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 Files Motion To Extend Time to Amend, Add Parties
Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 06:06 AM EDT

SCO has filed a motion with the court in Utah, filed on September 26 and entered on the 29th, a Motion asking for more time, until February 4, 2004, to amend their pleadings and add parties.

Your guess is as good as mine. It's not digitized yet, so the only way to know is to get a copy of the motion from the courthouse or wait. It's possible the motion doesn't specify much as to who they wish to add, just that they want to. But until February 4, 2004?!? That's a 4-month delay. Maybe they have a lot of parties to add? Maybe they are in no hurry to have this adjudicated? Or maybe they're being tutored in the GPL? That subject is hard for them to master, it seems, so here's hoping that's it.




  


SCO Files Motion To Extend Time to Amend, Add Parties | 146 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
SCO Files Motion To Extend Time to Amend, Add Parties
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 06:36 AM EDT
This seems suspiciously like stalling to me...

- Peter

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion To Extend Time to Amend, Add Parties
Authored by: shaun on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 06:57 AM EDT
I'm willing to bet that they have gotten a few low end Unix developers to come
in on the law suit. The $$$ factor is certainly there and it adds some clout to
their complaints. "See all these people the illegal Linux has hurt."
It's a stunt pure and simple but what kind of stunt? I doubt though the judge
will give them 4 months though.

--Shaun

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion To Extend Time to Amend, Add Parties
Authored by: ikh on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 06:57 AM EDT

If the rumours that SCO have "terminated" SGI's license are correct, them I guess it must be SGI that they want to add. Didn't they "terminate" IBM's License prior to sueing.

/ikh

[ Reply to This | # ]

Any chance of the Judge denying the motion to extend?
Authored by: NZheretic on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 07:07 AM EDT
Given that the SCO Group's current amended SCO complaint against IBM filed on 16 June 2003, is obviously a tissue of lies, deliberate distortions, and flimflam and The SCO Group's most recent claims against the GPL are frivolous, by which I mean that it would be a violation of professional obligation for Mr Heise or any other lawyer to submit it to a court, why should the judge keep granting motions to extend?

Is it not possible to file an amicus curiae (friends of the court) brief, requesting the judge to hear the case as soon as possible?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion To Extend Time to Amend, Add Parties
Authored by: ZeusLegion on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 07:12 AM EDT

Interesting. Filed last Friday, the same day IBM's response was made known.
Possible targets include HP (who pretty much asked SCO to sue them) and SGI. My
guess though is that they'll pick somebody small they think they can knockover
like a corner grocery store or at least hold hostage via pending litigation and
several months of "The Sky Is Falling!" terrorist FUD tactics for a
few months.

Does anyone know why one or more of us can't or hasn;t file(d) some kind of
criminal action against these dirtbags? Maybe I can find a consumer
protection/anti-fraud lawyer to work pro bono.

*grumble*



---
Z

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion To Extend Time to Amend, Add Parties
Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 07:19 AM EDT
looks like to me they should have been ready before they filed a suit.they asked
for it so the burden should remain on them to not keep stalling
is it possible that every delay they ask for will be allowed?

---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion To Extend Time to Amend, Add Parties
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 08:01 AM EDT

P.J. please refresh my memory... SCO's asking for a four-month delay. Exactly what is it that they are asking to delay? What event, deadline, or whatever was supposed to happen so soon?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Time for the judge to step in...
Authored by: Alizarin on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 08:07 AM EDT
...and deny this motion. Hopefully the judge knows about everything SCO has been
doing and realizes that by giving them another 4 months they can spread more FUD
and pump up their stock price even more, as well as possibly damage other
businesses business with their current and future Linux customers.

It's time to put an end to all the bull.

[ Reply to This | # ]

ZDNet.co.uk article
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 08:15 AM EDT

From ZDnet.co.uk: words from an IP lawyer...

SCO and Linux: The legal rights and wrongs"

[ Reply to This | # ]

kernel contributors
Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 08:19 AM EDT
unless the laws are a whole lot faster than they are here i cant see a new suit
as helping
infact in might cause even more delays
sco could keep saying this conflicts with other case
but a new lawsuit that is totally new charges might make it interesting
that way(sco) they cant try to get them all added together to save costs
they have to be bleeding attorney fees
does IBM have to allow anyone be added to this suit?
can they object?



---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

4 month delay - put of till next quarter?
Authored by: DrStupid on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 08:34 AM EDT
Could the reason for such a long delay be to put it off until after the next
financial quarter?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Suscpicious Timing
Authored by: adamruth on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 08:36 AM EDT
Am I wrong in remembering that Darl McBride will get his 600,000
options if he shows 4 profitable quarters ending on Jan 31? Seems
suspicious timing to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Add parties
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 08:43 AM EDT
Any additions at this point would have to be germane. Might I suggest IBM's
AIX customers, who SCO claims are now in violation?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion To Extend Time to Amend, Add Parties
Authored by: Grim Reaper on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 08:53 AM EDT
Can SCO unilaterally add defendants to an existing suit? Can't IBM object? If
not, SCO could do this every 7 months or so, to keep the case from ever going to
trial.

