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
First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:30 PM EST

Our first report from a Groklaw volunteer, sam, who attended the court hearing is that IBM won both of its motions to compel and SCO's motion was set for a later date. Here is what sam is telling us, and it's subject to further information and confirmation as more news arrives. We have several attending and I'll do a followup, but this is the first word. Here is what sam is telling us:

"Just returned from the hearing.

"Needless to say there was blood all over the floor on the SCO side of the aisle none on the 'left' side.

"Judge granted both IBM motions to compel, gave SCO thirty days to comply 'with specificity' and suspended further discovery. Did not rule on the SCO motion until next hearing scheduled for Friday, Jan 23 and 10:00 am.

"SCO did say that they will be filing a complaint within days on copyright violations.

"More to come"

So it looks like they have 30 days to finally tell us what code they are talking about "with specificity". Finally.


  


First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel | 244 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The score.....
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:37 PM EST
Open Source: 1,550,324

SCO: -10

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • The score..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:22 PM EST
    • The score..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:48 PM EST
First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: Budgreen on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:39 PM EST
backed into a corner

looks like sco has to go for yet another legal ploy to try an intimidate and fud
their way to success?

---
Hutz: Well, your Honor, we've got plenty of hearsay and conjecture, those are
*kinds* of evidence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: PolR on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:47 PM EST
Thirty days brings us around January the 4th. This is just after the holidays.
The judge must have been pissed off mad not to give them an extra week or two.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Transcripts
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:51 PM EST
Any idea how long it should take before the transcript of the hearing is
available?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Transcripts - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:53 PM EST
    • Transcripts - Authored by: daavery on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:57 PM EST
      • Transcripts - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:14 PM EST
      • Transcripts - Authored by: hhind on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:19 PM EST
      • Transcripts - Authored by: armydude on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:24 PM EST
        • Transcripts - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:40 PM EST
        • Transcripts - Authored by: Waterman on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:49 PM EST
          • Transcripts - Authored by: Waterman on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 05:08 PM EST
            • Transcripts - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 08:45 PM EST
              • ROFL - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 09:24 PM EST
              • Transcripts - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 06 2003 @ 01:21 AM EST
First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: geoff lane on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:53 PM EST
Have a look at SCOX share price for today. Everybody is sitting on their hands....

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: Jude on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:53 PM EST
"SCO did say that they will be filing a complaint within days on copyright violations."

Gluttons for punishment, huh?

Maybe we should tell Darl he can hire a dominatrix to beat the hell out of him for a lot less than he paid Boies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

watch SCOX tank in real time
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:54 PM EST
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ecn?s=SCOX

[ Reply to This | # ]

The SCO Motion...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:55 PM EST
... will be heard *AFTER* those thirty days, so IBM will have their answer
*before* SCO's motion to compel is heard.

I trust this was intentional.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • The SCO Motion... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 09:20 PM EST
  • The SCO Motion... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 06 2003 @ 05:39 AM EST
SCO Handed Their Head...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:57 PM EST
That makes the story a "Handed their Headline", doesn't it?
<groan>
Many, many thanks to PJ and company for this wonderful public service. Groklaw
rocks!

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: fava on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:58 PM EST
The judge "suspended further discovery".

Sounds to me like the judge believes that sco is "fishing" and is
revoking their fishing licence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:03 PM EST
It'll be interesting to see how the press plays this. My guess is, they will
either ignore it outright or downplay it without admitting that it is a huge
loss for SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:04 PM EST
I have been reading this site all day every day. I don't comment here because
it usually isn't my place to comment. Other here can provide better feedback
and info. I just wanted to say thanks to PJ and all of the people that provide
useful information. I love the GPL and Linux and I would like to see it continue
to grow and you guys do nothing but help while SCO and buddies try to impede all
that is good.

Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: nabet on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:08 PM EST
Hooray! After waiting for all the preliminary motions to be bantered back and
forth, and seeing both sides dig in their heels in regards to what they though
was approapiate material to hand over to the other side in discovery, we finally
get a ruling from a judge that confirms that IBM was right and SCO was wrong:
IBM does not have to hand over all versions of AIX and Dynix to SCO so that they
can go on a fishing expedition, instead SCO must provide details of all it's
claims first.

