|
|
| Latest (Sealed) Filing by IBM - Memo in Opp. to SCO's Objections |
 |
|
Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 11:26 AM EDT
|
As many of you know, yesterday was the deadline for IBM to file its response to SCO's Objections to Judge Brooke Wells' most recent Order, the one that tossed overboard most of SCO's claims regarding allegedly infringing materals, mainly the ones about methods and concepts. Whatever they are. IBM met the deadline, but it filed its Memorandum in Opposition to Magistrate Judge Wells' Order of June 28, 2006 and a Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy conventionally (too long), and it's all sealed, as was SCO's. So we'll have to wait in hopes of a redacted version. We already have SCO's redacted Objections.
Here are the docket entries from yesterday, and you'll see that there is also another SCO request to drop an attorney [PDF] from its side, Dan Filor, who is leaving Boise Schiller. This is the third such request that I can recall. Who wouldn't want to leave, after he attended the last hearing, the first time we'd seen him in the case, which is the hearing that resulted in the Order SCO is now objecting to? The request, however, doesn't tell us why he is leaving, just that he's making his exit: 733 -
Filed & Entered:
08/14/2006
Motion to Withdraw as Attorney
Docket Text: Plaintiff's MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Dan Filor filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Hatch, Brent)
734 -
Filed & Entered:
08/14/2006
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Objections to Magistrate Judge Wells' Order of June 28, 2006 and the Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation (Sorenson, Amy)
735 -
Filed & Entered:
08/14/2006
Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: Ex Parte (Not Sealed) MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Opposition to SCO's Objections to Magistrate Judge Wells' Order of June 28, 2006 filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum)(Sorenson, Amy)
So, Dan Filor has left the building. Who wouldn't want to, given a choice, if you really think about it. I stress that we don't know why he's leaving Boies Schiller. It's possible he just found a better job or has health issues or is sick of being a lawyer or is running for office or his significant other has a great job in Timbuktu and he wants to go too... my point is that we don't know the reason. But it is my belief that there isn't a lawyer on the planet who wants this case on his resume. Of course SCO has gazillions of attorneys left, so many in fact that I guess it's inevitable that one or two would end up having to drop out over such a long litigation. There have probably been many weddings and babies born and divorces by now among the Boies Schiller guys alone since March of 2003. Meanwhile, David Marriott keeps on carrying the flag for IBM. There are support attorneys, of course, but we have not seen the same musical chairs as on the SCO side, where you never know who is going to show up for a hearing.
And IBM , as you see, in answering SCO's honking nearly 55-page Objections, filed 55 of its own, and that means it too must ask for permission to file overlength. Here's that Ex Parte Motion [PDF]. Here's its Notice of Conventional Filing [PDF]. It's 55 pages of argument, not counting the cover page, the index, the list of cases, the introduction, appendices and exhibits. So, transcribers, beware. This one is huge. We'll see how much of it makes it past the censors.Here's what IBM tells the court about the length: Pursuant to DUCivR 7-1(e), Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business
Machines Corporation (“IBM”) respectfully submits this Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File
Overlength Memorandum in Opposition to SCO’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Wells’ Order
of June 28, 2006, consisting of approximately 55 pages of argument, exclusive of face sheet,
table of contents and authorities, preliminary and fact statements, and appendices and exhibits.
With its objections, SCO has submitted an overlength memorandum nearly 55 pages in
length which raises a host of detailed issues and complaints spanning nearly the entire history of
this case. While IBM has endeavored to respond to the issues in succinct fashion, doing so fully
and fairly has necessitated approximately 55 pages of legal argument.
Based on the foregoing, IBM respectfully requests that it be granted leave to file its
overlength Memorandum in Opposition to SCO’s Renewed Motion to Compel, consisting of
approximately 55 pages of argument.