Someone please enlighten me. PJ?

---
R.I.P. - SCO Group, 2005/08/29

[ Reply to This | # ]

The HP connection
Authored by: tcranbrook on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 09:00 AM EDT
Perhaps there is more to the HP connection than we first imagined.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/33098.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Seems long to me
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 09:00 AM EDT
Four months seems long to add parties. It also seems like it would be hard to
actually be able to add someone else to this particular suit that wasn't a
party to the contracts involving IBM. Curious to see IBM's response and whether
they object. Usually court rules or some sort of case schedule dictates the last
date you can file to add parties, so the case can just progress until the new
parties are added. Although, this case might be a target for Summary Judgement,
and IBM could file such a motion before SCO got around to adding other
defendants.

I'm in with the group that thinks SCO wants to delay the IBM suit. My favorite
comments about it are from RedHat's in-house, who said he didn't think SCO was
going to seriously pursue it's claims because they weren't doing things a
litigant normally does during a lawsuit and I would have to agree.

As a side note, one of the joys (or curses) of the US legal system is that
there's always two sides to a coin. Groklaw does a great job of exploring the
IBM side, but it might be just as beneficial if someone were to do the same
thing with SCO's side. Believe me, they do have arguments to make, they may not
convince you (or anyone, for that matter), but it's always nice to be prepared
for the worst your opposition will come up with. Maybe call it
"Chokelaw" or "Gaglaw" :)

robT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is it possible ...
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 09:01 AM EDT
For IBM to say "stuff any new evidence. Please examine what you've
already got, and then defer for new evidence if you think it's
appropriate."

Certainly I would think that's the approach they should take - ask the court to
examine SCO's original suit at least. Then they can examine IBM's
counter-suit, and SCO can submit further stuff at leisure while the first two
phases are ongoing.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | # ]

A useful FAQ
Authored by: tcranbrook on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 09:23 AM EDT
A well written FAQ on SCO

http://home.swbell.net/mck9/sco/scofaq.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • A useful FAQ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 04:53 PM EDT
SCO Files Motion To Extend Time to Amend, Add Parties
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 09:29 AM EDT
Adding parties could mean adding parties to the SCO side or to the IBM side.

Neither IBM nor SCO seem to be in any hurry to finish this quickly. My guess is
that the judge will allow the delay, but I don't know too much about law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO replies to IBM's copyright complaint
Authored by: Duane on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 09:52 AM EDT
"SCO rejects IBM's Linux counter
allegations":
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Sep/09302003/business/97177.asp

My
favourite quote: "SCO downplayed the importance of the GNU General Public
License cited by IBM, saying it was a creation of the pro-Linux Free Software
Foundation 'to supplant current U.S. copyright laws.'"

Interesting that they
seem to be falling back to the "GPL is invalid & illegal" FUD. I had thought
they were backing off that, given the inherent ridiculousness of the position. I
also assumed their lawyers had explained to them that unless everything licensed
under the GPL was somehow declared to be in the public domain*, they would be in
even worse trouble if it was invalid.

* Question for anyone with any US legal
knowledge: could this ever happen, even in theory? Is there any precedent
whatsoever that could possibly justify it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

ANOTHER ANSWER FROM IBM TO SCO
Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 09:54 AM EDT
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3085221

---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

More press!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 10:14 AM EDT
Hey, we're getting more airtime here in Norway:

http://www.digi.no/php/art.php?id=93810

Here's a quick translation of the paragraph mentioning
GrokLaw:

"IBM's amended complaint can be viewed as a continuation
of an answer to SCO-boss Darl McBride from a group of Linux
activists associated with the web site GrokLaw, where all
aspects of SCO's attack on Linux are continually analyzed
and documented. McBride tried to do his homework, but the
answer gives a detailed summary of the relationship between
GPL and copyright, and other issues that GrokLaw mean
McBride has not understood."

-r :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

My bet - Novell
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 10:25 AM EDT
Since the case is a contract dispute it would seem hard to add someone who was
not a party to the contracts. Since we already know that the contracts were
3-party between Novell/IBM/SCO (for instance, Novell claims that they retained
the right to veto the "revocation" of the AIX license, a right they
exercised and SCO apparetnly simply ignored)

Therefore my hunch is that SCO is trying to drag Novell into this. Its not
clear what the strategy would be there except maybe as a preemtive strike
against Novell (who is likely to be considering legal action over SCO's
handling of their obligations under the IBM contract; I'm somewhat surprised
that they haven't done anything yet). Maybe SCO's lawyers consider Novell's
involvement unavoidable so they want to bring them in on their terms.