It's great to see that all the analysis done here on Growlaw is bearing out in
court. Justice, for the time being, is prevailing!

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Within days"? Nah
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:10 PM EST
Bluffing again.

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:11 PM EST
"SCO did say that they will be filing a complaint
within days on copyright violations."

Besides being put up or be put down time, what "copyright
violations" are SCOG talking about? Is this another stall
tactic in the making? They have spread so much FUD it is
hard for me to keep up with which one this is referring
to.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Real-Time Law
Authored by: trebonian on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:13 PM EST
Whew,
We are probably seeing and hearing more detailed results, transcripts and events
then even the principals themselves.

We will probably have a transcript of the hearing before SCO does (unless they
read Groklaw too....)

Groklaw has spawned a new phenomenon. I hope the legal system is prepared....

Great work everybody.

[ Reply to This | # ]

/. warning.
Authored by: Waterman on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:14 PM EST
Look out PJ when the Slashdot crowds finds out about this.
Sugesstion would be to tell Slashdot but request that they not link to the site
for a while.

We need to read all the stuff first that has been going on today. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: maehara on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:17 PM EST

Call me a sceptic, but:

"SCO did say that they will be filing a complaint within days on copyright violations."

To me, that sounds like "We know we've lost this one, but we want to drag out the FUD for as long as possible, so we'll be back next week with a brand new lawsuit." If SCO file their copyright claims as a new case rather than riding on this one, we end up back at square one again, with SCO having essentially gained a 9-month or so delay while the process kicks off again...

IANAL, so can someone confirm if it's possible for SCO to file a new claim against IBM from scratch rather than adding it to this one?

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: pooky on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:18 PM EST
They way I read this, and it’s preliminary without any transcript, is that the
Judge simply agreed with IBM that SCOG isn’t entitled to IBM’s documents until
they at least comply with IBM’s discovery requests. This indicates the judge
agrees with what IBM stipulates they are entitled to since SCOG brought the suit
against them (not vice-versa).

If SCOG complies, I would fully expect the next task will be to rule on SCOG’s
motions to compel discovery against IBM and whether the judge thinks SCO is
entitled to everything they are asking for.

As to whether SCOG will comply with this, who knows. Their behavior to date is
somewhat irrational and unexplainable (except that this entire thing seems to be
conceived by an obviously delusional mind), so anything could happen on January
4th, literally.

One thing is for certain after today, SCOG is definitely more interesting in
waging their war in the press rather than in a court room, no matter what they
say.

-pooky


---
SCO FUD = Faux SCUD?

[ Reply to This | # ]

First battle not the war
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:28 PM EST
was won only. We have a long way to go. But I hope sooner or later SCO will burn
in HELL. Sooner would be better, though.
icu

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: adamruth on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:32 PM EST
Just called the court reporter to order transcripts, left a message, no one
answered. As soon as I can get a copy I'll let you all know. If I can get a
copy of the tape, which may be faster than waiting for transcription, I'll
run down there and pick it up and transcribe it myself. The court
reporter's office is about 10 miles from here.

Adam Ruth

[ Reply to This | # ]

Make book on the SCO losses
Authored by: tcranbrook on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:32 PM EST
This is really funny.

The SCOX Loss Pool

Get in on the fun.

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: Andrew on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:34 PM EST

So it looks like they have 30 days to finally tell us what code they are talking about "with specificity". Finally.

Er, tell us or tell IBM? Are the replies to interrogatories made public?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw Gets the SCOop
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:34 PM EST
In the old-time news tradition, it would appear that Groklaw has scooped the
story ahead of the others. Other news sites and blogs are quoting this story as
it appears here or linking appropriately.

Great work PJ and "reporter" sam!

