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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 04:25 AM EDT

There has been quite a lot of activity in the Red Hat case.

SCO filed a Motion to Dismiss the action in its entirety, as you know, and Red Hat filed its answering brief. But since we last reported on this case, Red Hat initiated discovery. They asked SCO for documents and for answers to some pointed questions. IBM is forcing SCO into a corner in Utah, and Red Hat is forcefully and aggressively trying to do the same in Delaware. You'll see, I think, that we haven't been wasting our time telling the world the details of this story. The big picture is that Red Hat is telling SCO to prove their allegations with specificity. They also want all their source code, and I'm sure you can figure out what they want to do with it, when I tell you that they asked for the complete Linux Kernel Personality source code, among the other products for which they have requested source code.

They also want to hear some details about the relationship between Canopy and SCO, including any stock or intellectual property transfers. They want SCO to "identify by title, version, module(s) and line(s)" what they think is misappropriated in any way or in violation of any of its rights. They ask for the details of Microsoft and Sun's licensing arrangement with SCO. They want to know who those 1500 companies were that got the letter, and what happened next. They want to know exactly what SCO has filed a copyright on. They want all the details of SCOsource, including all the folks who have seen the code SCO has been showing under the NDA and what they saw, and any other contact with any Linux users about supposed liability. They want to know how they compared the UNIX and Linux code to determine infringement. They want to know if they've done any comparisons of the two and what the results were. They want to know all the stock or industry analysts SCO has met with or talked to and what was said. In short, it's like the kind of fantasy a guy might have about a bully getting his at last, because they asked them everything we wanted somebody to finally ask SCO and make them answer.

SCO responded to Red Hat's discovery requests by filing a new motion, and it has told the judge, in a Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss, it would like a delay until after the first motion, the Motion to Dismiss, is ruled on. They surely don't seem in any hurry to get this matter resolved. They argue that because they are simultaneously providing discovery to IBM (of course IBM says they aren't seeing anything, as I recall), they can't possibly do both, and anyway, if they win their motion, it'd be moot. In short, they would very much like not to have to do this, presumably so that if they win the Motion to Dismiss they can continue to refuse to give any particulars about their case. If the judge doesn't grant their Motion to Dismiss, they'd like the judge to give them 30 days to provide all the discovery items.

Both of Red Hat's discovery documents are attached to this SCO Motion to Stay Discovery, and they begin with definitions, like what is "intellectual property" within the context of the document, and instructions, like how to identify the writers of documents, etc.. The first document begins on page 7 of the pdf, but we find out what Red Hat is asking for on page 12, where the list begins.

Red Hat in its "First Request for the Production of Documents and Things" asks SCO to produce the following documents:

