|
| Authored by: kpl on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 08:58 PM EDT |
Isn't it interesting how most of the objections were so predictable? It will be
interesting to see the
next steps, and what documents are actually
produced
(provided they arent't sealed).
---
--------------------
mv sco /dev/null
-------------------- [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 09:05 PM EDT |
I like where they say "...the definitions redefine words beyond their
original meaning." SCO knows all about redefining things. For example:
1. The code IBM donated to the kernel, which they've admitted contains no SysV
code or any code that SCO owns the copyrights or patents to. Yet they call Linux
an illegal derivative of Unix mainly because of this code.
2. Claiming to terminate IBM's contract even though the side letter clearly
says it's irrevocable and perpetual.
3. Claiming that end users are liable for violating SCO's "intellectual
property" rights, WTF that means. Owning the copyrights gives them no
authority to prevent people from using the code. Only patents can be used to
prevent use.
4. Claiming that copyright law that restricts people from making more than one
copy overrides the GPL. Countless site licenses would be rendered illegal and
businesses such as legitimate online music distributors would be violating
copyright law if this were true. Even if a court were to rule their argument is
valid, the law would be quickly changed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: brenda banks on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
i must say satisfactory
they running scared cause they wanting time ,time and more time.
that means they do have something they really want to hide and dont want to go
to court
but it only hurts sco more cause they cant afford the lawyer expense and IBM
can
canopy on the run
hehehehehe
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 09:40 PM EDT |
Firstly, props again to the dude/s who slogged down to the court to obtain these
copies. It is a fascinating insight into the day-to-day procedures involved in
a case like this.
I have no problem with Canopy objecting to everything. I would too. IBM's
requests were all-inclusive, no doubt about that. Ask for everything and then
get real.
What gave me a chuckle was their use of SCOspeak®: the documents don't exist or
are protected by confidentiality or are locked in our vaults or the photocopier
is out of toner or the documents are currently passing through Fido's (our
guard dog) digestive tract... but, um, maybe they'll turn up, and at that point
we will happily hand them over. They go on to say: Gee, IBM have asked for the
impossible, but, heck, we're gonna bend over backwards to help those poor
fellas if we can.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 10:08 PM EDT |
You do have to wonder if SCO is being influended at all in what they say in
these court documents now that they surely must know this site will be posting
them for the world to see.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 10:25 PM EDT |
P.J., I'm afraid I don't understand the significance of the "Protective
Order". Can you explain in general terms what this signifies? (Perhaps I
just didn't get the whole thing; when I clicked on it in my browser, I got a
TIFF file that shows a single page, what looks like a cover page for a more
extensive document.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 12:01 AM EDT |
Other news
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci92
9264,00.html
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/19/37FEsco2_1.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: J.F. on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 02:39 AM EDT |
For those who feel intimidated by the pdf, here's my translation of Canopy's
objections:
1 - We don't understand IBM's request.
2 - We fired
too many people to handle the work load.
3 - IBM's a big bully trying to
tell us what to do.
4 - There's too many papers for us to check them all
to see if there's anything incriminating.
5 - We don't have enough time
to check for incriminating documents.
6 - We think some of the files may
be privileged, so you can't have any of them.
7 - Our documents are a
secret. If we showed them to anyone, they wouldn't be a secret
anymore.
8 - We don't have enough change for the copy machine.
9
- We'd have to check with the secretaries as we don't actually do any real
work.
See? Easy to understand now.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 09:42 AM EDT |
| http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Sep/09252003/business/95538.asp [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 10:53 AM EDT |
| http://www.vnunet.com/Mole/1143887 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 11:16 AM EDT |
http://www.it-director.com/article.php?articleid=11271
"Apropos of which, there is an interesting offering by SCO in its UnixWare
7, which indicates that SCO acknowledges this - a Linux Kernel Personality
(LKP). This enables SCO's UnixWare to run Linux applications. In respect of
this SCO offering, there is an interesting comment about this in a blow-by-blow
response to Darl McBride's open letter (click on http://www.groklaw.com/ for
the complete text). It bats the ball firmly into SCO's court by saying:"
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BubbaCode on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
PJ or someone smart:
Is there any advantage to such a broad request by IBM if Canopy can just file an
objection? Does it make it harder to get the documents you really want (such as
the infringing code)? Can they use Canopy's failure to produce documents and
evidence later in court somehow?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BubbaCode on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 11:32 AM EDT |
| I got a response to my question to Scott Nathan a lawyer who works on legal
issues with open source. Here's the link to the question and answer. He
basically says that even if SCO wins, there are many who SCO can not hit up for
license fees.
Ask the Experts -
SearchEnterpriseLinux.com, the source for news and tips on Linux and open source
software, Scott Nathan's answer
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rand on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
Actually, SCOG's objections seem pretty straight-forward, and I suspect IBM's
lawyers were expecting them. They (IBM) asked for the world in a fairly
unreasonable way, after all. The short deadline was probably designed to be
just long enough to get the objections back and on record.
The real signifigance here is the subpoena itself: by going after the
alpha-entity, IBM ensures that certain documents won't go missing later (or, if
they do, the judge can impose sanctions). Now, Canopy and all it's spawn are
on notice that the stuff has been requested; they're a party to the suit, like
it or not, and have to preserve anything even remotely related to the actions,
at least until hizhonor rules it out. IANAL, but it appears to me that the
requests would also rule out any employee of any Canopy owned or related company
from calling certain partners/customers/vendors and suggesting that certain
correspondence should be lost.
---
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly...they were the first to LAND.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Alex on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
Here's an interesting URL.
http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31662.html
Alex[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Newsome on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 01:39 PM EDT |
| Looks like SCO has stalled again, and received another extension for
time to respond to IBM. They've now got until October 15th to file their
response (or should I say "their next extension..."). ---
Frank Sorenson [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ZeusLegion on Friday, September 26 2003 @ 12:32 AM EDT |
Click HERE
for the scoop. ---
Z [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 26 2003 @ 01:21 AM EDT |
Stephen J. Vaughn-Nichols:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1298687,00.asp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 26 2003 @ 04:23 AM EDT |
For a magistrate with a sense of humour, take a look at
http://www.corplawblog.com/archives/000142.html
I didn't expect legal decisions to make me laugh out loud![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
