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
IBM's Answer to SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint
Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 06:45 PM EST

IBM has filed its Answer to SCO's Second Amended Complaint. I will have a chart with side-by-side view with SCO's complaint ready soon, but meanwhile, you might wish to get started reading. IBM, as always, gives up nothing it doesn't need to. Just the legal equivalent of name, rank and serial number, which is appropriate in an answer to a complaint. The big news is that IBM is asking for a dismissal with prejudice, not just a dismissal, which is what they asked for last time. [Correction: It is different from what they asked for in their May Answer; however, it is not anything new after all, because in August they amended the Answer and asked for dismissal with prejudice then.] With prejudice means SCO would not be able to refile against IBM on these same matters.

Thanks to eggplant37, we have a quick text version now as well.

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

Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
SNELL & WILMER LLP
(address info)
(telephone info)
(fax info)

Evan R Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
(address info)
(telephone info)

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation
__________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

__________________________________________

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant

-against-

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff

___________________________________________

DEFENDANT IBM'S ANSWER TO
SCO'S SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT

Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

___________________________________________

In answer to the averments of the Second Amended Complaint of The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), defendant International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM"), by and through its attorneys, avers as follows, based upon personal knowledge as to its own actions and upon information adn belief as to the actions and intent of others:

NATURE OF THIS ACTION

1. Denies the averments of paragraph

2. Denies the averments of paragraph 2 as they relate to IBM, except refers to the referenced licenses for their contents and states that IBM is without information sufficient to forma belief as to the truth of the averments as they relate to any other person or entity.

3. Denies the averments of paragraph 3.

4. Denies the averments of paragraph 4 as they relate to IBM, and states that IBM is without information sufficnet to form a belief as to the truth of the averments as they relate to any other person or entity.

5. States that the averments of paragraph 5 purport to chracterize SCO's reasons for filing the lawsuit, and do not require a response. To the extent a response is required, IBM denies the averments.

6. Denies the averments of paragraph 6.

7. Denies the averments of paragraph 7, except refers to the referenced documents for its contents.

8. Denies the averments of paragraph 8, except refers to the referenced documents for its contents.

9. Denies the averments of paragraph 9, except refers to the referenced documents for its contents.

10. Denies the averments of paragraph 10.

11. Denies the averments of paragraph 11.

12. Denies the averments of paragraph 12.

13. Denies the averments of paragraph 13.

14. Denies the averments of paragraph 14.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15. Denies the averments of paragraph 15.

16. Denies the averments of paragraph 16.

17. Denies the averments of paragraph 17, except admits that Sequent was formerly an Oregon corporation which was subsequently merged into IBM.

18. States that the averments of paragraph 18 purport to state a legal conclusion and do not require a response.

19. Denies the averments of paragraph 19.

BACKGROUND

20. Denies the averments of paragraph 20, especially insofar as they purport to describe all operating systems or purport to identify "UNIX" as a single operating system.

21. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truths of the averments of paragraph 21, except denies the "market" averments and that Windows serves as "the" link described in the averments.

22. Denies the averments of paragraph 22 as to IBM and states that it iss without information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth of the averments of paragraph 22 as they relate to other parties.

23. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 23.

24. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 24, except admits that AT&T Technologies, Inc. licensed certain software to IBM and Sequent.

25. Denies the averments of paragraph 25 as they relate to IBM, except admits that IBM develops, manufactures and markets a UNIX product and states that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments as they relate to any other person or entity.

26. States that it is without sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 26.

27. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the avverments of paragraph 27.

28. Denies the averments of paragraph 28, excpet admits that IBM markets a UNIX product underr the trade name "AIX".

29. Denies the averments of paragraph 29, excpet admits that Sequent marketed a UNIX product under the trade name "DYNIX/ptx".

30. Denies the averments of paragrpah 30 as they relate to IBM and Sequent or to AIX and Dynix/ptx, except states that IBM develps, manufactures and markets a product under the name "Dynix/ptx". IBM states that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments as they relate to any other person or entity.

