|
With Friends Like These... The Declaration of Lee Johnson |
|
Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 02:14 AM EDT
|
I assumed the SCOfolk would take us into the mud puddle before the summary judgment motions were done, and so they do. Here is the Declaration of Lee Johnson [PDF], purportedly a friend of David Bradford's, who has provided a declaration on Novell's side of the copyright ownership issue. It was Bradford who said: The Asset Purchase Agreement means what it says: copyrights were not included as an asset; copyrights were specifically excluded from the asset transfer. The exclusion was intentional. Should any persons suggest otherwise, they are mistaken. SCO would like to undermine this testimony, and they use Mr. Johnson for that purpose.
Mr. Johnson, who tells us, without specificity, that he has been a shareholder over the years in both SCO and Novell and wants them both to succeed, without telling us if he presently would gain if SCO won the lawsuit, relates that he and Bradford go way back, to 1987, and Bradford, he claims, has repeatedly told him that he wasn't that involved in the APA deal, he charged others with that task, and that he can't remember it. Johnson says he challenged Bradford about his declaration, and Bradford apparently left a voice message, which his "friend" retained for use in this lawsuit, apparently, stating that while he earlier said he couldn't remember "any of this," after reviewing the documents, he'd decided that it must have been the way he related it in his declaration. This smarmy act of "friendship" -- what *is* in the water in Utah? -- is for the purpose of undermining Bradford's declaration by publicly implying he is a liar. However, if you remove the ugly twist on things, they say pretty much the same things. Twice Bradford has told this "pal", even by Johnson's own statement, that after reviewing the documents, which obviously is how one refreshes one's memory, he is now convinced that Novell retained the copyrights. That happens in trials all the time. A witness may say something and the lawyer asking the questions may suggest that he review a document to refresh his memory. He hands him the document, the witness reads it, and then the lawyer will ask, "Does that refresh your memory?" And many times the witness will say that it did, and will go on to explain. The fact that the witness needed to refresh his memory isn't the same as saying that he needed to create one. And that refreshed memory will be accepted as being honest and as accurate as the witness can provide, unless there is other evidence to the contrary. My point is that refreshed memories are valid in any court. Obviously at one time Bradford had some involvement, because he was the executive in charge, the guy who hired the Wilson, Sonsini attorney, Tor Braham, and gave him instructions. Johnson says that from 2003 on, Bradford said he couldn't remember those long ago events. But after reading the APA, the wording is clear. And it refreshed his memory. That's how I take it, anyway. I wasn't involved in the deal, and I read the document and can see the intent.
I'd certainly love to hear Bradford's side of this story, and I doubt the friendship is quite what Johnson represents, but I also doubt the judge will care much. Bradford's chief testimony is in regard to the Novell board meeting the night before the APA was signed, and the notes of that meeting are extant, and the notes say that Novell would retain the copyrights, because Santa Cruz couldn't pay the full price, so even if you undermined his words, the document is still there confirming them. Bradford's declaration is very clear that he hired Tor Braham to do the actual drafting of the APA and gave instructions to Tor, who has provided a very strong declaration himself. So that is actually consistent with what Johnson says, just minus the ugly twist. Now if some mole-"friend" of Tor Braham were to surface, I might wake up and take it more seriously, but this seems to be smarm for no gainful purpose, which doesn't, sadly, surprise me.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 02:23 AM EDT |
Please post corrections to the article here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 02:26 AM EDT |
Please post Off Topic comments here.
P.s: Make links clickable please (and don't forget to use HTML format)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 03:31 AM EDT |
So, SCO wants the court and a prospective jury to believe that hearsay
constitutes evidence?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 03:33 AM EDT |
His statements sound like what I would say top a pushy aquantaince asking about
a situation I didn't care to comment on. "I wasn't involved" may have
been a polite way of saying "I would be a fool to comment on an ongoing
lawsuit that I might become involved in, and you are a jerk for continuing to
ask">
Dennis H
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
This smacks of a set-up. This guy can't really be his friend or he'd never do
that. It's just another dirty trick and my but they sure do seem to know a lot
of them.
You don't retain voice mails unless it's for litigation. You as a witness
probably *shouldn't* be talking to any other prospective witnesses. And doing
this makes me think that the guy in question is best described by a word I shall
not use on Groklaw. If he were my "friend" he wouldn't be for very
much longer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Set up - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2007 @ 06:24 AM EDT
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, May 28 2007 @ 07:56 PM EDT |
I have read the Declaration and I don't see where it says anyone retained the
voice mail.
If he did why isn't a true and correct copy of a transcription attached?
Did I miss something?
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, May 29 2007 @ 08:32 AM EDT |
The only one I can come up with in Google is Lee Johnson a former NFL punter.
His facts fit.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sagitta on Tuesday, May 29 2007 @ 07:34 PM EDT |
Bradford apparently left a voice message, which his "friend" retained for use
in this lawsuit, apparently
Has the voice message also been submitted?
The declaration doesn't mention Johnson keeping a copy. If the message does
still exist, might SCO be deliberately keeping Novell in the dark for the moment
about what was in it?
--- Sagitta [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|