|
Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy with Unsealed Exhibits, as text |
|
Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 09:47 AM EDT
|
Here's the Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy with Unsealed Exhibits [PDF], number 744 on Pacer, as text, thanks to feldegast, who did the OCR for us. This Declaration accompanies IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Objections to Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells' Order limiting SCO's claims to the ones it put sufficient evidence on the table about by the December 22, 2005 deadline. It's also number 746 [PDF] on Pacer. IBM initially filed it conventionally and then it realized it hadn't filed all the exhibits, so it filed a Notice of Errata [PDF] and then refiled everything again, as you can see in the Pacer list: 742 -
Filed & Entered: 08/18/2006
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of IBM's Redacted Memorandun in Opposition to SCO's Objections to 7/28/06 Order and Declaration of T. Shaughnessy With Unsealed Exhibits filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation re [726] Sealed Document,, [724] Redacted Document, (Sorenson, Amy)
744 -
Filed: 08/18/2006
Entered: 08/21/2006
Declaration
Docket Text: DECLARATION of Todd M. Shaughnessy with Unsealed Exhibits filed by International Business Machines Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibits 19 to 25)(kla, )
745 -
Filed: 08/18/2006
Entered: 08/21/2006
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE of Errata by International Business Machines Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation re [744] Declaration. (kla, )
746 -
Filed: 08/18/2006
Entered: 08/21/2006
Declaration
Docket Text: DECLARATION of Todd M. Shaughnessy with Unsealed Exhibits filed by International Business Machines Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 4 through 8# (2) Exhibit 9 through 13# (3) Exhibit 14 through 19# (4) Exhibit 20 through 25)(kla, )
748 -
Filed: 08/18/2006
Entered: 08/21/2006
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [736] Memorandum in Opposition to Objection to Magistrate Wells Order of 6/28/06 by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # (1) Addendum# (2) Addendum# (3) Addendum# (4) Addendum# (5) Addendum)(blk, )
As it happens, the 25 exhibits are documents we've seen before, those of us who have been here since in 2003. Their cumulative purpose and effect is to demonstrate that SCO was informed all along the way that it wasn't telling IBM what it had allegedly done wrong with enough specificity. You'll see in Exhibit 11, the December 5, 2005 letter from IBM to SCO (on page 37 of Exhibit 2 [PDF]) that IBM straighforwardly informed SCO that IBM saw its interim list of materials allegedly misused as insufficient and told SCO that unless the final list of allegedly misused materials was more specific and detailed -- and IBM explains precisely what would be appropriate to provide -- it intended to ask the court to do what the court in fact eventually did in the Order SCO now objects to. This was no sudden ambush. IBM told SCO what it intended to do, explained to SCO how to avoid it, and then did exactly what it said it would. When you know you are on solid ground, you don't need to surprise the other side or play games.
It would be so voluminous if we reproduced all the exhibits here again, I don't think Groklaw software could actually do it, so what I did instead is provide links to every exhibit as it is listed in the Declaration, and you can read them as we transcribed them when they were originally filed, if you prefer plain text to PDFs. Note that exhibits 17 and 18 were filed as sealed documents, but I've linked to the redacted version that is available for 18. There is no redacted version of 17. My word, we've done a lot of work. That's all I kept thinking, as I reviewed all this material, digging through Groklaw's documents and remembering this volunteer and that, staying up late, over and over, trying to get a transcript done. Thank you all for the hard work you have done with me and for sticking to this project steadfastly even now after years of nonstop effort. It's a remarkable achievement, this steady gaze the community has directed at the SCO litigation, and we've created a body of work that I believe is useful now and will also be used by historians for many years to come. I'm proud of what we have accomplished, and I really felt that as I hunted for and found each and every exhibit on IBM's lengthy list.
Feldegast and I tried something new on this transcription. We had fun trying out Writely, both of us working at the same time on this document. It's a bit like trying to dance with a stranger, in that sometimes he moves to the left when you were thinking of the right, so it takes some getting used to. But I think Writely would definitely work for us as a group for cleaning up OCR'd documents. It isn't as helpful with HTML, because it has its own ideas that don't look quite right in Geeklog. But it isn't hard to fix what it does, so for those of you who wish to help but don't know how to code HTML, you can use the Writely Edit page, which is a WYSIWYG way of doing the HTML, without needing to understand how to code the HTML at all. It spits out the HTML for you, and we can easily clean it up to please Geeklog. With all the new documents being so incredibly long, this might work out well for us. And for sure it's useful for a group of us to clean up long OCR'd documents. I suggest if two people are working together to start at opposite ends and meet in the middle, or agree to take every other paragraph, or tell each other which paragraph you will work on. It was fun though, I have to say. So if you wish to help out, please get a Writely account. When we have a document needing work, I can let you know where to find it. And we'll dig in. Feldegast suggests having IM going at the same time, so we can converse.
