|
The Declaration of Kenneth Brakebill - exhibits re the 4 new Novell SJ motions |
|
Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 09:25 AM EDT
|
Now we learn that Darl McBride has been deposed by Novell as recently as March 27, 2007. It's listed as an exhibit, one of 63 exhibits offered in support of Novell's four new summary judgment motions, in the Declaration of Kenneth Brakebill [PDF].
Unfortunately, the exhibits have all been filed at the courthouse in paper form. So patience, grasshoppers. Some of the exhibits are filed under seal also. Like Eric Raymond and Rob Landley's "OSI Position Paper on the SCO v. IBM Complaint" dated March 15, 2003, "as produced by a third party in the SCO v. IBM litigation". No. I am not kidding. On that exhibit, I believe we may have a geek workaround. I'd tell you how I found it, but then I'd have to kill you. Me or Google. They might make an exception on that do no evil thing. Nah. Google is your friend. Wait. I know what the explanation might be, other than the obvious, that it's a mistake. How about this? The March 15, 2003 version, the first draft, had some sooper sekrit writings in lemon juice, and somebody captured it off the screen before the words disappeared, and that's what is in the sealed exhibit. No? Seriously, it is possible the "third party" wrote some things on the copy and wouldn't want us to read what was written. Like, "Darl, take a look at this! It proves you have no case. Can you just pretend for as long as possible or at least until we find an idiot willing to sign a patent peace agreement with us? - Hugs and kisses. billg." Kidding. Relax.
Many of the exhibits listed we have already, like the APA. I'll gradually put in the links. Or hey, how about you guys do it and post the links and I'll just copy and paste? But there are other exhibits I would pay money to see. Like the email Chris Sontag sent somebody the very day he was deposed by Novell. Before? Or after? To whom? About what? I am dying to know. How I wish this morning that I actually were a committee of IBM and Novell lawyers, so I could read that thing. And Jeff Hunsaker seems to have been a communicative busy bee, but all his emails are under seal too. We'll get what we can. Here are the exhibits:
1: Second Amended Complaint [PDF][Text]
2. Asset Purchase Agreement [PDF] [Text]
3. Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA [PDF] [Text]
4. Schedule 1.1(b) to the APA [PDF] [Text]
5. Technology License Agreement [Text from SEC website]
6. SCO's August 2, 2000 press release [Text]
7. SCO's February 9, 2001 press release [Text from SEC website
8. SCO's May 7, 2001 press release [Text from LWN
9. SCO's 10Q for the quarter ending April 30, 2003 (excerpts) [Text from SEC website]
10. The Joint Proxy Statement and Prospectus of the Santa Cruz Operation and Caldera Systems, Inc. issued on March 26, 2001 (excerpts) [Text from SEC website]
11. Caldera' Form S-4 filed with the SEC on March 26, 2001 [Text from SEC website]
12. Declaration of Steven M. Sabbath, dated December 22, 2003 [PDF]
13. Tarantella's Form 10K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2001 [Text from SEC website]
14. Memo titled "The Caldera Connection" dated October 31, 2000 (sealed)
15. Declaration of William M. Broderick in Support of SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion to Compel Production of Documents on SCO's Privilege Log dated October 21, 2005 [PDF - page 14 of PDF] [Text]
