to all come out somehow, whether in replies or in hearings. Meanwhile, yes. It's frustrating, because we can't do analysis or present any rebuttal evidence. Hmm. Perhaps there is a method to their madness, as the expression goes.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: The Cornishman on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 04:56 AM EDT |
So that PJ can find them all in one place.
---
(c) assigned to PJ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dark on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 04:58 AM EDT |
Did they really wait until the last day before asking for permission to file an
overlength document?
If I were in the judge's shoes I would be soooo tempted to deny this.
Maybe that's why I'm not a judge.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Cornishman on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 04:58 AM EDT |
Please include links if you can, the allowed HTML is in the text below the
comments form. Thanks.
<a href="www.example.com" >Like this</a>
---
(c) assigned to PJ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What evidence is there, where we know the judges know about USL vs BSDI (all incl Pj's M&C stuff - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 06:02 AM EDT
- Microsoft and clarity - Authored by: PolR on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 08:33 AM EDT
- Off-Topic Thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 08:37 AM EDT
- Novell Motions Set for July 17 - Authored by: markpmc on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 08:47 AM EDT
- Integer based division from Newspicks - Authored by: PeteS on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 08:52 AM EDT
- Integer based division from Newspicks - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 09:12 AM EDT
- Yep - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- Integer based division from Newspicks - Authored by: Araneidae on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 09:39 AM EDT
- Integer based division from Newspicks - Authored by: jmc on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 10:01 AM EDT
- I don't think this patent will do much for the alleged inventor - Authored by: Jude on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 10:13 AM EDT
- Integer based division from Newspicks - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 10:33 AM EDT
- Yep, gcc uses it too - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 12:35 PM EDT
- I did it in FPGAs and on a chip years ago too, plus "optimizing" parts - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 01:24 PM EDT
- Integer based division from Newspicks - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 02:45 PM EDT
- Integer based division from Newspicks - Authored by: Tyro on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- Best Judicial Opinion EVER - Authored by: pcr on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 09:16 AM EDT
- Interesting ZDNet comment on EU vs MS - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 10:29 AM EDT
- The SCOg House Of Cards for the Laymen? - Authored by: LegalIdiot on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 10:44 AM EDT
- Way, way O/T - Authored by: jbeadle on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 11:18 AM EDT
- Is the democratic process about to be patented in the US? - Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 11:43 AM EDT
- SCO may Change the Game with a Corporate Re-org. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 12:07 PM EDT
- a nice article from Motley Fool - Authored by: JT on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 01:47 PM EDT
- SCOX - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 02:52 PM EDT
- Off-Topic Thread 4 million to make 30k? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 17 2006 @ 03:08 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 05:13 AM EDT |
If SCO had some convincing arguments, I doubt that they would be filing under
seal. They can't be trying to identify source code at this point, so what is to
redact.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 05:17 AM EDT |
Article
"The
appeal, technically an "objection" seeking Kimball's review, argues that Wells'
reasoning confused SCO's contractual allegations over IBM's alleged export of
the code with SCO's Unix copyright claims.
SCO attorney Brent Hatch said
the appeal, which was filing electronically with the court clerk's office
Thursday night, also contends Wells took out of context some of the case law she
cited to support her ruling."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 05:20 AM EDT |
So is it normal for the order to be signed by Kimball? Is the objection to him
or are you expected to object to Wells first?
IKN least of all about Lawyering.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chris Lingard on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 05:24 AM EDT |
The appeal is reported by Bob Mims in the Salt Lake Tribune, SCO will appeal the gutting of
its lawsuit against IBM
The appeal, technically an
"objection" seeking Kimball's review, argues that Wells' reasoning confused
SCO's contractual allegations over IBM's alleged export of the code with SCO's
Unix copyright claims.
SCO attorney Brent Hatch said the appeal,
which was filing electronically with the court clerk's office Thursday night,
also contends Wells took out of context some of the case law she cited to
support her ruling.
So once more round and round in
circles.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 05:25 AM EDT |
wells or kimball? ;) yeah, i know... probably hard to think that either would
take the bet against another SCO filing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 05:27 AM EDT |
Does SCO's appeal only concern the items struck or does it concern all of the
items?