31. Denies the averments of paragraph 31.

32. Denies the averments of paragraph 32, except states that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the second sentence.

33. States that it is without informatin sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the avermnets of paragraph 33, except denies the "market" averments.

34. Denies the averments of paragraph 34.

35. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 35.

36. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 36.

37. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 37.

38. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 38, except adits that IBM POWER chips are currently more powerful than the Intel chips described in those averments.

39. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 39.

40. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 40.

41. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 41.

42. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 42.

43. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 43.

44. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 44.

45. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 45.

46. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 46.

47. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 47.

48. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 48.

49. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 49.

50. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 50, excpet admits that UnixWare ran on Intel-based processors.

51. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 51.

52. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 52.

53. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 53, except admits that IBM and The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. (a California corporation now known as Tarantella, Inc., which is not affiliated with SCO) entered into an agreement to develop and operating system for a 64-bit processing platform that was being developed by Intel and that the project was known as Project Monterey.

54. Denies the averments of paragraph 54.

55. Denies the averments of paragraph 55 as they relate to IBM, except admits that The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. provided information to IBM concerning UnixWare and certain software, and states that IBM is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments as they relate to any other person or entity.

56. Denies the averments of paragraph 56.

57. Denies the averments of paragraph 57.

58. Denies the averments of paragraph 58 as they relate to IBM, except admits that AT&T Technologies, Inc. licensed certain operating system software code to IBM, refers to the licensed agreements for their contents and states that IBM is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 58 as they relate to any other person or entity.

59. Denies the averments of paragraph 59.

60. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 60.

61. Denies the averments of paragraph 61.

62. Denies the averments of paragraph 62, except refers to the referenced documents for their contents.

63. Denies the averments of paragraph 63, except refers to the denies the averments of paragraph 63, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

64. Denies the averments of paragraph 64, except refers to the referenced documents for their contents.

65. Denies the averments of paragraph 65, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

66. States that the averments of paragraph 66 purport to define a term for purposes of SCO's complaint and do not require a response. To the extent a response is required, IBM denies the averments of paragraph 66, except refers to the referenced documents for their contents.

67. Denies the averments in paragraph 67, except refers to the referenced documents for their contents.

68. States that the averments of paragraph 68 purport to define a term for purposes of SCO's complaint and do not require a response. To the extent a response is required, IBM denies the averments of paragraph 68, except refers to the referenced documents for their contents.

69. Denies the averments of 69, except refers to the referenced documents for their contents.

70. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 70.

71. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 71.

72. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 72.

73. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 73.

74. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 74.

75. Denies the averments of paragraph 75 as they relate to IBM and states that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to paragraph 75 as they relate to any other person or entity, excpet admits that Linux is developed under an open-source model.

76. Denies the averments of paragraph 76.

77. Denies the averments of paragraph 77.

78. Denies the averments of paragraph 78 as they relate to IBM and states that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments as they relate to any other person or entity.

80. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 80.

81. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 81.

82. Denies the averments of paragraph 82, except admits that IBM has contributed to the development of Linux, has years of experience with operating systems and licenses UNIX System V software.

83. Denies the averments of paragraph 83.

84. Denies the averments of paragraph 84.

85. Denies the averments of paragraph 85 as they relate to IBM, except admits that IBM has increased its IBM Global Services staff and states that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 85 as they relate to any other person or entity.

86. Denies the averments of paragraph 86.

87. Denies the averments of paragraph 87.

88. Denies the averments of paragraph 88.

89. Denies the averments of paragraph 89, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

90. Denies the averments of paragraph 90.

91. Denies the averments of paragraph 91 and states that IBM has not open sourced any part of AIX that it did not have the right to open source.

92. Denies the averments of paragraph 92.

93. Denies the averments of paragraph 93, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

94. Denies the averments of paragraph 94.

95. Denies the averments of paragraph 95, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

96. Denies the averments of paragraph 96, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

97. Denies the averments of paragraph 97, except it states that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in the second sectence of paragraph 97.