Like I said, that's just my IANAL hunch. It seems that if SCO thought there
were other contracts being "violated" (i.e. SGI) they would probably
be filed as seperate actions (why give your opponents the chance to gang up?)

Interesting note: if Novell does get dragged in that removes any "home
field advantage" SCO might have had. Novell is also based in Utah.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion To Extend Time to Amend, Add Parties
Authored by: ikh on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 10:25 AM EDT

I think I've worked out what they need the 4 months for. I believe that they are in the middle of preparing 1500 writs. Once these are issued, they will then have time to respond to IBM. Of course, they want to issue the Linux user writs first so that failure to purchase a license becomes intentional breach of copyright attracting triple damages.

/ikh

[ Reply to This | # ]

emminent domain?
Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 10:45 AM EDT
dont know how plausible this is but take a look and let me know what you think
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/domain.html

---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

Enderle's at it again!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 10:51 AM EDT
Dang! Looky here:
http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31702.html

and quoted here:
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34237.htm

About as trustworthy as a rattlesnake, says I...
Just browsed those - reading his stories gives me the
creeps - not much substance, is there? Pretends to be
sympathetic to our side, playing our side of the table
- just a devil's advocate all the way:

"In fact, in reading the letter, I wondered whether it
was actually written by someone being paid by SCO, which
probably means I'm spending too much time with the open-
source software folks and have begun to become as paranoid
as they are about secret conspiracies."

Stay away, Robbie!

[ Reply to This | # ]

It will be an IBM customer or Red Hat
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 11:03 AM EDT
I think that it will mostly like be an IBM customer or Red Hat.

Reasons why it might be an IBM customer:

To get IBM customer(s) to pressure IBM to settle.


Reasons why it might Red Hat:

I think it will be Red Hat, as they are mentioned in the original complaint, and
SCO seems to view them as IBM's co-conspirator, and regardless of IBM, SCO's
enemy number 1 (Renaissance, Darl McBride dating back to 2002, SCO comments on
joining UnitedLinux etc).

SCO can not say this yet, as they want the current Red Hat complaint in Delaware
dismissed first (because they are arguing no controversy). By February, they
hope it will be.


Why I don't think it will be SGI or Novell:

I think SCO realizes they are in enough trouble, that they don't want to get
involved in litigation with another new powerful party.

The SGI termination letter dates to July (I think), and this was the period when
Darl was desperately trying to get "traction". I do not expect SCO
to follow this up at all at present (but I guess it's possible SGI may sue SCO
anyway).

I do not think it will be Novell (a powerful new enemy for SCO), as SCO would be
ceding their home town advantage (Novell is in Utah too), and because SCO
really doesn't want the Novell-Old SCO APA used against them.





[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion To Extend Time to Amend, Add Parties
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 12:10 PM EDT
This filing for a long extension just goes to show that my analysis- that SCO
had no "game plan" beyond attempting to force IBM into a buyout- was
correct. SCO's whole show was FUD and now they are scared and scrambling to
actually find something of merit that may hold up in court.

Who knows what the court will do? I think there may be approval for an
extension, but not one until February. Also might be interesting to look into
SCOs finances; whose money will keep them afloat until February?

IBM might not object to an extension, because more time allows their
investigators more time to dig up the dirt on Darl, and on the Canopy Group.
IBM rightly suspects that the real scum inhabits Canopy; these are the guys that
took most of the money Caldera won from its lawsuit against MS, and these are
the guys who are pulling Darl's puppet strings and who hope to profit from this
lawsuit also.

More time also means something I doubt the bozos at SCO realize- it means that
they have more time to screw up, and say more stupid things, and further
polarize the industry against them. Even the mainstream IT press is starting to
smell a rat at SCO- a few more months, and SCO will blow their credibility
altogether. SCO had their run- things are going against them now. If everyone
keeps up the pressure on SCO, they will go down. Maybe Darl is going to use
this time to prepare for another career- like shoeshine boy at the Salt Lake
City airport <G>.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion To Extend Time to Amend, Add Parties
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 12:16 PM EDT
Just a thought- read that para from the article that was translated- if everyone
starts referring to Darl McBride as "Boss McBride", this might be a
good thing. Sounds much more weaselly than "Darl McBride, CEO of SCO
Group."

Remove the credibility that the title CEO has given to "Boss
McBride."

[ Reply to This | # ]

HP LOGOS GONE
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 12:36 PM EDT
HP LOGOS GONE from the SCO city tour.

http://www.sco.com/partners/city_to_city/oct2003/

[ Reply to This | # ]

or it could be Linus himself
Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 01:02 PM EDT
since he has the copyright on the kernel trademark?


