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
SCO Tells Court in 2 Sur-Surreplies to Let It Use All Its Theories
Friday, May 11 2007 @ 11:32 PM EDT

Some new goodies in SCO v. IBM:
1055 - SCO's Sur-Surreply Memorandum in Further Support of SCO's Motion to Amend its December 2005 Submission

1056 - SCO's Sur-Surreply Memorandum in Further Support of its Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order on IBM's Motion to Confine

Yes, two sur-sur-replies in which SCO begs the court to let it use some more of its theories and evidence that it didn't reveal by the deadline, please. Except they aren't all that polite, I don't think. SCO wasn't obligated, it argues in 1056, to have its experts finish their analysis by December 22, 2005:

The Magistrate Judge's Order confuses the obligation to disclose misused material with the accumulation of supporting evidence and with the theories of literal and non-literal infringement that are naturally found in experts, and are clearly allowed by law in this Circuit.

Well, that's a winning argument: the judge got confused. Another argument is that the court's orders were not clear. Right. That's the ticket. SCO didn't know it was supposed to do what all those court orders said it should do.

What SCO wants is what it always wants, to get to do what it wants:

SCO respectfully submits, for the reasons stated above and in SCO's previous memoranda, that the Court should reverse the Magistrate Judge's Order and permit SCO to proceed with all theories of liability disclosed in its expert reports, including copyright infringement based on both literal and non-literal elements of the copyrighted works as well as the selection, arrangement, and coordination of elements in the copyrighted works.

This wouldn't be about trying to avoid having to pay for all those public comments by Darl about a mountain of copyright infringement, by any chance, would it?

I haven't yet had a chance to read them carefully, but I see one argument that is interesting. In 1055, SCO argues that even if IBM's motion to confine was rightly decided, and a sanction was appropriate back then, SCO's motion to amend should be granted because there's lots of time now before trial, since Novell is going first, so "any possible prejudice can be cured" while we all wait for Novell to be decided. What I haven't sorted out yet is who this memo goes to. Did SCO get permission to file two sur-sur-replies, one to each judge? I'll look into that.

You have to hand it to BS&F. They think of absolutely every possible argument. But the net effect, which they probably don't point out, would be that the court's many orders to put all allegedly infringed material on the table by the deadline would be flouted and SCO would be sanction-free and able to present all the materials it failed to present by the deadline. Somehow that doesn't sound quite right. Why would any court reward a party for disobeying its orders? The issue wasn't just prejudice to IBM, which remains, according to IBM. The issue is obeying court orders. Well, you argue what you think you can.

The docket also shows some new deadlines:

#1053 - Order Re Extension of Deadlines

#1052 - Order Granting Stipulation and Joint Motion for Extension of Time

The first Order, 1053, gives SCO until May 18 to file its Reply Memo in Support of its Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying SCO's Motion for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence and its Reply Memo in Support of its Objections to the Order Denying SCO's Motion for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence.

The second order, 1052, represents a change in the schedule:

Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures are now due on June 13;
The deadline for exchanging jury instructions is now June 27;
Motions in Limine are now due on July 9

The May 25 deadline for responding to requests for admission stands unchanged. As you can see on the IBM Timeline page, these are not big changes. The Motions in Limine deadline, for example, was June 4, and now it's July 9. The jury instructions deadline was May 28; now it's June 27; and the Rule 26(a)(3) disclosure deadline was May 14 and now it's June 13. It probably just means everyone is scrambling to meet the deadlines, and there are a few items still up in the air, so they agreed to give each other a little more time.

Here is the complete Docket, with all the entries, and as you can see, there is a bit of a mixup, so it's possible that I'm missing something:

1048 - Filed & Entered: 05/10/2007
Terminated: 05/11/2007
Motion for Extension of Time
Docket Text: Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time for Extension of Deadlines filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Normand, Edward)

1049 - Filed & Entered: 05/11/2007
Order on Motion for Extension of Time
Docket Text: DISREGARD - SEE ENTRY [1052] for correct order on motion. ORDER granting [1048] Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 5/9/07. (blk) Modified on 5/11/2007 SEE ENTRY [1052] for correct order on motion (blk).

1050 - Filed & Entered: 05/11/2007
Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
Docket Text: Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Normand, Edward)

1051 - Filed & Entered: 05/11/2007
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
Docket Text: DISREGARD- WRONG ORDER ENTERED FOR THIS MOTION THIS MOTION IS NOT RULED ON YET. ORDER granting [1050] Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Replies due by 5/18/2007.. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 5/11/07. (blk) Modified on 5/11/2007 (BLK).

1052 - Filed & Entered: 05/11/2007
Order on Motion for Extension of Time
Docket Text: ORDER granting [1048] Motion for Extension of Time. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due 6/13/07. Exchange of Jury Instructions due 6/27/07. Motions in Limine due 7/9/07. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 5/11/07. (blk)

1053 - Filed & Entered: 05/11/2007
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
Docket Text: ORDER granting [1047] Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re [986] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE. Replies due by 5/18/2007. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 5/11/07. (blk)

1054 - Filed & Entered: 05/11/2007
Modification of Docket
Docket Text: Modification of Docket: Error: Clerk initially docketed orders on wrong motions. Correction: Clerk has corrected this and re-entered the orders with the correct motions. They have been sent out to all counsel as usual. re [1051] Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, [1053] Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, [1049] Order on Motion for Extension of Time, [1048] Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time for Extension of Deadlines, [1052] Order on Motion for Extension of Time, [1047] Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to [986] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE JointlyStipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to [986] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE Jointly. (blk)

1055 - Filed & Entered: 05/11/2007
Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion
Docket Text: REPLY to Response to Motion re [913] MOTION to Amend/Correct DECEMBER 2005 SUBMISSION (SCO's Sur-Surreply Memorandum) filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A-B)(Normand, Edward)

1056 - Filed & Entered: 05/11/2007
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 No correct entry to link to:SCO's Sur-surreply re: Docket Entry 921 - MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 899 Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Normand, Edward)

Court clerks are used to complexity. But this case, as you can see, is very likely having the clerk going home and telling his or her significant other that this case takes the cake. No one can keep all the SCO twists and turns straight, not even the clerk, and apparently not even the parties. The date for filing three motions, finalized in docket number 1050 as the 18th, was the 25th, then the 18th, or vice versa. Everyone is having trouble keeping up, including me. I note in 1050, however, that SCO has until May 25 to file its reply in support of its Motion, which IBM opposed, to Deem a Prospective Third-Party Deposition in Related Litigation to be a Deposition Taken in this Case As Well. SCO spelled it Perspective, but we know what it meant.

Here is SCO's Sur-Reply Memorandum in Further Support of SCO's Motion to Amend its December 2005 Submission (PDF), as text.

******************************

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

David Boies (admitted pro hac vice)
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Devan V. Padmanabhan (admitted pro hac vice)
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Stuart Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
SCO'S SUR-SURREPLY
MEMORANDUM IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF SCO'S
MOTION TO AMEND ITS
DECEMBER 2005 SUBMISSION


Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

(1)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1
ARGUMENT 2
I. IBM CONFLATES THE MOTION TO AMEND WITH SCO'S OBJECTIONS ON THE MOTION TO CONFINE, AND PROPOSES THE WRONG STANDARD FOR DECIDING SCO'S MOTION TO AMEND. 2
II. SCO ACTED IN GOOD FAITH WHEN INTERPRETING THE SCHEDULING ORDER. 4
III. IBM WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. 6
A. IBM Overstates the Scope of Discovery and Expert Analysis Needed To Rebut SCO's Evidence. 6
1. IBM exaggerates the scope of analysis required. 10
2. IBM exaggeration is shown by the discovery schedule. 11
B. IBM Exaggerates the Scope of Material at Issue in SCO's Proposed Amendment. 7
C. Any Prejudice Is of IBM's Own Making. 12
IV. SCO WOULD BE PREJUDICED IF NOT PERMITTED TO AMEND ITS DECEMBER SUBMISSION. 14
V. THE MATERIAL AT ISSUE WAS FULLY DISCLOSED IN SCO'S EXPERTREPORTS. 15
CONCLUSION 16

i (2)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page
Hertz v. Luzenac Am., Inc.,
2006 WL 994431 (D. Colo. Apr. 13 , 2006)
2, 3
Jones v. Thompson,
996 F.2d 261 (10th Cir. 1993)
3, 4
Karbon v. Turner,
1991 WL 319976 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 16, 1991)
2
Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,
685 F.Supp.1281 (D.N.H. 1988)
2
Repp v. Webber,
132 F.3d 882 (2d Cir. 1997)
14
Scott v. IBM Corp.,
196 F.R.D. 233 (D.N.J. 2000)
2
United States v. Golyansky,
291 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2002)
2
Wolfson v. Lewis,
168 F.R.D. 530 (E.D. Pa. 1996)
2

ii (3)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

IBM's Sur-Reply memorandum rehashes procedural arguments IBM has already raised in its continued efforts to avoid the merits of SCO's claims, and fails to distinguish or rebut the case law cited by SCO supporting the motion to amend. IBM attempts to show that it would be prejudiced if SCO's motion to amend were granted, but the time remaining before trial, which has not been set, would be more than sufficient to conduct limited additional discovery, if any were necessary, and would actually allow more time for such discovery than was contemplated under the initial scheduling order. Furthermore, the only reason such discovery is necessary at all is because IBM refused to depose SCO's experts regarding these issues and instructed its experts not to address these aspects of SCO's expert reports. Accordingly, IBM's claims of prejudice must fail.

