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's Exhibit C to Motion to Compel
Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:02 PM EST

Here is SCO's Exhibit C, attached to their Motion to Compel. Some of these issues may come up at the court hearing, on the off chance that SCO really did comply with discovery requirements, so thank you to Henrik Grouleff for transcribing. You can get the PDF here.

*******************************************************


Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail

Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esquire
Snell & Wilmer, LLP
[address]

September 22, 2003



Peter Ligh, Esquire
Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]

RE:     SCO v. IBM

Gentlemen:

        We covered so much in the many hours of discussion last week with respect to production that we thought it prudent to clarify and summarize the larger open issues. Since you asked that we address SCO's concerns with IBM's responses first, we were able to get through all of those issues. We still await your call to schedule time to finish addressing any concerns you may have with SCO's answers to IBM's requests for production and interrogatories. We do believe we will be able to resolve most, if not all, of your concerns.

To facilitate this summary, we will track Todd's correspondence of September 15, 2003.



I.     General Objections

        General Objection Nos. 1-3, 5, 7, 10. IBM has objected and stated it will conduct a reasonable search for responsive documents by determining the likely sources of the information sought and, with respect to individuals, searching their computer, office and home files. As we discussed, while this initial step is appropriate for both sides, both sides are not just obligated to perform a reasonable search, but also to act in good faith to produce all responsive documents. In any event, you have confirmed that you are not withholding responsive, non-privileged documents.

Along these lines, we had discussed preparing a source log to accompany the CDs. We agreed that this is a good idea and will be providing one later this week for the 46 previously provided CDs. For future logs, the necessary information should be an identification of the source (i.e. general file, source code, individual). If it is an individual, we should identify the person and their position in the company so we know whether they were involved in particular issues, e.g. Linux, AIX, licensing, etc.

        General Objection No. 4. We have agreed that both SCO and IBM will use January 1, 1985 as the start date for documents, however, should responsive non-privileged documents of an earlier date be discovered, they will be produced. Additionally, you were going to determine whether you believed there were any particular requests for which IBM required documents which predated 1985. Please advise.

        General Objection No. 6. We directed you to the allegations in SCO's Amended Complaint, including, without limitation, as related to NUMA, RCU and SMP technology. Todd advised that in light of his technical disadvantage, he would discuss this issue with others and get back to us to ensure that IBM will produce responsive non-privileged documents, even in light of this objection.

        General Objection No. 8. You have confirmed that you will provide responsive, non-privileged documents in IBM's possession even if they are also publicly available.

        General Objection No. 10. You have confirmed that you are not withholding documents on this basis.

        General Objection No. 11. You have confirmed that you will produce responsive, non-privileged documents and that the limitation you placed with respect to IBM's attempts "in most instances to discern the information sought" meant only that IBM had not "attempted...to discern" information with respect to Intel processors. We clarified that SCO only seeks information .regarding Intel processors with UNIX, AIX or Linux platforms. You will confirm that you will provide responsive, non-privileged documents with this limitation.

        General Objection No. 15. Please see our previous corresponding comments.

        General Objection No. 17. We both agreed to this but the Court order has now been entered.

        General Objection No. 18. Nothing is being withheld.

        General Objection No. 19. This remains as our big issue, i.e., our position that IBM is obligated to produce "derivative works, modifications and methods" vs. IBM's position that it cannot determine what those terms mean, despite their specific use in the agreements between the parties. Nevertheless, Peter confirmed that he is not aware that IBM is withholding anything based upon it being a derivative rather than AIX itself and that IBM is producing any AIX, UNIX, and Dynix documents even if they are, arguably, related to a derivative work, modification or method. To assist in locating responsive documents for the methods of the various operating systems, we need all programming notes, comments, and experiments, including interim and final versions of UNIX, AIX and Linux programming. This includes but is not limited to technical UNIX categories, such as multi-processor locking and unlocking methods, methods for avoiding locking requirements, methods of implementing filing systems, de-bugging methods, methods for implementing and improving processor scalability, methods for implementing and improving processor reliability, methods for implementing processor accessibility, methods for implementing and improving scheduling systems, methods for implementing and improving memory management, methods for implementing and improving threading and multi-threading, and methods for implementing and improving general system functionality based on UNIX technology.

