|
SCO Is Back to its Old Utah Ways - Updated |
|
Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 08:48 PM EST
|
SCO has filed its Opposition to Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on its 4th Claim for Relief, along with exhibits, and a Declaration by Brent Hatch in support of its Opposition, which lists all the exhibits. Also there is a supplemental list of new witnesses and exhibits SCO hopes to present at trial, two new people, Lawrence Bouffard and Janet Sullivan.
It will not surprise you to learn that it filed its Opposition under seal and asked for leave to file excess pages. Guess how many. No. Really. Guess. 70 pages, "exclusive of face sheet, table of contents, authorities, appendixes and exhibits"!! SCO tried to be concise, it says, but it can't "fully and fairly address the issues" with fewer words. Ah! Memories come flooding back. 70-page SCO filings! We're back in Utah! Oh, and guess what's on the list of exhibits: the history of System V as told by Wikipedia. Hahahaha! You don't suppose SCO wrote it. You think? Or outsourced it? The fact is, they could. We all know how totally and perfectly reliable Wikipedia is about every last detail, particularly on controversial subjects. Which is why they have a disclaimer, and its founder tells us not to rely on it. Also on the list of exhibits on the Opposition are snips of depositions of various folks the judge already said he didn't find persuasive, like Alok Mohan and Jean Acheson. And some new evidence sneaking in, as far as I can tell, like some Mohan letters from 1996. Some amendments to Microsoft's agreement with SCO, too, and a "clarification" to Sun's "license grant to UnixWare and Openserver drivers" dated April of 2003, a month *after* SCO sued IBM. I gather the theme is, it's all about UnixWare. Yup. We're in Utah again, all right.
Here are all the filings:
486 -
Filed & Entered: 01/25/2008
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO NOVELLS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF and EXHIBITS THERETO filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group (Hatch, Brent)
487 -
Filed & Entered: 01/25/2008
Declaration
Docket Text: DECLARATION of Brent O. Hatch re [486] Notice of Conventional Filing OF SCO'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO NOVELLS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND EXHIBITS THERETO filed by SCO Group. (Hatch, Brent)
488 -
Filed & Entered: 01/25/2008
Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1)
Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Hatch, Brent)
489 -
Filed & Entered: 01/25/2008
Exhibit List(Proposed)
Docket Text: Proposed Exhibit List and Witness List (Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures) SUPPLEMENTAL by Plaintiff SCO Group.. (Normand, Edward)
Update: The court has granted SCO's request to let it file excess pages: 491 -Filed & Entered: 01/28/2008
Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: ORDER granting [488] Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 1/28/08. (jwt)
|
|
Authored by: tuxi on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 08:58 PM EST |
Are SCOX clueless or are they trying to get Kimball's goat? I can't believe
they're totally clueless so it's either trying to get Kimabll's goat or
incompetent counsel.
--- tuxi [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: John Hasler on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 09:11 PM EST |
> ...the history of System V as told by Wikipedia.
Strange. Wouldn't that fail the best evidence rule as encyclopedias are never
primary sources?
> Hahahaha! You don't suppose SCO wrote it. You think? Or
> outsourced it? We all know how totally and perfectly
> reliable Wikipedia is about every last detail, particularly
> on controversial subjects.
I find Wikipedia quite useful and reliable, though I haven't looked at the Unix
article.
---
IOANAL. Licensed under the GNU General Public License[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ted Powell on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 09:18 PM EST |
n/t
---
This is *my* computer, not Microsoft's![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 09:20 PM EST |
All the news that's fit to pick and then some.
Please include titles.
---
May the source be with you.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 09:24 PM EST |
Also on the list of exhibits on the Opposition are snips of
depositions of various folks the judge already said he didn't find persuasive,
like Alok Mohan and Jean Acheson. And some new evidence sneaking in, as far as I
can tell, like some Mohan letters from 1996. Some amendments to Microsoft's
agreement with SCO, too, and a "clarification" to Sun's "license grant to
UnixWare and Openserver drivers" dated April of 2003, a month *after* SCO sued
IBM. I gather the theme is, it's all about UnixWare.