98. Denies the averments of paragraph 98.

99. Denies the averments of paragraph 99, except admits that IBM has properly and lawfully contributed to the development of Linux and refers to the contributions (which are publicly available) for their contents.

100. Denies the averments of paragraph 100, except admits that IBM has properly and lawfully contributed to the development of Linux and refers to the contributions (which are publicly available) for their contents.

101. Denies the averments of paragraph 101, excpet admits that IBM has properly and lawfully contributed to the development of Linux and refers to the contributions (which are publicly available) for their contents.

102. Denies the averments of paragraph 102, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

103. [Missing from Second Amended Complaint]

104. Denies the averments of paragraph 104, except admits that Sequent licensed UNIX System V from AT&T, refers to the referenced documents for their contents, admits that IBM has properly and lawfully contributed to the development of Linux, and refers to the contributions (which are publicly available) for their contents.

105. Denies the averments of paragraph 105, excpet admits that IBM has properly and lawfully contributed to the development of Linux and refers to the contributions (which are publicly available) for their contents.

106. Denies the averments of paragraph 106, except admits that Paul McKenney was employed at Sequent and is now employed at IBM and that IBM has properly and lawfully contributed to the development of Linux and refers to the contributions (which are publicly available) for their contents.

107. Denies the averments of paragraph 107, excpet admits that IBM has properly and lawfully contributed to the development of Linux and refers to the contributions (which are publicly available) for their contents.

108. Denies the averments of paragraph 108, excpet admits that IBM has properly and lawfully contributed to the development of Linux and refers to the contributions (which are publicly available) for their contents.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

110. Repeats and realleges, in response to paragraph 110 (SCO's second), its answers to the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 109 (SCO's second) and 110 (SCO's first) as if fully set forth herein.

111. Denies the averments of paragraph 111, except states that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the first sentence of paragraph 111, and refers to the referenced documents for its contents.

112. Denies the averments of paragraph 112, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

113. Denies the averments of paragraph 113.

114. Denies the averments of paragraph 114, except refers to the referenced documents for their contents.

115. Denies the averments of paragraph 115, except refers to the referenced documents for its contents.

116. Denies the averments of paragraph 116.

117. Denies the averments of paragraph 117, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

118. Denies the averments of paragraph 118.

119. Denies the averments of paragraph 119.

120. Denies the averments of paragraph 120, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

121. Denies the averments of paragraph 121 as they relate to IBM, refers to the referenced document for its contents, and states that IBM is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments as they relate to any other person or entity.

122. Denies the averments of paragraph 122.

123. Denies the averments of paragraph 123.

124. Denies the averments of paragraph 124, except refers to the referenced document for its contents, states that the averments purport to characterize the laws of the United States and to those laws for their contents.

125. Denies the averments of paragraph 125.

126. Denies the averments of paragraph 126, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

127. Denies the averments of paragraph 127, and refers to the referenced document for its contents.

128. Denies the averments of paragraph 128, excpet refers to the referenced documents for their contents.

129. Denies the averments of paragraph 129, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

130. Denies the averments of paragraph 130.

131. Denies the averments of paragraph 131.

132. Denies the averments of paragraph 132, excpet refers to the referenced documents for their contents, and admits that IBM lawfully uses certain software products and source code.

133. Denies the averments of paragraph 133.

134. Denies the averments of paragraph 134.

135. Denies the averments of paragraph 135.

136. Denies the averments of paragraph 136.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

137. Repeats and realleges its answers to the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 136 as if fully set forth herein.

138. Denies the averments of paragraph 138, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

139. Denies the averments of paragraph 139.

140. Denies the averments of paragraph 140.

141. Denies the averments of paragraph 141.

142. Denies the averments of paragraph 142.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

143. Repeats and realleges its answers to the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 143 as if fully set forth herein.

144. Denies the averments of paragraph 144, except states that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the first sentence of paragraph 144, and refers to the referenced document for its contents.

