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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
SCO Files Motion for Reconsideraton of, Objections to Order on Spoliation & more
Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 02:53 AM EDT

I guess SCO just won't let judges rule against them.

Your punishment if you rule against SCO is a motion for reconsideration, objections, and overlength memoranda. That way every significant motion gets heard at least twice. Is that supposed to happen? Not unless the Magistrate Judge actually did goof. I haven't read all the documents yet, so I can't say if SCO has reached its burden, but if not, at some point the court is going to start sanctioning, I think.

Anyway, here they go again, tra la, this time asking for a reconsideration of the order by Magistrate Judge Wells denying SCO's spoliation motion (IBM's opposition memo; SCO's reply). If you don't remember what spoliation means, here you go. And SCO has filed objections also, I gather from the notes on PACER. Both. Two of their experts support their motion/objections with declarations, which will give you a clue as to why SCO in its 10Q said they continue to have to pay experts. But what is exciting is that finally we get to read what they say. They were filed sealed by mistake, and now they are made public.

There are a lot of other filings on PACER too, both in SCO v. IBM and in SCO v. Novell, Red Hat v. SCO, and SCO v. AutoZone. We've gone over the 1,000 filings mark in IBM, which is what happens if every ruling gets heard again and again in the stupidest lawsuit in the history of the world, litigation over absolutely nothing you can shake a stick at.

Here's the PACER list in SCO v. IBM:

984 - Filed & Entered: 03/16/2007
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of 1.SCOs Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Reconsideration by the Magistrate Court of the Order Denying SCOs Motion for Relief for IBMs Spoliation of Evidence and Exhibits thereto; 3. SCOs Memorandum in Support of its Objections to the Magistrate Courts Order Denying SCOs Motion for Relief for IBMs Spoliation of Evidence and Exhibits thereto; 5.Declaration of Mark F. James Regarding SCOs Objections to the Magistrate Courts Order Denying SCOs Motion for Relief for IBMs Spoliation of Evidence; 6.Declaration of Mark F. James Regarding SCOs Memorandum in Support of its Objections to the Magistrate Courts Order Denying SCOs Motion for Relief for IBMs Spoliation of Evidence; 7.Declaration of Dr. Evan Ivie in Support of SCOs Motion for Reconsideration by the Magistrate Court of the Order Denying SCOs Motion for Relief for IBMs Spoliation of Evidence; 8.Declaration of Mark Rockhind in Support of SCOs Motion for Reconsideration by the Magistrate Court of the Order Denying SCOs Motion for Relief for IBMs Spoliation of Evidence filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group (James, Mark)

985 - Filed & Entered: 03/16/2007
Terminated: 03/19/2007
Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages FOR SCOS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(James, Mark)

986 - Filed & Entered: 03/16/2007
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
Docket Text: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(James, Mark)

987 - Filed & Entered: 03/16/2007
Terminated: 03/19/2007
Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages FOR MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE COURTS ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(James, Mark)

990 - Filed: 03/16/2007
Entered: 03/19/2007
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re [986] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A-C)(blk)

988 - Filed & Entered: 03/19/2007
Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: ORDER granting [987] Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 3/19/07. (blk)

989 - Filed & Entered: 03/19/2007
Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: ORDER granting [985] Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 3/19/07. (blk)

991 - Filed & Entered: 03/19/2007
Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion
Docket Text: REPLY to Response to Motion re [913] MOTION to Amend/Correct DECEMBER 2005 SUBMISSION filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (James, Mark)

992 - Filed & Entered: 03/19/2007
Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion
Docket Text: REPLY to Response to Motion re [917] Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File OVER LENGTH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER ON IBM'S MOTION TO CONFINE Re: Docket No. 916 (Original Objection Not Available on Docket to Link to While Filing) filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 - # (2) Exhibit A: unpublished case)(James, Mark)

993 - Filed & Entered: 03/19/2007
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE of CORRECTED FILING by SCO Group, SCO Group re [991] Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion to Amend/Correct DECEMBER 2005 SUBMISSION (Normand, Edward)