The amendment SCO seeks would allow the parties to resolve whether the Linux operating system, used by millions across the world, infringes SCO's intellectual property rights (assuming, also, that the court rejects IBM's effort to artificially limit the scope only to technology wholly within the Linux kernel). This is a win-win scenario for IBM, which purported to seek resolution of the question of infringement on the merits when it filed its declaratory judgment action; for SCO, whose UNIX business has been crippled by the improvement of Linux with its own intellectual property; and for the public, which has a right to a resolution of this dispute on the merits. SCO respectfully requests that its motion to amend be granted.

1 (4)

ARGUMENT

I. IBM CONFLATES THE MOTION TO AMEND WITH SCO'S OBJECTIONS ON THE MOTION TO CONFINE, AND PROPOSES THE WRONG STANDARD FOR DECIDING SCO'S MOTION TO AMEND.

In its Sur-Reply, IBM has again conflated SCO's Motion to Amend with SCO's Objections to the Order Granting IBM's Motion to Confine, and this tactic continues to be misleading. While SCO contends that IBM's motion to confine was wrongly decided, SCO's Motion to Amend can and should be granted even if this Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's order on the motion to confine was correct within the confines of the pretrial and trial schedule that was in effect when IBM initially brought its motion. What may be a justifiable decision, or even sanction, when trial is just months away, becomes insupportable when a longer period before trial is available and when any possible prejudice can be cured during that time. See, e.g., United States v. Golyansky, 291 F.3d 1245, 1250 (10th Cir. 2002); Hertz v. Luzenac Am., Inc., No. CIVA04CV1961TBCBS, 2006 WL 994431, at *21 (D. Colo. Apr. 13, 2006) (Ex. A); Scott v. IBM Corp., 196 F.R.D. 233, 247 n.9 (D.N.J. 2000); cf. Wolfson v. Lewis, 168 F.R.D. 530, 533 (E.D. Pa. 1996); Karbon v. Turner, No. 91-C-337, 1991 WL 319976 at *2 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 16, 1991) (Ex. B); Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 685 F.Supp.1281 (D.N.H. 1988).

Notwithstanding its Sur-Reply, IBM has made no effort to distinguish the above cases (discussed in SCO's Reply at 1-2), and has failed to explain why the Court should disregard the controlling law in Golyansky that the concept of prejudice does not encompass the expense of additional trial preparation and that prejudice should be found only where there is some evidence that a delayed disclosure impacted a party's ability to prepare for trial. Rather, IBM

2 (5)

cites (at 36 n.31) an older Tenth Circuit case and a Colorado district court case in an apparent attempt to show that the Court should find it was prejudiced simply by the inconvenience of having to conduct limited additional discovery before trial and respond to SCO's claims on the merits. The cases do not support that conclusion. In Jones v. Thompson, 996 F.2d 261, 264 (10th Cir. 1993), the Tenth Circuit plainly recognized that the plaintiffs' delay and noncompliance with court orders had prejudiced the defendants ability to prepare their defense, not simply additional expense in trial preparation. Id. ("At the end of it all the Defendants had still not been able to complete their deposition of George Jones nor even begin their deposition of Peggy Jones.")

The other case IBM cites, Hertz v. Luzenac Am., Inc., No. CIVA04CV1961TBCBS, 2006 WL 994431, at *21 (D. Colo. Apr. 13, 2006), strongly supports SCO's position. In that case, the plaintiff tried to prevent the defendant from using at trial certain damages material that had not been disclosed in its Rule 26 disclosures. The court concluded that the parties' failure to comply with its Rule 26 disclosure obligations was not substantially justified. The court nevertheless allowed the material to be used, noting that "the original trial date was vacated for reasons completely unrelated to the pending motions and alleged disclosure violations," and that the "absence of a fixed trial date affords a greater ability to cure any prejudice to the parties and minimizes the possibility of future disruption of the District Court's docket." Id. at. *21. The court further reasoned that, while "counsel should have been more diligent in providing the required disclosures, all parties are now on notice of the damages sought in this action." Id. These considerations are plainly applicable here. Regarding the language IBM quotes that delay and mounting attorneys' fees can constitute prejudice, the

3 (6)

court actually noted "that consideration carries less weight in this case given the attorney fees that must have been generated by the parties' vituperative wrangling through the discovery process." Id. Clearly, that observation applies here, where both parties have had to file numerous motions to compel. Moreover, SCO maintains, and has shown, that no delay would be occasioned by SCO's motion.

In addition, IBM continues to argue that SCO has to show "extremely compelling circumstances" for its motion to be granted. This is not correct. The impetus and sole basis for the Motion to Amend is the substantial change in trial schedule that has already occurred — independent of SCO's motion. It is this change that permits the motion to amend to be granted, without prejudice to any party, and without any change to the trial date. In addition, SCO has clearly shown "extremely compelling circumstances" supporting the amendment. Permitting the amendment is the only way to ensure that the question whether Linux infringes SCO's intellectual property will be resolved on the merits. Furthermore, as set forth below, IBM would have as much time to conduct limited discovery and analysis of the material as originally contemplated under the initial scheduling order. Finally, denial of the amendment would prejudice SCO because it would impede SCO's ability to seek redress for the infringement of Linux. These factors constitute the "extremely compelling circumstances" IBM contends are necessary.

II. SCO ACTED IN GOOD FAITH WHEN INTERPRETING THE SCHEDULING ORDER.

In an effort to show that SCO has acted in bad faith with regard to the material at issue in SCO's motion to amend, IBM points to the Court's prior ruling on IBM's Motion to Limit. However, a different question was at issue in the Court's resolution of IBM's Motion to Limit:

4 (7)

whether certain material disclosed in SCO's December Submission was identified with sufficient particularity, and whether SCO's failure to identify the material with more particularity constituted bad faith. The Court's finding regarding SCO's intent as to that different material has no bearing here. The Court could consistently find that SCO should have identified that different material with more specificity,1 and also find that SCO's conduct with regard to the material at issue in this motion was in good faith. For instance, as discussed in SCO's opening brief and reply, as well as SCO's objections, even if the Court concludes that the material at issue in this motion should have been disclosed in SCO's December Submission, it could conclude that SCO's actions resulted from the reasonable confusion created by IBM's own representations regarding when expert analysis should be disclosed, and by the later deadline that was established for disclosure of expert analysis. Accordingly, IBM's attempt to bootstrap the Court's rulings on its Motion to Limit (which is still subject to a motion for reconsideration) should be rejected.

IBM further argues (IBM Sur-Reply at 30) that SCO could not have acted in good faith because it did not comply with "what the rules require." But that misses the point, and disregards the law cited by SCO. SCO contends here that its interpretation of what the rules required, even if ultimately not correct, was reasonable and in good faith. There is not a shred of evidence suggesting that SCO's conduct in this regard was bad faith or willful, or anything other than a different understanding than IBM now purports to have over what was required by the unique scheduling order entered in this case. In addition, the law favors disposition of cases on the merits, even if a party did not comply with rules, where, as here, sufficient time

5 (8)

exists before trial to cure any resulting prejudice. Both the Hertz case cited by IBM and the other cases that SCO cites support that proposition.

III. IBM WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

A. IBM Overstates the Scope of Discovery and Expert Analysis Needed To Rebut SCO's Evidence.

IBM asserts that allowing SCO's motion to amend would require extensive additional discovery and expert analysis. Indeed, IBM claims that SCO's expert reports "challenge essentially every file in Linux," that IBM would have to conduct an "arduous" "line-by-line" analysis of "over one hundred thousand files" of Linux source code, and that such discovery and analysis would take "at least an additional year." (IBM Sur-Reply at 30, 32-34.) IBM would like to convince the Court that, in order to defend effectively against the evidence of infringement presented in SCO's expert reports, IBM would have to analyze every single file in Linux with excruciating detail. This is far from true. Indeed, this file-level myopia is misguided at best and disingenuous at worst.