145. Denies the averments of paragraph 145, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

146. Denies the averments of paragraph 146 as they relate to IBM and states that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 146 as they relate to any other person or entity.

147. Denies the averments of paragraph 147, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

148. Denies the averments of paragraph 148, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

149. Denies the averments of paragraph 149.

150. Denies the averments of paragraph 150, except refers to the referenced code and documentation for their contents.

151. Denies the averments of paragraph 151.

152. Denies the averments of paragraph 152, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

153. Denies the averments of paragraph 153.

154. Denies the averments of paragraph 154, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

155. Denies the averments of paragraph 155.

156. Denies the averments of paragraph 156, except refers to the referenced document for its contents, states that the averments purport to characterize the laws of the United States and refers to those laws for their contents.

157. Denies the averments of paragraph 157.

158. Denies the averments of paragraph 158, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

159. Denies the averments of paragraph 159, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

160. Denies the averments of paragraph 160.

161. Denies the averments of paragraph 161.

162. Denies the averments of paragraph 162, except refers to the referenced documents for their contents, and admits that IBM continues to lawfully use certain UNIX software products and source code.

163. Denies the averments of paragraph 163.

164. Denies the averments of paragraph 164.

165. Denies the averments of paragraph 165.

166. Denies the averments of paragraph 166.

FOURTH CASE OF ACTION

167. Repeats and realleges its answers to the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 166 as if fully set forth herein.

168. Denies the averments of paragraph 168, except states that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the first sentence of paragraph 168, and refers to the referenced documents for their contents.

169. Denies the averments of paragraph 169.

170. Denies the averments of paragraph 170.

171. Denies the averments of paragraph 171.

172. Denies the averments of paragraph 172.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

173. Repeats and realleges its answers to the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 172 as if fully set forth herein.

174. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 174.

175. Denies the averments of paragraph 175, except refers to the referenced documents for their contents, and admits that IBM continues to lawfully use AIX and Dynix, including source code and related materials.

176. Denies the averments of paragraph 176, except refers to the referenced documents for their contents, and admits that SCO purports to own the referenced copyrights.

177. Denies the averments of paragraph 177, except refers to the referenced documents for their contents, and admits that SCO purports to own the referenced copyrights.

178. Denies the averments of paragraph 178, except admits that SCO purports to have registered the referenced copyrights.

179. Denies the averments of paragraph 179.

180. Denies the averments of paragraph 180.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

181. Repeats and realleges its answers to the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 180 as if fully set forth herein.

182. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of page 182.

183. Denies the averments of paragraph 183.

184. Denies the averments of paragraph 184.

185. Denies the averments of paragraph 185.

186. Denies the averments of paragraph 186.

188. Denies the averments of paragraph 188 (SCO's first).

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

187. Repeats and realleges its answers to the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 188 (SCO's first) as if fully set forth herein.

188. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 188 (SCO's second).

189. Denies the averments of paragraph 189.

190. Denies the averments of paragraph 190.

191. Denies the averments of paragraph 191.

192. Denies the averments of paragraph 192.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

193. Repeats and realleges its answers to the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 192 as if fully set forth herein.

194. Denies the averments of paragraph 194, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

195. Denies the averments of paragraph 195, except refers to the referenced documents for its contents.

196. Denies the averments of paragraph 196, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

197. Denies the averments of paragraph 197, except refers to the referenced documents for their contents.

198. Denies the averments of paragraph 198.

199. Denies the averments of paragraph 199, except admits that Novell purports to have registered copyrights relating to Unix System V software.

200. Denies the averments of paragraph 200, except refers to the referenced documents for their contents, and admits that IBM believes Novell has the right to waive and has properly waived the purported breaches by IBM of the software adn sublicensing agreements.