994 - Filed & Entered: 03/19/2007
Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion
Docket Text: REPLY to Response to Motion re [913] MOTION to Amend/Correct DECEMBER 2005 SUBMISSION CORRECTED filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A - C: Unpublished Cases)(Normand, Edward)

995 - Filed: 03/16/2007
Entered: 03/20/2007
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTIONS TO ORDER re [986] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A-C)(blk)

996 - Filed: 03/16/2007
Entered: 03/20/2007
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** DECLARATION OF MARK F. JAMES re [986] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk)

997 - Filed & Entered: 03/20/2007
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** DECLARATION of Mark F. James RE OBJECTIONS TO ORDER re [986] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1# (2) Exhibit 2-8)(blk)

998 - Filed: 03/16/2007
Entered: 03/20/2007
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support of Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Counterclaim filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk)

999 - Filed: 03/16/2007
Entered: 03/20/2007
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** DECLARATION of Mark F. James filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1-8# (2) Exhibit 9# (3) Exhibit 10# (4) Exhibit 11)(blk)

1000 - Filed: 03/16/2007
Entered: 03/20/2007
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** DECLARATION of Dr. Evan Ivie re [973] Order filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk)

1001 - Filed: 03/16/2007
Entered: 03/20/2007
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** DECLARATION of Marc Rochkind re [986] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk)

1002 - Filed & Entered: 03/20/2007
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [995] Sealed Document, SCO's Memorandum in Support of Its Objections to the Magistrate Court's Order Denying SCO's Motion for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Appendix)(James, Mark)

1003 - Filed & Entered: 03/20/2007
Declaration
Docket Text: DECLARATION of Dr. Evan Ivie re [986] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE CORRECTED filed by SCO Group, SCO Group. (Normand, Edward)

1004 - Filed & Entered: 03/20/2007
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE of CORRECTED FILING by SCO Group, SCO Group re [1000] Sealed Document DECLARATION of Dr. Evan Ivie, correctly filed under docket entry 1003 (Normand, Edward)

1005 - Filed & Entered: 03/20/2007
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [999] Sealed Document Declaration of Mark F. James Regarding SCO's Objections to the Magistrate Court's Order Denying SCO's Motion for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit)(James, Mark)

1006 - Filed & Entered: 03/20/2007
Declaration
Docket Text: DECLARATION of Marc Rochkind re [986] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE CORRECTED filed by SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Normand, Edward)

1007 - Filed & Entered: 03/20/2007
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE of CORRECTED FILING by SCO Group re [1001] Sealed Document DECLARATION of Marc Rochkind, correctly filed under docket entry 1006 (Normand, Edward)

Here's the last time SCO did it, the objections to the order limiting SCO's claims to what they put on the table by the deadline. They failed, when Judge Kimball upheld that order. Of course that wasn't the end of that either. SCO filed a motion to amend/correct ("supplement") its list of allegedly infringed materials, now that it found out that not showing its hand by the established deadline got SCO sanctioned.

That legal scholar, Rob Enderle, seems to be predicting Microsoft will buy SCO. I never link to his nonsense, so you'll have to find it for yourself. But why would Microsoft bother? They have Novell, and Novell seems to hold the copyrights, not SCO, so why would anyone buy SCO? Unless someone wanted to destroy a whole lot of discovery, of course. So, I take what he wrote as merely another way to try to pressure IBM to buy SCO out of fear.