We reiterate the necessity for all versions, not just the final versions. These are essential to determine the full scope of IBM's violations.

        General Objection No. 20. You have agreed that the definition of IBM shall include its officers and that you have not found any directors who are not also officers, but shall advise us in the event that is the case. In addition, "IBM" includes Sequent materials in IBM's custody, control or possession.

        General Objection No. 21. See our comments in General Objection No. 19 above.

        General Objection No. 22. See our comments in General Objection No. 6 above.



II.    Document Responses

        Response to Request No. 1. You have confirmed that responsive, non-privileged documents are being produced.

        Response to Request Nos. 2 and 3. See our comments to General Objection No. 19, above. We need confirmation as to whether we are getting all versions of the requested items, not simply the final version. Also, you need to let us know when we can get these documents in light of your statement that there are third party notifications that must be issued. Because it is being produced pursuant to litigation and under a confidentiality notice, I don't understand the need for such notifications. Nonetheless, please tell me the date upon which we will get the documents.

        Response to Request Nos. 4-6. You have agreed that you will not withhold responsive, non-privileged documents except with respect to General Objection No. 22. Please see our comments in General Objection No. 6, above.

        Response to Request Nos. 7-9. See our comments to Request Nos. 4-6, above.

        Response to Request No.10. You have confirmed that responsive, non-privileged documents will be produced.

        Response to Request No. 11. We have agreed that the only documents we seek with respect to open-source contributions are those related to UNIX, AIX, Dynix and Linux. With that limitation, you have agreed to produce responsive, non-privileged documents which shall include e-mails. You have also confirmed that even though you stated a limitation of collecting documents from members of LTC and OSSC, you have also collected responsive, non-privileged documents from others who may have had involvement and have responsive, non-privileged documents. Along these lines, we need written confirmation of the additional sources of documents, which may include the AIX Development Lab in Austin, Texas and the AIX work done in Germany, any UNIX, AIX, Dynix or Linux work done in Beaverton, Oregon and, if applicable to any of our requests, The Thomas Watson Research Centers. In short, we need assurances that the discovery responses from IBM include searches wherever AIX, Dynix and Linux were being performed.

        Response to Request Nos. 12-14. You have confirmed that you will stand on your objection to these requests, but will look into the issue. In the meantime, you will provide the source code as stated in your responses. Again, we need to know the date of such production.

        Response to Request Nos. 15-17. We talked about exchanging lists of such witnesses on a given date. What date would you propose?

        Response to Request No. 18. You have confirmed that you will produce responsive, non-privileged documents.

        Response to Request Nos. 19-25. You have confirmed that you will provide the relevant documents and that the phraseology of the objection was not an attempt to play semantic games. Again, when can we expect such documents?

        Response to Request Nos. 26-27. You have confirmed that you will provide either documents or a list reflecting the names of the individuals, the dates of employment, the nature of their work and the relevant projects they worked on. Please also include the most recent contact information IBM maintains. As noted earlier, you will address the amount of time IBM needs to produce this information and we will agree to exchange said information at that time.

        Response to Request No. 28. You have confirmed that you will provide responsive, non-privileged documents and that the statement that you will be "searching for documents from IBM employees with significant involvement in technical, business development and contractual aspects of Project Monterey" will not limit you from collecting documents from other employees who may have relevant responsive documents.

        Response to Request Nos. 29-31. See our response to General Objection No. 19, above.

        Response to Request Nos. 32-34. You have confirmed that the use of the term "memoranda" was illustrative and not limiting of the kinds of documents you will search for and produce.

