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
IBM's Massive Memo in Support of SJ On SCO's Contract Claims - Updated
Monday, October 02 2006 @ 09:57 PM EDT

If you are on dialup, fair warning: this IBM Redacted Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Contract Claims (SCO's First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action) is so huge, the court split it into two parts and each PDF is huge. A grand total of 125 pages. IBM is serious about getting this done:

I haven't read it yet myself. So we'll do it together. And if anyone wants to split it up into smaller chunks for our friends in Europe who are on dialup, just send me the PDFs and I'll gladly put them up also.

Two kind souls split the two PDFs into smaller chunks. Rick Stanley mentioned that he used pdftk, an Open Source app that is part of Debian and probably lots of other distros. Here you go then, thanks to Rick and the author of pdftk, Sid Steward:



Here's the description on Debian : If PDF is electronic paper, then pdftk is an electronic stapler-remover, hole-punch, binder, secret-decoder-ring, and X-Ray-glasses. Pdftk is a simple tool for doing everyday things with PDF documents. Keep one in the top drawer of your desktop and use it to:

- Merge PDF documents
- Split PDF pages into a new document
- Decrypt input as necessary (password required)
- Encrypt output as desired
- Fill PDF Forms with FDF Data and/or Flatten Forms
- Apply a Background Watermark
- Report PDF on metrics, including metadata and bookmarks
- Update PDF Metadata
- Attach Files to PDF Pages or the PDF Document
- Unpack PDF Attachments
- Burst a PDF document into single pages
- Uncompress and re-compress page streams
- Repair corrupted PDF (where possible)

And now it turns out both of our volunteers used pdftk. Here are the commands:

mkdir IBM-832; cd IBM-832
pdftk ../IBM-832-1.pdf burst output 'IBM-832-1-%02d.pdf'
pdftk ../IBM-832-2.pdf burst output 'IBM-832-2-%02d.pdf'

Now, wasn't that easy?


  


IBM's Massive Memo in Support of SJ On SCO's Contract Claims - Updated | 291 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: feldegast on Monday, October 02 2006 @ 10:08 PM EDT
if there are any

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2006 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: feldegast on Monday, October 02 2006 @ 10:10 PM EDT
Please make links clickable

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2006 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hi PJ. Could you add the file size to the end of the 2 pdf links above? Thanks
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 02 2006 @ 10:42 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Undisputed facts?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 02 2006 @ 10:54 PM EDT
"R. SCO's touting and obfuscation."

SCO agrees that they've obfuscated? I'm clearly missing something (as usual)
here. LOL

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Yep - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 02 2006 @ 11:14 PM EDT
    • huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 12:51 AM EDT
      • huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 12:59 AM EDT
      • huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 01:14 AM EDT
"None of the System V Code is protectable by copyright."
Authored by: IMANAL on Monday, October 02 2006 @ 11:34 PM EDT
In the adjoining document to these this text (the two pdf:s), the Motion for
Summary Judgment on its Claim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement (10th
Counterclaim), IBM wrote: "None of the System V Code is protectable by
copyright."

I have read the Memorandum hastily but can only find the paragraph 106 which may
be in clear support of that view:

"106. The code, methods, and concepts of UNIX System V are avaiable without
restriction to the general public within the meaning of 7.06(a), as the
provision was intended by AT&T. [a lot of references]"

Is there anything else here better describing why none the System V code is
protectable by copyright?

---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyer question, reading time
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 02 2006 @ 11:40 PM EDT
So how much time would an opposing lawyer (SCO side) spend reading this?

Would it be about 1 hour per page? Reading makeing notes cross referencing,
rereading.

In a case like this would a junior read it first and provide their notes to a
senior partner who would go through it again.

Just wondering how many hours SCOs lawyers are going to spend going over this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Talk about DUG DEEP
Authored by: starsky on Monday, October 02 2006 @ 11:47 PM EDT
W
Section 104 - Page 44 of the 1st PDF.

