|
More Redacted Filings from IBM |
|
Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 11:21 PM EDT
|
More guns blazing from IBM in new filings on PACER. I surely need your help in transcribing all of this. Help if you can. I don't scale.
If you only have a small amount of time, you might want to read 980 first, the GPL one. Here's one paragraph to give you an idea: A one-time Linux company that sought to "unify UNIX with Linux", SCO repudiated and breached the GNU General Public License ("GPL") (SCO's only license to copy, modify and distribute Linux), turned on its own Linux customers and former partners in the Linux community, and sued IBM without evidence to support its claims. Now, confronted with record evidence on IBM's counterclaim establishing beyond doubt that SCO, when it embarked on its scheme in 2003, infringed copyrights owned by IBM (among many others), SCO presents to the Court an opposition memorandum filled with inapposite facts and irrelevant legal citations that seek to obfuscate its wrongdoing. Caught with its hand in the cookie jar, SCO tries to change the subject. Fun stuff. Here are all the new filings as PDFs.Here are all the latest filings:
03/12/2007 - 976 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File
Response/Reply reply memorandum to (i) IBMs Memorandum in Opposition to
SCOs Objections to the Magistrate Judges Order on IBMs Motion to Confine
and (ii) IBMs Memorandum in Opposition to SCOs Motion to Amend its
December 2005 Submission filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant
SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to
Brooke C. Wells.(Normand, Edward) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
03/12/2007 - 977 REDACTION to [942] Sealed Document IBM's Reply Memorandum
in Further Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Copyright
Claim (SCO's Fifth Cause of Action) by Defendant International Business
Machines Corporation, Counter Claimant International Business Machines
Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Addendum A # 2 Exhibit Addendum B #
3 Exhibit Addendum C# 4 Exhibit Addendum D# 5 Exhibit Addendum E# 6
Exhibit Addendum F# 7 Exhibit Addendum G# 8 Exhibit Addendum H# 9
Supplement Addendum I# 10 Exhibit Addendum J# 11 Exhibit Addendum K# 12
Exhibit Addendum L# 13 Supplement Addendum M# 14 Exhibit Addendum N# 15
Exhibit Addendum O)(Sorenson, Amy) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
03/13/2007 - 979 REDACTION to [946] Sealed Document IBM's Reply Memorandum
in Further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's
Interference Claims (SCO's Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Causes of Action)
by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation, Counter
Claimant International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit Addendum A# 2 Exhibit Addendum B# 3 Exhibit Addendum C# 4
Exhibit Addendum D# 5 Exhibit Addendum E)(Sorenson, Amy) (Entered:
03/13/2007)
03/13/2007 - 980 REDACTION to [945] Sealed Document IBM's Reply Memorandum
in Further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on its Claim for
Copyright Infringement (IBM's Eighth Counterclaim) by Defendant
International Business Machines Corporation, Counter Claimant
International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Addendum A# 2 Exhibit Addendum B)(Sorenson, Amy) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
03/13/2007 - 981 REDACTION to [938] Sealed Document IBM's Reply Memorandum
in Further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Contract
Claims (SCO's First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action) by
Defendant International Business Machines Corporation, Counter Claimant
International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Addendum A - Part 1# 2 Exhibit Addendum A - Part 2# 3 Exhibit Addendum
B# 4 Exhibit Addendum C# 5 Exhibit Addendum D# 6 Exhibit Addendum E# 7
Exhibit Addendum F# 8 Exhibit Addendum G# 9 Exhibit Addendum H# 10
Exhibit Addenda I through GG (Unpublished Opinions))(Sorenson, Amy)
(Entered: 03/13/2007)
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 11:37 PM EDT |
oh man.. This case just drags on. Hopefully soon it will end.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 11:42 PM EDT |
Keep smiling [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off Topic here: Yarro's Law - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 12:07 AM EDT
- Another Yarro bill gets signed (3-13-2007) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 12:10 AM EDT
- OT: transcribe pdf's? - Authored by: frankz on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 12:20 AM EDT
- MSOOXML/ECMA376 fast track: NB compositions - Authored by: Winter on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 05:51 AM EDT
- Techs at Major Computer Retailers are rejecting Vista and telling folks to stay away from it... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 06:10 AM EDT
- "The 300" applied to SCO vs IBM: - Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 06:24 AM EDT
- Dell Opens a Poll On Linux Options - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 07:00 AM EDT
- Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 08:43 AM EDT
- Big typo. That should be M S C O X M L, NOT MSOOXML n/t - Authored by: SirHumphrey on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 09:53 AM EDT
- Third-party MSOOXML patent encumbrance? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 11:29 AM EDT
- The Church of Pi - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 11:44 AM EDT
- Paul Murphy from Zdnet - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 12:30 PM EDT