201. Denies the averments of paragraph 201, except refers to the referenced document for its contents.

202. Denies the averments of paragraph 202, excep t refers to the referenced document for its contents.

203. Denies the averments of paragraph 203, except refers to the referenced documents for their contents.

204. Denies the averments of paragraph 204, except admits that IBM believes Novell has the right to waive and has properly waived the purported breaches by IBM of the software and sublicensing agreements.

205. Denies the averments of paragraph 205.

206. Denies the averments of paragraph 206.

207. Denies the averments of paragraph 207.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

208. Repeats and realleges its answers to the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 207 as if fully set forth herein.

209. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 209.

210. Denies the averments of paragraph 210, except admits that IBM representatives attended Linux World in January 2003, and had contacts wiht various companies that also attended Linux World, including business partners of IBM.

211. Denies the averments of paragraph 211, except admits that IBM is one of the world's largest information technology companies and is, we believe, well respected in the industry.

212. Denies the averments of paragraph 212.

213. Denies the averments of paragraph 213.

214. Denies the averments of paragraph 214.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

States that the enumerated paragraphs 1-11 describing SCO's prayer for relief contain a request for relief as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, IBM denies that SCO is entitled to the requested relief.

GENERAL DENIAL

IBM denies each averment in the complaint that is not specically admitted herein.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Defense

The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Second Defense

SCO's claims are barred because IBM has not engaged in any unlawful or unfair business practices, and IBM's conduct was privileged, performed in the exercise of an absolute right, proper and/or justified.

Third Defense

SCO lacks standing to pursue its claims against IBM.

Fourth Defense

SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations.

Fifth Defense

SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the economic-loss doctrine or the independent-duty doctrine.

Sixth Defense

SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of laches and delay.

Seventh Defense

SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, and unenforcability.

Eighth Defense

SCO's claims are improperly venued in this district.

Ninth Defense

SCO has failed, in whole or in part, to mitigate its alleged damages.

Tenth Defense

SCO's claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse.

Eleventh Defense

SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of copyright abandonment and forfeiture.

Twelfth Defense

SCO's claims are barred because IBM holds a valid license to SCO's allegedly copyrighted works, and IBM has used those works solely within the scope of the license.

Thirteenth Defense

SCO's claims are barred by the doctrine of fair use.

Fourteenth Defense

SCO's claims are barred by the doctrine of independent creation.

WHEREFORE, defendant IBM prays that this Court enter judgment in favor of IBM and against SCO, dismissing the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice and granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, including costs, disbursements and attorney's fees.

DATED this 26th day of March, 2004.

SNELL & WILMER LLP

______(signature)______
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M Shaughnessy

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott

Counsel for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

Of counsel:v MORGAN & FINNEGAN LLP
Christopher A Hughes
Richard Straussman
(address info)
(telephone info)

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Donald J. Rosenberg
Alec S. Berman
(address info)
(telephone info)

Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

_______________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 26th day of March, 2004, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT IBM'S ANSWER TO SCO'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT was hand delivered to the following:

Brent O. Hatch
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
(address info)

and sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following:

Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
(address info)

Kevin P. McBride
(address info)

(signature)


  


IBM's Answer to SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint | 155 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
IBM's Answer to SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint
Authored by: HeLLL on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 06:58 PM EST
This certainly has been a busy week on the SCO front. I am very surprised that
SCO has kept quite during this. I wonder if they are starting to feel the heat?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Answer to SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 07:00 PM EST
Will you be able to post brief explanations of what each defense at the ends
actually means?

Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

Name, rank and serial number
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 07:02 PM EST
You weren't kidding. That's basically 26 pages of "we deny".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sloppy SCO lawyers?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 07:06 PM EST
I just browsed quickly through most of the stuff, but one thing I noticed is
that apparently SCO's second amended complaint includes several duplicated
paragraph numbers, in a couple of different areas, and is missing a number
somewhere else. (IBM refers to "108 (SCO's first)", etc.) Is it
normal for a legal document to have errors like that in it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Something to watch
Authored by: Jude on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 07:08 PM EST
I just spotted this on CNN:

S oftware industry makes room for government

The story reports a surprising shift in IT industry opinion, suggesting that government intervention may be appropriate to improve network security.