Novell:

There's some new stuff filed in Novell too:

245 - Filed & Entered: 03/09/2007
Terminated: 03/12/2007
Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
Docket Text: MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Novell's Opposition to SCO's Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Normand, Edward)

246 - Filed & Entered: 03/12/2007
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Docket Text: ORDER granting [245] Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re [224] Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Counterclaim. Replies due by 3/16/2007. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 3/12/07. (blk)

247 - Filed & Entered: 03/16/2007
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of Reply Memorandum in Support of its Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novells Fourth Counterclaim and Exhibits Attached Thereto; Declaration of Mark F. James filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group (James, Mark)

248 - Filed & Entered: 03/16/2007
Terminated: 03/19/2007
Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(James, Mark)

249 - Filed & Entered: 03/19/2007
Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: ORDER granting [248] Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 3/19/07. (blk)

250 - Filed & Entered: 03/20/07
Motion to Amend/Correct
Docket Text: Stipulated MOTION to Amend/Correct SCO's Fifth Claim for Relief filed by Defendant Novell, Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Sneddon, Heather)

That last stipulation is SCO finally amending its complaint to fess up to the fact that they are relying on Utah law for their unfair competition claim. It took a motion to compel from Novell to get it out of them. It's all pulling teeth with these guys. Delay, delay, delay.

Finally, here are the latest filings in Red Hat and in AutoZone, both just reports to the judges. Oddly, both cases have 65 entries on PACER at the same time, which is about as interesting as it gets in those cases at the moment. I am sure we are the only people left reading those 90-days updates.


  


SCO Files Motion for Reconsideraton of, Objections to Order on Spoliation & more | 345 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Korrectshins, if needed
Authored by: the_flatlander on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 03:37 AM EDT
It helps if you cite the context

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: BobinAlaska on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 03:39 AM EDT
Please don't forget the clikies :D

---
Bob Helm, Juneau, Alaska

[ Reply to This | # ]

What if all these Caldera/newSCO filings are just a diversion?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 03:51 AM EDT
What if all these Caldera/newSCO filings are just a diversion?

What if their goal all along is to get their software copyright associated
methods and concepts arguements allowed (for the first time by any court)? Why
would they do this? Hmmm, as once it is allowed then they could use it against
others (and others could use it against others as well)? If this were allowed
then what could be the predicted fall out (legally for cases where the infringer
is seen as infringing by virtue of a software methods and concepts copyright
arguement)? Once one court allows it in, then would all courts have to allow
this arguement as well?

A new license to drive a new arguement into courts all accross the land?

Anyone?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion for Reconsideraton of, Objections to Order on Spoliation & more
Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 03:54 AM EDT
In the 1971 film Dirty Harry, towards the end, the bad guy (Scorpio) pays a thug
to beat the daylight out of him, so he can claim Harry beat him up:

"They tried to frame me with the Deacon girl murder, and now they're trying
to murder me - and look at me, just look at me. I'm supposed to be innocent
until proven guilty and just look at what they did to me."

SCORPIO (1971): "Just look at what they did to me!"

SCO Group (2003): "Just look at what they did to us!"

Perhaps Darl et al should have watched the film to the conclusion instead of
hitting the STOP button on the remote, jumping to their feet, and exclaiming,
"We got ourselves a business plan!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

they call it "Desperation"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 04:12 AM EDT
No sane plaintiff would approach the case this way, but, I don't think they have
much choice. they seem to be losing every point in this game, there only chnace
is to appeal each one to the umpire, maybem just maybe, they can pull one back,
you think?

Some time ago they must have reallised they were losing this one ... every major
decision went against them. At that point you know if you cannot turn the tide,
then you are in deep, deep trouble.

So there they stand, trying to turn back a sea of judgements. Each one has
another ten rolling in behind it, but what else can they do? Just sit there and
drown? They seem to be putting up the best fight they can, but its pointless ...
but you can't really blame them for trying.

What they fail to reallise is, the outcome is inevitable. They should have
admitted as much 2 years ago and quietly settled. Now, thats not an option.
Shame really.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS buying SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 04:22 AM EDT
wouldn't that just give them deep pockets for IBM and
others to empty? seems like it would be a stupid move on
their part

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doesn't pass the 'So What' test.
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 05:08 AM EDT
Firstly, SCO are so lucky to have Rochkind as their legal expert to show that
Magistrate Judge Wells made a legal boo boo.

However, he has failed IMO.