I'm not sure how many things I can do at once, personally. It feels a bit like rubbing my stomach and patting my head at the same time, something I'm sure some of you can do with ease, so I mention his suggestion. If ever anyone wants to know what happened in the SCO v. IBM case, I suggest pointing them right here. This is the story in a nutshell. Red Hat update: By the way, I finally transcribed the most recent letter from Red Hat to the Delaware judge, and I've put it with SCO's here. It was written in June, prior to Judge Kimball's recent Order, which you probably should read if you read the Red Hat letter, to find out what happened. It was only when I did that that I realized that SUSE is saying that the contracts SCO signed for UnitedLinux divest SCO of certain copyrights, as the Order explains: Therefore, SuSE has requested a declaration in the arbitration that (1) SCO is precluded from asserting copyright infringement claims against SuSe and that (2) the UnitedLinux contracts divested SCO of ownership of any copyrights related to technology included in UnitedLinux, except for pre-existing technology and enhancements. My memory is that UnitedLinux touted certain features as being new in UL, such as JFS, did it not? That would mean, if SuSE prevails in the arbitration, that SCO would be precluded from asserting copyright ownership, no matter how convoluted, in anything in UL that wasn't SCO's prior to the distro or wasn't SCO's own personal enhancement to the distro. JFS wasn't contributed to UL by SCO, was it? So I see now why SCO fought the arbitration with such worried zeal. It was unsuccessful, in that Novell's motion to stay was granted in part. But Judge Kimball wrote this odd paragraph: Novell claims that the arbitrable issues predominate. Novell also asserts that it is highly likely that the arbitrator's ruling will have collateral estoppel effect on this litigation. It is true that the arbitrator's determination of whether SCO assigned the copyrights at issue to the UnitedLinux entity bears on the question of whether SCO owns the copyrights it is suing upon. It is also true, however, that a significant portion of SCO's claims and Novell's defenses are based upon the agreements between SCO and Novell--the Asset Purchase Agreement, as amended ("APA"), and the Technology License Agreement ("TLA"). Determinations on these
agreements in this court could have a similarly preclusive effect on the arbitration. Although Novell attempts to argue that there is an overlap between its defense of the claims relating to SuSE and SCO's claims relating to the APA and TLA, they are distinct in time and based on entirely separate agreements. Both require an underlying finding that SCO did, in fact, have ownership of the copyrights. But they appear to be factually and legally distinct. The court, therefore, cannot conclude that the arbitrable issues predominate. I'm not sure how the older contracts could be preclusive with regards to the later ones, since one can presume that SCO knew what it was agreeing to in the UL contracts. And if it agreed to donate copyrights to UL and not to sue any parties or licensees of the UL entities, I can't see how the earlier contracts can possibly undo that. I think Judge Kimball is thinking of Novell, as opposed to SuSE, but Novell is a licensee of SUSE, so that seems to me to be definitive. However, I have great respect for Judge Kimball, and it is more likely that I am missing something than that he is. And he also ruled thus: If the arbitration concludes before the parties are ready for trial in this matter, then the court will address the preclusive effect of the arbitrator's ruling on the claims in this case. If this case is ready for trial before the arbitration concludes, the court will revisit the issue of whether to stay the trial on the APA and TLA claims pending the conclusion of the arbitration. ***************************
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. Alan L. Sullivan (3152) Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651) Amy F. Sorenson (8947) [address, phone, fax] CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice) David R. Marriott (7572) [address, phone, fax] Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRCT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH | THE SCO GROUP, INC. Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, vs. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff | DECLARATION OF TODD M. SHAUGHNESSY WITH UNSEALED EXHIBITS Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK Honorable Dale A. Kimball Magistrate Judge Brooke C . Wells |
DECLARATION OF TODD M. SHAUGHNESSY I, Todd M. Shaughnessy, declare as follows:
1. I represent IBM in the lawsuit brought by SCO against IBM, titled The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK (D. Utah 2003). This declaration is submitted in support of Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff IBM's Opposition to SCO's Objections to Magistrate Judge Wells' Order of June 28, 2006.