1. All documents concerning the subject matter of the Complaint.
2. All documents concerning any customer, or potential customer, of Red Hat.
3. All communications between SCO and Red Hat or any employee of Red Hat.
4. All communications between SCO and any user or potential user of a Linux product, including Red Hat LINUX product, concerning any rights to Linux, or UNIX that SCO claims to have or concerning any actions by Red Hat that SCO claims are wrongful.
5. All documents that concern any and all copyrights in which SCO claims an ownership or other legal interest of any kind and that also concern any UNIX software or UNIX product.
6. All documents concerning the registration of any copyrights in any UNIX software or UNIX product, including, without limitation, all documents submitted by SCO to the United States Copyright Office concerning UNIX.
7. All documents concerning the purposes of SCOsource, the formation of SCOsource, any intellectual property managed by SCOsource, and all correspondence to or from SCOsource or any director, officer, employee, attorney or agent employed by, assigned to, or acting on behalf of SCOsource.
8. At least one example of each license agreement that SCO has used to license each and every UNIX product, UNIX software, or UNIX service, any open source software, product or service, any Linux product, Linux software or Linux service, or to license each of the following: UnixWare, UnixWare 7, UnixWare 7.1.1, Unixware 7.1.2, UnixWare 7.1.3, Open UNIX, Open UNIX 8, Reliant HA, NeTraverse Merge, Merge, Merge 5, SCO OpenServer, SCO OpenServer Release 5.0.5, SCO OpenServer Release 5.0.6, SCO OpenServer Release 5.0.7, OpenServer Kernel Personality, OpenServer Kernel Personality for UnixWare 7.1.3, SCOx Web Services, SCOx, SCO Update Service, SCO Linux, SCO Linux 4.0 Server for the Itanium Processor Family, SCO Linux 4, SCOoffice, SCO Volution, Caldera Volution Manager 1.1, SCOoffice Mail Server 2.0, Caldera Volution Messaging Server 1.1.1, Caldera Volution Messaging Server 1.1, OpenLinux, OpenLinux 3.1, OpenLinux 3.1.1, OpenLinux 64, UnitedLinux, UnitedLinux 1.0, United Linux 1.0, UnitedLinux 1.0 Service Pack 2, UnitedLinux 1.0 Service Pack 1, Samba, Samba Multibyte version, Cdrtools, Mozilla Browser.
9. Documents sufficient to show each and every entity that had access to any portion of UNIX code that SCO contends was copied or was otherwise incorporated into any Linux software in violation of any of SCO's copyrights, trade secret or other intellectual property.
10. All documents that concern any SCO licensing program, including any licensing program offered by or in conjunction with SCOsource.
11. All documents concerning any license of any UNIX kernel, UNIX operating system or UNIX intellectual property that SCO has offered, is offering or intends to offer, including, without limitation, all license agreements with any entity that had access to each and every portion of the UNIX code SCO contends was copied or was otherwise incorporated into any Linux software in violation of any of SCO's copyrights.
12. All documents concerning any SCO license with Microsoft and Sun Microsystems, Inc. ('Sun'), including copies of the licenses, correspondence concerning the licenses, and notes or other documents related to any meeting concerning the licensed technology or negotiations of the license.
13. All documents concerning communications between SCO and Microsoft and/or SCO and Sun Microsystems regarding: Red Hat, Red Hat's actual or potential customers, UNIX, Linux, IBM, and Sun Microsystems' or Microsoft's licensing of any SCO technology, software or product.
14. All documents concerning SCO's ownership of UNIX intellectual property and/or concerning SCO's right or ability to enforce or protect UNIX intellectual property.
15. All documents concerning any other person or entity's ownership of any UNIX intellectual property and/or concerning any other person or entity's rights to enforce or protect UNIX intellectual property.
16. All documents concerning communication between SCO and Novell Inc. ('Novell') regarding ownership of UNIX intellectual property, including without limitation, contracts or agreements between SCO and Novell regarding UNIX or Linux, all correspondence between SCO and Novell regarding UNIX or Linux, all correspondence between SCO and Novell concerning UNIX or Linux, and documents concerning Novell's past or present ownership of any rights in any UNIX or Linux technology, software, product or service.
17. All documents concerning SCO's legal claims against IBM or any pending litigation with IBM.
18. All documents concerning both the development of UNIX and ownership rights in UNIX intellectual property.
19. All documents and communications regarding IBM's misappropriation, or alleged misappropriation, of UNIX intellectual property, code, structure, sequence, organization or other proprietary information, including, without limitation, all such documents concerning any agreements with IBM regarding UNIX, the development of UNIX, rights to UNIX software or technology, Linux, the development of Linux, or rights to Linux software.
20. A copy of the source code of each and every version of UNIX software in which SCO claims to own any intellectual property rights or have any other legal interest, and a copy of the source code of each and every version of Linux software in SCO's possession custody, or control that was created on or after January 1, 2000, whether or not released for public use, licensing or sale, and a copy of the source code of each and every version of UNIX software that SCO has sold, offered for sale, licensed, and offered to license.
21. The source code of any SCO Linux product and any third party Linux product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6.
22. A copy of the source code for each version of the following: UnixWare, UnixWare 7, UnixWare 7.1.2, UnixWare 7.1.3, Open UNIX, Open UNIX 8, Reliant HA, NeTraverse Merge, Merge, Merge 5, SCO OpenServer, SCO OpenServer Release 5.0.5, SCO OpenServer Release 5.0.6, SCO OpenServer Release 5.0.6, SCO OpenServer Release 5.0.7, OpenServer Kernel Personality, OpenServer Kernel Personality for UnixWare 7.1.3, SCO Linux, SCO Linux 4.0 Server for the Itanium Processor Family, SCO Linux 4, OpenLinux, OpenLinux 3.1, OpenLinux 3.1.1, OpenLinux 64, UnitedLinux, UnitedLinux1.0, UnitedLinux 1.0 Service Pack 2, UnitedLinux 1.0 ServicePack 1.
23. All documents concerning examples of UNIX and Linux software code that SCO has shown to any third party in conjunction with its claims that Linux infringes SCO's intellectual property rights in any UNIX software or technology, including without limitation, all such documents concerning any examples of UNIX code that were displayed to the public, including without limitation at SCO Forum and/or in Las Vegas, Nevada and/or during the month of August 2003, and including, without limitation, all such documents concerning any examples of UNIX and Linux code that have been displayed at any facility that SCO has set up to show examples of UNIX code to any third-party in conjunction with any claim by SCO that any Linux software or kernel infringes any intellectual property right of SCO in UNIX or any UNIX software.
24. All documents concerning any non-disclosure agreement that SCO or any other person has executed in conjunction with its claims that Linux infringes SCO's intellectual property rights in any UNIX software or technology.
25. If SCO contends that any portion of the UNIX code, or the structure, sequence, or organization of the UNIX software, was made a part of Linux, copies of all UNIX code generally, and specifically copies of that which SCO contends has been made a part of Linux.
26. All documents identifying any portion of the UNIX code, or the structure, sequence, or organization of the UNIX software that is a part of Linux.
27. All documents identifying any SCO intellectual property or proprietary information that has been incorporated into Linux, including without limitation, any trade secret or copyrighted software, and/or concerning the circumstances whereby any SCO intellectual property, trade secret or proprietary information became a part of Linux.