First, though, I would like to know what the professional programmers consider
as a sandbox. My thought is as follows. It is a virtual machine running the
target OS on which the code can be tested. For testing a Linux kernal you could,
either, compile in a development virtual machine and copy the kernal to the
sandbox to run it. The boot system (GRUB, perhaps) allows you to choose whether
to boot the working kernal or the test kernal and, if the test fails, the
development OS can be swapped to in order to read the debug files and improve
the code. However, there is no need for a sandbox if your program is not likely
to overwrite the development files by accident. I suspect that the IBM
programmers did not use a sandbox and just used the development environment.

It makes no difference to the claims. SCO have produced no evidence that UNIX
files (protectable, or not) were copied in the production of Linux files. As far
as we know, the programmers were entitled to have the UNIX files on their
machines (because of the IBM licences so to do) when they started working on
Linux, while they were working on Linux and after they finished working on
Linux. SCO have not produced evidence that IBM instructed them to delete UNIX
files for the purpose of spoliation. Rochkind only says that if he had been able
to see every file on the development machines and in any sandbox he might have
been able to find evidence of obfuscating ladders. Well, IBM were quite entitled
to have those files deleted unless SCO could produce some evidence that they did
so to destroy evidence of wrongdoing. They did not.

IBM twist the knife by pointing out that SCO should have asked the programmers
they cite about what they did, during the deposition stage. They failed. IBM
supplement the knife with bamboo shoots under the fingernails by pointing out
that most of the programmers cited did not contribute to the Linux kernal. The
ladder would have fallen over.

All that is irrelevant to this motion. SCO have to show that Magistrate Judge
Wells did the legal equivalent of hitting them around the face with a dead fish.
All Rochkind has done is to show that, failing to find any copying ladders from
all the white papers, programmers notes, interim code bases, etc. that they have
spent a cursory 200 hours looking at, there might have been some evidence in
other files on the programmers machines that showed a ladder and that these
would have been deleted. Why would they have been kept with the AIX code that
IBM had deleted? They were Linux development materials, weren't they? Why would
the complete lack of evidence of IBM misuse of their own files (most of AIX) be
evidence of legal imprudence by Magistrate Judge Wells?

If SCO are looking for a crumb of comfort, I can't see them getting any here.
Now, sanctions and jail time, that's a different matter!

---
Regards
Ian Al

[ Reply to This | # ]

We need a raffle on the number of final docket entry in SCO vs IBM
Authored by: esni on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 05:26 AM EDT
Whoever get nearest wins 3 scores of virtual roses

---
Eskild
Denmark


[ Reply to This | # ]

"...the stupidest lawsuit in the history of the world"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 06:06 AM EDT
The stupidest lawsuit in the history of the world.

But only because the system lets SCO get away with it.

If the legal system worked properly what would have happened?
SCO: We accuse IBM of being naughty.
Court: What naughty thing did IBM do?
SCO: We'll tell you later.
Court: Then come back later when you've made your mind up.

Instead

Well, you don't need me to tell you what we got instead. After 4 years and with
millions of dollars syphoned into the law firms coffers there is still no
substantial evidence of what naughty thing IBM did. I can't be the only one who
thinks that a legal system that allows this sort of nonsense is broken.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion for Reconsideraton of, Objections to Order on Spoliation & more
Authored by: jrvalverde on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 06:51 AM EDT
I read Rochkind declaration and is all a piece of crap twisting a programmer's words to say the opposite of what they actually do.

The quoted programmer says his exprience has shown him it would be better to use sandboxes.

This can only be read as saying that he can give advice because in his experience he didn't use sandboxes and -though he can't be sure due to lack of experience- he therefore thinks and advises that it
    would
be better to use them.

Further to it, it ignores a relevant point: when doing highly sensitive work, the best way to force quality is to force programmers eat their own dogfood, i.e. work on the same system they develop: this way the penalty for their failures is paid by them in the most direct way. With a healthy organizational support the results are orders of magnitude better than using sandboxes. See Sun's approach to kernel development on their Solaris site:

http://opensolaris.or g/os/community/on/dev_solaris/

More to that: using a sandbox means not seeing changes by others until you check in your sandbox back. This generates inconsistencies which are even more difficult to track, forces lots of extra work to merge back changes and degenerates into a development model that tends to overbloated, inefficient and buggy software.