If its all of the items can Judge Kimball overrule Judge Wells and kick out the
"negative information" items?
In other words, once this appeal has been resolved could SCO end up having even
more of their case thrown out?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 05:30 AM EDT |
reading the net news, is SCO saying in this appeal that the judge doesn't know
what she's talking about? It seems so with articles saying that she's confused
the issues, and quoted case law out of context.
I want to see what wells says about this, and I hope it happens soon.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 05:59 AM EDT |
.. they have to start asking permission to file motions with overly long
titles?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 06:02 AM EDT |
If you were a paid part of IBM's legal team, you'd have access to the sealed
documents.
And it would not take even that: an NDA would suffice.
But domesticating the goose laying golden eggs has its own dangers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Don Stein on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 06:21 AM EDT |
I'm sorry but I just don't understand what could be proprietary in SCO's request
for review of Judge Well's decision.
Now seems the time for a request to make these documents open. Where is Maureen
O'Gara and company when a request for opening documents is needed? :-)
Really, though, this filing of sealed documents seems just another attempt to
"game" the legal system. Am I missing something?
Don Stein[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 06:50 AM EDT |
It seems to me that SCO's throwing a "Hail Mary" pass but wants to
hide it from the (hostile) spectators, lest the spectators help the opposing
team by reporting how bad that throw is.
Do you think their are sealing it because Groklaw will rip it to shreads?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 07:23 AM EDT |
They're asking for permission to file a memorandum in objection that's 53 pages
long, "exclusive of face sheet, table of contents and authorities,
appendixes, and exhibits." Including all of that, I'm guessing there are at
least sixty pages of filing. Fer cryin' out loud, Her Honor's Order was only 39
in totality.
Is that a pig I hear squealin?
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 07:48 AM EDT |
Didn't Judge K tell the parties not to file sealed stuff. Maybe he'll get riled
and make them ask for permission to file anything sealed.
They submitted claims that did not conform to the court's previous orders for
specificity. The Judge W rejected most of those. So they're objecting to that
by filing their objections in a form that violates Judge K's orders not to file
sealed stuff.
Lawyers get suspended for ignoring the court's orders.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: danb35 on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 07:50 AM EDT |
The appeal, technically an "objection" seeking Kimball's review,
argues that Wells' reasoning confused SCO's contractual allegations over IBM's
alleged export of the code with SCO's Unix copyright
claims.
Assuming that they've accurately represented it, and Mims
has accurately reported it (the former is a big assumption), this argument is a
complete loser, and demonstrates once again that SCO either has no clue what is
going on, or is choosing to ignore what is going on. They tried this game with
Judge Wells, too--trying to argue these issues on the merits. The problem (for
them) with this line of argument is that the exclusion of these items had
nothing to do with the merits (such as they are) of their case--as Judge Wells'
order stated, it was entirely a matter of whether they had complied with her
(and Judge Kimball's) prior discovery orders.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 07:50 AM EDT |
SCO's proposed wording for the order granting leave to file overlength
objections doesn't specify how much time SCO should be given (this is SCO,
remember - no need for specifics).
How much time do you think SCO need? One year? Two?
---
Shampoo for my real friends, real poo for my sham friends - not Francis Bacon
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 07:57 AM EDT |
PJ Quoth:
I view this objection as more of a placeholder anyway
....
50-odd pages plus as much again in exhibits a "placeholder"?
How big is the "place" and what would anything substantial look like??? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 07:59 AM EDT |
The appeal, technically an "objection" seeking Kimball's review,
argues that Wells' reasoning confused SCO's contractual allegations over
IBM's alleged export of the code with SCO's Unix copyright
claims.