28. All documents concerning IBM's development of Linux to the extent that the development relates to any UNIX intellectual property right, including such documents regarding Project Monterey, and all documents that establish when SCO first became aware that IBM had made or may have made contributions to Linux.
29. All documents concerning SCO's and/or SCOsource's review and enforcement of its intellectual property rights surrounding the UNIX operating system.
30. All documents concerning SCO's distribution or involvement in the distribution of Linux including UnitedLinux.
31. All documents concerning SCO's development of Linux software and United Linux software, including, without limitation, communications regarding any SCO employee or former employee's contributions to Linux and UnitedLinux, and documents concerning whether UnitedLinux contains any SCO UNIX intellectual property.
32. All documents concerning any analysis or comparison of UNIX and Linux and all documents and communications concerning any investigation into Linux and whether that software contains UNIX intellectual property.
33. All documents describing Open UNIX 8, including all technical documentation, licensing parameters, how the product is sold, distributed and/or implemented, and any comparison or analysis of Open UNIX 8 and Linux.
34. All documents concerning any analysis or comparison of UNIX and Linux code, sequence, structure, or organization, including, without limitation, such documents regarding the benefits or functionality of Linux as compared to the UNIX software product.
35. All documents concerning the statements made in a letter posted on SCO's website providing that SCO's own Linux customers would not be liable to SCO for actions it may take against other Linux users who are not SCO customers.
36. All documents concerning the basis for SCO's claim for damages in the action pending against IBM in the District of Utah.
37. All documents concerning the statements made in the letter dated on or about May 12, 2003, sent by SCO to approximately 1,500 Linux users or potential users including the documents that form the basis for SCO's statement in that letter that SCO believed its intellectual property and other rights were infringed.
38. All documents referred to in preparation of or concerning the SCO presentation made at Deutsche Bank Securities ('DBS') on or about July 22, 2003, and all documents provided to DBS for the preparation of any DBS financial and/or industry report.
39. From January 1, 2003 to present, all documents concerning any communications with financial or industry analysts, including any communications or meetings with financial analysts that cover Red Hat stock.
40. All documents concerning any public statements made by SCO that pertain to the subject matter of the Complaint.
41. All documents concerning the statements made by Darl McBride in a CRN.com interview entitled, 'Update: CRN Interview: SCO Defends $1 Billion Lawsuit Against IBM,' including the following statements: (a) '[t]here will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done'; and (b) 'IBM took chunks [of code] out of [Project] Monterey, and gave it away. You can find it in Red Hat and SuSE Linux.'
42. All documents concerning the statements made by Chris Sontag in a Mozilla QuestOnline Magazine article entitled 'SCO-Caldera v. IBM: SCO Clears Linux Kernel but Implicates Red Hat and SuSE,' available at http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-10_Story01.html including the following statements: (a) 'We are using objective third parties to do comparisons of our UNIX System V source code and Red Hat as an example. We are coming across many instances where our proprietary software has simply been copied and pasted or changed in order to hide the origin of our System V code in Red Hat'; and (b) 'We're not talking about the Linux kernel that Linus and others have helped develop. We're talking about what's on the periphery of the Linux kernel.'
43. All documents concerning the following statements:
a) made in SCO's May 14, 2003 press release, including the statement that 'The SCO Group . . . today warned that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX and that legal liability for the use of Linux may extend to commercial users';
b) made in SCO's May 14, 2003 press release, including the statement that 'SCO will continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers and hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding' those products;
c) made by Chris Sontag in a CNET News.com interview entitled 'SCO May Expand Linux Case Soon,' including the statements(a) that SCO 'may bring subsequent actions against Linux software developers such as Red Hat and SuSE'; and (b) 'Do we have potential issues with Red Hat, SuSE and other commercial Linux distributors - yes, we might';
d) made by Darl McBride in a CNET News.com interview entitled 'Why SCO Decided to Take IBM to Court' including the statement that 'if in fact users are running systems that have basically pirated software inside of there, or stolen software inside of their systems, they have liability. We're not saying that they created that liability; we think there are a number of parties along the way that generated that. But we feel like we have an absolute requirement to let them know what was going on as we went down this path';
e) made by Chris Sontag in a VNUnet.com interview entitled 'Interview: SCO chief Darl McBride part 2' included the response 'Yeah. that one is a no-brainer' to the question 'Are you still saying categorically that there is offending code in the Linux kernel?';
f) made in SCO's July 21, 2003 Press Release including the statements that SCO 'will offer UnixWare licenses tailored to support run-time, binary use of Linux for all commercial users of Linux based on kernel version 2.4.x and later. SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format';
g) made in SCO's July 21, 2003 Press Release including the statements that 'SCO indicated last week that Linux end users could face liability for running it in their organization. Beginning this week, the company will begin contacting companies regarding their use of Linux and to offer a UnixWare license';
h) 'Since the year 2001 commercial Linux customers have been purchasing and receiving software that includes misappropriated UNIX software owned by SCO';
i) made in SCO's July 21, 2003 Press Release including the statements that 'Today, we're stating that the alleged actions of IBM and others have caused customers to use a tainted product at SCO's expense. With more than 2.4 million Linux servers running our software, and thousands more running Linux every day, we expect SCO to be compensated for the benefits realized by tens of thousands of customers'; and
j) made in SCO's July 21, 2003 Press Release including the statements that 'We have a solution that gets [Linux users] clean, get [Linux users] square with the use of Linux without having to go to the courtroom.'
44. SCO's quarterly and annual financial reports from the day SCO acquired the rights to UNIX to present, and documents sufficient to identify SCO's sales and profits since the date SCO acquired the rights to UNIX to the present.
45. All documents concerning a Linux Lottery or the phrase the "Linux Lottery'.
46. All documents concerning revenue generated by any SCO licensing program or licensing initiative, including any analysis or projection of revenue that could be earned by virtue of a Linux licensing program, UNIX licensing program. SCOsource licensing program, or SCOsource licensing initiative.
47. All documents concerning the establishment or setting of UNIX licensing fees by SCO, including without limitation documents related to licensing fees associated with any technology owned or managed by SCOsource, any contention by SCO that users of Linux must pay a fee of any kind to SCO, and any licensing fees related to other SCO UNIX technology, software, products and services.
48. All documents concerning both the Canopy Group and UNIX, including without limitation, communications with the Canopy Group regarding UNIX.
49. If SCO contends that Red Hat or its customers have violated any of its rights in UNIX software (including without limitation any copyrights or trade secrets), all documents concerning that contention.