I thought
discovery was over. How can they go about introducing new evidence? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 09:24 PM EST |
You're not allowed to be on topic.
Please included URL.
---
May the source be with you.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 2/3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 10:27 PM EST
- 2/3 - Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 10:12 AM EST
- 2/3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 28 2008 @ 03:09 AM EST
- Does anyone know of a GPL'd Fund Based Non-Profit/School/Government Accounting Application? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 11:10 PM EST
- the UK's slippery slope to software patents. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 05:29 AM EST
- Well there you go, the US doesn't have a monopoly on stupid lawsuits after all - Authored by: MDT on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 09:09 AM EST
- Google: "Don't be evil." NetSol: "But we like being evil." - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 10:41 AM EST
- Just got an EEE (3epc) - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 02:05 PM EST
- Australian govt draft says piracy stats are made up - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 04:36 PM EST
- Subpoena Sought For Browsed News Articles - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 06:28 PM EST
|
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 09:41 PM EST |
That seems to be SCO's tactic here. Keep saying untrue things long enough and
eventually they will become true. Wishful thinking. It will be seventy pages
of confused nonsense based on theories that have already been refuted. If the
judge has even a small clue he'll cut them off as short as he can while making
successful appeal unlikely.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 10:04 PM EST |
How about here
? It includes a link to the text of a deposition.
A search brought up a
few more articles where this name is mentioned in a few motions.
Here.
and here
and here
It appears Mr Bouffard was involved in the
negotiations of the APA for Novell, or at least this is the story we are told. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Stumbles on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 10:09 PM EST |
Imagine that, SCO sighting something as unreliable and
un-authoritative as Wikipedia. Its hardly surprising.
---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yes - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 04:34 AM EST
|
Authored by: nola on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 10:10 PM EST |
Maybe Judge Kimball will deny leave, but suggest that an application for 35
excess pages would be dealt with more favorably?
That would be sweet.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 10:29 PM EST |
SCO would like to bring to the Court's attention, a reference to WWW.*.*.COM,
where the judge will find millions of lines of text which can be manipulated to
say what we need it to say. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: John Hasler on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 10:48 PM EST |
I just scanned the Wikipedia Unix article. I see a few minor errors, but on the
whole it looks reasonable and accurate. It includes a Unix
"geneology" chart: perhaps that is what interested SCO in the article.
I don't understand why they wouldn't have gone to the primary source, though.
The article provides a link.
---
IOANAL. Licensed under the GNU General Public License[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 11:01 PM EST |
The plaintiff is granted their request to file an overlength reply so long as
they are able to present to the court the FACTS that have been missing from
their previous filings. The court understands that if the plaintiff were ever to
present the FACTS they have so far failed to respond with a large document may
be required. The court will even grant the plaintiff leave to file 140 pages of
FACTS but no leave at all to simply present self serving rhetoric, innuendo, and
hearsay. Presentation of self serving rhetoric, innuendo, and hearsay is to be
confined to the default allowed length.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 11:52 PM EST |
See the subject. Should be a quick search if you know SCO's IP set. If
wikipedia reports any edits from SCO IP owned IP addresses that would make their
cite very questionable.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 03:55 AM EST |
PJ, you have written about a previous UNIX timeline, by SCO itself
(http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040726085048643&query=Timeline+U
NIX):
"SCO's UNIX Timeline Chart Goes Poof
Monday, July 26 2004 @ 08:50 AM EDT
If you visit SCO's SCOsource page, you will find their "UNIX System
Development Timeline" link now points you not to their edited version but
to the original Eric Levenez chart. Their "personalized" chart has
gone bye-bye."
Maybe you can find it again?
----
IMANAL - I'M Absolutely Not A Lawyer - just didn't login[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 05:51 AM EST |
SCO, despite their complete lack of a case, have a trick up their sleeve:
ask for the sun, moon and stars, when all they want is a handful of stars. The
sun and moon are eventually denied, but SCO sometimes get that handful of
stars.