- 1 1/2 years wages (for the average Chinese) to buy a legitimate copy of Windows Vista - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 01:06 PM EDT
- SCO Priviledge Log - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 01:25 PM EDT
- Pamel Dunn pleads guilty... - Authored by: Jamis on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 01:36 PM EDT
- Ars Technica: Bill Gates was against software patents in 1991 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- Open XML makes it on to ISO fast track - Authored by: yellowsnow314159 on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 04:12 PM EDT
- Origin of JFS - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 05:44 PM EDT
- Origin of JFS - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 11:01 PM EDT
- Origin of JFS - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 11:30 PM EDT
- Judicial Conference Urges End to 'Secret' Dockets - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 06:56 PM EDT
- OT: SD Times called for Darl to go last June - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 15 2007 @ 01:27 AM EDT
- Off Topic here: - Authored by: drreagan on Thursday, March 15 2007 @ 04:04 AM EDT
- Off Topic here: - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, March 15 2007 @ 04:27 AM EDT
- login problems - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 15 2007 @ 08:20 AM EDT
- UK ODF Petition Passes 1000 Signatures - Authored by: Simon G Best on Thursday, March 15 2007 @ 08:50 AM EDT
- SCO v. IBM: Case Closed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 15 2007 @ 11:42 AM EDT
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 11:44 PM EDT |
That is - corrections for the posted article, not the sort of corrections you'd
like to see certain people serving.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MDT on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 12:40 AM EDT |
Hey PJ,
I can do some OCR'ing tomorrow on a PDF, but someone else will need to do the
HTML markup. Steve and I did a big one awhile back while you were sick. You
have my e-mail, send me a e-mail letting me know which one (if any) you want me
to OCR and I'll do it tomorrow morning.
If anyone else wants to volunteer, you can reply here to let PJ know, 'kay?
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 02:46 AM EDT |
IBM better watch out. According to SCO's goofy court concepts, that could be
constructed as defamation of character.
Of course, that assumes there's any character left to defame over there.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Potemkin village - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 06:31 AM EDT
- Potemkin village - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 01:47 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 03:56 AM EDT |
"It's a toaster. Somebody else made it. We have no idea how to fix it, but
if we tell them to make it work differently, they'd just better get on and do
it."
Fools.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 05:18 AM EDT |
Wow, some court documents are more understandable than others :)
This one is definitely not a dry reading.
And i thought there is a standard vocabulary for this stuff.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Cookie jar? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 11:32 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 05:50 AM EDT |
IBM nicely uses the case to kink SCO. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 05:54 AM EDT |
I think IBM-980 is what most of us have been waiting to see. Very amusing,
too. IBM have done a huge amount of work in their defence, but it would seem
their counter-attack will be far easier. If I were SCO, I'd be very nervous
right about now.
There's lots of good stuff and memorable quotes in there,
but I especially liked this bit:
That is, it is not just the
copyright itself, but the integrity of the open source collaborative software
development model presented and protected by the GPL, that warrants an
injunction against SCO.
Goosebumps anyone?
--- I would
rather stand corrected than sit confused.
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it on the accuser. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM-980 is Superb - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 06:49 AM EDT
- Quote: GPL is "dangerous" only to would-be free riders such as SCO EOM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 07:31 AM EDT
- IBM-980 is Superb - Authored by: fandom on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 08:06 AM EDT
- IBM-980 is Superb - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 11:40 AM EDT
- Finally! - Authored by: Jaywalk on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 09:08 AM EDT
- Finally! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 01:54 PM EDT
- IBM-980 is Superb - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 10:08 AM EDT
- IBM-980 is Superb - Authored by: Latesigner on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 10:48 AM EDT
- IBM-980 is Superb - Fully agree. - Authored by: WhiteFang on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 12:28 PM EDT
- SCO the "con-artist" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 12:36 PM EDT
- 979 is amazing. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 01:43 PM EDT
- 979 is amazing. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 02:03 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 07:56 AM EDT |
I have finished reading 980 and I find myself experiencing pleasure at every
paragraph.