This sentence seems to indicate that SCO is arguing in
their objection that (at least some of) the discarded claims relate to either:
- methods and concepts in IBM's code (Dynix, AIX) that SCO claims
control rights over due to their peculiar concept of "anything that touches a
derivative is a derivative" even if it's copyrighted or patented by
IBM
- methods and concepts in IBM's code (Dynix, AIX) that SCO claims
aren't literal copying and have gone through sufficient changes and iterations
(evolutions) that they can't map them from SCO's Open Server or UnixWare or SysV
to where they ended up, but somehow SCO knows they're there and got into
Linux
I'm betting that they're trying for the first item, but I
don't think it should help their claims: whether they are claiming copyright
infringement (of code) or that code was exported that they have some alleged
contractual control over, it's still code, and it still has to have had a source
(version/file/line) and a destination (version/file/line) for it to have been
"exported". Of course, Bob Mims could have gotten his quote wrong, and they
could still be arguing that methods and concepts can be disclosed without
"exporting" or disclosing code.
The interesting thing, though, is that
this might (? IANAL) give Kimball the opportunity to make some sort of ruling or
determination on SCO's peculiar theory (theories?) because they bring them up in
their objection. And if that is the case, and Kimball rules negatively and
shuts that avenue down, then his ruling might affect other claims that were not
discarded but rely on the same theory.
Would it be possible for Kimball
to do this? Or is it the kind of thing that has to wait until we get to the
summary judgement stage? Comments from any lawyers out there?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 08:25 AM EDT |
That way only scox's side is made public. Wasn't scox warned about that sort of
thing?
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4049382?source=rss[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mlwmohawk on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 08:57 AM EDT |
I had a thought the other day. SCO's position is that IBM did this thing, so
they should know what they did. Right? That's why they haven't given any
evidence, because, in their argument, IBM already knows.
Well, I just realized that, unlike the example of a shop lifter being given a
catelog and being told "you know what you stole," it is more serious
than this. This is a "presumption of guilt."
It is up to SCO to (a) show a crime was commited and (b) prove that IBM did it.
They not showing evidence "because IBM already knows what they stole"
has to be absurd as IBM should have the presumption of innocence and any motion
to the court should seek to prove guilt, not assume it.
I don't know how you'd phrase this as an objection, but there should be
something that IBM could argue.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 08:58 AM EDT |
| Just a reminder to folks that may be interested, there is a community of experts
here who are prepared to read, evaluate and comment on any new technical or
historical argument that may be in this filing. It doesn't have to be done
online
in public necessarily. Although that would be the usual way in an open
source
community, it isn't the only way.
But I'm pretty sure that IBM has a
similarly knowledgable community internally in
any case, so no worries.
J [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 09:04 AM EDT |
Mims needs to widen his expert pool contact list, and use experts correctly.
Back to school buddy....
Bringing Enderle & DiDio under quote with opinions in the legal realm (they
are not legal analyists) is like interviewing to a pig farmer about the dairy
industry. Duh!
Enderle - "speculated that Kimball could reinstate some of the dismissed
allegations..."
Ok, Mims, he's qualified to even speculate HOW?! And you quote that!
Sensationalism was definately on the too do list?
Not to mention, while these analyists have been active throughout, their powers
of analysis have been wrong through out! Laura Dido's objectivity &
professionalism is in question for her gorilla journalism against PJ.
Journalism isn't what it used to be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: alan.hughes on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
The appeal, technically an "objection"
seeking Kimball's
review, argues that Wells' reasoning
confused SCO's contractual allegations
over IBM's alleged
export of the code with SCO's Unix copyright
claims. As I remember, Judge Wells made
her ruling on the
basis that SCO had failed to specify the
defaulting code sufficiently
accurately, thus making if
difficult (if not impossible) for IBM to defend
themselves. So can someone tell me what "SCO's contractual
allegations" or
"IBM's alleged export of the code with
SCO's Unix copyright" got to do with
this? It seems to
me that SCO is attempting to use Kimball to make an
end-run around Wells by basing an appeal on spurious (and
irrelevant)
grounds. If this is all they've got to work
with, then SCO is in deep trouble;
this is not a strategy
that is likely to work (Kimball is too aware of SCO's
tricks by now), and one that is likely to raise Kimball's
blood pressure a
notch or three!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grayhawk on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 11:03 AM EDT |
If the reason SCO sealed this objection is because it included code from the
items that were denied then they have a serious problem right there. The reason
is that if they include the code now, why have they refused to show the code
when Wells repeatedly asked them for proof of their claim? How do they explain
their refusal to be specific when repeatedly asked and now when push comes to
shove they magically all of a sudden have the specifics?