Here, Novell asked for a handful of stars, when they should have
asked for the stars and a big chunk of the moon too. In Kimball's massive ruling on 2007-08-10, Novell's first Motion for Partial
Summary Judgement on [their] Fourth Claim for Relief was granted in
full:
Accordingly, Novell’s
motion for partial summary judgment on
its Fourth Claim for Relief for declaratory judgment is
granted, and
SCO’s cross-motion for summary judgment on Novell’s Fourth Claim for Relief
is
denied.
It seems to me that had Novell included just one more
sentence in their first motion of the same name (asking for declaratory
judgement that SCO was without authority to enter into the SCOsource licenses),
that would have already been granted and there would be no need for Novell to be
refuting another seventy pages of SCO nonsense now.
Actually, the words
"declaratory judgment" and "granted" are already present in that all-important
sentence of Kimball's ruling. Had the words "no authority" been in Novell's
original motion, they would already be home and dry.
But instead,
this.
--- Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office
$tandard Only For Themselves [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 07:11 AM EST |
Nice try but could do better.
---
You don't need to use an Anti-Virus with Linux as thats mainly a windows thing
:)
But you can if you want to, its your choice.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 07:49 AM EST |
Docket 487 (Hatch Decl.) lists as item 64 "Intellectual Property Compliance
License for Linux between SCO and Questar
Corporation, dated January 16,
2004, bearing Bates range QC00003-10" (emphasis added by me). This rang a
bell in my mind, so I went looking and found a mention by TSG in a filing on
November 30, 2004 (SCO's Memo in
Opposition to IBM's Motion for PSJ on CC for Copyright Infringement, docket
no. 342 in the IBM case) where one of TSG's defenses to IBM's copyright
infringement claim was that SCO's December 19, 2003 agreement with
Questar (IBM Ex. 34) granted a license to use 'SCO IP rights' which were defined
as SCO's UNIX rights and expressly excluded Linux, and did not license Linux or
any IBM product;
Two things jump out at me over this:
- How
many license deals did TSG do with Questar? One appears to be dated 12/19/03,
while another is apparently dated 1/16/04.
- If the Questar deal (or
deals) had nothing to do with licensing Linux (as alleged back in 2004), then
why did TSG title the referenced document as an "Intellectual Property
Compliance License for Linux"?
--- "When I say something,
I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Questar - Authored by: tknarr on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 12:27 PM EST
|
Authored by: iraskygazer on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 08:44 AM EST |
PJ,
Has anybody reviewed the changes made to the Wikipedia articles about SysV?
What about that Wikipedia change tracking monitor you mentioned in a previous
article?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 10:25 AM EST |
Isn't the sole purpose of the trail to ascertain the percentage SYSV in each
license (Sun & Microsoft) thereby defining the amount that SCO owes to
Novell? Is anything else being heard in this trial? How does a Wikipedia page
about Unix relate to apportionment?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 11:17 AM EST |
Anyone should be able to show the sequence of page versions.
Only a moron would attempt to game this system.
Let the games continue![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 11:19 AM EST |
SCO's Opposition to Novell's MSJ on the Fourth
Claim
- Even though it is overlength, it should be easy to analyze
because it is sealed. Novell's contentions are here and
here.
Novell says that SCO has no right to license SVRX code like they did to SUN and
the Monopoly.
- Novell puts this into a MSJ because they think
it is obvious, beyond evidentiary dispute, and the Judge should be able to rule
on it with the undisputed facts and without a full-blown trial. Novell says
this is all based on the familiar APA and the SCO licenses themselves with SUN
and the Monopoly. The August 10 decision by Kimball on the other MSJ's is also
a key basis.
- This is dreaded and familiar territory for SCO.
Remember we are where we are because Novell's evidentiary showing can be
summarized as follows: "Look, Judge. This is what the APA says. What it says
is what is intended according to the people who made the APA. You need
look no further, Judge, Your Honor."