Between 1985 and 1996, AT&T Capital Corporation, then a subsidiary of
AT&T, sold thousands of used or discontinued AT&T computer systems,
hundreds of them from Bell Albs, without imposing any confidentiality
restrictions on the purchasers. Some of the computers included UNIX System V,
Release 3, and Release 4 source code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Ginzu knife of pdf's
Authored by: CanonicalKoi on Monday, October 02 2006 @ 11:56 PM EDT
I'd happily cut them up. 10 pages at a shot, do you think? Or would 15 be
okay?

CanonicalKoi

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some details on what is left of the disclosure claims
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 02 2006 @ 11:59 PM EDT
Despite this being all about contract issues, page 63 (page 10 of the second
file) goes into some detail as to what the alleged disclosures were supposed to
have been. Given that the SCO filing was redacted that's the first time I've
seen so much detail.

Best one can say is dear oh dear, or rather "Is this all you've got?".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gack! What response is possible to this?!?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 12:04 AM EDT
I tried to out myself in the place of a lawyer for SCO trying to respond to
this,
and all I could think was "Yikes" (or words to similar effect :-) I
can't even see a
Wookie to wave.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Exhibits
Authored by: IMANAL on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 12:07 AM EDT
Is there an easy way to find out what the exhibit references stand for?

---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Massive Memo in Support of SJ On SCO's Contract Claims - Updated
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 12:40 AM EDT
Para. 285:

"The viral quality of SCO's claim..."

Love it. Turnabout on the 'GPL is viral' nonsense.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Massive Memo in Support of SJ On SCO's Contract Claims - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 01:02 AM EDT
Just finished a read through, and the biggest slam-dunk argument is the
"equitable estoppel" argument, backed up by the "$echo"
newsletter. Which is something we've known for a very long time here at
Groklaw.

Very convincingly, IBM lays it out as follows:
we didn't breach the contract on its face; and
ATT is equitably estopped from claiming otherwise from any
reading/interpretation of the contract text because they publicly clarified any
ambiguity in IBM's favor; and
ATT waived any ability to claim breach through its inactions and failure to
enforce behavior (i.e., disclosures) that SCO is now asserting manifests a
breach; and
Novell waived any breach through Novell's contractual right to assert a waiver;
and
the statute of limitations ran out; and .....


shall I go on?

[ Reply to This | # ]

With all of these activities going on now...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 01:03 AM EDT
It must really hurt to be an attorney for SCO right about now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

No fear
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 01:13 AM EDT
After reading this masterwork, I no longer harbor any fear that SCO might
somehow pervail if this case ever reaches a jury. If IBM's lawyers can present
the facts this clearly, even the most non-techie of jurors would "get
it".

- Paul Z.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Massive Memo in Support of SJ On SCO's Contract Claims - Updated
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 01:27 AM EDT
IBM 832 IBM MSJ CC

1. While it's downloading on my dial-up, I speculate it will be interesting to
see what is new now that discovery is complete, or reduced. Will we detect any
GL influence? They have apparently found a lot more to say since the previous
motions. Fortunately PJ will do the line by line and enlighten us.

2. Marvelous! There are no redactions noted in the contents. The Q-team will
easily "retrodact" them. The Contents themselves are well drafted.
If we remember as much when we're finished, we will have learned plenty. The
clarity helps.

3. They really tear at the heart of SCO's derivative claim. They even use a
contract Santa Cruz had with AT&T to show how they clarified their meaning
that derivative products only included original System V code. No. 69, p. 27.


4. They go on to explain how AT&T published the code and its methods and
contents to the four winds thus excusing all their licensees of confidentiality
as provided in section 7.06(a) of the agreement. Paragraph 106, p. 35. This is
easy reading. It makes it seem like SCO will have to rebut every paragraph.
Each claim is plastered with exhibits.

5. Santa Cruz also told its acquired licensees they could do what they want
with their own code. Paragraph 147, p. 44. They then go on to explain how SCO
itself distributed all of the disputed material with their SCO Linux. p. 48.