6 (9)

B. IBM Exaggerates the Scope of Material at Issue in SCO's Proposed Amendment.

IBM has significantly exaggerated the scope of material at issue in SCO's Motion to Amend in order to create an appearance of prejudice. Dr. Cargill's copyright infringement analysis does not, as IBM contends (IBM Sur-Reply at 17), "challenge essentially every file in Linux." Rather, Dr. Cargill's expert reports clearly show that Linux has copied the selection, arrangement, and coordination of the following literal and non-literal UNIX elements: (1) the UNIX structure embodied in 96 copied system calls, (2) the combination of 8 characteristics that make up the UNIX file system, (3) the UNIX Streams module, and (4) the ELF format. This material does not implicate "every file in Linux." (Cargill Expert Report dated May 15, 2006 at 16-17, 23-36, 41-52, 57-58, 63-81 (11-11-06 Decl. of Brent Hatch, Ex. 274 [DEN 876]); Cargill Expert Report dated August 28, 2006 at 20-22, 31-34 (11-11-06 Decl. of Brent Hatch, Ex. 276 [DEN 876]).) It is neither necessary nor useful to perform a micro-grain, line-by-line, file-by-file analysis of Linux to try to rebut the validity of SCO's non-literal infringement evidence. Essentially, SCO's non-literal infringement evidence shows that, even if the lines and files of source code in Linux were not copied from UNIX,2 the structural organization of such lines and files was copied from UNIX.

The facts here are analogous to a photo mosaic, in which hundreds or thousands of individual photographs are organized in a manner that conveys a larger image. SCO's evidence shows that the overall image conveyed by Linux is copied from UNIX, even if the individual photographs that make up the mosaic are not. In response, IBM's position is to (1) ignore SCO's

7 (10)

argument that the overall image was copied from UNIX, (2) insist that SCO is actually challenging each individual photograph used to make up the overall image, and (3) argue that analyzing each individual photograph would require extensive additional discovery. In fact, an analysis of each individual photograph would be irrelevant to SCO's claims of infringement.

In support of this code-level misdirection, IBM argues (IBM Sur-Reply at 34) that analysis of the non-literal infringement shown in SCO's expert reports "ultimately requires the same arduous code comparison as is required in order to respond to SCO's literal claims" because "just as a novel's plot can always be found in the novel's text, so too are the more abstract elements claimed by SCO embodied in the system's code." It is true that non-literal elements of UNIX and Linux are embodied in literal code. But this does not mean that IBM must perform a line-by-line analysis of over 100,000 files of source code in Linux in order to rebut SCO's expert reports. This is true for several reasons.

As described above, even if IBM could prove that every line of code in Linux was "independently created," which it cannot, that would not show that the non-literal organization of Linux was independently created. IBM's argument that an "arduous" literal-level analysis is necessary to rebut SCO's non-literal infringement evidence is no different than claiming that every grain of sand in a sand castle must be analyzed to show that the overall design was not taken from a pre-existing sand castle, or that each word of a book must be analyzed in order to show that chapter order and headings were not taken from a pre-existing book. Such analysis is neither necessary or helpful. Non-literal infringement is a well established aspect of copyright law that IBM should expect to address in connection with its defense of Linux.

8 (11)

IBM's argument is especially disingenuous because SCO has identified the precise literal and non-literal elements it claims are infringed by Linux. IBM further characterizes SCO's expert reports as challenging "essentially every line" of Linux, but that is not true. As discussed above, SCO's expert reports identify as the infringed material the selection, coordination, and arrangement of (1) the UNIX structure embodied in 96 copied system calls, (2) the combination of 8 characteristics that make up the UNIX file system, (3) the UNIX Streams module, and (4) the ELF format. (Cargill Expert Report dated May 15, 2006 at 16-17, 23-36, 41-52, 57-58, 63-81 (11-11-06 Decl. of Brent Hatch, Ex. 274 [DEN 876]); Cargill Expert Report dated August 28, 2006 at 20-22, 31-34 (11-11-06 Decl. of Brent Hatch, Ex. 276 [DEN 876]).) To the extent IBM would have to analyze any literal source code, such analysis would be limited to (1) the 96 identified system calls embodying the copied UNIX structure, (2) the source code implementing the 8 identified UNIX file system characteristics, (3) the source code implementing the ELF format, and (4) the source code implementing the UNIX Streams module. In addition, multiple system calls, ELF, and multiple stream files are indisputably included in SCO's December Submission, and IBM must deal with those aspects of SCO's infringement claim in any event.

Because these infringed elements are precisely defined in SCO's expert reports, SCO's statements from 2004 suggesting that all Linux and UNIX source code should be analyzed — on which IBM relies so heavily — are inapplicable to the current situation. (See IBM Sur-Reply at 34-35.) These statements were made at a time when the scope of the infringement had not been determined. Because the scope of infringement has been narrowed to precisely identified elements, IBM would only have to analyze only those elements. Furthermore, there is no need

9 (12)

to conduct discovery on every Linux developer, as IBM claims (IBM Sur-Reply at 33 n.26), when SCO has identified the specific material on which its claims are based.

1. IBM exaggerates the scope of analysis required.

IBM also errs in purporting to describe the analysis necessary to perform on the material identified as infringing in SCO's expert reports. IBM lists eleven characteristics that it would purportedly have to analyze in relation to each individual file in Linux if it were forced to rebut the evidence of infringement in SCO's expert reports. (IBM Sur-Reply at 31-32.) However, IBM's experts did not even analyze all of these characteristics with regard to individual files that were explicitly listed in SCO's December Submission. Rather, IBM simply performed an analysis on a representative line or file and applied its conclusions to all lines or files of that type. For example:

  • IBM's experts analyzed a single structure declaration, a single #define statement, and a single function prototype, and then applied conclusions regarding originality to all "such" structure declarations, #define statements, and function prototypes (material contained in header files). (Kernighan Expert Report dated May 18, 2006 at 13-15 (09-25-06 Decl. of Todd Shaughnessy, Ex. 213 [DEN 774]).) This analysis is also applied to the ELF-related source code. (Id. at 23).

  • IBM's experts made blanket idea/expression and merger conclusions for header files in general, rather than analyzing individual lines of code or individual header files. (Id. at 20.)

  • Although IBM says it evaluated the "significance" of code in relation to System V as a whole, its expert reports show no evidence of this evaluation other than a quantitative analysis, which does not require analysis of individual files and is not time-consuming. (Id. at 29-31; Kernighan & Davis Expert Report dated July 17, 2006 at 41 (09-25-06 Decl. of Todd Shaughnessy, Ex. 214 [DEN 774]); Kernighan & Davis Expert Report dated August 28, 2006 at 11-18 (09-25-06 Decl. of Todd Shaughnessy, Ex. 215 [DEN 774]).)

  • In other words, IBM's lawyers now argue that IBM would have to undertake an "arduous" line-by-line analysis of every file in Linux with regard to numerous characteristics in order to rebut the evidence in SCO's expert reports, because this is

    10 (13)

    the only way that IBM can show it was prejudiced, and avoid having to rebut SCO's evidence on the merits. However, IBM's experts did not even undertake this individualized analysis with regard to the code that was identified in SCO's December Submission and that they knew they had to analyze.

IBM also exaggerates the non-literal analysis it would have to perform by listing duplicative and unnecessary types of analysis. For example, IBM lists (IBM Sur-Reply at 32-33) "[a]nalyz[ing] the history of the particular file system technology," "[r]esearch[ing] texts relating to the technology," and "[t]rac[ing] the creation of the allegedly infringing elements" as separate endeavors to give the appearance of burdensome work, but these are simply different ways to characterize the same analysis. Also, it is not necessary to analyze the originality of each file system characteristic mentioned in SCO's expert reports, because SCO's claim is that the combination of non-literal elements infringes. This is simply another example of IBM's focus on individual elements when SCO is claiming infringement of the non-literal combination of elements.