        Response to Request No. 35. You have confirmed that you will produce responsive, non-privileged documents relative to UNIX, AIX, Dynix, or Linux from the files of LTC, OSSC, and other personnel who may have particular relevant information.

        Response to Request No. 36. We have agreed that IBM will produce responsive, non-privileged documents for units involved in AIX, Dynix, Linux and Project Monterey. If you have such information for Project Gemini, we would appreciate receiving that also.

        Response to Request No. 37. We accept your position consistent with our previous comments, and do not require additional information.

        Response to Request Nos. 38 and 39. We clarified, with respect to Request No. 38, that we are seeking, for instance, the course guidelines, handouts, presentations and the like. Peter confirmed that what we seek is consistent with what IBM sought and you will produce all such responsive, non-privileged documents. With respect to Request No. 39, you have confirmed that you will produce responsive, non-privileged documents that would include files, contracts, e-mails, drafts and memoranda on the subject.

        Response to Request Nos. 40-41. We have agreed to accept a limitation on this request so that it relates only to the use of UNIX, AIX, Dynix or Linux on Intel processors. You advised that you will check on this and get back to us.

        Response to Request Nos. 42. See our comments to Response to Request No. 11.

        Response to Request Nos. 43-52. You have confirmed that you will produce all responsive, non-privileged documents.



III.   Interrogatory Responses

        Interrogatory No. 2. You will provide the names, addresses and subject matter about which each of the officers and directors have knowledge. You will get back to us with a date upon which we may exchange this information.

        Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 5. See our comment to Interrogatory 2 above.



Very truly yours


[signature]
Mark J. Heise

cc: Brent Hatch


  


SCO's Exhibit C to Motion to Compel | 120 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
General Objection #19
Authored by: Scriptwriter on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:30 PM EST
"Mr. Heise, would you kindly approach the bench?"

"Yes, Your Honor."

"Mr. Heise, when a lawyer enters my courtroom, I expect him to be properly
dressed, with a suit and tie. You appear to be wearing an old flannel shirt, a
vest with . . . with who knows what in it, jeans, and a hat with a bunch of
lures stuck in it. In addition, you appear to be carrying a fishing pole. I
trust you have an explanation?"

---
He who sells / What isn't his'n / Is headed for / Some time / In prison /
Burma-Shave

irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw

[ Reply to This | # ]

Seemingly lost comment
Authored by: bstadil on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:50 PM EST
I am posting this here as this comments seems to be posted so late on the ABI thread that probably few saw it. Anyone have any idea if anyone from the ANSI commitee has been contacted?

Hello all, on December 22 2003 Michael Meissner posted the following comment on Groklaw:

I was a member of the ANSI X3J11 C standards committee from its founding in 1983 until after the first ANSI and later ISO standards were released in 1989 and 1990 respecitively. As part of the process, AT&T through its official representive (Lawrence Rosler) specificially gave the rights to the C language and its library (including the ctype.h, signal.h, and errno.h header files) to the committe. I believe they did the same thing officially to the POSIX committee at the same time (which would cover ioctl.h and more of the errnos in errno.h, and more of the signals in signal.h). Unfortunately, I no longer retain paper documents from that period, but if it becomes important to establish a clear paper trail, I suspect Jim Brody (chair), Tom Plum (Vice char), and P. J. Plauger (secretary) probably do retain their copies.

Unfortunately this information seems to have got lost in the noise. So, can somebody follow up on this lead? Regards J.