That last part about finances is presumably so Red Hat can figure out its damages if it wins.

Then, in Red Hat's "First Set of Interrogatories", stil in the same pdf, it wants SCO to answer the following interrogatories, or questions:

1. If SCO contends that Red Hat or its customers are violating or have violated any UNIX intellectual property rights in which SCO has any legal interest, set forth with specificity the basis for that contention.
2. If SCO contends that Red Hat or its customers are misappropriating or have misappropriated any of its trade secrets, set forth with specificity the basis for that contention, including without limitation, the identity of any trade secrets and the circumstances under which those trade secrets were misappropriated.
3. If SCO contends that Red Hat or its customers have infringed any of SCO's rights protected by the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Sections 101 et seq., set forth with specificity the basis for that contention, including without limitation, the identity of any copyrights that SCO claims are infringed and the basis for SCO's claim that Red Hat or any Red Hat customer has infringed that copyright.
4. If SCO contends that Red Hat or any of Red Hat's customers are required to pay a fee to license SCO's UNIX intellectual property, set forth the basis for that contention, including without limitation the amount of each and every such fee, the method used to establish the amount of that fee, the basis for the fee, and the terms of any associated license.
5. Provide the following information in a manner that precisely identifies each and every instance of copyright infringement that SCO maintains exists in any of Red Hat's Linux software or products:
(a) Identify by title, version, module(s) and line(s) each and every portion of UNIX source code that you claim has been copied or has otherwise been incorporated into any Linux software in violation of any of SCO's copyrights;
(b) For each and every portion of UNIX source code identified in 5(a) above, identify by title, version, module(s) and line(s) each and every corresponding portion of Linux source code that you claim was copied or otherwise incorporated from the identified portion of UNIX source code in violation of SCO's copyrights;
(c) For each and every portion of UNIX source code identified in 5(a) above, describe whether SCO claims that the UNIX source code was literally copied, is a derivative of UNIX source code, copies the structure, sequence, and organization of the UNIX code, and any other manner in which SCO claims the Linux code infringes any of SCO's copyrights;
(d) For each portion of the UNIX code identified in 5(a) above, identify the individual(s) who authored that portion of the code, the date that portion was written, and the date that portion became a part of the UNIX code; and
(e) For each portion of the UNIX code identified in 5(a) above, identify each entity that had access to that portion of the UNIX code and the dates it had such access.
6. Identify every SCO Linux product, and every third party Linux product, that contains any code corresponding to the Linux code identified in 5(b) above.
7. Provide the following information to precisely identify each and every instance of misappropriation of SCO's trade secrets that SCO maintains exists in any of Red Hat's Linux software or products:
(a) Identify by title, version, module(s) and line(s) each and every portion of Linux source code that you claim contains a trade secret of SCO's that has been misappropriated or otherwise wrongfully incorporated;
(b) For each and every portion of Linux source code identified in 7(a) above, identify by title, version, module(s) and line(s) any portion of UNIX code that contains or embodies SCO's trade secret(s) that SCO contends has been misappropriated or otherwise wrongfully incorporated into the Linux source code;
(c) For each and every portion of Linux source code identified in 7(a) above, describe SCO's legal basis for claiming that the Linux source code contains a trade secret of SCO's that has been misappropriated or otherwise wrongfully incorporated into Linux;
(d) For each portion of the UNIX code identified in 7(a) above, identify the individual(s) who authored that portion of the code, the date that portion was written, and the date that portion became a part of the UNIX code; and
(e) For each portion of the UNIX code identified in 7(a) above, identify each entry that had access to that portion of the UNIX code and the dates it had such access.
8. Excluding the instances of copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation identified in SCO's responses to Interrogatory Numbers 5 and 7, provide the following information to precisely identify each and every instance of infringement of SCO's intellectual property rights that SCO maintains exists in any of Red Hat's Linux software products:
(a) Identify by title, version, module(s) and line(s) each and every portion of Linux source code that SCO claims infringes any intellectual property right of SCO;
(b) For each and every portion of Linux source code identified in 8(a) above, identify each and every intellectual property right(s) of SCO that SCO claims is/are infringed by the identified portion of Linux software (e.g., patent number and claim, contract by parties and date or similar identifying information, a description of the know how at issue and a description of the methods at issue); and
(c) for each and every portion of Linux source code identified in 8(a) above, further specifically identify by title, version, module(s) each and every corresponding portion of UNIX source code that you claim embodies the intellectual property right(s) that is/are infringed.
9. Describe with particularity the process(es) that SCO undertook to determine that Linux infringed the intellectual property rights of SCO, including without limitation, the date the process(es) began, the intellectual property rights examined or analyzed, the identity of all persons involved in determining for SCO that Linux infringed the intellectual property rights of SCO and each such persons specific role(s), and all reports or other documents concerning the infringement of SCO's intellectual property rights that were generated.
10. Identify the manner in which any SCO Linux product that contains any code corresponding to the Linux code identified in Interrogatory Numbers 5(b) or 7(a) above was marked and created, identify the extent of any modifications to non-SCO Lilnux that SCO made in creating SCO Linux, and identify the individuals involved with the marketing and creation of such SCO Linux product(s).
11. For the period from 1993 to present, identify each and every version of UNIX (including each UNIX kernel or UNIX operating system) and Linux (including each Linux kernel or Linux operating system) that SCO, or any company that was or is affiliated with SCO, has sold, licensed, distributed, or otherwise transferred rights to.
12. Identify each license, including the parties, date and terms, that SCO has executed or negotiated since January 1, 2003 in conjunction with any licensing initiative, licensing program, SCOsource, or otherwise in conjunction with SCO's claims that Linux infringes any of SCO's copyrights, trade secrets or other intellectual property rights of SCO.
13. Identify each Linux end user or potential Linux end user that SCO has contacted concerning its claims that Linux infringes SCO's copyrights, trade secrets or other intellectual property rights of SCO.
14. Identify each person that SCO has shown examples of UNIX or Linux source code that SCO claims provides a basis for any of SCO's claims that Linux infringes any of SCO's copyrights, trade secrets or other intellectual property rights of SCO, including all persons that viewed such examples at any 'viewing facility' established by SCO.
15. Identify each and every meeting SCO has had with any financial, stock or industry analyst (including Deutsche Bank) from January 1, 2001 to present, including without limitation the date of each meeting, the persons that attended each meeting, the subjects discussed at each meeting, and the reasons for each meeting.
16. Describe with particularity the relationship between the Canopy Group and SCO, including without limitation, any direct or indirect ownership interests of each company in the other, the corporate structure of and purpose of the Canopy Group, the instances and amounts of money and stock transferred between SCO and the Canopy Group from January 1, 2001 to the present, any intellectual property transferred between Canopy and SCO from January 1, 2001 to the present, all agreements between SCO and Canopy, including any license agreements, from January 1, 2001 to present.


SCO has responded to the discovery requests by telling the judge they'd like a delay: In SCO's Motion to Stay Discovery, it tells the judge that it shouldn't have to respond to Red Hat's requests for discovery at this time, because they've filed a motion to dismiss, and until the motion is ruled on, they'd rather not tell Red Hat anything, because it'd be "wasteful" and so very time-consuming. After all, if their Motion to Dismiss the case in its entirety is successful, then they won't have to do discovery at all.

Besides, similar discovery is ongoing in the IBM case, they argue, so a brief delay won't cause any evidence to disappear (like it'd be a great strain to Xerox an extra copy). And it'd cost a lot for SCO to have to produce all the discovery materials requested, they argue. And since the Motion to Dismiss is based on the law, and not on the merits of the case, they say, none of the discovery is needed for Red Hat to answer their Motion to Dismiss, and furthermore, they already filed their reply to the motion, so obviously they don't need the requested documents to do that. (I'd argue with their contention that their Motion to Dismiss is based only on the law, because one of their main points was that they never intended to sue Red Hat until after the IBM matter. That's not an issue of law, but of fact, but they are naturally going to tell the judge only the parts it wants her to hear.) If the judge doesn't dismiss their case in its entirely, they'd like 30 days to respond to the discovery requests. In short, delay, delay, delay. The same song they sang in Utah to get matters postponed until February of 2004.

Red Hat has also filed an amended brief, according to this letter, correcting some typos in the original. That will make Grokkers happy, I know, judging from comments and email I got. Then, in the final document, Stipulation and Order to Extend Time, the parties agreed to give SCO until October 10 to file its reply to Red Hat's answering brief to SCO's Motion to Dismiss and the judge so ordered on October 6.

Remember the tennis balls? This is SCO's final word, normally, in this round on the Motion to Dismiss. The judge next will decide the SCO Motion to Dismiss, after it gets the next SCO filing on the 10th, but now there is a second motion, and Red Hat will have an opportunity to reply to this new Motion to Stay Discovery .

Motion practice can be confusing, but the bottom line is this: there are two motions from SCO now before the judge. First, we had the original Motion to Dismiss, asking the judge to make this whole thing go away. Red Hat replied to that saying please don't, and then it filed for discovery. SCO doesn't want to do discovery, because it hopes to get away scot free by getting the case dismissed, so it has filed a Motion to Stay Discovery. Stay just means put off until a future date, or postpone. So the second motion is asking for a postponement of discovery until after the judge rules on the first motion. Confused yet? I hope not, because we've only gotten started.

