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 Requests a Delay on Answering IBM Motion to Compel
Saturday, October 18 2003 @ 08:47 AM EDT

SCO got the delay it wanted to answer IBM's Amended Complaint with Counterclaims, so they are asking Judge Kimball if they could have until the 24th to answer IBM's Motion to Compel. IBM has opposed their request. Also IBM is adding another lawyer to the team. Here's the docket info:

10/17/04 Entered: 10/17/03 Add attorney for IBM David R. Marriott
10/17/03 Motion to extend time by SCO to 10/24/03 for pla to resp to mot/compel
10/17/03 Memorandum in opposition by Intl Bus Mach Inc in opposition to motion to extend time to 10/24/03 for pla to resp to mot/compel

Marriott appears to be a patent infringement guy for Cravath, judging from his involvement in this case. That's assuming this is the same individual, which I don't know to be the case.

Peter Galli of eweek really did ask BayStar and SCO about whether MS is behind the cash transfusion SCO just got. Everyone denies it. I think it's wonderful that Galli actually asked. That's what reporters are supposed to do. But there is one shadow in the picture:

"McGrath also pointed eWeek to a BayStar White Paper on PIPEs published in October 2002, which lists both Microsoft and Vulcan Ventures, Inc., the investment firm of Microsoft co-founder Paul G. Allen, as being among the top ten PIPE investors since 1995.

"That, McGrath said, could explain why people were assuming that Microsoft was an investment partner alongside BayStar, but he was unable to say if Vulcan was such a partner."




  


SCO Requests a Delay on Answering IBM Motion to Compel | 37 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
SCO Requests a Delay on Answering IBM Motion to Compel
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 18 2003 @ 08:58 AM EDT
This isn't the first time that SCO has asked for more time, but seems to be the
first time that IBM opposes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Requests a Delay on Answering IBM Motion to Compel
Authored by: jobsagoodun on Saturday, October 18 2003 @ 09:22 AM EDT
I really like the patent angle. IBM are clearly saying "If you lose [the
contract case] we'll eat you. And if you win, we'll eat you as well."

$50mil or not, there can only be one outcome to this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Requests a Delay on Answering IBM Motion to Compel
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 18 2003 @ 09:50 AM EDT
They went with a minimum which affect SCO's whole line. If they threw their
whole cabozal at SCO they'd be breaking the MAD gentlemen's agreement
concerning patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's motion to compel and the Money Trail
Authored by: Hygrocybe on Saturday, October 18 2003 @ 09:58 AM EDT
I am very pleased that IBM is standing firm - it is badly necessary because
SCO's stupid stance and deadlock sorely needs to be broken, if only so that we
can all move ahead and get a resolution of this idiocy. But even more
interesting to me is that it is just faintly possible there is a money trail
leading........to whom ?

I am only a very, very interested onlooker/linux user on t'other side of the
world and I 'dips me lid' to all those workers who are dredging into the
records to find those things others prefer to keep hidden...but I am like a
number of others now. Why....is a very questionably viable company (at least as
I see it) the recipient of fifty million dollars ? Where is this funding coming
from ultimately....and why ? That is an answer I can't wait to find out.

---
LamingtonNP

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Requests a Delay on Answering IBM Motion to Compel
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 18 2003 @ 10:43 AM EDT
http://external.cravath.com/bios/bios.nsf/BiosProfile/FBBC5820CBC0D9AE85256DC300
0B13C8?OpenDocument

This is the Marriott I think. It looks like they recruited a Mormon to help.
:-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT but interesting
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 18 2003 @ 10:52 AM EDT
I don't know if this is news to Groklaw, but eweek has published a reply to Lyon's arcicle.

It is a good reading. The journalist says all we wanted to tell Lyon. It has been quite a few times recently we saw journalists asking the right questions and telling things like they are instead of blindly drinking SCO's Koolaid. If this trend continues, SCO will have a much harder time making its FUD work. Do you think journalists are reading Groklaw? Some of them may consider us a valuable source now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM: Motion to dismiss
Authored by: belzecue on Sunday, October 19 2003 @ 12:44 AM EDT
Should IBM be preparing a motion to dismiss, in the same way SCO is aggressively
pursuing a dismissal in the Red Hat case? Is it possible? Would they want to
if it were possible?

We are well into the IBM-SCO discovery phase and SCO continues to refuse to
identify 'with specifity' the infringing code. Surely IBM now has strong
grounds to have the complaint dismissed?

Does IBM want to follow through (and take the slim risk) in order to finally
resolve the legal issues involved, e.g. GPL validity, etc.?

If IBM could get the case dismissed, can SCO try again?

If IBM get their motion to compel, and SCO continues to evade specifity, what
happens then? Is that the appropriate time to file a motion to dismiss? Would
the judge himself dismiss the case for lack of grounds?

If IBM could get the case dismissed, they could still follow through on their
counter-claims and gut SCO like a fish...?

[ Reply to This | # ]

patents and open source
Authored by: skidrash on Sunday, October 19 2003 @ 06:14 PM EDT
Badly formated I'd like more people to consider this If LInux were ever threatened with patent violations I do believe the amount of prior art that would be found would be enormous. Remember that an invention in 18th century Germany can be used as prior art.

Think that's a stretch? Read some of Don Lancaster's critiques of patents (amazingly Don was writing anti-patent screeds 20 years ago, but never did pick up on Linux.) For example, a lot of networking patents could have been invalidated by referring to the police booth network in London, constructed a LONG time ago (specifics evade me, it's been a long time since I read that stuff).

One of Don's patent critiques
Don's home page
(Don created the first microcomputer. Really.)

Oh, one more idea, (I may be wrong) - a software patent would not cover source code. Really. You can get around machinery patents, for example, by offering a kit missing one piece essential to the patent.

Leave it to the customer to secure that piece on his own. Even give directions on how to make/buy/fake that piece. Since source code in no way whatsoever can be used __ON ITS OWN___ to violate a patent, open source may be immune, as long as you don't offer binaries.

For example, Bayer had the patents for manufacturing Aspirin. They could stop companies from selling Aspirin but they could not make it illegal to possess the instructions (source code?) or using the instructions for personal purposes.

USING the code commercially may be a patent violation (Ala Ebay and RIM) but the source code itself would not be any kind of violation, I don't think open source authors could be in violation.

[ 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 )