[ Reply to This | # ]

4/5 issues from last hearing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 11:24 PM EST
IANAL

It seems to me that there are essentially 4 (or 5) issues at the last (Dec 5)
hearing

1. Whether SCO had/should respond properly to IBM's interrogatories 1 to 9,
where IBM asked SCO to detail what SCO thought IBM had misappropriated. [IBM's
first motion to compel discovery]

2. Whether SCO had/should respond properly to IBM's interrogatories 12 and 13,
where IBM asked SCO to detail all SCO's alleged rights in Linux. [IBM 2nd motion
to compel discovery]

3. Whether SCO had/should produce the documents that IBM requested. [IBM 2nd
motion to compel discovery]

4. Whether IBM should be required to lay all details of their AIX/Dynix/Linux
development on the table, so SCO could attempt to digest them, before SCO could
fine tune (or create) their allegations [SCO motion to compel discovery]

5. (Half issue) Whether SCO is gaming the discovery process


Well it seems to me, going point by point

#1 - SCO essentially gave two excuses during the discovery process why they had
not previously properly responded:
(i) It's buried in this mound of documents, Linux, Sys V source code, and
AT&T licenses
(ii) SCO needs discovery from IBM.

However, the court ruled (as of Dec 5), SCO had not properly responded and is
required to do so.

Now if you read the court order, it seems to me that SCO are required to point
to documents (by Bates number) that they, SCO, had previously produced.


#2 - SCO gave 3 excuses during the discovery process:

(i) It's buried in this mound of documents, Linux, Sys V source code, and
AT&T licenses

(ii) SCO needs discovery from IBM.

(iii) The case arises from IBM's misconduct, and all SCO's rights are not
relevant.

However, the court ruled (as of Dec 5), SCO had not properly responded and is
required to do so. IBM pointed out they have counterclaims, so (iii) is no
excuse not to produce.


#3 SCO essentially gave the excuse that they were in rolling production

However, the court gave them 30 days to produce the all the documents


#4 Review of SCO's motion was stayed on Dec 5.

Now the interesting part is why. IBM pointed out in numerous discovery-related
letters that they couldn't know whether a particular document was properly
discoverable, without knowing the specific allegations. IBM pointed to a lot
case law which showed that in trade secret cases, the plaintiff (i.e. SCO) must
specify the trade secrets at issue at the outset, and that discovery could even
be stayed, until the allegations are specified.

Implicit in SCO's motion, is production of IBM code that is not yet in SCO's
specific allegations.


#5 While no specific motion was tied into this (except the delay motions), the
court's attention fell upon the production of source code by SCO in image format
(pointed to by IBM). IBM remarked they thought SCO was gaming.

The Judge didn't seem to comment on this, except she understood IBM's position.

The "gaming" issue could also arise from other pending motions which
are on the docket for Feb 6.



Now it seems to me that SCO have a number of possible problems going into the
next hearing

#1
Did they respond properly? (We don't know without seeing the 60 pages). To me it
seems unlikely for this reason:

(i) The court asked SCO to point to documents that SCO had produced previously.
Tibbitts affidavit includes numerous references to IBM production (source code).
These are not documents that SCO produced previously (and their previous sworn
response was the information was in documents that SCO had produced).

Did they respond completely? I don't think they can have, because:
(iii) Tibbitts' affidavit talks about IBM code and Linux code. I can't see how
they can even attempt to answer most of the questions for IBM code. Unless they
go back to... we need discovery from IBM to answer (which the court already
rejected)
(iv) Tibbitts' affidavit makes not a single mention of comparisons between
Unixware or Sys V and Linux. We don't know if some reference to any such
comparisons are in the 60 pages, but it seems to me likely that he'd have
mentioned them in his affidavit if they were part of the 60.

#2
Essentially the same issues as #1, plus we have comments from Stowell suggesting
that SCO did not include copyright issues in their filing.


In short, for #1 and #2:

I would think it most likely, that SCO have gone back to their earlier
responses
(a) They need info from IBM to answer these questions (and Tibbitts affidavit
specifically requests more info from IBM including OS/2 now!)
(b) #2 is not relevant to the case, because it arises from IBM's misconduct.

In other words, arguments that the court has already rejected.


#3
Aside from any issues that arise from #1 and #2, we have the late production
after the Xmas holidays.