6. They then simply explain how SCO proceeded to tout their claim and at the
same time deliberately obfuscate it. They then simply explain the litigation
history with a clear litany of the "Amended Complaints."

7. To those of us reading here for years, much of this is old hat. We have
been educated and we see how all this fits in.

8. It's late. Only got through one pdf. Many hurdles for SCO, but much for
IBM to convince the Judge that it is incontestible and a question of law only.
But time and the weight of conduct is on their side. They give the judge a few
good reasons on which to base his decision.

I'm looking forward to the argument part.

---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

One sentence says it all
Authored by: bstone on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 01:59 AM EDT
From page 83 of part 2 of the filing:

"The restrictions that SCO seeks to impose on IBM's original works are a
figment of SCO's wishful thinking."

IBM does have a way with words. The rest of the document just brackets the
above statement in legal wording to make sure it's clear.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Heard Escaping from Darl's Office at SCOG Headquarters
Authored by: Rann on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 01:59 AM EDT
(Loud shreaks!!!!!!!!!)

"Oh, this is terrible. This is the worst of the worst catastrophes in the
world! (unintelligible)"
" Oh, the humanity!!!"
"I can't even talk to people (unintelligible) I can't talk!"

"Nuf said! LOL!

Rann

[ Reply to This | # ]

Favorite lines
Authored by: Upholder on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 02:24 AM EDT
I think my favorite line is on page 20 of the 2nd PDF (numbered 73 in the original document).. paragraph numbered 275 at the top of the page:

275. In some cases (Items 187, 188) the cited technology did not even exist in Dynix.

Talk about shoddy legal research on SCOX's part. Of all the craziness we've seen so far, that may well take the cake IMHO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

And we wondered if IBM was going to make these arguments...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 03:04 AM EDT
Novell waived the alleged breaches... check
Novell (not TSG) owns the copyrights... check

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Massive Memo in Support of SJ On SCO's Contract Claims - Updated
Authored by: CypherOz on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 03:15 AM EDT
What is the legal phrase for SLAM DUNK!! or maybe Latin?

---
The GPL is enduring, not viral

[ Reply to This | # ]

I thought the $5 million value would be pertinent
Authored by: thorpie on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 03:34 AM EDT

Any ideas why don’t they quote the $5 million value placed on the right to utilize Unix source code. On page 45 they include Because the UNIX assets were rapidly losing their value and because the market was moving toward Linux, Caldera’s CEO Ransom Love, stated that “Unix is dead, except as a value add to Linux”

I would have thought that the $5 million valuation from Asset Purchase Agreement would have been very relevant in reinforcing just how little the UNIX source was worth and just how dead dead really is.

Apart from that it gets the valuation details before the judge at this stage of proceedings, which I also would have thought would be beneficial.

---
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about Levine's declaration
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 04:55 AM EDT
I admit I just had a very quick glance over the document, but I think that IBM
does not try to rebut Levine's declaration, you know, the one saying in
essence that the whole world belongs to SCO.

Am I actually worrying about nothing or could this declaration be a thorn on
IBM's side?

Cheers,

NNP

[ Reply to This | # ]

No surprises?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 09:48 AM EDT
Am I wrong in thinking that IBM has said everything in this document in other
places? Each of the sections (A-X) in the statement of undisputed facts seems
to map directly to at least one Groklaw story. (Of course, since this is a
request for a summary judgement, IBM has not mentioned any disputed facts.)

One question "285. ... The argument seems to be prophylactic in nature: ...
" How does an argument become prophylactic?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Repetitive Statements
Authored by: kutulu on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 10:39 AM EDT
I notice that IBM's motion seems to repeat the same defense A LOT, specifically
that AT&T never intended to take control over IBM/Sequent's code. Clearly,
this is their key defense, and clearly their argument makes far more sense than
the alternative, but is there a particular reason for constantly repeating the
same statements?