16. Excerpts of the transcript of Darl McBride's deposition in the SCO v. IBM litigation on December 2, 2005.
17. Excerpts of the deposition of Kim Madsen taken on February 13, 2007 [PDF]
18. Santa Cruz Operation's 10K for the quarter ending September 30, 1994 (excerpts)
19. Letter from Novell to SCO dated October 7, 2003 [PDF from Novell website] [Text]
20. Letter from SCO to Novell dated October 9, 2003 [PDF from Novell website][Text]
21. Excerpts from the deposition of Robert Frankenberg taken on February 10, 2007
22. Operating Agreement signed by Novell and Santa Cruz Operation operative on December 6, 1995 [PDF]
23. Declaration of Michael J. DeFazio from SCO v. IBM, dated October 3, 2003 [PDF] [Text]
24. Letter from Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison to Novell Board of Directors dated December 6, 1995 (sealed)
25. Excerpts from the Burt Levine deposition taken on March 23, 2007
26. Amendment 1 to the APA [PDF] [Text]
27. Bill of Sale dated December 6, 1995 [PDF] [Text]
28. Amendment 2 to the APA [Text from SEC website]
29. SCO'S 10K for the fiscal year ending on October 31, 2006 [Text from SEC website]
30. Email from Jeff Hunsaker, dated December 3, 2002 (sealed)
31. Excerpts of the Jeff Hunsaker deposition taken on March 30, 2007 (sealed)
32. Email from Geoff Seabrook, dated January 13, 2003 (sealed)
33. Excerpts from the deposition of Alok Mohan taken February 23, 2007
34. Email from Jeff Hunsaker dated January 28, 2003 (marked as Exhibit 248 from his March 30, 2007 deposition) (sealed)
35. Email from Chris Sontag dated March 14, 2007 (marked as Exhibit 91 from the March 14, 2007 deposition) (sealed)
36. Excerpts from Chris Sontag's March 14, 2007 deposition
37. Gartner Research Note, "SCO's Suit Against IBM: An Update and Recommendations" from George Weiss dated April 27, 2005 (sealed)
38. Gartner Research Note, "What to Do During SCO's Protracted Lawsuit Against Linux" from George Weiss dated March 23, 2004
39. Email from Blake Stowell dated August 12, 2003 (sealed)
40. TechNewsWorld July 29, 2003 press release
41. OSI Position Paper on the SCO v. IBM Complaint from Eric Raymond and Rob Landley dated March 15, 2003 "as produced by a third party in the SCO v. IBM litigation") (sealed)
42. Email from Blake Stowell, dated May 21, 2003 and marked as exhibit 252 from the March 30, 2007 deposition of Jeff Hunsaker (sealed)
43. Email from Jeff Hunsaker dated August 5, 2003 and marked as exhibit 253 from Jeff Hunsaker's March 30, 2007 deposition (sealed)
44. Email from Jeff Hunsaker dated December 11, 2003 and marked as exhibit 1229 during Michael Olson's March 3, 2006 deposition (sealed)
45. Excerpts from the deposition of Michael Olson, taken in the SCO v. IBM litigation on March 3, 2006
46. Collection of charts produced by SCO
47. Email from Craig Bushman dated April 21, 2004 (sealed)
48. Letter from Gavin Roy to Philip Langer, dated January 21, 2004 (sealed)
49. Letter from McCoy Smith to Darl McBride dated June 12, 2003 (sealed)
50. Letter from Sylvia Khatcherian to Gregory Pettit dated March 24, 2004 (sealed)
51. Email from Gregory Pettit dated April 14, 2004 (sealed)
52. Letter from Patricia Romain to Gregory Pettit dated May 21, 2004 (sealed)
53. Letters from various third parties to SCO concerning SCO's "licensing" campaign against Linux users (sealed)
54. Press release "SCO Announces Availability of SCO IP License" [Text from Archive.org]
55. Pricing of SCO IP License for Linux Servers (sealed)
56. SCO Internal Product Announcement "SCO IP Compliance Program for Linux End Users" (sealed)
57. Excerpts from Novell's 3rd Set of Interrogatories to the SCO Group taken on September 29, 2006
58. Excerpts of SCO's Responses and Objections to Novell's 2nd and 3rd Sets of Interrogatories in the form that SCO produced to Novell on December 28, 2006
59. Email from Ted Normand to Kenneth Brakebill dated March 19, 2007
60. SCO's Responses to Novell's Interrogatory No. 15 produced by SCO to Novell on April 6, 2007.
61. Letter from Brakebill to Normand dated March 5, 2007
62. Email from Sashi Bach Boruchow to Brakebill dated April 17, 2007
63. Excerpts from the deposition of Darl McBride taken in the Novell litigation on March 27, 2007
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 09:39 AM EDT |
So they can be fixed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2007 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MDT on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 09:40 AM EDT |
Clicky if you got it
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off Topic - Grasshopper - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 09:46 AM EDT
- More on TJMAXX Security Breach - Authored by: joef on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 10:25 AM EDT
- World Intellectual Property Day - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 10:28 AM EDT
- Vista's butter solid security - Authored by: Winter on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 11:18 AM EDT
- Survey: 70% of Business May Upgrade to Vista. :) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 11:51 AM EDT
- Champerty - Is SCO 's contingency fee illegal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 11:57 AM EDT
- M$'s position after SCO... - Authored by: Jamis on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 12:12 PM EDT
- An IBM Selectric - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 01:07 PM EDT
- You need to heat sooper sekrit writings in lemon juice to read them - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 01:20 PM EDT
- Happy SCO board meeting day - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 01:30 PM EDT
- Darl, Ralph - Dilbert is on to you - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 01:32 PM EDT
- Nobody diss Jack Thompson - Authored by: MDT on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 02:34 PM EDT
- From The Lawyer Has Gone Mad Dept: - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 02:40 PM EDT
- Jobs says Apple customers not into renting music - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 03:51 PM EDT
- SCO Conference Call today? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 04:47 PM EDT
- Google - Authored by: dodger on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 05:08 PM EDT
- Google - Authored by: jplatt39 on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 06:54 PM EDT
- Way Off Topic - Jack Valenti is dead - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 08:22 PM EDT
- OT - SCO and Spectral Analysis - Authored by: ws on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 09:21 PM EDT
- News Picks -- SCO Chart - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 09:55 PM EDT
- Science & Nature Reject Word 2007 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 09:58 PM EDT
- Whoot! Congress doing something USEFUL! - Authored by: MDT on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 10:05 PM EDT
- Halloween IX - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 11:53 PM EDT
- SCO Research Report - Authored by: DodgeRules on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 12:58 AM EDT
- NewsPick Malaysia - Authored by: Winter on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 04:19 AM EDT
- Matt Asay on Oracle Linux - Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 04:20 AM EDT
- Writing style - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 06:32 AM EDT
- Newspick: German Paliament plans to... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 07:21 AM EDT
- SCO violating media player copyrights? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 07:29 AM EDT
- OT - UK judges and time-wasting lawyers - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 08:43 AM EDT
- News Picks - SPAM Lawsuit - Authored by: Griffin3 on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 09:58 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Winter on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 10:13 AM EDT |
Can GL not get into trouble with publishing a sealed public document? ;-)
Browsing through the paper, it is shocking to see again how early in the case (4
uears ago!) it was clear the whole suit was a fraud.