I'm sure I would not have, previously, enjoyed watching a mugger taken into a
back alley and being beaten to a bloody pulp. Why, now, this terrifying change?
Nothing of SCO's argument seemed to be left standing as far as I could see. Even
IBM's 'unconscionable' site hacking was shown to be not unconscionable at all.
In fact, it was almost compulsory.
I know that we are seeing a top IBM legal team at work, here, and that making
their argument convincing is what they do, but acting as devil's advocate I
could still not see any wriggle room for SCO.
I loved the Wallace citations. All things come to he who lurks.
---
Regards
Ian Al[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 07:56 AM EDT |
Remember how we noted that TSG always "responded" to IBM's statements of
facts with complete non sequiturs? Well, it looks like IBM is finally
calling them on it in doc 981's Addendum A (parts one and two). It's worth a look;
basically, IBM takes every one of TSG's long-winded "disputed to the extent"
statements and shoots it down simply by saying that it doesn't meet Utah Local
Rules and so is "deemed admitted".
Ha!
--- "When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 981 extract .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 09:56 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 08:51 AM EDT |
In 980, page 12, para 2, IBM cites a case wherein the litigant was described by
the court as a con-artist who sought to use the legal system to
extort settlements from unsuspecting parties
Sounds like someone
we know.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 09:14 AM EDT |
If anyone can do an OCR of any of these documents, I'll do the HTML.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 10:08 AM EDT |
SCO presents to the Court an opposition memorandum filled with
inapposite facts and irrelevant legal citations that seek to obfuscate its
wrongdoing. Caught with its hand in the cookie jar, SCO tries to change the
subject.
OOOOUCHHHHHH !!!!
That was straight to
the jugular.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: freeio on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
What I find most gratifying is that Wallace, quite unintentionally, provided a
set of decisions which IBM can use to support its position. In section IV, the
cases quite firmly support the fact that the GPL is not anti-competitive, and is
in no way a violation of anti-trust provisions.
I rather doubt that Wallace could forsee this outcome.
---
Tux et bona et fortuna est.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 10:55 AM EDT |
IBM in 977, 979 and 981 finally make all the remaining points. In particular, it
points out all of the facts that SCO concede by not disputing them. Devastating
facts. It points out that convoluted disputation which rambles from brief to
brief without specificity is not admissible (that's one I did not know about).
IBM hammers on the clear meaning of the contract within the four corners. Just
in case the judge found some relevant ambiguity, it hammers on the intent of the
true negotiators of the contract.
IBM points out that all of the contrary 'evidence' of AT&T's intent in other
contracts were nothing to do with this contract. I loved how IBM pointed out how
mean SCO were to Mr. Wilson and then commented that Mr. Wilson, was,
nevertheless, the authorised person appointed to act on AT&T's behalf.
The contract does not and cannot mean what SCO maintain it can look as though it
means if you apply the Gupta process and rearrange paragraphs, sentences, words
and facts.
Whose UNIX is it anyway? The Judge has already said 'not yours, SCO'. I suppose
that, for SCO v. Novell, he has to wait to see if the dog disgorges the
copyright writings. He does not have to, here. Discovery is over. The truth is
as plain as the writing in the APA.
Where's the beef?
The SCO argument is razed to the ground, the roots dug up and the ground salted.
That competence takes time. The train wreck will be massive, spectacular and
over in no time at all. I cannot look away. I must not look away. I must not
blink.
---
Regards
Ian Al[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 11:43 AM EDT |
It seems to me that this is the first time I noticed the Nazgul's going after
SCO the way Novell's lawyers have been. Is this because it is a counterclaim,
or is it just a matter of timing, IBM waiting until its karma account is
replete?
IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: long_hair_smelly on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
"In addition, SCO concedes that IBM's Linux strategy and its technical
contributions to Linux were part of an effort to compete with Sun and Microsoft.
SCO's own expert witness, Dr. Gary Pisano, confirms that IBM adopted its Linux
strategy to compete with Sun and Microsoft and that SCO's declining revenues
were caused by competition from Linux generally -- not from specific conduct IBM
directed at SCO."