Anyone care to bet if this is the first move in a Microsoft ploy to legally mandate Palladium/NGSCB?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doctrine of Copyright abandonment and forfeiture
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 07:15 PM EST
The most common form of copyright forfeiture is the lack of specific copyright
notice on materials published before March 1, 1988. (After that date posting of
notice was no longer required to effect a copyright.) Abandonment requires
specific language and intent to place copyrighted works in the public domain by
the author.

[1] 13.06 The Defense of Abandonment of Copyright

Abandonment of the copyright by the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest
obviously constitutes an effective defense in an infringement action. The
plaintiff's claim of ownership is thereby countered. Despite imprecise usage in
some of the cases, abandonment must be distinguished from
forfeiture of copyright. The latter may occur as a consequence of publication
without proper copyrignt notice and is effectuated by operation of law
regardless of the intent of the copyright owner.

Abandonment occurs only if there is an intent by the copyright proprietor to
surrender rights in his work. There is, moreover, strong authority holding that
an overt act evidencing such an intent is necessary to establish abandonment.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Answer to SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint
Authored by: mrsam on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 07:25 PM EST
Is it me, or is IBM beginning to shoot the paperwork like out of a chaingun?

Normally you'd expect them to wait until the respective filing deadline. A
response to the initial/ammended complaint is due in, what, 20 days? Didn't SCO
file their second ammended complaint only a week ago, or something?

IBM is beginning to drown SCO in paperwork.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I like No. 53...
Authored by: bruzie on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 07:26 PM EST

...admits that IBM and The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. (a California corporation now known as Tarantella, Inc., which is not affiliated with SCO) entered ...

Nicely put, just to show the world that any agreements had previously were with the company now known as Tarantella and nothing to do with SCOX.

[ Reply to This | # ]

List of Affirmative Defenses
Authored by: bruzie on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 07:41 PM EST
To save people from looking up the pdf as most of it is 'we deny', here's the
list of affirmative defenses:

First Defense: The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

Second Defense: SCO's claims are barred because IBM has not engaged in any
unlawful or unfair business practices, and IBM's conduct was privileged,
performed in the exercise of an absolute right, proper and/or justified.

Third Defense: SCO lacks standing to pursure its claims against IBM.

Fourth Defense: SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable
statutes of limitations.

Fifth Defense: SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the
economic-loss doctrine or the independent-duty doctrine.

Sixth Defense: SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of laches and delay.

Seventh Defense: SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel,
unclean hands and unenforceability.

Eighth Defense: SCO's claims are improperly venued in this district.

Ninth Defense: SCO has failed, in whole or in part, to mitigate its alleged
damages.

Tenth Defense: SCO's claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse.

Eleventh Defense: SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of copyright
abandonment and forfeiture.

Twelfth Defense: SCO's claims are barred because IBM holds a valide license to
SCO's allegedly copyrighted works, and IBM has used those works solely within
the scope of the license.

Thirteenth Defense: SCO's claims are barred by the doctrine of fair use.

Fourteenth Defense: SCO's claims are barred by the doctrine of independent
creation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Answer to SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint
Authored by: jmichel on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 07:48 PM EST
20. Denies the averments of paragraph 20, especially insofar as they purport to
describe all operating systems or purport to identify "UNIX" as a
single operating system.

This is nice. For SCO to be able to claim all operating systems they would have
to own all the copyrights of GNULinux (collectively), USL, BSD, AT&T, SUN,
HP, IBM, SGI, NOVELL, Microsoft, and any other company that ever developed an
operating system.