I think there are certain categories that will be problematic for SCO?

Where are the MIT analysts reports? Will they exist or be produced?

What about damages calculations? They say they want $3bn. The only
justification in the press that I have read is X million Linux servers X $699 or
whatever. This is not going to last 5 minutes of IBM scrutiny if this is the
logic. Because, for starters, SCO do not have a single $3bn claim, but three
different $1bn claims. So their paperwork should justify each claim coming to
$1bn... this will be hard.


#4 I already commented on this in "In short, for #1 and #2"


#5 There are lots of opportunities for the "gaming" issue to come up
again next hearing:

Aside from any issues from #1 to #4, all those delay motions.

Like (for example):

(i) The one about seeking extra time to respond to IBM's 1st motion to compel.
The sequence was
- SCO asked for extra time, saying IBM's memo was not specific enough
- IBM said they would not normally oppose such a delay, but feared it was being
used for an improper purpose or some such. Besides which, SCO had not even read
all of IBM's filing
- SCO filed a substitute motion asking for time (which was granted), admitting
they had not read all IBM's filing
- When the time ran out, SCO filed supplemental responses (which the court also
ruled inadequate on Dec 5), and opposed the IBM motion.

In short, it may look to the court that SCO was simply flailing for time to do
supplemental responses (which are plainly inadequate too), and there was an
improper purpose

(ii) SCO's motion for time to extend to IBM's third set of interrogatories

- This is the one where SCO said they were looking for a patent lawyer. And
besides which they should have to respond to any of IBM's interrogatories in
this immediately, since 3 sub-parts (of 26) of one particular question might
eventually not prove relevant.

- The 3 sub-parts of 26 where about affirmative defenses. If SCO is considering
using affirmative defenses, shouldn't they have some basis for potentially using
them?

- Why not respond to *anything* on such a small point

- IANAL, but I have read on GROKLAW that the 3 particular affirmative defenses
are extremely likely to be striken. Which sort of compounds the last point.

- Who is the new patent attorney? Has the court been told? Has IBM?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: New Docket Entry in Red Hat Suit
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 11:29 PM EST

It looks like it's just a "Leave Me Alone" order from the judge, but
I'll post it here so everyone knows about it, and can comment if they wish:

1/29/04 ORDER effective immediately the court will not consider applications and
requests submitted by letter or in a form other than a motion, absent express
approval by the court; no telephone calls are to be made to chambers; emergency
matters should be emailed to the court at the address provided with no
attachments (signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson ) copies to: cnsl. (rd)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Exhibit C to Motion to Compel
Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 11:57 PM EST
If the SCO Group confines its substantiation to just one set of allegations,
i.e. contract violations, then it is reasonable to surmise that its case will be
allowed to go forward after all the allegations it has either not substantiated
or failed to substantiate have been pruned off its lawsuit.

The major determination the court will have to make is whether there is a
reasonable probability that the SCO Group will actually substantiate those
allegations it has failed to substantiate, if given extra time.

The SCO Group may very well find out the hard way that to go forward with a
severely mutilated lawsuit that it is doomed to lose by any objective measure is
worse than having the entire lawsuit dismissed out of hand.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Paying for email?!
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 11:57 PM EST
Here's a disturbing development. Bill Gates and Yahoo making noises about charging for email! How they plan on implementing this madness escapes me (maybe they should consult Ed Anger protoge and wild eyed PR flack, funnyman Rob Enderle about his proposed identity authentication solution):

'Ten days ago, Bill Gates, Microsoft's chairman, told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that spam would not be a problem in two years, in part because of systems that would require people to pay money to send e-mail. Yahoo, meanwhile, is quietly evaluating an e-mail postage plan being developed by Goodmail, a Silicon Valley start-up company.

"The fundamental problem with spam is there is not enough friction in sending e-mail," said Brad Garlinghouse, Yahoo's manager for communications products.