Does that not whet your appetite, the part about SCO raising "a host of detailed issues and complaints spanning nearly the entire history of this case"? It definitely makes me want to read IBM's response. No doubt one of the matters IBM has responded to in some fashion is the SCO scattershot about alleged spoliation. SCO still has not filed a motion for sanctions regarding missing evidence the way you are supposed to, if you believe there is spoliation of evidence. It said it would file such a motion, but it has not happened yet. Here's what SCO wrote in its redacted Objections: SCO intends to raise the issue of IBM's spoliation of evidence before this Court at the appropriate time. Only SCO can explain why the appropriate time to be specific is never now. Could it be because it knows it can't win such a motion? You think? So it is certainly possible that IBM will again just point out that this matter is not yet properly before the court, as Judge Wells told SCO at the last hearing, when it tried to raise it in oral argument. The media went wild with the story SCO told, but they got snookered by some SCO PR, and the court will suffer no such confusion.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: ws on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
| All detectable errors go here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections Here - Authored by: friedlinguini on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 11:37 AM EDT
- Corrections Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 11:46 AM EDT
- Corrections Here - Authored by: lmbell on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 12:06 PM EDT
- Should be: "Boies Schiller" - n/t - Authored by: jbeadle on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 12:06 PM EDT
- Memorandum in Opposition? - Authored by: Nivuahc on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 12:11 PM EDT
- Name of IBM's motion wrong? - Authored by: alansz on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 12:11 PM EDT
- Renewed Motion to Compel ?? - Authored by: klog on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 12:36 PM EDT
- Link Issues - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 12:41 PM EDT
- Links reversed? - Authored by: klog on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 12:41 PM EDT
- Missing space - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 01:06 PM EDT
- materals -> mater*i*als (nt) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 01:08 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 11:49 AM EDT |
A question: who makes the redactions? The court, the judge, both parties, or
only the submitting party?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kevin on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
Here go the off-topic posts that we all so love reading.
---
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Felix_the_Mac on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 12:03 PM EDT |
Do we know when the hearing is?
I suppose that the judge will take his/her time in issuing her findings?
Anything else significant coming soon?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 12:06 PM EDT |
Could they be doing conventional filing of sealed documents to avoid the
problems with redaction of electronic versions that have been noted previously.
When the document is filed conventionally the court does the electronic scanning
so any weaknesses in the redaction are the result of court error. Where as if
the document and redaction are filed by a party in the case then weaknesses in
the electronic redaction could be viewed a result of an error on the part of the
party filing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 12:24 PM EDT |
"...babies born and divorces by now among the Boies Schiller guys
alone"
Now we've heard about those Boies Schiller attorneys and what they do to their
clients and opponents (and one can easily guess they probably have to practice
first (wink) but I doubt they've had babies. And I **SINCERELY** doubt they've
done it "alone" if they did!
A question: your writing says *IBM* filed an objection to the order? Is that
correct? Why would they do that (unless to ask for ALL of SCOGs points they
addressed to be thrown out?)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 12:34 PM EDT |
| I can't wait to read IBM's redacted memorandum. My guess is that all of SCO's
"Clear errors of law" are actually clear, but not errors of law. They keep
trying to frame the order as dispositive, but how can that be the case? The
judge made no ruling on any of SCO's claims in their complaint, just the
individual pieces of "evidence" that they did not properly reveal in discovery.
SCO had years to reveal their case against IBM and they had been ordered several
times by the court to do so. They wait until the absolute final deadline that
the court imposed because SCO seemed unwilling to disclose this information in
discovery and they leave the items so vague that IBM cannot even respond or
investigate them. What would SCO like? They delayed and delayed some more
requesting every version of AIX and Dynix. After IBM completed the herculean
task, which they pointed out didn't even consist of relevant materials, SCO
still cannot articulate what IBM did wrong.
Allowing these nebulous claims
in would only allow SCO to confuse the case and hide the truth. It would
clearly be prejudicial to IBM since they cannot defend themselves. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: philc on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
I have a (hopefully not too dumb) question on prcedures in court.
I have read here that when one side files the other gets to reply and the
original filer gets to respond to that. Then the judge can hold a hearing and
sometime later rule on the matter.
What happens if a party appeals a decision and the appeal judge reads the
decision and the appealing parties arguments and finds no reason to reverse the
decision? Can the judge make a ruling or is he/she forced to go through the
whole drill and let the other side have its say and hold a hearing?
Thanks![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
> David Marriott keeps on carrying the flag for IBM.
A clear victory over SCO will look great in his resume.
Just think how much a company that will be faced with a
frivolous lawsuit will pay for an expert with a good
winning record.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
The next SCO Group press release!
Of course it was spoliation of evidence, IBM never proved The SCO Groups case.
The SCO Group asked for the incriminating evidence, but instead was given all
code ever created by IBM.
The SCO Group also knows the evidence was removed from all public versions of
Linux, proving that the super secret code was released to teh Linux h@x0rs by
IBM.
---
"Numerical superiority is of no consequence. In battle, victory will go to the
best tactician."
~ George Custer (1839-1876)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eskild on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 03:04 PM EDT |
'But it is my belief that there isn't a lawyer on the planet who wants this case
on his resume.'
Being accepted onto the Nazgûl team should be OK on the resume?
---
Eskild
Denmark[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
Why isn't all the stuff that's been removed from SCO's web site spoliation? It
seems relavant to me.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
Isn't SCO's dropping webpages from its server equivalent to spoliation? It seems
that proof of their continuing distribution (under GPL no less) counters several
of their key premises, and hiding that fact by removing online evidence seems
like the idea behind spoliation. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