\IANAL.h\

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Answer to SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint
Authored by: icebarron on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 07:56 PM EST
What is coming in the next filings will be the tidal wave that swamps sco, and
carries them in to the tide of history. You can only carry an unfounded argument
so far, and then it's time to put up, or shut up...any one want to take this
bet...?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dismissal...?
Authored by: trox on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 08:06 PM EST
At the bottom they appear to be asking for dismissal with a summary
judgement.... Hmmm, play time over?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Answer to SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 08:08 PM EST

int main(int argc,char **argv){
  for(i=1;i<=214;i++){
    den y(i);
  }
  return 0;
}

[ Reply to This | # ]

UNIX vs Unix
Authored by: kb8rln on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 08:09 PM EST

Number 20 I find funny.

20. Denies the averments of paragraph 20, especially insofar as they purport to describe all operating systems or purport to idenify "UNIX" as a single operating system.

Maybe someone should help SCOG out and tell them that:

UNIX(TM) and UNIXWARE(TM) belong to the open group.

They bought a copy of UNIX(tm) maybe from Novell.

Or are tell just trying to get the judge a snow job about Unix.

Enjoy,

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • UNIX vs Unix - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 10:41 PM EST
AT&T - monopoly
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 08:16 PM EST
Back in the day AT&T was barred from the software business because of it's
phone monopoly. Since unix came about during this time, no copyright notice(s)
were attached, because AT&T was not permitted to copyright software. Was
the software published? It was sent to any university that wanted it for a
minimal charge. It was provided to the government, and lastly, it was provided
to any business that could pay.
Cecil

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - Up in the Great White North
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 08:38 PM EST
While Darl and Co. are fond of refering to the RIAA campaign to support their IP
fight, up in Canada the Federal Court just told the CRIA (Canadian RIAA) to
think again:-

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040331.wHdownload0331/BNStory/
Front/

Seems copyright is a little more clearly defined in Canada, as is privacy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I like Paragraph 38
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 08:46 PM EST
38. States that it is without information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph
38, except admits IBM POWER chips are currently more
powerful than the Intel chips described in these
averments


Our daddy's chips can beat up your daddy's chips

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Repeats and realleges"
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 09:11 PM EST
Why does a filing like this need to say "Repeats and realleges paragraphs 1
through N" at the start of each new section?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Answer to SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint
Authored by: hal9000 on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 09:44 PM EST
Is IBM now asking for summary judgement with prejudice ?

Do they have to ask this in a completely separate motion ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

GOSH PJ Do any of your readers own calendars?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 11:48 PM EST
Fascinating the comments that everyone has written. Either everyone believes
that IBM hired SCO's legal team (given the quality of the argument in the
document) or is it just that they can't read a calender.
A very nice Aprils Fool joke indeed. Twere only it that easy.

I may not be a lawyer, but even I won't bite on this one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Answer to SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint
Authored by: blacklight on Friday, April 02 2004 @ 12:01 AM EST
"McBride: The truth will come out in the courtroom"

Famous last words.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Correction to text: Item 30
Authored by: Jack Hughes on Friday, April 02 2004 @ 01:16 AM EST
Item 30 misses a chunk of text (line skipped in transcription):
Denies the averments of paragraph 30 as they relate to IBM and Sequent or to AIX or Dynix/ptx, except states that IBM develops, manufactures and markets a product under the trade name "AIX" and Sequent developed, manufactured and marketed a product under the name "Dynix/ptx". IBM states that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments as they relate to any other person or entity

This missing bit is shown in italics.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Paragraph 109 ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 02 2004 @ 01:36 AM EST
Is paragraph 109 missing in the original?

They're so careful to cross every 't' and dot every 'i', I hope a missing but
referenced-to paragraph doesn't cause a procedural error!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why be too modest....
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 02 2004 @ 01:58 AM EST
82. Denies the averments of paragraph 82, except admits that IBM has contributed to the development of Linux, has years of experience with operating systems and licenses UNIX System V software.

Hmm, had I been the IBM lawyer, I would have put that as "... has decades of experience with operating systems ...".

Also, it probably isn't an exaggeration to say that even the original Unix from circa 1970 was indebted in many ways to technologies first developed in IBM labs, or academic research sponsored by IBM's money. IBM has been in this busines for a looong time...

[ 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 )