I can't wait for the ofiicial transcript.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pre-hearing article about the hearing
Authored by: beast on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:35 PM EST
SCO, IBM Dispute Headed for Hearing

Stowell quote:

Stowell said the Friday hearing is expected to provide a judge with more information in order to make a determination whether the motions to compel discovery have merit or are just creating more "busywork" for lawyers involved.

Didio quote:

"You cannot draw a definitive conclusion from seeing snippets," she said. "You need the whole picture, and that's what we haven't seen yet. With that said, you'd have to be really crazy to try and sue IBM if you didn't have something."

Last sentence:

DiDio has also been subpoened by IBM as part of the dispute.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw gets scoop.
Authored by: lpletch on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:38 PM EST
The yahoo message board for SCO is full of Groklaw subject lines. Look out for
the flood.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question for those who attended the hearing
Authored by: beast on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:42 PM EST
Discovery has been suspended, but is that for just SCO's suit or does it
include discovery for IBM's counter-suit?

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: Flower on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:54 PM EST
Ok, silly question out of the way for the legal people here.

IBM just won both of their motions. SCO has been given a month to produce and
all other discovery has been suspended during that time. After that, SCO's
motion won't be heard until about 3 weeks afterwards. To me this sounds like a
total beatdown on SCO. In a high profile case like this, how spectacular is such
an event?

Another question. Can this event be applicable in the RH case?

Thanks,
Bill

---
Teach it phenomenology.

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:02 PM EST
I went to the court with two of my friends. I'm a bit confused by the point
that SCO was trying to make with their reason for their side.. They said that
AIX is a derivative work from AT&T's code and that they needed the AIX code
to compare it with SCO's Unix to find where they infringed by putting AIX code
in Linux. maybe I'm missing something but why do they want to compare AIX to
Unix and not Linux?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kevin - the brother
Authored by: geoff lane on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:06 PM EST
Kevin McBride is Darls brother... See this CRN ar ticle.

a quote

Kevin also described his brother, the middle child, as the peacemaker in the family. "It's an odd juxtaposition to the way the industry is labeling him as disruptive," he says.

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: bbaston on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:09 PM EST
"SCO did say that they will be filing a complaint within days
on copyright violations."

Everybody load your mechanical pencils.

Can't wait to see how GNU/Linux blows SCOX away after (if) they begin copyright
activities!

PJ, we are making a difference! You could even say it snowed GOLD.


---
Ben B
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO,
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold,

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's lawyer
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:10 PM EST
Is it correct, that McBride's little brother represented SCO today in court?
WTF? Are these people insane? They bet $220m dollar of shareholder's money on a
third class lawyer from the McBride clan?

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:20 PM EST
after hearing the judge replied to some questions :

Rep.: Judge, How did you come to this verdict ?

Judge.: "all will be clear in 30 days. Now if you will excuse me, i got to
get home, My GenToo Installation will be nearly completed by now".

[ Reply to This | # ]

My view on SCO
Authored by: photocrimes on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:20 PM EST
Ok, my view so far on why SCO is acting the way it has.

Having come from an environment where there was a very big line between the
“CEO” and “CIO” as well as the worker bees I see very clearly what has happened,
and it is a mess for SCO.

First I'll start with a little story about an Engineering firm I worked for and
their IT department. Over the years the CEO had been replaced quite a few times,
not due to management. One got a better job offer, another's wife wanted to
move closer to her family, etc... The CEO that was there when I first came into
the picture was very involved in the IT workings. He was in fact from a tech
background and even had a BS in computer science. He was a good guy. Now let me
jump to the last guy who came from a previous job at a well known tire company.
I think he worked there about six months before I ever laid eyes on him. I never
saw him in the engineering department let alone the server room. So here we are
one day working on a new CAD application when the CEO marches in with some
unknown in tow. He introduces him as Mr. ***** customer relations for Microsoft
and then says “These are the guys you need to talk to, they are our team of
cracker jack code gurus...buzz word buzz word”. Funny, first time I have ever
spoke with the guy and he acts like we golf together or something. We oblige and
ask the rep what he wants to talk about and he states “Moving off of Windows
2000 onto 2003, new licensing options, etc” Well, that's nice but all we use
in the server room is Solaris and AIX, there isn't even an x86 box outside of
admin. That is when he told us that the CEO had informed him that we were a
“Windows shop” and I'm guessing he got that idea buy looking around the admin
office where he sits 99% of the time.