It also now gives IBM a chance to see up what tree SCO is trying to bark and
they, IBM, then can line up a much better shot to scuttle SCO's ship of
misadventurers.
---
It is said when the power of love overcomes the love of power, that it is then
and only then that we shall truly have peace![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rcbixler on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 11:04 AM EDT |
Does SCO have to justify filing their motion under seal?
I wonder how typical it is to file a motion under seal.
Is this like filing an overlength memorandum in that,
formally, one needs permission to do so, but permission is
routinely granted? I hope the seal can be lifted, but I
really have no idea how this all works.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
Ok, IANAL so my understanding of how things are supposed to work could easily
be skewed. So, let's start with the charge. My understanding is that the
charge should be laid out such that not only can the defendent defend, but the
court can understand what the charge is.
The appeal, technically
an "objection" seeking Kimball's review, argues that Wells' reasoning confused
SCO's contractual allegations over IBM's alleged export of the code with SCO's
Unix copyright claims.
Magistrate Wells denied the items
specifically because they weren't definitive enough. Ummm... if Magistrate
Wells didn't understand what the claims were and so was "confused" isn't that in
itself indicative the claims weren't definitive?
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 11:50 AM EDT |
I'm just curious. What is the likelihood that Judge Wells
conferred with Judge Kimball while she was making her
decision? If she had questions of law she wanted resolved
would she go to him and ask for his opinion, or are they
required to make their decisions on their own with the aid
of their clerks? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
Judge Well's order is a beautiful piece of work. She should be proud of it.
Having Judge Kimball read, review, and rule on it is not a bad thing at all.
This appeal gives Judge Kimball the opportunity to praise Judge Wells in court.
And I bet he does just that. I think that Judge Wells will be beaming after
this appeal is decided.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: toys on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 12:50 PM EDT |
What is outrageous about SCO filing under seal is that if they do so THEY ARE
NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT IT. Yet we have an article in the Salt Lake paper,
prepared BEFORE the document was filed that refers to the content of that
document. This is a selected "leak" to a favored news organization
and is specifically not allowed. If Groklaw had a legal department Groklaw
would immeadiately move to unseal based on this highly unfair and prejudicial
action.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
| I can see this one coming a light-year off [1]
The first question Judge
Kimball will ask if this gets to oral arguments will be, "What is the standard
of review?"
Which will, once again, cause consternation in the ranks [1] of
SCOX, since it appears from the SLTrib interview that they're planning to argue
the matter de novo, quite likely with arguments they didn't use with
Judge Wells.
[1] Which is a good thing, because it could take a
year.
[2] "Rank" is so appropriate, don't you think? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
First of all, it seems to me with the "Contracts vs. Copyrights"
question that is possibly contained in this redacted filing comes from trying to
dig up a logical reasoning that would poke a hole in Judge Wells' argument. It
stands to reason that a copyright claim is only validated by showing exactly
what was copied. SCO's contention in this case is that the contracts give SCO
the ability to restrict which methods and concepts are shared.
So what theory does this rest upon that would give them an out?
Again, they must be back to the idea (which is stated in their briefs, and their
expert report from Rockhind) that the methods and concepts don't need to be
backed up via the code. They can't be arguing otherwise, because it is
indisputable that the version, file, and lines of code were not given for those
points. My guess is that if we ever get to see these, or get to listen in to a
hearing about this, they will be back to that same argument.
Unfortunately, this can't be an out for them. They didn't answer with the
necessary information in their December filing, and they didn't dispute the need
for this specificity with the court earlier on, nor ask the court to clarify.
Further, their own Sandeep Gupta said that he would need the code should he
start talking about methods and concepts.
What else would be in this filing? I would expect to see a lot of the same
points rehashed. SCO will argue:
1. This court order is dispository to the case, and those claims are only
supposed to be handled after this phase is over in the PSJ phase that is coming
soon. They will probably appeal to Kimball saying that it was Kimball's own
order that established this.
2. That Wells' legal reasoning about the authority of a magistrate judge to
throw out claims is without merit. That it can only be done by a regular judge.
Remember the point in Wells' filing, in which she establishes that her court
could throw out claims if their discovery was insufficient. It's different than
the dispository order.