2. On February 6, 2004, immediately before a hearing on SCO's compliance with the Court's December 12, 2003 Order, the Court held a conference in chambers with counsel for the parties. The Court advised both parties that if either party was unable to comply with its obligations under the Court's orders that it was not to ignore its obligations, but immediately to bring the issue to the Court's attention so that the Court could address it.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of IBM's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery, dated October 1, 2003.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of IBM's Memorandum in Support of Second Motion to Compel Discovery, dated November 6, 2003.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of IBM's Report on SCO's Compliance with the Court's December 12, 2003 Order, dated February 5, 2004.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the hearing transcript for the February 6, 2004 hearing before the Court.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the December 12, 2003 Order of the Court.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of the March 3, 2004 Order of the Court.
2
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of the February 8, 2005 Order of the Court.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the July 1, 2005 Order of the Court.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the hearing transcript for the October 7, 2005 hearing before the Court.
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the May 3, 2005 Declaration of Todd Shaughnessy.
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of the December 5, 2005 letter from Todd Shaughnessy to Edward Normand.
14. Attached hereto as
Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of the Forbes Magazine article, "SCO Claims IBM Destroyed Crucial Evidence", Daniel Lyons, dated July 20,2006.
15. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion to Compel, dated October 23, 2003.
16. Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of the "So Ordered" Stipulated Protective Order entered into between the parties on September 15, 2003.
17. Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of the hearing transcript for the February 24, 2006 hearing before the Court.
18. Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of the Stipulation re Discovery, entered into between the parties on March 17, 2006.
19. Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Misused Material, dated March 7, 2006.
3
20. Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 [redacted version] is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Randall Davis, dated April 28, 2006.
21. Attached hereto as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of IBM's Memorandum Attaching and in Support of IBM's Proposed Scheduling Order, dated March 25, 2005.
22. Attached hereto as Exhibit 20 [PDF; redacted version] is a true and correct copy of SCO's Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery, dated August 19, 2004.
23. Attached hereto as Exhibit 21 [PDF] is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Randall Davis, dated March 29, 2006,
24. Attached hereto as Exhibit 22 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Chris Sontag in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, dated July 9, 2004.
25. Attached hereto as Exhibit 23 is a true and correct copy of IBM's Motion to Limit
26. Attached hereto as Exhibit 24 is a true and correct copy of IBM's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material, dated February 13, 2006.
27. Attached hereto as Exhibit 25 is a true and correct copy of a Salt Lake Tribune article, "SCO will appeal the gutting of its lawsuit against IBM", Bob Mims, dated July 13, 2006. [ed: No longer available on SLT website; Edgar's copy]
4
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED this 14th day of August, 2006.
________[signature]____ Todd M. Shaughnessy
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 18th day of August, 2006, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent by U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid to the following: Brent O. Hatch Mark F. James HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C. [Address] Stephen N. Zack Mark J. Heise BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP [Address] Robert Silver Edward Normand BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP [Address] ___[signature]___ Amy F. Sorenson
6
|
|
Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 10:01 AM EDT |
woo hoo!
---
---
That's not a law suit. *THIS* is a law suit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Brent Hatch -> Brent O. Hatch - Authored by: pmichaud on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 10:08 AM EDT
- Corrections hear - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 10:08 AM EDT
- Corrections here - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 10:13 AM EDT
- Corrections here - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 12:15 PM EDT
- those of us who were here since in 2003 - Authored by: Erwan on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 10:44 AM EDT
- Exhibit 22o - Authored by: alansz on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 10:47 AM EDT
- Corrections hear - Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 11:16 AM EDT
- In the last graph on the front page... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 12:38 PM EDT
- Memorandun in Opposition to SCO's Objections to 7/28/06 Order - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 01:19 PM EDT
- IBM told SCO what intended to do. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 01:27 PM EDT
- Corrections hear - Authored by: vonbrand on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 02:12 PM EDT
- Exhibit 22 linked to wrong document - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 09:56 PM EDT
- Red Hat update - Authored by: Erwan on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 04:55 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 10:02 AM EDT |
Woo Hoo Too!
Remember -- keep it off topic and make those links clickable!