We can also compliment all the other legal systems that threw out SCOs claims in
a few months.
Rob
---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: T.H. on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 10:25 AM EDT |
Here we can post the links, for PJ to copy/paste. Is this format OK?
2.
Asset Purchase Agreement [pdf]
[Text]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: vb on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
I like that the OSI paper uses the term "SCO/Caldera" to identify the
SCO Group. I wish that IBM had adopted that terminology.
Instead IBM falls into the SCO name trap and uses a mix of "SCO",
"SCO Group", "Santa Cruz", etc. When trying to unsort the
tangle of the SCO Group and the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) names.
I think that the name "Caldera" should not fade away, as the SCO Group
would like. Using "SCO/Caldera" really nails it down.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 10:45 AM EDT |
This was probably filed under seal because some documents from SCO v. IBM need
to be, and they didn't want to bother checking which documents are confidential
and which aren't. Simply cheaper.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pajamian on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
37. Gartner Research Note, "SCO's Suit Against IBM: An Update and
Recommendations" from George Weiss dated April 27, 2005 (sealed)
That
seems to be incorrectly sealed as well. It is available for a fee of $95
USD from the Gartner.com archives.
Not sure if this direct link to the
purchase page will work or not: SCO's Suit Against IBM: An Update and
Recommendations
--- Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux
only looks smaller if you lack perspective. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mwexler on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 01:05 PM EDT |
If the judge rules on who owns the copyrights to Unix in the SCO vs. Novell
case, can that be used to settle many of the summary judgment issues in the IBM
case?
Or do the summary judgment issues related to copyright need to be addressed
separately for each case because they have different evidence on the record,
etc?
If the decision on the summary judgments in Novell can be used in IBM, might the
judge be planning on doing Novell first, because once the copyright issues are
determined there, many of the issues in the IBM case will just "fall
out?"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
Lets say a letter was sent from SCO to a user of Linux who operated in Utah. Let
us also say that this user had a relationship with IBM. This is likely to have
occured given the size of both sets.
Could IBM then sue SCO under Yarros law?
Especially if SCO's case is bogus.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 03:05 PM EDT |
I wonder if the deposition exceprts might reveal some probable subjects for that
sealed e-mail:
36. Excerpts from Chris Sontag's March 14, 2007 deposition
The deposition excerpts are not sealed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
You know, I thought this back when they produced the attachments of Groklaw. I
thought it would have been really funny if they had filed those pages of Groklaw
"under seal".
Well, I guess that has come true. Perhaps SCOG/Caldera should file the
dictionary "under seal" and say they own the copyright on the
dictionary and thus every book ever written.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 04:44 PM EDT |
Quoting from the Second Amended complaint:
"49. From and after September
1995, SCO dedicated significant
amounts of
funding and a large number of UNIX
software engineers, many of whom were
original AT&T UNIX software
engineers, to upgrade UnixWare for high-
performance computing on Intel
processors.
50. By approximately 1998, SCO had completed the
majority of this
task.
That is to say, UnixWare had largely been modified,
tested and "enterprise
hardened" to use Intel-based processors in competition
against IBM and
Power PC chips, the Sun SPARC chip and all other
high-performance
computing UNIX platforms for all complex computing
demands."
They seem to have left NeXT computers out of the equation.
Using BSD
Unix,
NeXT engineers had ported Unix running atop a Mach Kernel. By
1993 NeXT
was already porting this BSD based UNIX OS to MIPSD, PA-RISC, SPARC,
and
x86. This became OpenStep and ran on standard PC hardware. See
A
Brief History
of NeXT.