3. Methods and concepts are not allowed to be shared by contract, and the memos
and press items that back up the claims without source code prove that they
breached the contract.
4. That Wells' wilfulness argument falls short, and is not backed up by enough
case law, or evidence in this case. Remember, if there would have been no
wilfulness, those claims would stand.
5. And on this one, I'm stretching: That the 9th inning statements, as well as
other statements such as the shoplifting analogy about the motivations behind
SCO's filings are somehow prejudicial to SCO.
Just some guesses. But I would mostly think that this would be a re-hash. The
hooks are out there and fairly obvious.
Regarding not sharing this filing, I do think that they are doing it to keep it
out of the public eye when their stock is so very perilous right now. As well as
out of our own hands here at GL.
My question is: Will there be a hearing for this. I hope so.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 03:56 PM EDT |
Obviously a party would be allowed to file under seal any proprietary
material which it asserted was secret - like code, for example.
But by
the nature of this appeal, it really cannot contain anything like that. It can
only be about the Magistrate Judge's decision, and can only refer to facts which
were before the Magistrate Judge when the decision was made.
So how can
there possibly be any valid reason for filing under seal? And how does one
object to the sealing of a filing? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 05:24 PM EDT |
Perhaps they are sealing it from Judge Wells out of concern for her health.
Imagine her blood pressure if she ever gets to read what they have to say about
her ruling![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 15 2006 @ 05:33 PM EDT |
SCO's has been acting so confident about their case, but at the same time act
like if any of their evidence becomes public someone will "wiped the
fingerprints" off the evindence (that means linux developers aren't able to
mitigate the damage SCO is getting by people "stealing" their precious
IP). So of course, they are sealing their objection even though that makes
absolutely no sense.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seeRpea on Monday, July 17 2006 @ 08:10 AM EDT |
I couldn't find a good spot for this question, so decided that since the SCO
lawsuit is such a joke , this would be best place to ask.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33025
RIAA had threatened to break the kneecaps of a woman who decided to fight all
the way back.
Does the result of this have any impact elsewhere?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 17 2006 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
I wonder if SCO is betting that They will still have a claim for trial after
PSJ's. Would this objection afford SCO any extra leeway for statements it can
make at trial?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sk43 on Monday, July 17 2006 @ 10:44 PM EDT |
Even though SCO's objection is sealed, we can at least guess at what some of
their arguments might be. According to Mims, SCO's appeal depends in part on
claiming that Wells confused copyright vs. method and concepts.
In her ruling, Wells cites "copyright" extensively in two places. The
first is in the section called "Background" in both the preamble and
in part I, SCO's Public Statements. The second is in the section called
"IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims" at the end of part II-A,
"Methods and Concepts and Specificity", where she discusses at length
the deposit requirements for copyright registration.
My conjecture is that, with regard to copyrights, SCO's argument will be that:
1. Wells has misconstrued SCO's 2nd amended complaint and its public statements
as accusing IBM of primarily copyright violations, when, in fact, it has never
done so (other than for its distribution of AIX). Most of the material cited by
Wells comes from IBM's claims in its motion for PSJ on CC10, which, according to
SCO, are not relevant to SCO's own contract-related claims.
2. Because methods and concepts are not covered by copyright law, Wells reliance
on the copyright act for supporting the notion that source code must be provided
is inappropriate.
How might Kimball reply?
Argument 1 has no merit. While Wells includes many references to citations by
SCO about copyright (which SCO cannot disavow and which are certainly part of
CC10), she also included citations to SCO's other claims. In fact, para. 1 of
part I. SCO's Public Statements gives a a very concise synopsis of all SCO's
claims from its August 2003 SCO Forum presentation. These claims are: 1.
direct copying; 2. derivative works; 3. obfuscation; and 4. non-literal
transfers (methods, structures, and sequences.). [Note that the last item
is referred to explicitly as "methods and concepts" in a later slide
in the presentation.]
Argument 2 is actually valid. However, Wells uses it only used to support her
conclusions, not to anchor them. Even if this part of the ruling is overturned,
her remaining arguments remain intact, and her ruling as a whole still stands.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