In short: using a sandbox makes sense on amateurish small projects with few people. It does not on large projects with many developers and communication paths. In the latter case a single shared code provides an immediate, instantaneous communication system and forces a strict professional coding discipline.

Witness Microsoft approach to Windows development and the results they got, where they can't even document their own code without asking individually every one and each of their coders, and where not even themselves know all the undocumented features added.

To me it looks more like this Rochkind character has no real world programming experience, no OS programming experience or if he has, it has only been on MS-based systems or MS-like based systems.



Josť R. Valverde
EMBnet/CNB

---
Jose R. Valverde
EMBnet/CNB

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion for Reconsideraton of, Objections to Order on Spoliation & more
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 07:09 AM EDT
Would the US system really allow Microsoft to buy either SCO or Novell? I mean,
wouldn't that really be adding to their existing monopoly? Imagine if Microsoft
owned by Windows and UNIX code, the software world would be totally in shambles.
I'm sure IBM has a lot of political clout in the US political system and would
be heavily pushing to stop Microsoft from acquiring either SCO or Novell. In
fact, I'd love to see IBM buy Novell out, or Sun do it. The sooner UNIX
copyrights are re-released under the GPL, the better I think, it's the ONLY safe
way to make sure that Microsoft cannot abuse the system to attack Linux.

Dave

[ Reply to This | # ]

Spoliation
Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 07:30 AM EDT
I think the best example of "spoliation" in the SCO sense, would be
that stuff that's been left at the back of the fridge too long. ;-)



---
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that jail 'manages freedom.'

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Spoliation - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 03:13 PM EDT
Sanctions? Ooooh, hit me again
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 07:56 AM EDT

They actually want sanctions. They can put it in their advertising. "We've
been sanctioned in all 50 states! We'll fight just as hard for you!!" It's
a battle scar, something to be proud of.

It's just a cost of attracting rich new clients -- perhaps even Microsoft. MS
says they're planning a bunch of new lawsuits. Get in on the ground floor.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion for Reconsideraton of, Objections to Order on Spoliation & more
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 08:53 AM EDT
"That legal scholar, Rob Enderle, seems to be predicting Microsoft will buy
SCO. I never link to his nonsense, so you'll have to find it for yourself. But
why would Microsoft bother? They have Novell, and Novell seems to hold the
copyrights, not SCO, so why would anyone buy SCO? Unless someone wanted to
destroy a whole lot of discovery, of course. So, I take what he wrote as merely
another way to try to pressure IBM to buy SCO out of fear."

starting to think microsoft is trying to get control of unix.

it would make sense - get control of it and then put it on the firing squad and
no more worries.

hopefully there are too many companies that would allow this but maybe they just
want to get some control so they can control the desktop for once and for all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupidest legal system in the history of the world
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 09:30 AM EDT
I've been here, like many of you, for four years now. It is just my honest
opinion. New and improved with even more cynicism.

Stupidest legal system in the history of the world.

If the system were sane, SCO would have been dragged out back and shot about 18
months ago.

In the alternative, if you want a nice civilized system where everyone gets the
benefit of the doubt, which is the ideal (but not the practice) of our current
system, then we as a society would invest enough money into it that everyone
could get a fair hearing, and there would be enough judges and courthouses to go
around. Because as a society we won't do this, nor do we have the courage to do
the former (above), we thus have the stupidest legal system in the history of
the world.

Now, I'm off to get some caffeine before posting again.

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why tSCOg UNIX sales are declining!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 10:11 AM EDT
For years Groklawyers have been missing the point about the SCO case. I myself have only just realised the true implications of SCO's claims. I must thank Dr Ivie for putting me straight. I originally thought that SCO was claiming that IBM copied their code and gave it away. I have since discovered that IBM has actually been stealing SCO's code and selling it on the secret stolen code market. If you read Dr. Ivie's insightful writings (IBM1003, a future best seller) you will get a glimpse of the nefarious methods employed by the big blue body shop. I include an extract here.