If the judge doesn't grant them the delay, I expect next SCO will start specifically refusing to answer certain questions and refusing requests for documents, just as they are in the IBM case, and then that will probably end up before the judge in Delaware, with Red Hat having to bring the problem to the judge for resolution, just as IBM is having to do in Utah. In short, SCO appears to be looking for delays in both cases, which is exactly what the Linux/free software community has been saying from the beginning, that SCO didn't want to bring this to trial in a speedy way. The media back then seemed to think otherwise, but now we have Exhibit A, you might say. The proof is in the pudding.

We'll find out how it plays in Delaware and fairly soon. Red Hat's attorneys did a wonderful job on these discovery demands, and if SCO answers even half of them, I expect it'll be curtains for them, depending of course on what evidence it can produce to support its claims, if any. I typed this up mighty fast, because I wanted reporters and other interested parties to be able to quote from the list easily, and because I enjoyed reading it and wanted everyone to do the same without having to download a pdf. But the pdfs are what you should use for anything that matters, in case there may be typos and because I formatted it to fit a smaller space.

And now, a bit of champagne for me.


  


SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery | 175 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Champagne!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 05:48 AM EDT
Indeed, you deserve some champagne!
Thanks so much for you eminent work!

-r :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Champagne! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 03:58 PM EDT
SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 06:09 AM EDT
Some music for the celebration, The following was heard being sung by Darl ;)

(with apologies to 'Stealer's Wheel')

- Sing along to the tune of "Stuck in the middle..."

=)

Well I don't know
Why I started this fight
I got the feeling that
Something ain't right
I'm so scared in case
The judge plays it fair
And I'm wondering
If I'll lose all my hair
IBM to the left of me
Red Hat to the right
Here I am
Stuck in the middle with you
Yes I am stuck in
The middle with you
And I'm wondering
What it is I should do
It's so hard to keep
This egg off my face
Losing control
Yeah I'm all
Over the place

IBM to the left of me
Red Hat to the right
Here I am
Stuck in the middle with you

Well we started out
With nothing
And we're proud that
Our stock is so high
And Microsoft
They came a'calling
Slapped us on the back and said...
Please
Please

Tried to make
Some sense off it all
But I can see that
It makes no sense at all
The Judge is going to
lock all the doors
I don't think
That I can take anymore

IBM to the left of me
Red Hat to the right
Here I am
Stuck in the middle with you

(Doesn't it feel great to see the tide turning at last?)

Vennt, from YahooBoards

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: DrStupid on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 06:10 AM EDT
Thanks muchly for this :)

"5 (b) For each and every portion of UNIX source code identified in 5(a)
above, identify by title, version, module(s) and line(s) each and every
corresponding portion of Linux source code that you claim was copied or
otherwise incorporated from the identified portion of UNIX source code in
violation of SCO's copyrights;"

It's what we've all been asking for all along...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 06:35 AM EDT
Yes, Great work.
I suspect, that the SCO execs will be looking into an exit plan on this suit.
The last thing SCO wants is to get the legal spotlight shined their way, and
allow the courts to decide. I bet Canopy will try to throw money at Redhat to
stop them from seaching for the SCO truth.

ps. How much stock are they selling during each trial delay?
Should SCO or Canopy execs be allowed to dump right now?
The truth is out there, waiting for SEC discovery.

I have to say this:
Will SCO try to hide under it's Canopy?

---
Vescere bracis meis.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 07:08 AM EDT
yippieeeeeee
i know i know dont get excited yet but it sure did me good to see all these
questions being asked .whether they get answered yet ,it feels good for them to
still be focused on sco
now can i go to sleep and wait for friday?
this is worse than waiting for santa.
thanks to whomever got the papers.
PJ another excellent write up
thanks to groklaw


---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

"request for admissions"?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 07:37 AM EDT
I notice SCO has filed a "plaintiff's request for admissions" on
IBM.(at least, I think that's what the docket says). Any Idea what that's
for?
It looks like the first thing in a while which hasn't just been a reaction to
IBM's filings.

"Docket Text: Certificate of service re: pla's req for admissions by SCO
Grp"

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: Hygrocybe on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 07:38 AM EDT
Very well done PJ, and the same to all those who collated the information. As
everyone is saying: This really is what we have been waiting for. The
questions submitted by RedHat place the spotlight very firmly on SCO; when that
is coupled with the increasing focus on the apparent sharemarket manipulations
by the various high level staff at SCO it seems to indicate some very rough road
ahead for the firm.

There is one thing that intrigues me however: what is SCO's legal firm doing
--- or not doing, because we are hearing nothing from them now. I am certain
Groklaw is prescribed reading for them so they MUST know how the evidence is
beginning to stack.

Anyway, enjoy that glass of champagne and I'll be toasting the whole situation
with a wee dram of best single malt.

---
LamingtonNP

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 08:01 AM EDT
IANAL, but is a judge going to care if SCO has another court case that they have
to do discovery for. SCO is complaining that they have to do discovery in IBM's
case so RedHat will have to wait. Is there any judge that is going to put up
with this kind of BS?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Set forth with specificity!
Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 08:06 AM EDT
"1. If SCO contends that Red Hat or its customers are violating or have
violated any UNIX intellectual property rights in which SCO has any legal
interest, set forth with specificity the basis for that contention."

Apparently this is legalese for "WTF R U tkng abt?"

They want chapter and verse of SCO's claims against them. And in a court of
law, you have to "set forth with specificity" if you hope to make
any points with the judge hearing the case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why does SCO shoot it's mouth off?
Authored by: Thomas Downing on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 08:40 AM EDT

Between IBM's second set of cross-complaints and discovery, and Red Hat's discovery, this case is becoming a primer on why parties involved in litigation should keep their mouth shut.

In the recent filings we are seeing statements made by SCO execs comming back to haunt them. Even if there is some merit to the SCO position they seem to have opened up some doors to discovery that they maybe should not have opened. If there is little or no merit to SCO's case (as seems likely) then these public statements are even more prejudicial.

As the Boies firm is not stupid, one is left wondering why on earth SCO's gang keep on saying what they do? I can only think of two possibilities; the same that have been booted about for so long: 1. they want to be bought by IBM, in which event it's all moot, or 2. pump and dump, in the reasonable assurance that they will not be prosecuted by the SEC or any states Attorney General.