SCO seems to have seletive memory or a
highly selective view of
computing history.
I appologize for any
understatement.
Davdf[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 05:06 PM EDT |
It looks like SCOX is dropping like a rock. Wonder if someone heard something.
At 2pm this afternoon it just seemed to sink like a stone.
http://finance.google.com/financ
e?q=SCOX [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 06:46 PM EDT |
The legal system has to be transparent in order to be accepted as fair.
Considering this need, shouldn't there be sanctions for filing public documents
under seal (thus obscuring the process)? Even assuming this particular copy
includes pertinent private notes, couldn't a redacted version be filed?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmarker on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 08:40 PM EDT |
A man I can understand. In another life & back in the late 1960s I was
trained as a System/360 Hardware CE at IBM. The Selectric typwriter was
initially used as the console on the early 360 family. We had to learn how to
service them. My cousin went into the Office Products div & was trained to
service just IBM typewriters - those OPCE guys knew them far better than we DPCE
guys.
Nice story (these days I am an IT Enterprise Architect spoecializing in SOA :)
)
DSM[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: reuben on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 08:53 PM EDT |
Since the OSI position paper was produced by a third
party, it may have been covered by a general agreement to
keep documents from that party under seal. If they
subpoena a third party and ask them for a general class of
documents, with a protective order, some of the responsive
documents might be things that are also publicly
available. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bstone on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 01:48 AM EDT |
From Exhibit 20 -- Letter from Darl to Jack Messman, Novell
CEO
Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music
industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing
violation of our intellectual property or other rights.
And I
wish the RIAA the same luck with their efforts as tSCOg is having with theirs.
Of course, Darl missed an important part of the RIAA strategy. It might have
worked out better if he went after kids and grandmothers instead of IBM and
Novell.
And Messman's reply:
In the future, we hope SCO
will adhere to standards of strict accuracy when stating its rights in
UNIX.
Well, I guess we can't hope for that, but perhaps in the
near future, Darl and company will be wishing they had listened to that
request. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 08:24 AM EDT |
IMHO the A exhibit is one document that all software engineers should read and
all people involved with the RIAA.
On that bases I posted a link to the article on three BB, one the local Linux
sig group, one of the OpenSuSE groups – there are a number of these groups, and
the OpenOffice group.
The first response on the OpenOffice group was most enlightening. Wish I had
keep the posting; I did not. It was a short one which lambasted IBM for stealing
SCO intellectual property wishing complete and utter failure to IBM.
One would normal be inclined to dismiss this person as a TROLL but on reflection
I think not. A TROLL if one recall was a hobbit that lived in a cave running out
to attack passers by with utter nonsense. While the nonsense was there the
attack was not so a TROLL it was not since this was being done under the
aspirations of so called enlightenment. That so called enlightenment is what is
bothering me. If there is an individual on an OpenOffice form that believes that
IBM is the bad guy SCO the good guys then one can almost be assuredly assume
that there are thousands or missions of other computer users with equivalent
opinions that are not enlightened enough to even understand that there is
excellent open source software for free (as in money) as a replacement to MS
Office and does not even take into consideration the millions that are of the
opinion that there is only one computer operating system which is of course is
manufactured by MS. To me that one posting explained volumes of why IBM and
Novel MUST drive SCO completely and totally in to OBVIOUS TO THE WORLD oblivion.
The knowledge of what MS is and what their attempts at world totalitarian
domination of information MUST be made obvious to the world not just to a group
of computer geeks.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
The OSI
position paper is a must-read. People familiar with Unix operating system
and history, as well as open source development and its history show clearly and
concisely how SCO's statements misrepresent the facts. This is one of my
favorite quotes:
If Darl McBride and complainants did not know at
the time of the complaint that Caldera itself had played a lead role in the very
development they accuse IBM of having unfairly and unlawfully pursued, they are
incompetent. If they did know, their complaint appears to verge closely upon
perjury.
They point out that SCO's Unix versions aren't
"enterprise hardened", their market share makes them a nobody in the enterprise
market (even if you count installations on single-processor boxes at McDonalds
as "enterprise") and Linux had more or better enterprise features than either
OpenServer or UnixWare, and earlier...
32-processor SMP was already
implemented under Linux in 2000.[19] 24-processor operation, three times the
8-processor limit of UnixWare, was demonstrated in 1998 on a Sun
E10000[20].
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 02:00 PM EDT |
Quote from the OSI position paper:
We further suggest that SCO's
complaint is knowingly deceptive to a degree that recommends sanctions under the
Utah and Federal Rule
11 of Civil Procedure.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|