I know in persuasive debate, it's common to repeat an argument so as to keep it
fresh in the audience's mind; most people will also tend to beleive something
more the more often they hear it (politicians love this, for example.) But I
would expect legal arguments to stay away from that kind of rhetorical trickery,
especially in written form where the reader can always just go back and look.

So, I'm assuming there is some purpose for stretching out their argument so
long. Otherwise, I would think it would be better to be short, and
to-the-point, and make your very persuasive arguments one time. (not to mention
make these PDF's a lot smaller :) )

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks for the pdftk write-up
Authored by: ssteward on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 11:48 AM EDT
I'm glad you like pdftk. Thanks for the link and detailed write-up.

Cheers- Sid

[ Reply to This | # ]

wow ... the argument section
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 12:07 PM EDT
I skipped straight to the Argument section. Here's one of my favorite parts,
from page 107:

"Even if SCO's interpretation of the IBM and Sequent Software Agreements
were correct (which it is not), SCO itself has also waived any alleged breach by
IBM relating to the code IBM is alleged to have improperly contributed to Linux
... Both before and even after SCO sued IBM, SCO sold to customers and made
publicly available on the Internet -- pursuant to the GPL -- the material that
is claims IBM improperly contributed to Linux. Indeed, that material was still
available on SCO's website as recently as the end of 2004. SCO cannot on the one
hand market and sell the source code IBM contributed to the Linux operating
system, and on the other hand claim that IBM was prohibited by its licensing
agreements from contributing that code to Linux."

I've been a Groklaw reader since I saw the first slashdot posting about SCO's
lawsuits. I remember everyone working hard to determine if SCO's assertions were
really correct; I remember wondering why IBM didn't cite these reasons to
immediately refute SCO's claims.

I now understand the law a little bit better than I did then. And I have to say
it's more like a game of chess.

In a chess endgame, sometimes you can see the other player's position affords
him no means stopping your advance. You're going to march four of your pawns to
the eighth rank, and your opponent's position is so weak that there's nothing he
can do about it.

Reading the memorandum, I have a lot of respect for the restraint of the lawyers
on IBM's side, that they've waited until now to unleash all of these arguments.
This blistering attack arrives at a point when SCO is weaker than it's ever been
during these proceedings, and least able to defend.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nice piece of work
Authored by: rsmith on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 01:40 PM EDT
Looks like no i undotted, no t uncrossed.

---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Massive Memo in Support of SJ On SCO's Contract Claims - Updated
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 02:06 PM EDT
.
The Second PDF IBM SJ on CC


1. It starts out detailing Novell's waiver. You have to shake your head. What
"chutzpah" to set out on this litigious course without the copyrights
and against Novell's specific waiver. There are not even any wild doubts about
this! It's there in black and white. The Judge can rule on either and both for
IBM. I give IBM credit, but these sitting ducks are 500 lbs. each. SCO
believed that the mere fact of Litigation would cripple Linux. Forget the
merits, in FUD we trust!! [Novell waivers end at paragraph 200, p. 57.]

1.1 Here is the astounding thing: Assume SCO is right about their
interpretation of derivative code ownership, Novell waived their rights!!! Even
if you accept SCO's interpretation of the contract, they lose by Novell's waiver
power in the APA contract. How could the lawyers let them do this? They must
have 'some cover-your-assets' memos advising their clients of this and other
difficulties and leaving the decision to the clients.

2. IBM then recounts the discovery history of requests, orders, and the Order
to strike. pp. 57-63. They then discuss the evidence disclosed.

3. They note that there are 43 items specified, only one in AIX, namely JFS.

4. So where did these 43 specified misused items come from in Sys V? We turn to
paragraph 233 which explains that only one reference to Sys V is specified as
misused somewhere. p. 64. But they do not specify where? It is not even
referenced by their experts. To prove a theft you have to prove 1) that you own
something, and 2) that someone else took it, or at least has it. So we are left
here with the astonishing facts that SCO has no proof, SCO has no claim!! There
is no specified code left in the unstricken evidence which they can point out to
specify their claims. Nothing happened! This lawsuit was an attempt to create
its unfounded claims. The lawsuit was part of the "Get the
FUD[Facts]" campaign!