---
Thomas Downing
Principal Member Technical Staff
IPC Information Systems, Inc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: RK on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 08:43 AM EDT
They complain that one of the requests effectively duplicates the discovery
process in the IBM case, but shouldn't that make life easier for them?
Wherever that's the case they just have to run another copy of the same
material they're giving to IBM.

Surely a claim that they were being asked for completely different material to
in the IBM case and didn't have the resources to deal with both would have been
more convincing?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 08:48 AM EDT
Im a bit confused by how this works. Red Hat wants SCO to tell it why it thinks
there is infringement. Then Red Hat wants the court to look at that and say
there is no infringement. Lets say that happens and the judge rules in Red
Hat's favor.

Does anything keep SCO from comming back later and saying "We found some
new stuff that we didnt know about when we did discovery. Therefore the
declaratory judgement only applies to the stuff we told you about then, not to
this new stuff."

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO filed 1st Motion to Dismiss AFTER being served discovery request
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 09:08 AM EDT
Just noticed from reading the "Defendant's Motion To Stay Discovery
Pending Resolution Of Motion To Misiss"

From page 2, in the middle of the page

<Quote>
Shortly After Red Hat served these requests, SCO filed a motion to dismiss the
underlying action in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiciton and
for failure to state a claim....
</quote>

So, it seems that
1. RedHat filed sued
2. RedHat started the discovery process
3. SCO filed motion to dismiss
4. SCO filed motion to stay discovery

Don't know whether this timeline of events is significant. But just like to
point it out.
It looks like another SCO delay technique since it could probably file both
motions at the same time(?).
Now they filed this and asked for at least 30 more days for answering.

French Radish
"The Truth is right here." -- the Grokaw Files

PS. Thanks PJ and all other contributors for making Groklaw such an informative
site. I've enjoyed reading here very much.

[ Reply to This | # ]

All your bases...
Authored by: mac586 on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 09:26 AM EDT
My initial impressions after reading all the pdf files from yesterday (thanks to everyone for taking the time to visit the courthouses in Delaware and Utah):

1. RedHat's lawyers could have been concise and just said:

"All your document are belong to us"

All kidding aside, both IBM's and RedHat's presentations to the courts have been thorough, well written, and damn right ominous.

On the other hand, SCO's behavior appears to be flippant - disrespectful - arrogant (etc!). Does this technique ever win favor in a court of law?

2. I was surprised to see RedHat's request documentation concerning the MS and Sun deals. MS has a legitimate technological reason to license from SCO: their Unix Services for Windows product. If SCO spends the money hammering Linux and the GPL, so much the better for MS. I imagine RedHat is looking for any evidence of the latter. Will this evidence see the light of day? Given the track record of both parties, I believe we will.

I know many Groklaw posters feel the winds of conspiracy blowing in from Sun as well. That is to be expected, since Sun flip-flops their position to Linux on a regular basis. Sun does business with Redhat and Suse, and provides OpenOffice and other innovations to Linux. This is all good.

I have no data supporting my opinion, but I think Sun paid money (from the marketing department) for licensing it did not require. The ultimate benefit to Sun would be any negative impact to IBM's gains against Sun's market. IMHO, I doubt that RedHat will find any such Halloween documents concerning a GPL assault funded by Sun.

I think the battle lines are becoming clearer, and certain parties are drifting to either side. It is clear that RedHat, IBM, and SGI are on one side. I'm not sure how much longer SGI will wait before taking legal action. I would love to see them to take preemptive action similar to RedHat.

HP is sitting on the fence, playing both sides of the issue. I find this appalling (I can just imagine some of the conversations Bruce Peren's must be having with the friends he made while working at HP). HP's quiet funding of the SCO road show guarantees that my den will never see a HP printer, nor will my IT dollars at work ever by another Compaq or HP system.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM case, another point
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 09:48 AM EDT
IANAL, but there is another subtle point, well not so subtle, in the IBM case -
it shows when SCO said they had given IBM all the requested documents - that
they hadn't, and both SCO and SCO's attorneys knew that they hadn't!

IBM: Show us ALL documents showing your contention that SCO IP is in Linux
SCO: Here all the documents. The license agreements. The UNIX code. The Linux
code.
IBM: Is that really all the documents?
SCO's attorney in sworn responses: Yes, we're not withholding anything.
IBM: Is that really really all the documents?
SCO's attorney in unsworn letter: Yes, we're not withholding anything. P.S.
Quick Darlism - are you withholding anything, we think you might be?
IBM: Yes we've given you everything that you asked for, you never complained
before. And that's really everything.
SCO: Yes we've given you everything. The documents are the licenses, Linux
source code, UNIX source code.

==> IBM to judge: Here's a document, they didn't give us which we know
exists!

Now this is not just any document or some trivial accidental ommission.

(a) It is the precise document that fufills the requests that IBM have been
asking for (at least in part)
(b) It implies that there are other documents (analysis of lines of code, other
examples)
(c) SCO's attorneys are most certainly aware of it (and yet denied its
existence by repeatedly saying yes they had given IBM *all* the documents).
Boies was originally planned to take part in the presentation at SCOforum. Heise
actually did.

Now because of (c), I think not only SCO's case could be in trouble, but maybe
their attorneys too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 10:26 AM EDT
i have been reading some of the federal rules and found this interesting
Oral argument.
(A) Responsibilities of counsel.

(1) Presence of counsel. Counsel for each party must be present for oral
argument unless excused by the court. The established argument time is allocated
by counsel as they see fit.

(2) Motion to waive oral argument. After the principal briefs have been filed,
a party may file a motion to waive oral argument and to submit a case on the
briefs. If filed within 10 days of the scheduled argument date, the motion must
show why an earlier filing was not possible.

(3) Postponement. Only in extraordinary circumstances will an argument be
postponed. Except in an emergency, a motion to postpone must be made more than
10 days before the scheduled argument date.

(4) Recovery of expenses. A party prejudiced by the granting of a motion to
waive or postpone oral argument filed within 10 days of the scheduled argument
date may move for recovery of expenses.

note (3)
hehehehe


---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

Selling short
Authored by: tcranbrook on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 10:45 AM EDT
For those of you watching SCOX stock patterns, this article highlites some
stocks currectly being shorted big time. SCOX is not on the list yet, but it is
gist of reasearch into this area.


http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2003/commentary031009JF.htm

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Selling short - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 08:04 PM EDT
SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: Alex on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 10:56 AM EDT

Posted at 4:25am Eastern Time! That's dedication. PJ, get some sleep!

Damn she's good!!