2. IBM's exaggeration is shown by the discovery schedule.

IBM's dramatic exaggeration of the time and effort needed to rebut SCO's evidence of infringement assumes that the original discovery calendar was entirely flawed. The original discovery schedule called for IBM to submit its first expert reports five months after submission of SCO's December Submission. IBM's current claim that it would need at least an extra year to analyze the material in SCO's expert reports amounts to a post-hoc attempt to amend the discovery schedule to its benefit.3 Furthermore, nearly a full year has passed since IBM received Dr. Cargill's first expert report, which contained a precise description of SCO's

11 (14)

infringement theory and the evidence on which it is based. As described more thoroughly below, any possible prejudice or delay that IBM now faces, after receipt of Dr. Cargill's expert report, is the result of IBM's conscious, tactical decision to ignore the content of that report — even refusing to depose him on contents IBM contended should not have been included. If IBM had dealt with the evidence presented instead of manufacturing prejudice to gain a tactical advantage, this would be a non-issue.

Moreover, IBM ignores SCO's argument in its reply (at 4-5) that, even if IBM were to start the analysis now of the material SCO seeks to add to its December Submission, IBM would have more time than originally allowed under the scheduling order that was in place at the time of the December Submission. Accordingly, there is no possible prejudice to IBM.

C. Any Prejudice Is of IBM's Own Making.

Almost a full year has passed since IBM received a copy of Dr. Cargill's first expert report. This is more than twice the time between SCO's filing of its December Submission and the parties' submission of initial expert reports. This is time in which IBM could have analyzed the material contained in SCO's expert reports. Instead, hoping to obtain a discovery windfall and exclude SCO's evidence of infringement, IBM has tactically refused to analyze such material. Any delay caused by allowing consideration of such material now is due to IBM's year-long refusal to address such material.

IBM argues that, although trial date is not set, the discovery required to address the material in SCO's expert reports would delay any contemplated trial date and a new round of briefing would be required to address such material. (IBM Sur-Reply at 35-36.) First, as described above, the discovery required to address such material is not nearly as extensive as

12 (15)

IBM makes it out to be and the original discovery calendar provided only five months from the time of the December Submission to undertake such analysis. IBM chose not to take any discovery on the material it challenges, told its experts not to analyze such material, and disregarded SCO's arguments relating to such material as a tactical measure so that it would be able to avoid dealing with such material. To now claim that it would be prejudiced by having to undergo a new round of briefing because it made a conscious decision to ignore the material in SCO's expert reports is simply complaining about the bed IBM made for itself.

IBM also claims that the prejudice caused by any delay will be incurable, because such delay will perpetuate "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" regarding Linux, "relitigating" issues will be expensive, and IBM relied on SCO's identification of 326 lines "of Linux." Any such problems are the direct result of IBM's own actions. First, SCO specifically identified over 1,000 lines of Linux kernel and non-kernel source code as infringing in its December Submission. IBM, not SCO, unilaterally limited its expert reports and briefing to 326 lines of source code residing within the Linux kernel. Accordingly, IBM has no basis for claiming that it relied on SCO's supposed identification of 326 lines of source code in its December Submission. IBM's unilateral decision to ignore the thousands of lines non-kernel Linux source code identified in SCO's December Submission, not any action by SCO, has ensured that the "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" surrounding the Linux operating system will remain after resolution of IBM's motion for summary judgment on its tenth counterclaim, because the majority of the infringing material will remain unadjudicated. Finally, any expense incurred by IBM due to "relitigating" this matter is directly caused by IBM's tactical refusal to rebut SCO's evidence and arguments that Linux infringes non-literal elements of UNIX when it had the opportunity to do so.

13 (16)

IBM also exaggerates the extent to which this issue would impact summary judgment briefing. The arguments raised by IBM in its briefing on copyright issues would also apply to the material at issue in this motion. Any additional briefing focused on new evidence purporting to contravene the evidence in SCO's expert reports could do no more than raise new disputed issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment. See Repp v. Webber, 132 F.3d 882, 890-91 (2d Cir. 1997). IBM cannot legitimately claim prejudice based on the time needed to produce briefs that would have no effect on the resolution of IBM's motions for summary judgment.4 Moreover, IBM had received all the material at issue here well before it filed its summary judgment motions. However, if, after analysis, IBM felt it necessary to bring an extremely narrow summary judgment motion on limited issues raised only by the material at issue in SCO's motion, there would be time to do so before trial.

IV. SCO WOULD BE PREJUDICED IF NOT PERMITTED TO AMEND ITS DECEMBER SUBMISSION.

Notably, in its opposition and again in its sur-reply, IBM has not attempted to argue that SCO would not be prejudiced if its Motion to Amend is not granted. Rather, IBM essentially contends that the prejudice to SCO is warranted and should be inflicted, even though denial of the motion may preclude a full resolution on the merits of SCO's claims that Linux infringes its intellectual property. In its sur-reply, IBM argues (at 22 n.22) that SCO would simply be losing the ability to conduct a trial by ambush. This allegation could not be further from the truth. As discussed, SCO reasonably believed (and maintains) that its interpretation of the

14 (17)

scheduling order was correct, and that IBM already knew in any event that SCO was contending that the structure of Linux infringes its UNIX copyrights (a fact IBM has not denied). The prejudice to SCO arises from the fact that IBM would have substantial portions of its timely disclosed expert analysis excluded based on the fact that SCO reasonably interpreted the requirements of the scheduling order, and complied with what it believed those requirements to be — even though more than enough time exists before trial to correct the mistake and avoid prejudice to either party.

IBM claims that SCO is "eliminating" one of the categories of discovery sanctions from the Court's arsenal. This is not so. When considering what sanction to impose, one of the fundamental considerations in the Tenth Circuit and elsewhere — regardless of whether the party was at fault — is the amount of time before trial, because that determines whether any prejudice can be cured. This motion is predicated on the fact that, in light of the adjustment of the trial schedule, any prejudice that might have existed can now be cured.

V. THE MATERIAL AT ISSUE WAS FULLY DISCLOSED IN SCO'S EXPERT REPORTS.

IBM incorrectly argues that "the material at issue was not fully disclosed in SCO's expert reports." (IBM Sur-Reply at 38.) This is, first of all, an entirely new issue raised in the Sur- Reply. The basis for IBM's complaint in its Motion to Confine, which gave rise to the instant motion, was that the SCO's expert reports contained information beyond the December Submission, not that material in the expert reports was insufficiently identified. Furthermore, IBM's argument ignores SCO's representations regarding the Rochkind material at issue. IBM claims that a segment of material in Rochkind's report was not sufficiently identified (IBM Resp. at 33), yet SCO has explicitly stated that it does not allege misuse of such material (SCO Reply

15 (18)

at 7). Such material is simply supporting evidence that a particular Linux contributor, identified in the December Submission as contributing specifically identified testing technology, did in fact work in this area of technology for IBM. Although IBM argues that "there would be no reason for SCO's motion" if such material were not allegedly misused material (IBM Sur-Reply at 38), this is not true. Because of the nature of the Magistrate Judge's order, and IBM's interpretation thereof, SCO needs clarification that material that is not alleged to be misused, but does support a finding of misuse, will not be excluded from this case, and therefore seeks to add that material to its December Submission.

In short, IBM has everything it needs in SCO's expert reports to conduct whatever analysis it deems necessary to respond to the material SCO is seeking to add to its December Submission. Moreover, IBM had a full and complete opportunity to cross examine SCO's experts on these issues at deposition, and would have time to conduct limited additional discovery before trial.

CONCLUSION

SCO respectfully submits, for the reasons stated above and in SCO's previous memoranda, that the Court should grant SCO's Motion to Amend and permit SCO to proceed with all theories of liability disclosed in its expert reports, including copyright infringement based on both literal and non-literal elements of the copyrighted works as well as the selection, arrangement, and coordination of elements in the copyrighted works.

16 (19)

DATED this 11th day of May, 2007.

HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
David Boies
Robert Silver
Stuart H. Singer
Stephen N. Zack
Edward Normand

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
Devan V. Padmanabhan

Counsel for The SCO Group, Inc.

By: /s/ Edward Normand

17 (20)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing SCO'S SUR-SURREPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF SCO'S MOTION TO AMEND ITS DECEMBER 2005 SUBMISSION was served on Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff, International Business Machines Corporation, on this 11th day of May, 2007, via CM/ECF to the following:

David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]

Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]

/s/ Edward Normand

18 (21)

1 SCO contends it did act in good faith with respect that that material, and that issue is the subject of a motion for reconsideration that is still pending.
2 SCO's evidence demonstrates that numerous lines of Linux source code were copied from UNIX source code. (See, e.g., Cargill Expert Report dated May 15, 2006 at 81-82 (11-11-06 Decl. of Brent Hatch, Ex. 274 [DEN 876]).)
3 Notably, Dr. Cargill's analysis of UNIX and Linux described in his first expert report was conducted within the 5 month period between submission of SCO's December Submission and submission of his report.
4 As discussed above, IBM directed its expert witnesses to ignore SCO's evidence showing infringement of non-literal elements. Accordingly, IBM has thus far produced no evidence contravening SCO's evidence of non-literal infringement. (SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on its Claim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement (IBM's 10th Counterclaim) at 58-59.)