4.1 SCO and industry execs could publicize what they want about Linux, AIX and
Dynix, but the SCO lawyers won't make rash representations to the court. Thus
they only propound their clients vaporous derivative claim such as it is. They
dare not specify code they don't have. They value their licences.

5. IBM denies its 25 coders specified by SCO used SYS V. pp. 65-66.

6. IBM says JFS is its own creation, no SYS v used. It is from OS/2 through
AIX, so the origin is often confused. In addition no Sys is even specified, so
no connection is specified. pp. 66-68.

7. The specified RCU is original IBM work. Again no Sys V specified. And by
the way, Sequent patented RCU in 1995, thank you. Paragraph 261. pp. 69-70.
Its hard to do this without ranting.

8. SCO specified testing technology is original Sequent work. No Sys V, no f, l,
v. p. 70. They deny the other dribs and drabs, none with any specified Sys V
code. Their coders didn't use it. p. 73.

9. Implications of SCO's Theory: They control and methods and concepts in Sys
V, even when Sys V not used, nor m & c created by SCO or predecessors.
Paragraph 277. SCO's interpretation denied by AT&T predecessors, para. 279.
SCO's interpretation would give them control over vast amounts of other
people's software after considering how many licenses were issued to the world
with the same provisions. Para. 284.

10. "The viral quality of SCO's claim....." para. 285. Under the
SCO theory they could have been very specific: "everything." That
would have been absurd since many others had the same license from AT&T and
SCO didn't sue them. Think if it: SCO decided to specify little or nothing
under this theory, rather than logically specify explicitly all of the AIX and
Dynix Code. when faced with this "balance of absurdities" they opted
to specify little or nothing. "Nothing specific" is more convincing
and less absurd than saying "everything" in SCO's desperate
estimation. Yes, SCO opted not to claim all of the world's code work for the
last ten years, but they could have under their derivative theory. pp. 73-78.
[Like I said,it's hard not to rant.]

10. Standard of Decision and our first citation at page 79. Thanks, IBM. No
issue of fact is the key. SCO must show speciic facts. IBM says no breach,
estoppel by 20 years of conduct, breaches waived by Novell and SCO Linux
activity, and RCU barred by Statute of Limitations (too late, too bad).

11. No Breach: IBM owns and controls its own code. The Software Agreement can
not be interpreted otherwise. IBM refers to the "single clause" that
substantiates SCO theory.

12. A digression: Suppose this comment was subject to SCO derivative theory.
Suppose I took a sentence, clause or phrase from SCO and put it in this
paragraph. "We have a right to monetize our intellectual property."
DM, 2003. That quote is SCO's. That sentence is theirs. Is this whole
paragraph or comment theirs? Or just that sentence? According to their theory,
this whole comment is theirs, if not all of Groklaw. Suppose I say that SCO
says it has a right to monetize their intellectual property by attacking Linux.
This last sentence is a modification or paraphrase that would still trigger SCO
ownership of all it touches, this paragraph, this comment, this article, this
blog. No wonder M$ bought a license! We are reduced to IBM's fruitation
theory: "The restrictions that SCO seeks to impose on IBM's original works
are a figment of SCO's wishful thinking." p. 83. Whose paragraph is this
now? I'm sorry. I'm getting absurd. Let's end it.

13. SCO's theory is inconsistent with reason, ownership rights, copyrights,
public policy. pp 83-89. It cites cases which were probably cited in the first
go-around. The public policy mitigates against having coders, who saw or worked
with SYS V, blinded and having their tongues cut out, thus rendering them
unemployable (as coders anyway). SCO knows the only way to control
"know-how."

14. SCO's theory leads to an absurd result. SCO's claims outlast SYS V
software and pervade the Unix world. None of the thousands that had an AT&T
license acted in accord with this theory.