Perhaps one could compare this to a body shop for processing stolen cars. It is much easier to prove auto theft if one can find the body shop being used. After a paint job, changes to upholstery, options, accessories, and careful modification of the engine and body numbers, it is much more difficult to identify the theft.


So there it is... SCOs real complaint is that IBM is actually stealing SCO's code, polishing it up and selling it. There must be hundreds, or even thousands, of UnixWare or Open Sewer installations failing because some vital piece of code has been stolen. Obviously this is what SCO was referring to when they said IBM had 'unclean hands'. They got their unclean hands when they opened the OpenSewer bonnet and started ripping code out. How many unsuspecting SCO customers have found their servers failing due to this activity - how many McDonalds POS terminals have gone off-line due to this. This has probably cost SCO hundreds of millions - this is why they accused IBM of hacking their systems, not some prissy GPL infringement thingy - but real corporate sabotage type hacking.

I'm glad Dr Ivie has put me right on this I hope more of you will come to see that SCO really had no choice but to bring this case. IBM was literally stealing their business.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't see a 'Corrections' thread...
Authored by: walth on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 10:15 AM EDT
The link to IBM docket 994 gives me a 404 error.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion for Reconsideraton of, Objections to Order on Spoliation & more
Authored by: waltish on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 10:41 AM EDT
I think the Pipe fairy realised some time ago SCO was not going to get a win.

I Expect there wont be any more Piping from the fairy.
No the Pipe Fairy wouldn't want these issues to be resolved with finality
against the rot SCO has been claiming, No that out come would diminish the Pipe
Fairies ability to spread FUD, and besides the Pipe Fairy already got its Monies
worth draining some of IBM's and Novells' resources and weakening Novell's
resolve.

I bet the plan all along was to inflict attrition (see the extraordinary
discovery demands by SCO) in an effort to wear down the finances and will to
fight in some of the Pipe Fairies competitors, and if by chance some thing was
won it would have been a bonus.
In Novell's case it seems the weakening of the will to fight has worked.

w



---
" You can fool some of the people all of the Time
And all of the people some of the time
But you cant fool All of the people All of the Time."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Going Through The Motions...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 11:24 AM EDT
What do you bet that the Judge will assign these to a clerk to skim for any new
or relevant facts or case law references, annotate the margins, and then produce
a short summary.

Then the Judge will ignore most of the nonsense and work up a short ruling for
each. Shouldn't take more than ten minutes.

This can be called "going through the motions"

.. chuckle

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion for Reconsideraton of, Objections to Order on Spoliation & more
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 12:33 PM EDT
1st I have to say I am a hardware guy. I have read the Ivie and Rotchkind
declarations and all I can say is they are pure BUNK with supposition upon
supposition in an attempt to sound reasonable. All the good programmers I have
known don't have to sit and refer to anything, for the most part, while writing
code. They just know, that's why they are called programmers not plumbers.
I have done some, but not much, programing, usually for test and
trouble-shooting purposes. One thing I can say, because I have been bit by it,
is that cleaning out what is being called a "sandbox" periodically is
necessary to insure only the "working" version is kept. Not as SCO
suggests to hide things.
Like I said I'm a hardware guy, but, even I know you don't keep what doesn't
work around unless you are asking for problems. So a directive telling/reminding
folks to clean their "sandbox" is wholly unsurprising, to me anyway.
I hope this makes some kind of sense.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's RedHat letter
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 12:49 PM EDT
SCO's RedHat latter simply states the IBM trial date has been vacated without a
new future date set. It does not note that the Judge specifically asked to be
notified if there was any change in the schedule of the cases.

Probably no one cares.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this at all normal?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 01:07 PM EDT
I know, "normal" and SCO don't go together very often, but...

Is it normal for one side to appeal every single point that they lose? Is it
normal for the judge to put up with it? For how long?