So much for the sad story we keep hearing from SCO...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 01:42 PM EDT |
Man, someone at IBM was having waaaaay too much fun.
Wikipedia entry for
"Potemkin Village".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Potemkin Village? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 02:58 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 02:46 PM EDT |
While reading through the comments I remembered an old story book that my kids
or bothers had years ago.
In the story the main character was riding in a train. The train couldn't
continue on to the desitination for some reason and had to pull into a town for
a few hours.
The town was a "backwards town" and the train could only back in and
out. Everything in the town was backwards.
I don't remember all of the "backwards" things, but the one I remember
most was the "flashdark". If you wanted to take a nap in the middle of
the day, it would create an area of darkness for you. I've always wanted one of
those!
Could it be that SCO and it's lawyers are from this town?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
IBM finally says all the things we've been saying for years and wondering why
IBM wasn't saying them.
Now we know why... they were saving them up to detonate all at once. This is
legal carpet bombing at its best. They not provide countless quotable quotes,
they back them up with evidence, case law and SCO's own rebuttals.
This is some of the best reading I've had in ages![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- YES!!! - Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 03:49 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
I've read through these two, and am absolutely blown away by how clear, concise
and utterly devastating they are to SCO's case. Cheers to the lawyers who wrote
these up (and I'll bet they don't hear that often) - you rock.
The judge is not going to have to look far to find reasons to grant summary
judgement. The numerous citations are going to make this easy.
I'm so looking forward to the day when large chunks of this case get a bullet to
the head, as it has long deserved.
All the best,
David S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
There are so many quotable parts to these its hard to pick a favorite, but this
line from 981 stands out as probably the best summation yet of this entire
case...
"At bottom, SCO’s opposition amounts to nothing more than an unsupported
assertion that its current management believes it is entitled to make whatever
claims it likes, irrespective of the evidence."
Keywords "current management"...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
In 981, IBM comments about SCO's "textual analysis" of a 14-word
clause in the contract.
That phrase rang a bell. It's a postmodern court case, deconstructing the
wording of the contract.
The whole case makes sense now.
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 07:02 PM EDT |
I for one would love to see the various addenda to these filings if that's
doable without killing anyone. Interesting to see IBM shoot SCO's denials to
shreds.
My personal favorite, listed in the Index of Addenda to 981:
Addendum E: An Illustration of the Absurdity of SCO's Claims.
Sounds like some fun reading. :)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gfim on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 07:02 PM EDT |
SCO's continued copying of IBM Copyrighted Works - as recently as
August this year Not only did they copy, but IBM says they're going
to do it for another 5 months!!!
--- Graham [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 09:33 PM EDT |
So, basically these 21 nations are saying...
WE WANT OPEN AS IN OPEN-OPEN, NOT OPEN AS IN MICROSOFT-OPEN.
Microsoftspeak tergiversates the meaning of words just so ideas are framed
within their reality subset, words are stuck to their definition just so you
can't even think of alternatives later.
Orwell was so precise in so many things, it gets scary at times.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 11:27 PM EDT |
In 980, "Niether IBM nor anyone else made SCO choose that path of licensing
vigilantism."
Truer words were never said... :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: comms-warrior on Thursday, March 15 2007 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
What a GLORIOUS read...
I'm in stitches - And they are all stitched up!
I love the Baystar quote. Paraphrasing, it stated that they pulled out as they
noticed it being badly run. In other words, Darl is a poor CEO. Gotta like
that on your resume.....
Mr. C.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Aim Here on Thursday, March 15 2007 @ 06:37 AM EDT |
980 is so much fun to read. Almost every paragraph's a belter. IBM even had fun
with some of the citations:
"Public policy certainly does not favour
all "settlements". See e.g., Cofield v. Ala. Public Service Comm'n, 936
F.2d 512,516 (11th Cir. 1991) (affirming district court dismissal of suit by pro
se litigant found to be "a con-artist who sought to use the legal system to
extort settlements from unsuspecting parties")
Hee hee. Are you trying
to say something here, guys?
[[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 15 2007 @ 07:41 AM EDT |
Please help me understand the comment, (from IBM-981, pg 82, bottom)
"Thus , SCO's claim that IBM's defense depends entirely on a finding of
implied waiver is a diversion of the first order."
Did IBM lawyers say in legalize that SCO lawyers lied to the court?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|