The company is intrigued by the idea of postage, Mr. Garlinghouse said, because it would force mailers to send only those offers a significant number of people might accept. "All of a sudden, spammers can't behave without regard for the Internet providers' or end users' interests, " he said.'


Let me just cut all you conspiracy theorists of at the pass by pointing out that Mydoom was obviously the first leg of their marketing campaign! (just kidding, folks)

Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Exhibit C to Motion to Compel
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 01:39 AM EST
This case is finished! How could anyone even contemplate the notion of owning
the patents and copyrights for a process or invention while re-directing 95% of
the proceeds due to that product or invention to a third party. So how much was
the final selling price? is the total value of the product ever mentioned in any
of the contracts. It seems like a situation where one company owns a nifty
widget but doesn't relish the pain of jumping through all the hoops just to gain
a little more revenue(perhaps over dramatized) and a respectable company asks
for the privilage of taking on the promotion of the widget to be included with
its own products as a way of adding value but sending money back to the real
owner of the widget...a win,win situation

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Good point - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 03:13 AM EST
OT: Court Rules Verizon Can Refuse to ID Customers to Music Industry
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 02:12 AM EST
Just found this article while surfing. Thought it would be interesting for the
readers here at Groklaw. Finally, even more fairness is coming out of the
GNU/Linux community standing up together.

http://www.eff.org/Cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/20031219_eff_pr.php

PJ, not sure if you've already got it in your archives but it may be something
you'd like to keep around. Hope it helps. Sorry bout the tag, I've forgotten how
to write the proper tags for links.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could Novell case be SCO escape route?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 02:40 AM EST
While at work today, somehow the thought came to me that maybe the case against
Novell was brought about to ensure that when SCOG goes to court this Friday (6
Feb 04), the IBM case isn't thrown out 'with prejudice.' Using this 'new
development' as an excuse as to why they have so far been unable to produce
anything substantial.

IANAL and do not know if this can/could actually happen. Maybe someone else
could enlighten me as to the rules about using one case against another in this
type of situation. And if there are any possible repurcussions on it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: MyDoom fails to start 75% of the time
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 02:41 AM EST
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/business/7859600.htm

"Due to a bug in the code, the (denial-of-service) attack will fail to
start 75 percent of the time," said Network Associates, which sells the
McAfee line of computer security software...

Schmugar estimated that perhaps a half-million personal computers are infected
with MyDoom. But many are turned off, or not connected full time to the
Internet, so the actual number involved in the attack is much smaller.
"It's 25,000 to 50,000," Schmugar said."

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Exhibit C to Motion to Compel
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 04:03 AM EST
How the %&#"! do I submimt a story at this place?
Anyway, check out
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/43495.htm
and the comments to it. Discussion about GPL basically. The author claims SCO is
rigth, others have their own opinions about the sanity of the author. Can't see
that it has been discussed here yet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Exhibit C to Motion to Compel
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 04:47 AM EST
i pay for email already; it comes with my internet package. works great and no
"helpful" messages from msn hotmail staff.

good luck with this.

oh, and tune in next week when google introduces per search charges to cut down
on db-stressing vague and undirected searches like "flowers."

sum.zero

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Exhibit C to Motion to Compel
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 06:36 AM EST
Whats to stop the spamers from downloading an email server and bypassing
microsoft and yahoo?

[ Reply to This | # ]

RE: Response to Request No. 36.
Authored by: berny@work on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 08:23 AM EST
Umm, sorry for my bad memory but what was Project Gemini?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - Mr. Enderle responds ...
Authored by: DarrenR114 on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 09:53 AM EST

Yesterday, under another thread, I posted an email that I sent to Mr. Rob Enderle regarding some unfounded statements he made regarding Linux that I have had to respond to in the daily course of conducting business (can you say 'undue interference of commerce'?).