---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why do SCO want companies to indemnify?
Authored by: ikh on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 01:15 PM EDT
<p>
I don't believe gets SCO anything in court although they have used it to
generate PR. So why do they want IBM to offer it? What advantage do they believe
it gives them?
</p>

<p>
I presume that if writs are issued to the 1500 end users that the action would
be held over pending the outcome of the IBM case. Assuming that SCO won the IBM
case, I guess that they would take one end user case to trial to establish a
precedent. Having established that, they would then proceed against the other
1499. Does having two or three companies representing the 1500 make life easier
for SCO in anyway assuming that the won?
</p>
<p>
/ikh
</p>

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - the wikiwiki site
Authored by: tcranbrook on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 01:42 PM EDT
Wasn't there a wikiwiki site started some time ago that was intended to collect
some of the results of this groups research? What is it's address?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Manipulations
Authored by: rand on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 02:04 PM EDT
Interesting comparison at Yahoo Finance between SCOX and Sun (SUNW) on Tuesday, Sept 30th. The charts seem to be mirror images of each other.

---
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly...they were the first to LAND.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Landing or not... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 02:47 PM EDT
SCO Files Motion To Extend Time to Amend, Add Parties
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 02:21 PM EDT
SCO would probably rather wait until Febuary, 4 4002

---
Vescere bracis meis.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Motion To Extend Time to Amend, Add Parties
Authored by: mixipetl on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 02:52 PM EDT
One company I bet SCO won't bring in to its lawsuit is Linux Networx, a Utah
company located in Bluffdale, at the South end of Salt Lake Valley near the
State Prison.

Linux Networx is best known for providing Linux clusters to the National
Laboratories (check out the Linux Networx web site: http://www.linuxnetworx.com
for this recent press release: "Los Alamos Linux cluster to keep watch on
nukes"). My impression is that Linux Networx does a good job with Linux
and has contributed, among other projects, to Linux Bios Project
(http://www.linuxbios.org). I sure hope, however, that the bios project has
lots of permission in writing from Linux Networx.

Of more immediate interest here, though, is that Linux Networx is yet another
member of the Canopy group with direct ties in its board of directors to both
the company formerly known as "Caldera" and Canopy
(http://www.linuxnetworx.com/company/profiles.php):

"Stephen Hill

"President of Linux Networx

"As president, Mr. Hill works closely with the Board of Directors to drive
the overall direction of the company. Mr. Hill has more than 10 years of
technology experience and a keen understanding of the role the Linux operating
system is playing in today’s marketplace. Mr. Hill played an integral role in
Caldera, Inc.’s antitrust lawsuit settlement with Microsoft Corp. Mr. Hill acted
as one of the lead counsel, assembled the trial team, and served as the point of
contact for negotiations in the settlement. Mr. Hill is a recognized expert in
the high-tech field and has been interviewed by various international and
national print and broadcast media. He received a bachelor’s degree (magna cum
laude) in economics from BYU. Mr. Hill then earned his law degree (cum laude)
from BYU, where he was an article editor of the Law Review. He was admitted to
the Bar in Washington in 1977 and in Utah in 1981. Prior to joining Linux
Networx, Mr. Hill worked for Snow, Christensen & Martineau where he
practiced antitrust, securities, employment and business tort cases.

"Darcy Mott

"Vice President, Treasurer and CFO for Canopy Group

"Mr. Mott uses his 25 years of experience in accounting and finance to
manage the financial aspects of Canopy Group's portfolio. He enjoys the team
approach that Canopy uses to blend technology innovation, financial flexibility,
and legal structure to make each investment as successful as possible. Prior to
joining Canopy, Mr. Mott served as vice president and treasurer for Novell, and
prior to serving in that position, Mr. Mott served in various other financial
management positions for Novell since September 1986. Mr. Mott worked for Arthur
Andersen & Co., a global provider of professional services, from 1977 to
1986. Mr. Mott serves as a member of the board of directors of Caldera
International, Inc., MTI Technology Corporation, and EBIZ Enterprises
Incorporated. Mr. Mott also serves as a member of the board of directors of
various privately held companies. Mr. Mott is a certified public accountant and
holds a bachelor’s degree in accounting from BYU."

Here's a thought: why does Linux Networx need a lawyer for its President, one
with experience in high tech litigation, albiet against Microsoft?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SGI
Authored by: Newsome on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 05:03 PM EDT

For the record:

SGI is a Delwaware Corporation

Novell is a Delaware Corporation

Red Hat is a Delaware Corporation

HP is a Delaware Corporation

Sun is a Delaware Corporation

Microsoft is a Washington Corporation< /a>

---
Frank Sorenson

[ Reply to This | # ]

Inforworld commentary
Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 06:25 PM EDT
An interesting Infoworld commentary here:

http://weblog.infoworld.com/yager/2003/09/30.html

---
LINUX - Visibly superior!

[ 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 )