---
---
That's not a law suit. *THIS* is a law suit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Suggestions for PJ and a question - Authored by: tyche on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 11:38 AM EDT
- SCOX - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 11:50 AM EDT
- SCOX - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 06:36 PM EDT
- Writley Impressions - Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- Funtwo - poster boy for collaborative creation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 07:49 AM EDT
- Headline -- Flying the paranoid skies - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 03:17 PM EDT
- MS, Mass, ODF & Office plugins - Authored by: DustDevil on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 05:19 PM EDT
- Forbes website stats -- lies and statistics. - Authored by: darkonc on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- Microsoft's "victim complex" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 05:29 PM EDT
- Microsoft, a victim??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 06:57 PM EDT
- SEC - Authored by: Ed L. on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 08:45 PM EDT
- "Microsoft leaks Vista pricing" - Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 06:13 PM EDT
- "The low-cost phenomenon" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 10:03 PM EDT
- Please help with wikipedia article about Groklaw. - Authored by: arch_dude on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 10:20 PM EDT
|
Authored by: John Hasler on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 10:43 AM EDT |
> But I think Writely would definitely work for us as a group
> for cleaning up OCR'd documents.
For those who are willing to agree to the EULA and install proprietary software.
---
IOANAL. Licensed under the GNU General Public License[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- writely.com - Authored by: Araneidae on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 11:01 AM EDT
- EULA - Authored by: The Cornishman on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 11:59 AM EDT
- EULA - Authored by: John Hasler on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 12:43 PM EDT
- EULA - Authored by: BigTex on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 01:04 PM EDT
- EULA - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 03:22 PM EDT
- EULA - Authored by: MrCharon on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 10:03 PM EDT
- AJAX = Javascript - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 08:13 AM EDT
- EULA - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 04:20 PM EDT
- EULA - Authored by: brian on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 05:09 PM EDT
- EULA - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 04:29 AM EDT
- EULA - Authored by: AdamBaker on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 10:20 AM EDT
- EULA - Authored by: Mark Levitt on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 05:24 PM EDT
- EULA - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 03:49 AM EDT
- EULA - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 05:24 AM EDT
- EULA - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 07:10 AM EDT
- EULA - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 12:50 PM EDT
- EULA - Authored by: The Cornishman on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 08:10 AM EDT
- Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy with Unsealed Exhibits, as text - Authored by: rm6990 on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 06:13 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 11:02 AM EDT |
"HTML for you, and we can easily clean it up to please Geeklog" using
Writely?
For Geeklog what HTML WYSIWYG tool is suggested above any
others.
I have used Mozilla Composer and OpenOffice to write a HTML version of a
comment, and the are good and quick to use to make a link work, and then I
change the document I am writing to the HTML mode of Composer or OpenOffice,
where I can see all the HTML, and then I copy that into Groklaw's comments...
preview and submit.
But, even after a preview, it sometimes does not come out just like it was in
Mozilla, or OpenOffice ?
Is there a ODF HTML writting tool standard that Mozilla, OpenOffice, and
Writely... should be using (that then geeklog can by changed to be compatible
with)?
There seems to be a missing standard, no? If there was a standard, then all 3
HTML writing tools mentioned above, and other WYSIWYG HTML editors (Nvu, take
your pick, etc) should ALL work with each other, and be copy and paste
"work all the time" into Groklaw (geeklog)... right out of the box!
This does not seem to be the case!
What is the reason why everything does not work with everything else in HTML's
LINUX world... and does Open Document Format standard address this?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- HTML for you, and we can easily clean it up to please Geeklog - Authored by: Nick_UK on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 11:17 AM EDT
- HTML for you, and we can easily clean it up to please Geeklog - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 12:02 PM EDT
- Some thoughts..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 12:28 PM EDT
- HTML for you, and we can easily clean it up to please Geeklog - Authored by: Fractalman on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 01:09 PM EDT
- HTML for you, and we can easily clean it up to please Geeklog - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- Writely or Rongly - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 05:51 AM EDT
- Real geeks do it w/ vi ( n/t -- jk ) - Authored by: tinkerghost on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 09:16 AM EDT
- HTML works fine IFF you dont have 200+ errors on your homepage. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 11:00 AM EDT
|
Authored by: The Cornishman on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 11:39 AM EDT |
I think this is an exciting development. Many times I have held back from
starting on a big transcription in the knowledge that someone else will beat me
to the end. Now here's a chance for those of us who can only devote relatively
small amounts of time to make a contribution. The military men would call it a
force multiplier :)
The key problem, it seems to me, is not about the HTML tidying to get from
Writely to Geeklog: there are enough technical geniuses for that! It's about
organizing ourselves as an effective group when one of these big documents lands
on the desk.