So what am I getting to here? I think what happened is the management team at
SCO went out and hired a code review team outside of their own department
independent of their own coders. This team comes back to the brass and says
“hey, this SCO and Linux code has a lot in common” Darl then thinks, SCO has
been around longer than Linux, they must of stole it from us! To a group of
non-tech management, this looks open and shut. At this point in time the GPL
isn't even an issue. Now I bet ole Darl never even thought of marching down to
the code room to ask what his boys have been dabbling in.

I'm sure you all see where this is going. Darl most likely didn't know any of
his guys worked on the code under the GPL, the code in question that is. He may
have even put out an order forbidding them to, but as the email archives show,
they did. Under the GPL blanket no less. Seeing as they acted as an agent for
SCO, even if without SCO's permission, they now have to backtrack. I don't
think Darl & Co. really knew what they (as SCO or Caldera) may have donated
their selves. I think they were just as shocked as everyone else to find out
exactly how involved some of their own employees were with this code in
question. This goes back to my story about the CEO in my case thinking we were a
“Windows shop” he honestly thought we were.

When SCO found out via the SCO show that code they thought was theirs actually
belonged to someone else, when they found out that their own employees were
giving up code in SCO's name under the GPL, when the notion hit them that maybe
the code in both Linux and SCO may have come from the same source, well they had
already started throwing stones.

That million lines of SCO IP just got really questionable. This of course after
papers were filed.

The real fun starts when we start showing Darl where his code came from, just
like we had to show our CEO that we are not a "Windows shop".

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:22 PM EST
I cannot stop laughing. Time has finally caught the Scornful Con Operation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Took 60,000 shares...
Authored by: John Goodwin on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:27 PM EST

to fix the closing price for the week after trading resumed. Monday AM should
be interesting. Some one's paying more than lawyers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: virginiacherry on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:30 PM EST
The lawyers know they will not get a paycheck from IBM. Rather, they may feel
it's better to open a new line of attack, hoping for a quick settlement and
20%.

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: kberrien on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:38 PM EST
Now 30 days. Does that mean SCO can produce IBM discovery requests on day 29.5,
or does this kind of thing come back to bite you later in the eyes of the
judge.




More, more details, I need more details. REFRESH, REFRESH, REFRESH. Got the
kid busy playing with playdough, REFRESH, REFRESH. I'm ready for the details
and PJ analysis.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My favorite line from the hearing-
Authored by: sam on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:40 PM EST
"... none of us know!"

Judge Wells asked why the decisions of Utah Medical and Leucadia should not
apply in granting the IBM motions. "This court and the defendants cannot
tell what in discovery is relevant and what the issues are......(emphatically)
none of us know!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: jaynan on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:42 PM EST
Motion to Compel up on Pacer:

http://pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv0029400000088.pdf

[ Reply to This | # ]

Legal Procedure Questions
Authored by: gleef on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:46 PM EST

Let's say that SCO makes some sort of token effort to get some more documents to IBM, but it's nothing that really answers the discovery requests. January 4 rolls around, IBM still isn't satisfied. What happens then? What are the procedural possibilities?

Could the judge step in automatically, or would IBM have to file another motion? Would IBM have to file another Motion to Compel, or could they go ahead and move to dismiss some or all of SCO's claims? Would it be time for the inevitable Motion(s) for Summary Judgement, or are there still additional steps in the way?