  


SCO Tells Court in 2 Sur-Surreplies to Let It Use All Its Theories | 339 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, May 11 2007 @ 11:48 PM 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 | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: AveryAndrews on Friday, May 11 2007 @ 11:53 PM EDT
OT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now we know
Authored by: Quila on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 12:53 AM EDT
Now we know concretely why SCO had no problems letting Novell go first. We
thought it was a dumb move, because Novell could kill the IBM case. But I'm sure
SCO had the excuse of a delayed IBM trial in mind when agreeing, and here they
use the delay they caused in order to try to get their way.

I really hope the judge sees through the charade.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is full of it
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 01:42 AM EDT
I'd say SCO was confused if it thought its failure to comply with court orders
meant IBM failed to comply, but that level of confusion would be mind boggling.
It's like the old "pronoun problem" in a Buggs Bunny cartoon. The
case listed by SCO was for an extension where the other party failed to comply,
but it was *SCO* that failed to comply.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reality check
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 02:00 AM EDT
So 1056 accuses the judge of confusing SCO's convoluted theories with reality.
I'm not sure how one should reply to that. It might actually be construed as a
compilment.

Why do they see a conflict with fulfilling their obligation to divulge evidence
with finishing expert reports? All they had to do is say, "This infringes,
this infringes, etc." The expert reports would provide evidence of *how*
it infringed. Yeah, it's just that simple. Instead of a Judy Bat, someone
needs to get out the Clue Bat.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Tells Court in 2 Sur-Surreplies to Let It Use All Its Theories
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 02:34 AM EDT
The only reason for all of this is to delay the Summary Judgements. It is clear
that the judge first wants this out of the way before granting IBM all their
Summary Judgements and deny all of SCO's.

So BSF will keep this up as long as they can to prevent the judge from coming
down for all those backlogged JS.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO isn't an exclusive licensee for SVRX
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 02:43 AM EDT
They are an exclusive agent for new licensees. The are the exclusive licensee
for
the merged code after Project Monterey (IBM was part of the JDA which prevents
exclusivity from before that time) . Sorry, TSCOG that's not a very good
argument. So you do need to show the copyrights for anything before PM
ended. IBM just didn't belabor the obvious. TSCOG laid the explosive charges
in
their own building of this case and now IBM is just waiting for them to be set
off
so they can roll in the big equipment in to clean up the debris.

[ Reply to This | # ]

1055 - It's IBM's fault I've been harmed.
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 03:54 AM EDT
Furthermore, the only reason such discovery is necessary at all is because IBM refused to depose SCO's experts regarding these issues and instructed its experts not to address these aspects of SCO's expert reports. Accordingly, IBM's claims of prejudice must fail.
To paraphrase, 'When we presented further discovery in direct contravention of the court's orders IBM should have used up whatever deposition opportunities they had left to get the details of the nebulous claims in those reports. They didn't so its all their fault'. Actually, I am not sure it wasn't too late even for the expert reports let alone further depositions, but, hey, everybody should be allowed to defy court orders. SCO do it all the time.

The amendment SCO seeks would allow the parties to resolve whether the Linux operating system, used by millions across the world, infringes SCO's intellectual property rights (assuming, also, that the court rejects IBM's effort to artificially limit the scope only to technology wholly within the Linux kernel).
Paraphrasing, 'although we have been unable to confirm our intellectual property rights even in the parts of the kernel we loosely identified, we ought to be able to hold IBM responsible for any unspecified intellectual property rights in anything associated with Linux by anybody. Our business has been crippled by IBM putting their own successful UNIX code in both their pre-eminent UNIX and in Linux and they should be punished.

This is a win-win scenario for IBM, which purported to seek resolution of the question of infringement on the merits when it filed its declaratory judgment action; for SCO, whose UNIX business has been crippled by the improvement of Linux with its own intellectual property; and for the public, which has a right to a resolution of this dispute on the merits.
'We licence Linux with our SCOsource licences so everything in Linux is ours. That's why we are able to offer our Open Server product. Because Linux is so much better than our OS, it is clear we are being damaged by our own IP.'

'And what about poor Ian Al? He has been cruelly treated by being made to wait so long for our claims to be resolved on their merits'. Ah well, they are bang on the mark with that one!

Please don't blame me for what you see here. It is hard to ridicule the ridiculus.

---
Regards
Ian Al

[ Reply to This | # ]

Baiting exercise?
Authored by: Peter Baker on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 04:05 AM EDT
I recall problems when a judge made ill advised comments to the press.
Interestingly, that was with the same company that's in the background here
too.

It makes me wonder if those latest filings are simply provocations to goad
judges into statements that can be used to generate a re-trial (aka more
publicity for the buck).

After all, getting such a retrial amounts to negating the conclusions (at least,
for marketing people it does).

Or maybe I'm just getting too cynical..

= PB =

---
= P =

[ Reply to This | # ]

Surrealistic Pillow
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 04:15 AM EDT
"When the truth is found to be lies..."

Go ask Alice.

---
"Fat operating systems spend most of their energy supporting their own fat."
--Nicholas Negroponte, MIT Media Lab, rediff.com, Apr 2006

[ Reply to This | # ]

1055 - Willful.
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 04:29 AM EDT
There is not a shred of evidence suggesting that SCO’s conduct in this regard was bad faith or willful, or anything other than a different understanding than IBM now purports to have over what was required by the unique scheduling order entered in this case.
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells;
It is also apparent that SCO in some instances failed to meet the level of specificity it required of IBM. Further, this failure was willful under case law and prejudicial to IBM.
This is SCOG wilfully misrepresenting the US legal term 'willful'. This is SCOG conflating (well, they started it) 'bad faith' or 'misunderstanding' with 'willful'. The judge finds that SCOG came to the decision that they would not meet the level of specificity ordered by the court of their own free will and that they were not forced to do that by circumstance, but wilfully did it as defined in case law. The shred of evidence was wholesale lack of court-ordered specificity and the support of case law to show that this was willfully done.

---
Regards
Ian Al

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is there a limit to this?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 05:13 AM EDT
Assuming that IBM answers to this sur-sur-reply, does SCO have the right to
file a sur-sur-sur-reply, to which IBM answers, so that SCO files a sur-sur-
sur-sur-reply and so on until the judge, PJ and all of us die of old age and
boredom?

Or would IBM have to give up their right to respond to stop this? Would that
be risky? If SCO comes up with more stupid arguments, does IBM have to
refute them, or would the judge be expected to decide that they are nonsense
even if IBM stays quiet?

Or can the judge at some point say enough is enough and throw out the
twenty-seventh sur-sur-sur-...-sur-reply without even reading it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

1056
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 05:54 AM EDT
What Judge Kimball ordered,
Final Deadline for Parties to Identify with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material - December 22, 2005

What SCOG argue in 1056,

The argument not only brushes aside the parties’ dispute regarding what constitutes such “allegedly misused material,” but also ignores the revealing discussion in the record regarding the meaning and import of the Magistrate Judge’s Order.

SCO argues that the Magistrate Judge created a new and overly broad standard, illustrated by the Magistrate Judge’s statement that if “it wasn’t disclosed” by the deadline on December 22, 2005, “then it’s out.” There is nothing “plain” about that statement to support IBM’s argument.

The word 'final' clearly comes after the word 'all' in SCOG's dictionary. However, neither definition fits the words as used on this planet, in this universe.

That Christmas (you know, the one where SCOG were too busy to do their homework) they should have been wrapping copies of their dictionaries as presents to the court.

---
Regards
Ian Al

[ Reply to This | # ]

Contempt?
Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 07:46 AM EDT
Are BS&F trying for contempt of court?
The only thing you have to hand them is a shovel!


---
Be sincere, even if you have to fake it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sur-Sur-Reply Me-me-morandums as we St-Stutter to Justice
Authored by: webster on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 07:51 AM EDT

..