When I set up my Writely account I deliberately took the same username as my
Groklaw handle, and I suggest that we could avoid identity confusion by all
doing the same: as far as I know one can have multiple Writely accounts.
Someone will have to be the owner of the document, and grant others access as
collaborators. I don't know if PJ would want or be able always to take this role
herself.
Perhaps we should have a Collaborators' thread in stories needing this sort of
effort, where requests to lead and/or join are made, and bits of the document
are assigned (and re-assigned if people don't manage to come through with the
goods). This business of 'paragraph-level locking' or whatever needs some
thought, too.
---
(c) assigned to PJ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fredex on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
A thought just struck me (shocking all by itself! :).
This site
is set up for
distributed proofreading. It was originally set up to provide documents for
Project gutenberg, but I gather (not having been there in a long time, until
today) that it now provides documents for other places too.
I wonder if
either:
1) they would allow Groklaw to put freshly OCR'd documents there for
proofreading/correction, or
2) if Groklaw could use their software.
It
allows an individual to grab a page and proofread/correct it in a web browser.
Granularity is one page, which isn't usually a huge commitment of time. If it
was that easy to review a page a lot more of us might get involved!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 09:25 PM EDT |
Yeah they warned they would ask for the claims to be dismissed if they weren't
clarified. BUT
1) Did they hold a giant press conference and have the equivelant of Darl or
Stowell announce it?
2) Did they do a big Forbes interview and say it over and over again?
3) Did they try to read sealed documents out loud in court three times after
being told to shut up by the judge in order to show the world that the claims
needed to be clarified?
It's just not fair. Without these things, SCO couldn't have possibly have
understood that their claims were in jeopardy.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- RI-I-I-I-GHT! - Authored by: tyche on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 10:32 PM EDT
- RI-I-I-I-GHT! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 04:54 AM EDT
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, August 27 2006 @ 11:22 PM EDT |
One avenue I can see SCOG might argue is that the "contractual
control" SCOG has in the derivatives of Unix is distinct from the
copyrights SCOG has in Unix.
This is consistent with focusing on the things IBM has contributed which were
not included in Sys V.
---
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 07:11 AM EDT |
and Novell's defenses are based upon the agreements between
SCO and Novell--the Asset Purchase Agreement, as
amended
I hope this little snippet doesn't indicate
that the Judge is confusing The Santa Cruz Operation with The SCO Group. I would
think he'd have that distinction clearly in place by now.
--- "When I
say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RFD on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
Both require an underlying finding that SCO did, in fact, have
ownership of the copyrights. But they appear to be factually and legally
distinct. The court, therefore, cannot conclude that the arbitrable issues
predominate.
As I understand Judge Kimball's order, he is
saying that a ruling in the arbitration that SCO either did, or did not,
transfer any relevant copyrights it might have had to UnitedLinux would not be
inconsistant with a finding that Novell did, or did not, transfer any copyrights
under the APA. If Novell wins either, SCO's copyright claims are
gone. --- Eschew obfuscation assiduously. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MplsBrian on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 10:25 AM EDT |
I like this paragraph the most:
2. On February 6, 2004,
immediately before a hearing on SCO's compliance with the Court's December 12,
2003 Order, the Court held a conference in chambers with counsel for the
parties. The Court advised both parties that if either party was unable to
comply with its obligations under the Court's orders that it was not to ignore
its obligations, but immediately to bring the issue to the Court's attention so
that the Court could address it.
It makes an important
point rather plainly, don't you think? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
<i>(seriously, how convenient would it be to write a _real_ popcorn
cooking
mode...)</i>
Just so long as it's not proprietary kernels being popped.
Seriously, going back into my cave.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 28 2006 @ 08:45 PM EDT |
When Kimball mentions that if the arbitration goes FIRST, it could preclude SCO
from asserting it's rigths on the copyrights, he then goes onto look at the
opposite, what if the arbitraton follows:
It is also true,
however, that a significant portion of SCO's claims and Novell's defenses are
based upon the agreements between SCO and Novell--the Asset Purchase Agreement,
as amended ("APA"), and the Technology License Agreement ("TLA"). Determinations
on these agreements in this court could have a similarly preclusive effect on
the arbitration.
Is it possible that he is saying here that if the
arbitration went SECOND, that the copyrights might not be Sco's to Give to
UnitedLinux in the first place, so the arbitration is moot?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|