Thanks a lot.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Motion Transcribed
Authored by: jaynan on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:51 PM EST
MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

JUDGE: Hon. Brooke Wells
COURT REPORTER:
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Amy Pehrson

DATE: December 5, 2003
CASE NO. 2:03CV294DAK
SCO v IBM

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Pla Kevin McBride, Brent Hatch
Dft David Marriot, Todd Shaugnessey

MATTER SET: Motion to Compel

Counsel for both parties present. The Court hears arguments re: Motion to Compel
(#68). Court GRANTS motion. Plaintiff is to provide responses/affidavits within
30 days of the entry of this order. All other discovery is to be postponed until
the order has been complied with. An order reflecting this ruling is to be
prepared by counsel for defendant. A motion hearing is scheduled for 1/23/04 at
10:00 a.m. Court is adjourned.

Case Title: 2:03CV294DAK, SCO v IBM

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl was there
Authored by: sam on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 05:00 PM EST
The attorney representing SCO by the name of Mcbride at one point was referred
to as the brother of the CEO. They look alike. You can tell they are brothers.
Also a third guy that also looked like the other two. How many Mcbride brothers
are there? And last but not least another attorney whom I assume is Hatch did
not participate at all.

IBM was represented by Marriott and Shaughnesy. Marriott is GOOD! Slick,
professional and STAYS ON POINT. Told the judge what he was going to say, what
he was going to refute, said it, refuted it, summarized and sat down. He spoke
only about the motions and nothing else.

Mcbride was all over the map with "deeper levels of complexities",
"we're on the frontier of judicial interpretation" and the great
software war out there. Judge Wells reminded him to stick to the issues of the
motions at hand. He still went off at length about the '99 case sun v Microsoft
and how it is perfectly parrallel to this case with its claims of
misappropriation of derivitive works.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Spin
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 05:47 PM EST
Here's a bit of SCO spin on the ruling:

"A federal court judge has given the SCO Group (Quote,
Chart) 30 days to pass along detailed information proving
IBM (Quote, Chart) violated the terms of its contract,
according to a SCO official."

From an article by Jim Wagner at
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3285521
Wagner replied to my email that he expected SCO's
take would be less than fully accurate, and that
he's since updated the story with some remarks
of Eben Moglen that help clarify the situation ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 05:49 PM EST
From sam's post:

Judge Wells asked why the decisions of Utah Medical and Leucadia should not apply in granting the IBM motions. "This court and the defendants cannot tell what in discovery is relevant and what the issues are......(emphatically) none of us know!"

Now one would think that when the Judge states that neither the defendants nor the court have any idea "what the issues are" in the case, it's rather dismal for SCO. The real kicker in this is that all other discovery is posponed while in the 30 day compliance time frame, or until SCO produces the requests. So, basically IBM gets to sit back and wait for SCO to show something, anything, in the way of proof. While this isn't a dismissal, at this stage in the game, it's probably the closest thing you can get.

I'm still waiting for SCO to produce a list of files exceptionally similar to the previous list with the exception of a kernel version attached and line numbers listed 1 - XXXX where XXXX is the length of the file :)

-Tomcat

[ Reply to This | # ]

Island of the SCOG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 11:45 PM EST
There is a wonderful children's book called "Island of the Skog" by Kenneth Kellog (my wife and I own it)(available he re at Amazon.com) where a bunch of mice sail to an island haunted by a monster named the Skog. He turns out to be a small mole with in a huge costume, pretending to be big so he wouldn't be eaten.

This seems ENTIRELY appropriate. SCOG (SCO Group) == Skog == a small rodentlike operation dedicated to seeming bigger than they are, spreading FUD, and otherwise trying not to get eaten, stepped on, or destroyed.

In the end, the mole turns out to be nice, they all live together happily and play the same tune (in their mouse orchestra).

Might this also be appropriate because a Mole is a common spy term for someone who sneaks into an organization to spy on the competition or otherwise sabotage things. Microsoft invested/over-willingly paid cash to SCOG in the last group. Is the mole behind the SCOG really Gates / Balmer?

[ Reply to This | # ]

he's my brother!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 11:56 AM EST
When I first read that Kevin McBride was going to be acting on behalf of SCO, I
couldn't help remembering that Mad Magazine back cover which showed Jimmy
Carter with Billy Carter riding piggy-back on his shoulders, and the caption:
"Sure he's heavy - he's m'brother!"

[ 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 )