0. Le-Let us hope IBM do-does not now feel compe-pelled to oppose so-something
new ra-raised in these sur-sur-replies. </stutter>

SCO's Sur-Sur-Reply Memo to Wells Order to Confine to Final Disclosures

1. They cite eight authorities so this is not overlength or heavy. Argument I

SCO WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY DECEMBER 2005 TO HAVE ITS
EXPERTS FINISH THEIR ANALYSES OF THE MATERIAL THAT
SCO IDENTIFIED AT THAT TIME AS MISAPPROPRIATED......................... 2

This is not a new argument. It is the unclear, confuse-the-deadlines tactic
that has failed every time so far. SCO never explains why they didn't disclose
the expert materials for years. They prefer to reiterate that IBM and the Judge
are wrong and illogical. [IBM and the judge don't appreciate that with
non-literal copying, specifying lines will betray the specific methods and
concepts which are already in the wild and free to use. General theories have
the only chance of reaching a jury. Specificity is fatal to SCO arguments.]

SCO has turned the simple into slime. Materials deadline, analysis, then
experts deadline. Their explanation makes no sense. It is torture to read and
figure out. They don't answer the obvious questions: Why didn't you specify
for years? Why did you hold back the expert analysis materials? Since they
have been at this for years, and only lthey knew what they have been threatening
about, the delay is inexcusable and contumacious. Their dirty tricks will not
be rewarded.

II. THE COURT ORDERS DID NOT CLEARLY REQUIRE SCO
BY DECEMBER 2005 TO HAVE ITS EXPERTS FINISH THEIR
ANALYSES OF THE MATERIAL THAT SCO IDENTIFIED
AT THAT TIME AS MISAPPROPRIATED.

Stupid Judges and IBM. SCO was talking all these years without any expert
analysis. They filed suit without experts. They stonewalled for years without
experts. SCO forgot an argument: SCO was FORBIDDEN to analyse code before the
material deadline. It is clear from the schedule. This is a vaudeville act.
SCO clearly wants IBM to pay for lawyer time. The Sur-Sur-Sur Reply will
expouse new theories of relativity.

This tit for tat game has gone on too long. SCO lawyers make these groundless
challenges and soldier on. It is a challenge of inventiveness and chutzpah
--to put it delicately. They have gone too far. They are lying to themselves
and the Court. IBM should not deign to answer this stuff. There is nothing
new. No more than a page.

III. SCO HAD IDENTIFIED BY DECEMBER 2005 THE MATERIAL
SCO ALLEGED TO BE MISAPPROPRIATED.

More sophistry.

Time for soccer.

---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

Transcriptions thread please
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 08:05 AM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hastings
Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 08:06 AM EDT
"[ BTW, the Battle of Hastings was in 1066 ]"

Not when BS&F get done with the "facts". ;-)


---
Be sincere, even if you have to fake it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Hastings - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 08:43 AM EDT
    • Hastings - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 09:18 AM EDT
      • Hastings - Authored by: Toon Moene on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 10:28 AM EDT
      • Hastings - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 12:34 PM EDT
        • Hastings - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 09:48 PM EDT
        • Hastings - Authored by: moosie on Monday, May 14 2007 @ 02:30 AM EDT
      • Hastings - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 01:24 PM EDT
      • Hastings - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2007 @ 12:03 AM EDT
SURVIVOR
Authored by: Totosplatz on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 08:20 AM EDT

If tSCOG can succeed in having a tiny sliver of their case survive to get in front of a jury, they will be hoping for a friendly local jury to side with Little-Bitty Utah-based tSCOG against Big Bad New York-based Blue. Darl has said as much several times.

The Texaco vs Pennzoil case from the early '80s is one of their models in this, in that it produced an USD 11 Billion judgement against Texaco, and oddly enough Pennzoil could call itself a "Texas company" and could call Texaco a "New York company", and make it stick.

I am confident Darl is wrong any way his phony case survives.

Greetings from China.

---
All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Third-Party Deposition in Related Litigation
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 09:47 AM EDT
Since discovery is closed in Novell and since the Third PArty deposition never
happened, why is that motion still alive?

On IBM's side I'm sure its just professionalism, on SCO's side who can tell.

I wonder if SCO is going to try to reopen discovery again.

When its fully briefed can the judge just declare it moot and move on?

--
rsteinmetz70112
not logged int

[ Reply to This | # ]

Complexity => Reversible Error?
Authored by: mwexler on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 10:58 AM EDT
Perhaps SCO strategy in having all these motions and rehearings and sur-replies
is to make the case so complex, that inevitably the judge will make a reversible
error and they will have grounds for appeal.
I'm not even sure if they care if they can win the appeal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

translated from Sur-Surreply ..
Authored by: emacsuser on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 11:03 AM EDT
'the only reason such discovery is necessary at all is because IBM refused to
depose SCO’s experts regarding these issues and instructed its experts not to
address these aspects of SCO’s expert reports'

The reason we haven't been able to prove our case is because IBM refuses to do
the work for us.

'This is a win-win scenario for IBM, which purported to seek resolution of the
question of infringement on the merits when it filed its declaratory judgment
action; for SCO, whose UNIX business has been crippled by the improvement of
Linux with its own intellectual property'

In a request to extend our submission period, we nefariously slip in our claim
despite the fact that this issue is what the whole case is being fought over. If
no one objects and we get this into the court records then it somehow acquires
validity. eg. SCOs UNIX business was crippled by IBMs contributions to Linux
instead of our business is in the toilet because of incompetent management.

'IBM would like to convince the Court that, in order to defend effectively
against the evidence of infringement presented in SCO’s expert reports, IBM
would have to analyze every single file in Linux with excruciating detail. This
is far from true. Indeed, this file-level myopia is misguided at best and
disingenuous at worst'

We still haven't been able to produce any code copied line by line into Linux.

'even if IBM could prove that every line of code in Linux was “independently
created,” which it cannot, that would not show that the non-literal organization
of Linux was independently created'

Even if the code was proved independently created we would then invoke the
properties and methods shuffle.

'Non-literal infringement is a well established aspect of copyright law that IBM
should expect to address in connection with its defense of Linux'

'We won't tell you exactly what Non-literal infringement but IBM still hase to
prove it didn't'

'SCO has identified the precise literal and non-literal elements it claims are
infringed by Linux'
-------

PJ, anyone here answer this:

If IBM illegaly copied SCO literal and non-literal elements into Linux then the
evidence would reside in the code, is that not corrrect? So how can IBM disprove
SCOs claim without referencing the code. Why does SCO have to rely on IBM to
prove its case. As as far as I am aware SCO is the Plaintiff and IBM is the
Defendant.
-------

Plaintiff: I accuse you of murdering my wife and burning down my house.

Defendant: Produce the evidence.

I can't because you're predudical to the case and won't cooperate in discovery,
therefore you must be guilty.

[ Reply to This | # ]

In order for SCOG to win...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 11:05 AM EDT
First, SCOG must beat both judges. They are making progress here.

Second, SCOG must beat the jury. They are preparing this ground.

Then, SCOG beats the legal system.

[ Reply to This | # ]

128 bit numbers.
Authored by: Toon Moene on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 11:41 AM EDT
Apparently the articles showing two / three 128 bit numbers have been deleted.

I personally want to preserve my entry, without quoting the (apparently, for no
reason I know of) offensive number.

Here's *my* 128 bit number:

46 6f 72 74 72 61 6e 20 52 6f 63 6b 73 20 21 0a

---
Toon Moene (A GNU Fortran maintainer and physicist at large)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Non literal use
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 01:11 PM EDT
There's one clever thing in documents 1055: SCO uses a good Simile to explain
what they mean by non-literal structural copying. They use the idea of two photo
mosaics, made with thousands of little pictures. When you look at each little
picture, it's different to any picture in the other photo mosaic, but when you
step back and look at both mosaics, you see that the mosaics make up the same
picture.

(That would be the a picture of an AT&T logo for SCO's code? And a picture
of the AT&T logo with a penguin peeking out from behind it for Linux?)

Anyway, finally a clear idea of what they mean!

Now, I cannot for the life of me see how they could possibly win by saying that
two pictures are similar, after all, most pictures of say, the crucifixition of
Jesus, are similar, which is not surprising seeing as they concern the same
topic. Nor is it usually accepted that because artists follow traditions laid
down by others, or even referencing ideas from other artists, that they have
made infringing copies of other pictures.

Plus, it's a bit late.

But nevertheless, it's a good way of explaining what they are talking about, and
one of the few times that I've read something by SCO which was clear.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's confused
Authored by: GLJason on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 01:12 PM EDT

The court orders could only have one possible meaning and still be fair to both parties. SCO's contentions that either they or the judge misconstrued the court orders carry little weight. The judge specifically said the purpose of the deadline was to make sure all the allegations were on the table to enable the other side to perform discovery with regard to those allegations and to prevent either side from springing allegations on the other side at the eleventh hour.