- Contrast this to SCO's
position: "But, Judge, despite what the APA says, all of these other people,
who didn't draft or negotiate the APA, thought and acted like it meant something
else, sometimes." The Judge stuck with the rules of evidence and the APA. He
gratuitously went on to consider SCO's evidence anyway, and speculatively ruled
that it would not have changed the APA and his Order, if
admitted.
- So what must this sealed, overlength mass of verbiage
be saying and why is it sealed? In order to be consistent with their prior
discovery conduct and pleading it must say that they did not License SVRX Code
to SUN and the Monopoly. That is why they argue that they owe nothing to Novell
for these licenses. Their other astounding argument must be that the APA
permits them to license the code. This would as usual contradict
themselves.
- SCO has to fear that without something new here,
they are headed for the same result. What could that "something new" be almost
five years into the case? Another contradiction?
- SCO chooses to
drag this out. What they lack in substance they make up in length. By sealing
they strain to unearth a few shards of dignity. They refuse to throw in their
worthless, losing cards. They stand before the judge holding their pants up
with turned-out, bankrupt pockets. No one pretends to
notice.
~ webster ~
Tyrants live
their delusions.
Beware the PIPE
Fairy. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Sunday, January 27 2008 @ 06:34 PM EST |
Both the Judge and Novell will have time to read it. Surely SCO want some more
delay time?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 28 2008 @ 04:23 AM EST |
..in general. Yes, Wikipedia can be gamed, but:
- You need know almost
nothing about a subject to spot errors in a typical television report
about it.
- You're well informed about a subject when you can spot errors in a
typical newspaper report about it.
- You're very well informed about a
subject when you can spot errors in Wikipedia about it.
Always
check all information on the Web and remember that a lot of news information in
particular can be based on a single agency report, which means it counts as one
source - giafly.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kh on Monday, January 28 2008 @ 11:05 AM EST |
SCO is in Chapter 11. So who paid for this?
Was the payment authorised by the BK Court?
If it wasn't, then was the money pre-paid?
If it was then shouldn't it be part of the bankruptcy proceedings? Was the
money kept out of the BK court by being held by Boise illegally for work in the
future?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Monday, January 28 2008 @ 01:30 PM EST |
Wikipedia stores the users that make changes and IP addresses for anonymous
users. There's been a few stories on Slashdot about CIA computers submitting
changes that are clearly propaganda and government computers whitewashing the
entry on the Iraq war.
I haven't looked at the entry on System V, but wouldn't it be fabulous to see
something in there like "Linux was made from System V" and have the IP
address traced back to SCOG, or even Boise?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wikipedia - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 28 2008 @ 03:51 PM EST
|
Authored by: stovring on Tuesday, January 29 2008 @ 07:15 AM EST |
Can Wikipedia be trusted? Discussion of this topic has taken up a lot of
bandwidth in comments to this article. While I acknowledge that individual
entries in Wikipedia may be flawed, I cannot understand why people who are
pro-linux can be con-wikipedia, as they effectively share design principle: Let
everybody interested have a look at the code/text with the option to modify,
with admins stepping in to prevent abuse. While single iterations of change may
be detrimental, they will in the long run improve the result if the bazaar
development theory is right - and I believe it is.
-stovring
PS: I am not arguing about whether or not SCO should submit Wikipedia entries as
evidence, but just on the rationality of the Wikipedia approach.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2008 @ 11:27 AM EST |
SCO Sites Wikipedia as a source.
What was the date SCO used when it obtained the information it is using as a
source?
Wikipedia as a legal source has the same problems End User License Agreements
that are posted on the web have. They can be changed at any time without
notice.
Wikipedia is a good thing. It gives me an indication of what is what. However
if anything were to be used in a court of law, it would need more than just a
siting of Wikipedia I would think. You would need to be more specific.
Oops, I forgot, this is SCO and they seem to have a problem with specifity.
Come to think of it, I would think a history of Unix V as posted on Groklaw
would be very specific!!!! Can you see SCO modify it's filing to include that?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|