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

"at some point the court is going to start sanctioning, I think. "
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 01:20 PM EDT
.....Right.....

All that is going to happen is B&S will up their fees based on their ability
to fight what any intellegent outsider to the legal community can see is a
baseless lawsuit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Bankruptcy and redaction
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 01:23 PM EDT
IANAL, and here is my question: In the event of a SCO bankrupcty, is there any
mechanism for unredaction of their court documents?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion for Reconsideraton of, Objections to Order on Spoliation & more
Authored by: MrCharon on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 01:34 PM EDT
Saddly SCO will not get fined on this motion as the Court invited SCO to file
it. I had to look it up to make sure but the court did tell SCO back on Nov 29,
06 (Order Affirming Magistrate Judge's order of June 28, 2006) that it would do
a de novo review of the motion to strike and the the motion on the spoliation
issuse.

I had remembed the one about the motion to strike but not about the other.

---
MrCharon
~~~~

[ Reply to This | # ]

998 ???
Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 02:03 PM EDT
998 - Filed: 03/16/2007
Entered: 03/20/2007
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support of Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Counterclaim filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk)

Am I missing something here?

Either SCOX mistitled a motion for IBM, or they misfiled a motion intended for the Novell case in the IBM docket.

[ Reply to This | # ]

BM Helps Fund Web Hosting For Anti-SCO Site Groklaw
Authored by: Bill.S on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 04:27 PM EDT
I spotted this on Information Week's web site, front page. Here's a link if you want: Information Week My first reaction was, "Well, duh". I'm glad a reporter at a major trade magazine can manage to click on the "partners" link on ibiblio's web page and then leap to conclusions and infer some conspiracy. (After years of lurking and posting anonymously, I finally joined. Hooray me.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

And irrelevant besides
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 04:34 PM EDT
Despite all the whining about how they needed the sandbox code to pinpoint what
IP the programmers were dumping into Linux, they still fail to present (even
assuming there were versions and line #) anything that meets the specificity
requirements.

As IBM has already pointed out, screaming about AIX code is meaningless until
SCO can also tie it to SRV4 code that they have some rights to, AND to where it
appears in Linux.

Nothing in those sandboxes is going to do that. So this whole motion comes down
to SCO saying "We submitted a zillion pages of gibberish which you threw
out because it wasn't specific, but we were prejudiced because with the data in
those sandboxes we could have submitted another zillion pages to throw out for
not being specific!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Rob Enderle seems to be predicting Microsoft will buy SCO"
Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 04:48 PM EDT
Well, good luck to them! They will soon find that they are liable for Lanham Act damages to IBM, and possibly various damages to other injured parties too. You don't acquire the assets (if any!) without the liabilities.

The corporate memory can be very long, and IBM has a score to settle with Gates.....

I think Pretenderle is as "accurate" as always, but if he turns out to be right, just this once, it will be real fun.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

OpenOffice Data Recovery, Repairs Corrupted .odf Files (News Picks)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 05:29 PM EDT
What is the relevance of this? It looks like just a direct copy of advertising
from "Recoveronix Ltd", whoever they are... How did this get into
News Picks? Yes, it's about ODF, but it also seems to be a propritary product;
why is Groklaw promoting it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sanctions?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 21 2007 @ 09:11 PM EDT
Personally, were I the judge, I'd just deny their motions for leave to file
over-length briefs :-)

Reconsider? But your brief isn't properly before me. It was too long. And I'm
not going to let you file any over-length papers any more. Period.

At least, that's how it'd go in my fantasy world ...

Of course, SCO being SCO, they'd probably just split things into 3,000 different
10 page motions that cross-reference each other in some convoluted way. But
thanks to Groklaw, I now know about Graphvis, and I can graph things.

Seriously, that helped me out a LOT at work the other day, knowing about that
bit of free software. I'm very glad to have found out about it here :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion for Reconsideraton of, Objections to Order on Spoliation & more
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 06:06 AM EDT
It is a nice article

[ 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 )