If you follow SCO's arguments, then all of the other discovery deadlines are pointless. New allegations necessarily entail discovery from the other side. If new allegations were allowed in the expert reports (four months after discovery was closed) then it would be necessary to re-open discovery for document production, research, and for depositions. SCO's interpretation therefore renders those deadlines meaningless.

SCO was told specifically to seek guidance if they were unsure of the court orders, yet they did not. IBM specifically told them they would ask for anything not in the final disclosures to be disallowed and yet SCO still did not seek 'clarification'. Now SCO claims the judge was confused.

All evidence necessary for these new claims was in SCO's possession since before the case began. Caldera itself was a Linux company and the primary proponent of STREAMS in Linux. The only thing that may not have been available was some of the extra stuff about JFS or IBM's own contributions to Linux, which SCO has had access to for two years. The only allowable reason for not including them in the final disclosures would have been if new evidence was found. expert reports are based on evidence, they aren't evidence themselves. In any case, SCO could have (and it appears should have) hired the experts sooner. In fact it was their duty to have experts find all the infringing code prior to the final deadline for disclosing misused material. One would think that you would have experts find infringement prior to filing suit, as SCO claimed to have done (three teams of experts including MIT Rocket Scientists).

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Final Defense
Authored by: dodger on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 01:48 PM EDT
This is how the final defense plays out.

SCO: Your honor, I would like to take this opportunity to tell the court what
this case has really been about. Yes we have argued that IBM has misused IP. Yes
we have argued that there have been contracts broken. And we have argued that we
and not Novell own the rights, copyrights, and patents to UNIX. We are aware at
this late date (August 2009) that the 'facts' seem to be against us.

But now, that we are coming down the home stretch, we can now explain what this
was really about. It's about the inability of the American Justice system to
deal with any of these issues. Its about complexity. Back some years we ordered
discovery on every permutation of every IBM released (and not released)
operating system amounting to billions of lines of code. As we will show today,
our justice system cannot handle this complexity. Who is to say whether there
was a violation or not? The justice system is ultimately made up of lay people
who haven't a clue about what is in those mountains of documents.

You might argue, that we pull in our experts and their experts and we let them
fight it out. But we don't understand them with their load register commands and
hypervisors and alloc(), headers, semaphores and the like. Face it. It's martian
talk.

When we realized how inadequate our justice system was to deal with these
issues, we came up with a plan.

We would turn the system upside down. Make it into a pretzle. We would go this
way and that way until everyone was so confused that they didn't know what to
think.

And at that precise moment, which we all agreed we had finally reached, we would
'open our kimono' so to speak and disclose our true goal: the exposing of the
human inadequacy of trying to even discuss these issues.

Your honor, may I approach the bench?

COURT: You may.

SCO: Your honor I have here the signed statements of Microsoft, Novell, Sun
Microsystems, ourselves (SCO{G}{X}, formerly Caldera, formally Santa Cruz
Operations, almost Tarantella, but maybe not), These papers show that this all
was an elaborate collaboration of these parties to illuminate for the court
system the burning issues that are responsible for turning litigation into a
business model which is costing our country billions.

In the event that you have understood our point of view and agree with us, then
we request that you dismiss the entirety of this case to deal with the issues
that we have brought to light.

In the event that you disagree with our point of view, then our partner
Microsoft, whose EULA covers every word document that makes up this case, is
going to exercise that same EULA and forbid the court to use its proprietary
document format any more (paragraph 5, section 4a) and is hereby announcing that
it will go after the Adobe PDF format, as well as the '.txt' file format (which
it patented in the early 1980s), with the net result that all court documents,
being evidence in this new lawsuit must be sequestered until the suit is brought
to trial (see you in 2058.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Tells Court in 2 Sur-Surreplies to Let It Use All Its Theories
Authored by: mhoyes on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 01:56 PM EDT

I have just started reading the first Sur-surreply, and notice the following argument.

The facts here are analogous to a photo mosaic, in which hundreds or thousands of individual photographs are organized in a manner that conveys a larger image. SCO’s evidence shows that the overall image conveyed by Linux is copied from UNIX, even if the individual photographs that make up the mosaic are not. In response, IBM’s position is to (1) ignore SCO’s argument that the overall image was copied from UNIX, (2) insist that SCO is actually challenging each individual photograph used to make up the overall image, and (3) argue that analyzing each individual photograph would require extensive additional discovery. In fact, an analysis of each individual photograph would be irrelevant to SCO’s claims of infringement.

Now, I am not a lawyer, but isn't most of the concept of UNIX dictated by having to remain compliant with the UNIX standards? Also, how much of the code looked at was already released un the BSD agreement? And then, how much additional was released by AT&T, Novell, The Real SCO, and Caldera? While looking, I ran across an interesting PDF on the whole trouble with copyrights on software, and also the various tests that are used by the courts to determine if infringement has occured. It is here, New York Law Journal.

The only other thing I can think of is they are trying to say that IBM will only require "limited discovery" because of this "picture" theory, and that they still hold the thought that they own all of UNIX, lock stock and barrel.

meh

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another interesting spin
Authored by: mhoyes on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 02:26 PM EDT

In further reading, I come across this:

Almost a full year has passed since IBM received a copy of Dr. Cargill’s first expert report. This is more than twice the time between SCO’s filing of its December Submission and the parties’ submission of initial expert reports. This is time in which IBM could have analyzed the material contained in SCO’s expert reports. Instead, hoping to obtain a discovery windfall and exclude SCO’s evidence of infringement, IBM has tactically refused to analyze such material. Any delay caused by allowing consideration of such material now is due to IBM’s year-long refusal to address such material.

Which seems to say, IBM should have been working on rebuting the expert reports, even though the court has ruled that they are to be omited, so it is IBM's fault that they have not used the time to challange them. Is it just me, or are they trying to imply that IBM should work on every angle possible, and if they don't, well, that's not tSCOg's fault, it is IBM's for trying to "game" the court.

That is the other thing that I notice. They seem to try to cast IBM as the party that is causing all the delays and submitting the numerous motions.

meh

[ Reply to This | # ]

What SCO Wants?
Authored by: DannyB on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 02:29 PM EDT
PJ wrote
What SCO wants is what it always wants, to get to do what it wants
If you remember way, way back, Daniel Lyons wrote
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets
Amusing.

Daniel Lyons fantasies don't appear to be comming true.

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Looking Glass Justice
Authored by: dcf on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 03:56 PM EDT

Consider the following from IBM-1055:

IBM argues that, although trial date is not set, the discovery required to address the material in SCO’s expert reports would delay any contemplated trial date and a new round of briefing would be required to address such material. (IBM Sur-Reply at 35-36.) ... IBM chose not to take any discovery on the material it challenges, told its experts not to analyze such material, and disregarded SCO’s arguments relating to such material as a tactical measure so that it would be able to avoid dealing with such material. To now claim that it would be prejudiced by having to undergo a new round of briefing because it made a conscious decision to ignore the material in SCO’s expert reports is simply complaining about the bed IBM made for itself.

SCO seems to be assuming that the material disclosed in SCO's expert reports would require only expert discovery and not fact discovery.

IBM could not have continued with fact discovery without violating IBM-466, which specified that March 17, 2006 was the deadline for "Close of All Remaining Discovery (i.e., Fact Discovery As to Defenses to Any Claim Relating to Allegedly Misused Material), since that deadline had already passed by the time SCO's expert reports were available. Any discovery on material newly alleged to be misused would of course be "as to Defenses to Any Claim Relating to Allegedly Misused Material" and not expert discovery, even though the allegations appeared (improperly) in the expert reports.

In SCO's looking-glass view of the justice system, there should be no consequences to a party which violates court ordered deadlines, but parties which adhere to those deadlines should be penalized for doing so (by forfeiting the right to claim prejudice)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prospective vs Perspective
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 07:06 PM EDT
I note in 1050, however, that SCO has until May 25 to file its reply in support of its Motion, which IBM opposed, to Deem a Prospective Third-Party Deposition in Related Litigation to be a Deposition Taken in this Case As Well. SCO spelled it Perspective, but we know what it meant.