15. Out of time. Final skim to end. IBM combines the facts and law to argue
their cause in a speech. Waiver and Estoppel are overwhelming in their own
right. Even presuming SCO's viral theory, they are complete defenses. They
remove SCO's claim even reasonable. SCO distributed Linux after their claim and
after their lawsuit! They had distributed Linux for ten years in the past.
They are confounded. How could their lawyers....

16. So the ideal result would be a decision granting this motion on the
reasonable contract terms, interpretation, and conduct. Then findings that if
that were not so, SCO is estopped by its conduct otherwise, and further if not
estopped, they waived any violation by their Linux activity, but if they didn't,
the court finds that Novell waived any violations by the APA rights....
Something "unappealing" on multiple grounds.

Enough analysis ad absurdum.



---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

236
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 02:08 PM EDT


Page 64, Para 236

"SCO has not specifically identified, in the Final Disclosures or
elsewhere, a single line of UNIX System V material that IBM is alleged to have
misued..."

Not a single line.

Game Over, SCO. Thanks for playing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PDF Watermarks
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 02:11 PM EDT
I've often felt that Groklaw should consider adding "groklaw.net" watermarks to the PDF's that it posts.

That way if someone were to post copies verbatim on prosco.net/scoinfo.net/whatever it would be more obvious how those documents got there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I love the sound ...
Authored by: Jamis on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 04:19 PM EDT
of an M1A1 (that is IBM Legal) at full throttle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Massive Memo in Support of SJ On SCO's Contract Claims - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 04:43 PM EDT
It's a bit jarring on page 55 where they're talking about "Caldera"
and then without transition suddenly start talking about "SCO". I'm
surprised they don't explicitly say at that point that the company changed its
name. I know it's been mentioned before in the case but for judges with a busy
schedule and lots of other things to think about, that could be a bit confusing.
Seems inconsistent with the thoroughness of the rest of the document.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New York Law?
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 04:52 PM EDT
IBM repeatedly cites New York law. They seem to cite New York law more often than they cite Utah law.

Does anyone know why IBM would do this or if this weakens IBM's position?

---
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • New York Law? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 04:54 PM EDT
    • New York Law? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 05:16 PM EDT
      • Jurisdiction? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 05:45 PM EDT
      • No. - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 10:16 PM EDT
    • Thank you all - Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 08:12 PM EDT
  • New York Law? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 05:44 PM EDT
  • Utah Law Says So - Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 11:57 PM EDT
  • New York Law? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 01:13 AM EDT
IBM's Massive Memo in Support of SJ On SCO's Contract Claims - Updated
Authored by: thombone on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 06:44 PM EDT
STILL digesting this but my first impression is one of awe... awe at SCO's
audacity in bringing this lawsuit in the first place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This shows that practising law can be as much a craft as a profession
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 08:34 PM EDT
The craftsmanship shown in this motion, compared to SCO's "apprentice
piece" efforts, is like the difference between a geniuine precision
engineered watch and a cheap knock-off at a local market stall!

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Origin Codes"?
Authored by: sirwired on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 10:13 PM EDT
In para. 253, they talk about SCO alleging that some AIX source code
"Origin Codes" indicate the file is based on SVR2 or earlier. What
the heck is an Origin Code?

SirWired

[ Reply to This | # ]

Looks like IBM...
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 10:22 PM EDT
...is planning on hanging SCOG out to dry very thoroughly.

---
What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger it grows.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Massive Memo in Support of SJ On SCO's Contract Claims - Updated
Authored by: thombone on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 10:23 PM EDT
So SCO's case is basically the same as if Microsoft would claim that any code
ever written to run on windows has touched windows and is therefore owned by
Microsoft?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hmm! How long before TSG's reply?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 11:19 PM EDT
I can hardly wait for the next foot, er, filing to fall. : )

TSG has to survive every round of motions from now to the end. IBM
and Novell are just spinning up now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now that...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 03:40 PM EDT
...was a kick-butt brief!

Scott

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.05 seconds