|
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."
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|