Alex

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: tcranbrook on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 11:22 AM EDT
45. All documents concerning a Linux Lottery or the phrase the "Linux
Lottery'.


Anyone have a clue as to what the Linux Lottery might be all about?


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: D. on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 11:25 AM EDT
Thanks to neilplatform1 of the Yahoo! SCOX board, here is an interesting article from the mainstream press: Standing up to SCO D.

[ Reply to This | # ]

more documentation for damages for redhat
Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 12:03 PM EDT
http://tinyurl.com/qbv3

---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

Legal issues are mounting
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 12:49 PM EDT
I just read this article coming from Australia. Those legal fees are going to
start piling up real soon.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/08/1065292635400.html

By the way, any information about the loan Canopy gave SCO for 100 million
dollars or so? I read somewhere it was a secured loan. That means that if SCO
folds, Canopy will be first in line to grab assets (maybe the SysV source). They
want to have the cake and eat it too. That should be investigated. That is
something fishy. You milk the cow and if the cow dies you still keep the cow

[ Reply to This | # ]

Suing your Customers
Authored by: rand on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 01:47 PM EDT
Good piece at Wharton via slashdot on the pitfalls of suing your own customers as a business model.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ford. RIAA and SCO...
Authored by: geoff lane on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 02:20 PM EDT
There's an article in /. right now based on Suing Your Customers: A Winning Business Strategy?.

In short, it describes how the existing car industry tried to destroy Henry Ford when he started selling cheaper cars. The car industry used dubious patents and sued Fords customers. Ford fought back, bought litigation insurance for his customers and eventually got the patents declared invalid.

Although the article is essentially about the RIAA, the parallels with SCO are interesting.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why delay the interrogatories?
Authored by: mitphd on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 03:04 PM EDT
Real answers to the interrogatories would cut to the heart of SCO's case (or
show that it had no case). Among the strange aspects of SCO's motion to delay
is that they go on at considerable length about how difficult is would be to
comply with the discovery demands, but not one word about difficulties in
answering the interrogatories.

Despite this omission, SCO asks that the interrogatories be delayed also, almost
as an afterthought in the wake of the discovery requests. Is it likely that the
court will buy this argument w.r.t. the interrogatories, even if it does delay
the discovery?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: geom on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 04:21 PM EDT
I did not see in the text of the Red Hat document where linux kernel personality
source code was requested. There was a request for openserver kernel
personality, OKP is not the same as LKP. Did I miss something?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 06:01 PM EDT
Some old and new Sontag and McBride quotes

http://www.cbronline.com/magazine/4cf8076fb210ad61c2256d6a003d6bac

SCO threatens more litigation?

There is derivative code from AIX and Sequent Dynix [in Linux], there has also
been contribution of derivative code from other licensees, and there has also
been Unix System V code directly copied into Linux line by line," says
Sontag.

Asked if this meant that SCO was considering lawsuits against other Unix
vendors, Sontag says: "Potentially. Some of them we're in talks with,
some of them we're not yet." Given the large number of Unix licensees
there are any number of targets for SCO, although HP and Sun have both declared
themselves safe from litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

two lawsuits
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 06:17 PM EDT
I have been hoping that the kernel developers would launch a lawsuit against
SCO. But today it occured to me that maybe every issue such a suit would cover
is already being covered by either the RedHat lawsuit or the IBM counterclaims.


Am I right, or are there additional issues a kernel developer's lawsuit could
cover?

[ Reply to This | # ]

RH Requests et al
Authored by: stevem on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 06:20 PM EDT
These requests from RH and IBM are almost straight out of an episode of
"Yes Minister"!
State you're asking/demanding for what is impossible (eg. everyone is to be
taxed at 100%), but then "negotiate in good faith" down to a
"more acceptable compromise". "Aren't we good, we dropped
from 100% tax to 70%."
When the reality is that both are horrible.

Ha!


I also found this request, #20 to be the most amazing time bomb:

"20. A copy of the source code of each and every version of UNIX software
in which SCO claims to own any intellectual property rights or have any other
legal interest, and a copy of the source code of each and every version of Linux
software in SCO's possession custody, or control that was created on or after
January 1, 2000, whether or not released for public use, licensing or sale, and
a copy of the source code of each and every version of UNIX software that SCO
has sold, offered for sale, licensed, and offered to license."

Especially since according to SCO, they "own" AIX and Irix etc etc
etc.

Oh I am so looking forward to their reply to this one - get it wrong just a
little and poof goes their case.


- SteveM

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 06:46 PM EDT
I'm immensely amused that RedHat has asked SCO to provide a copy of the license
under which they licensed (among others) Mozilla and Samba.

Thumbing one's nose in a legal brief can be fun!

[ Reply to This | # ]

is this company connected with sco? satire
Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 07:11 PM EDT
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5089168.html

if i didnt know better i would say this had to be sco
suing over a shift key?

---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could this hurt RH's case?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 07:13 PM EDT
It seems that some of the information that they are asking for is still waiting
to be ruled upon in court. Could SCO use that (lines that they are infringing
on) for an excuse like "All of this information is subject to another case
that is already in progress" like they tried to do in the motion to
dismess? Would that actually help push through a motion to dismiss, or allow
for dismissal of some of the charges? I am no lawyer, nor para, hell... I
probably have the least knowlege of the law (except for certain misdemenors :) )
of anyone reading this stuff. Can any of this even be done? Or am I looking
at this all wrong.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why Darl has shut up
Authored by: skidrash on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 08:16 PM EDT
He hasn't

I suspect he's willing to give interviews to anyone and everyone, just most of
the sites are now tired of him, and SCO is producing nothing new.

Also I bet they've stopped giving interviews to sites that they've seen are on
to them. Not a lot out of Varghese since his article putting older quotes
adjacent to newer quotes, putting the lie to all things SCO.

Nothing from Galli for a long time.

Remember the article where he dropped a book full of clippings and said that's
good news.

Note Hunsaker in the recent post about the city tour, "the media attention
is great"

So no, I doubt Darl wants to be quiet. Some media are wise to SCO, some want
only new stuff, some will only print new, more outrageous claims.

SCO seemingly none of any of these left.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 09:43 PM EDT
"I'd like to media to notice that they quote Darl 200 times and Linus
only 20 (using numbers from memory). It does indicate the bias, or at least the
lack of effort on their part."