Last night, I did indeed receive a reply from Mr. Enderle. At least one Groklaw reader indicated that they wanted me to keep the group informed, so here is my original email, his reply, and my initial follow-up.

It is my intention to stop any future commentary on Linux and OSS by Mr. Enderle either voluntarily or by court order.


Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:16:50 -0800 (PST)

From: Darren Remington

Subject: False Public Statements by The SCO Group and Rob Enderle

To: Rob Enderle

Mr. Enderle,

In recent weeks, representatives of The SCO Group (TSG), including but not limited to Darl McBride, Blake Stowell and Chris Sontag, have made many false and misleading statements regarding UNIX, Linux, and Open Source Software. Your biased 'reports' regarding Linux show that you have jumped on this bandwagon of un-informed 'linux bashing' using questionable tactics.

The most recent misleading and/or false claims by these gentlemen (if such a term can be applicable to these scoundrels) have been to imply that the MyDoom email worm is the product of 'Linux' or the 'Linux Community'. You have actively participated in this ruse with your article featured on TechNewsWorld.com at http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/32745.html .

These statements have had a concrete, negative impact on my livelihood. Therefore, I am forced to respond to the statements by TSG and yourself tracing back to January, 2003.

Specifically you claim "Some Linux advocates are saying they would load this virus "gladly" just so they could harm strangers who did nothing more than work for SCO or run an OS they don't like." You make this claim without any demonstration of evidence. Nor do you make any reference to the many statements of condemnation of such behavior coming from recognized leaders in this very same 'community'.

In the interest of rectifying any negative impact of the many false and misleading statements by you on my business, I require that public statements be made denouncing any and all previous implications that MyDoom came from Linux, the Linux community, or the Open Source community. These statements must be clear and unambiguous.

Also, as you have demonstrated nothing but contempt for your position as a member of the journalistic community, I require that you cease and desist any and all 'analysis' of matters related to Open Source Software, Linux, and the Linux community. This may seem harsh and unreasonable, but you have yet to show any sense of responsibility when reporting on facts and events. Members of the press do not have the right to lie or misrepresent facts even under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Your poor behavior has had a direct and negative impact on my livelihood.

Failure to comply with my two requirements as stated above will force me to file for relief in a court of law.

I will allow 24 hours from transmittal of this e-mail for you to respond.

Sincerely,

Darren Remington


Subject: RE: False Public Statements by The SCO Group and Rob Enderle

Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:53:48 -0800

From: "Rob Enderle"

To: "Darren Remington"

Editing pulled a number of links in the final edit. The one you want is here:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,62058,00.html?tw=wn_tophead _ 1

The original draft had a large number of links in it supporting a number of points, editing made the decisions to pull them.

I stand by my story.

Rob Enderle

Enderle Group

www.enderlegroup.com


Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 06:09:14 -0800 (PST)

From: "Darren Remington"

Subject: RE: False Public Statements by The SCO Group and Rob Enderle

To: "Rob Enderle"

Mr. Enderle,

This email is to acknowlege receipt of your email reply dated 02Feb2004. Thank you for your timely response.

I am currently reviewing the source article that you refer to as well as the Slashdot discussion thread referred to in that article.

Upon first examination, none of the posts in the subject Slashdot thread that you refer to in your article are posted by anyone claiming to be Linux users, Linux advocates or even Open Source Software (OSS) advocates.

It would therefore seem that the anti-Linux statements that you have made have no basis in fact.

As I said, I will be reviewing the subject source article and slashdot thread more closely to either validate or refute my initial findings. I will have a more complete response to send to you within 24 hours of transmittal of this email.

Sincerely,

Darren Remington

---
No job is too small for dynamite ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Essential to determine the full scope of IBM's violations.
Authored by: crythias on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 11:13 AM EST
I think this one sentence sums it up:
We reiterate the necessity for all versions, not just the final versions. These are essential to determine the full scope of IBM's violations.
Can there be any clearer violation of court procedure?

[ 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 )