The word choice was perhaps intentional.
1. It confuses the clerk.
2. It might confuse the judges.
3. It accurately describes what they are trying to do.
Think of the classic optical illusion involving forced perspective where the kid holds a tiny fish towards the camera, dangling from the line of the fishing pole. The photograph shows a huge fish nearly as large as the fisherman.
cbc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Surreal doggerel
Authored by: cricketjeff on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 07:45 PM EDT
My latest doggerel analysis is here

I will copy it here if wanted, but it takes ages to make it appear as a poem not a block of text and it's past my bedtime.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Helping SCO To Amend its December 2005 Submission
Authored by: sk43 on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 08:22 PM EDT
We now know which code is at issue in Cargill's report and which needs to be
added to the December submission. Let's help out SCO.

First we need 96 system calls. No problem - we can find this many and even more
at
ftp://ftp2.sco.com/pub/skunkware/src/emulators/lxrun-0.9.0-src.tar.gz
The lxrun program is designed specifically to make the structure of Linux system
calls look like the structure of Unix system calls. The code is distributed
under a BSD license. Just what the doctor ordered.

The system calls themselves are documented here:
ftp://ftp2.sco.com/skunkware/lxrun/mirror/SyscallTable.html

Next, we need some ELF code. Once again, no problem. For starters, the lxrun
product above has a copy of "elf.h". Much more ELF code can be found
at:
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/openserver5/opensrc/source/gnutools-5.0.7Kj-SRC.tar.bz2
which contains the entirety of "binutils", "gdb", and
"gcc", filled with ELF code. All distributed under GPL.

Next, we need some file system code. This ia a bit tricky, but we can do it:
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/opensource/nkfs/nkfs-4.2.1.tgz
This package contains code to make a remote Netware filesystem appear to have
the same structure as a Unix filesystem. Also distributed under GPL.

Finally, we need some Streams code. This is the trickiest of all - we need to
go "offsite" to find some. The nearest location is
ftp://ftp.planetmirror.com/pub/caldera/OpenLinux/3.1.1/
Server/OpenLinux-3.1.1-server-CD2.iso.

Digging down, we come to
col/sources/SRPMS/kernel-addon-2.4.13-1S.src.rpm

Finally, we pull out LiS-2.13.6.tgz. Ah, a full copy of Linux Streams. Under
GPL, of course.

That completes our construction of SCO's amendment to the December submission.
Hopefully SCO will find this useful!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Waiting to Exhale...
Authored by: Jamis on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 08:34 PM EDT
SCO continues to build its house of cards higher and higher. As soon as a judge
opens his mouth, the house will come crashing down. The details trickling out
are interesting, but I am waiting for the breeze. Then we will really get to
see the whole hidden show.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why Two Sur-Sur-Replies?
Authored by: sk43 on Saturday, May 12 2007 @ 09:58 PM EDT
It took some searching to track this down. SCO filed two
motions, one an Objection to Wells order granting IBM's motion
to limit, and one a Motion to Amend the December 2005
submissions. In the interest of brevity, IBM combined its
Memoranda in Opposition to both motions in one document:
[961], while SCO filed separate Memoranda and Reply
Memoranda for each motion individually. IBM was granted
the right to file a sur-reply, and it once again responded
to both motions in one document [1034]. SCO kept to its
pattern and filed separate sur-sur-replies for each motion
once again.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Tells Court in 2 Sur-Surreplies to Let It Use All Its Theories
Authored by: webster on Sunday, May 13 2007 @ 12:50 AM EDT
..
On the Objections

IBM conflates,rehashes, avoids the merits, infringes, artificially limits,
vituperatively wrangles, bootstraps, misses the point, disregards the law,
overstates, errs, ignores, tactically refuses, unilaterally decides and more in
this one. They are also misguided and disengenuous. Normand had a blast doing
it. There was a lot of knee-slapping when they reviewed it.

In the preliminary statement SCO blames IBM, inter alia, of refusing to depose
SCO experts about the items they seek to add and also not letting IBM experts
address these aspects of SCO's reports. They are right. IBM did these things.
Why would IBM do these things? Because these expert materials are not now in
the case. The material is confined to the final disclosures. Until a Judge
changes his or her mind, the stuff is irrelevant. Don't blame IBM for following
the Judges' orders.

I. SCO WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY DECEMBER 2005 TO HAVE ITS EXPERTS
FINISH THEIR ANALYSES OF THE MATERIAL THAT SCO IDENTIFIED
AT THAT TIME AS MISAPPROPRIATED.

II. THE COURT ORDERS DID NOT CLEARLY REQUIRE SCO
BY DECEMBER 2005 TO HAVE ITS EXPERTS FINISH THEIR
ANALYSES OF THE MATERIAL THAT SCO IDENTIFIED
AT THAT TIME AS MISAPPROPRIATED.

These are disastrous arguments. They remind the Judge that she is stupid and
doesn't understand her own order. The Judge and IBM interpret the scheduling
order in a reasonable fashion. Disclose all the code, have the experts go at
it, disclose the experts reports. One really can't have it any other way.
SCO's interpretation is strained (and insulting), but they think it improves
with repetition. It is their new mantra after the specificity wars. See how
far they get in oral argument when they twist the Judge's intent. It works no
better on paper. IBM even warned them about the stipulation, and their
inadequate disclosures, after the interim deadline. Stonewalling and ambush
tactics are risky even when you haven't insulted the Judges. SCO shall remain
unforgiven. Given such an unfounded premise, the sophistry needed to bolster
their position just aggravates their unreasonability. It is not as complicated
as they make it.

III. SCO HAD IDENTIFIED BY DECEMBER 2005 THE MATERIAL
SCO ALLEGED TO BE MISAPPROPRIATED.

Then we have this gem: "There is a distinction between “allegedly misused
material” and “material in support of
SCO’s assertion that previously identified material was misused,” and the
Magistrate Judge’s Order fails to acknowledge it." It begs analysis. One
does not try, but SCO feels it belongs in Magistrate Judge Wells' head, because
that is what she meant and expressed to SCO no matter how many times she denies
it, IBM acquiesence notwithstanding. And so they continue short but tortuous.
No one is going to look Normand in the eyes when he makes these arguments. They
are inventive, but he couldn't believe them. Do they feel that a woman does not
know her mind? Would they say and argue in court such things to Kimball?

SCO contiues with some strained reasoning on the expert reports. After the
twisted start one doesn't want to follow them with the effort it takes.

SCO arguments on prejudice are good. IBM has broad shoulders. They argue well.
They can handle whatever the Court orders. They could have left off the part
on briefing all the Moions for Summary Judgment again. Imagine doing all that
overlength stuff again for much more material!

B. The Record Belies IBM’s Claim That SCO Spent “Years” Developing
The Theory of Copyright Infringement in Dr. Cargill’s Report.

Well if SCO didn't know what they have been talking about all these years who
did? They must have bluffed each other with that Non-Disclosure Agreement.
They then list IBM's series of articles on SCO statements and say that Cargill
was not involved.






---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

Driving to a technical fault?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2007 @ 07:35 AM EDT
Is SCO trying to get someone to make a fault that would justify to break a
judgment or summary judgment?
In this mad accumulation of memoranda, reply's and challenges, could they find a
little technical fault that puts it into question.
Like in movies when the bad guy gets out free because a stamp is missing on a
form or some other silly thing like this (that only happens in movies, of
course).

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO claims everything "...will remain unlitigated..." ?
Authored by: kutulu on Sunday, May 13 2007 @ 09:43 AM EDT
Buried deep inside 1055 is this gem:
IBM’s unilateral decision to ignore the thousands of lines non-kernel Linux source code identified in SCO’s December Submission, not any action by SCO, has ensured that the “fear, uncertainty, and doubt” surrounding the Linux operating system will remain after resolution of IBM’s motion for summary judgment on its tenth counterclaim, because the majority of the infringing material will remain unadjudicated.
To me, this looks suspiciously like SCO saying "since you threw out all of our case, whenever this one finishes we'll just sue again for the stuff we didn't get to the first time." Does civil law have anything like the (usually misunderstood) "double jeopardy" concept? If IBM won everything hands down, but SCO had more material it claims was infringing its copyright that was never part of trial, could it just start another trial?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mis-counted wins
Authored by: Wardo on Monday, May 14 2007 @ 10:57 AM EDT
This is a win-win scenario for IBM, which purported to seek resolution of the question of infringement on the merits when it filed its declaratory judgment action; for SCO, whose UNIX business has been crippled by the improvement of Linux with its own intellectual property; and for the public, which has a right to a resolution of this dispute on the merits.

Ok, so there's 2 wins in "win-win", but there are three parties listed, so which are the two winners?

  1. IBM
  2. SCO
  3. the public

My bet is on 1 and 3...

Wardo

---
caveat lector...
Wardo = new user(lawyer = FALSE,badTypist = TRUE,badSpeller = TRUE);

[ 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 )