Not at all surprising to me- I've been saying all along that SCO is playing the
media. And the media tends to listen to and report what "Darl McBride,
CEO of SCO" says more than what a scruffy "penguinista" says.
And this is why the counter-offensive has to be planned well. I think perhaps
Darl is keeping his mouth shut now because of the responses to his Open Letter,
and partly because everyone who subscribes to ComputerWire was shown that Mr.
Darl lied in his open letter. Journalists really don't like getting lied to
and misquoted.

As far as anti-FUD goes, making Darl and company look like the lying, stupid,
and greedy boneheads that they are will tend to work better than reasoned
responses. If you can show people that Mr. Darl is a dope, it will get
published. Fan the flames, as they say. Some in the OS movement may not like
this approach, but hey- this is real world hardball and I would rather see free
software win than greedy morons like Darl.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 12:23 AM EDT
As I see it, Red Hat may have gone a bit overboard with the request for
correspondence for "all Red Hat customers or POTENTIAL customers".
Anyone is a POTENTIAL customer. This request is really asking for ALL
correspondence the SCO has ever had with ANYONE. Surely this gives SCO grounds
to have at least part of the discovery rejected by the court?

IMHO this could mean further delay.

I just hope SCO's lawyers DON'T read Groklaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT but useful ... Darl boasts about GPL software use in their product
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 07:22 AM EDT
While reviewing SCO Openserver information webpage I read a letter from Darl
McBride and found this:
"The Open Source Products that are now integrated and supported in
OpenServer 5.0.7 include Samba, Squid, OpenSSL and Open SSH. Businesses can now
use these products with full confidence, knowing that SCO technical support is
available for them."

Dear Darly, not only using OSS under GPL in their products, but praising
(boasting)about it.
http://www.sco.com/products/openserver507/ceo_letter.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

will we know a decision today?
Authored by: brenda banks on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 09:36 AM EDT
or will there be oral arguments
what happens today?
is someone calling the courthouse today to find out or will it be monday before
we have an answer
gosh i hate waiting
i am getting impatient and that isnt like me
PJ and someone else had mentioned in a previous story that the weaselly stuff
might be harmful to our brains and you know i find myself listening to comments
from news people,politicians and others to see if it can be understood another
way.it is a strange way for me to start evaluating things .i was never a cynic
before but i did classify myself as a realist. hopefully when this is over i can
go back to being a realist but it is doubtful.after sco i dont think i will
trust companies to take their word for anything without examining closely what
they say.almost could be classified as a loss of innocence?


---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

just an idea?
Authored by: brenda banks on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 10:23 AM EDT
http://tinyurl.com/q7ak
B. The Modern View

The modern view of trade dress is much more expansive than the traditional view.
Now, trade dress is defined as a product''s "total image" or
"overall appearance" and "may include features such as size,
shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics or even certain sales
techniques." John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 771 F.2d 966, 980
(11th Cir. 1983), cited with approval in Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.,
505 U.S. 763, 112 S.Ct. 2753 (1992).

maybe they want to expand on techniques?


---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about the Shareholders?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 10:40 AM EDT
Can they file suit to prevent Darl & Co. from selling off their shares
pending the outcome of the litigation? There are obvious conflicts of interest
and numerous false statements have been knowingly made. This slate article
http://slate.msn.com/id/2089620/ talks about Martha Stewart's case, but gives
you the general idea on what is and isn't acceptable 'lying'

[ Reply to This | # ]

GNBN
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 11:25 AM EDT
The Good News SCO has hired a discovery specialist to help them
"find" the requested items. The Bad News is it's Senator Hillary.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Which team? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 01:10 PM EDT
  • GNBN - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 03:15 PM EDT
Enron?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 11:27 AM EDT
"In other news, SCO has requested a month to shred and delete evidence
that could be used against them...er, 'gather evidence'."

[ Reply to This | # ]

put 2 + 2 together
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 01:34 PM EDT
specifically, match the "linux lottery" item
WITH
the "all documents shown to financial institutions" item, especially
the Deutche Bank items.

and some interesting things pop into the mind. Renaissance may have been the
tip of the iceberg.
Think somebody on the inside at some investment house sent a private email to
someone at RH?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 04:01 PM EDT
Okay, so the worst that happens to SCO under the two motions it that
the
Judge orders them to cough up.

What is to prevent SCO from asking the Judge to order that these
documents not be disclosed to the public? That, even though they are
part of the case, that they be sealed (is that the correct term?), or for
all practical purposes, kept from public view? I'm sure there must be
provisions for this in trade secret cases; so why not in this case?

What would prevent the Judge from allowing such restrictions, other
than the Judges inclinations? It seems to me that an agreement might
be reached by the two parties, due to costs or the Judge, which could
effectively end the case without answering the questions the rest of the
world needs to know to either effectively squash SCO's claims once
and for all. This could allow SCO to continue to make money by
sueing other, weak companies who can only afford to settle. The
bases for SCO's claims need to be exposed

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO and the SEC
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 05:05 PM EDT
One of the things that I would ask the SEC if I knew the process to do so,is to
have them look into this whole SCO vs Linux as a scam to artifictially raise the
stock price of SCO so that the executives who had massive numbers of shares
would be able to sell them at a good price before SCO goes out of business.

ttyl

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 09:23 PM EDT

Oh man, I love Request # 49...

If SCO contends that Red Hat or its customers have violated any of its rights in UNIX software (including without limitation any copyrights or trade secrets), all documents concerning that contention.
If SCO responds to this with anything, it gives the lie to the "there is no contention" argument. If OTOH they repeat that "there is no contention", then they are in effect saying that they do not think Red Hat Linux (and by extension the Linux kernel) infringes on Unix. Can you say "Catch 22"??

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 01:14 AM EDT
Looks like SCO is getting their hat handed to them, and it's red in color.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 12:34 PM EDT
I have been looking at the way that SCO's stock price is reacting to each of
their vitriolic announcements. Note that the market is giving them a jump each
time they say something. Their stock has outperformed the NASDAQ over the last
year in a handsome way. (You can check this on Yahoo finance, the SCO ticker is
SCOX).

What this suggests is that if the SCO claims are unfounded, there may be a case
here of stock manipulation, which broadly defined, is taken to be
unsubstantiated opinion with intention to move stock prices away from
fundamentals, with a view to gain - all of which seems a likely interpretation
in this setting. Seems to me the SEC should take a strong interest in this,
apart from the Red Hat lawyers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 01:22 PM EDT
You really are doing a wonderful job of keeping us all informed and explaining
some of the legal speak.

Keep up the good work, I look forward to seeing this all in court.

Matthew B.

[ 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 )