|
|
| Order Granting SCO's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum - as text |
 |
|
Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 07:58 PM EDT
|
The Honorable Dale A. Kimball, the judge in the SCO v. IBM case, has signed an Order Granting SCO's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum. This is to be expected, by the way. Personally, I like letting them write as much as they wish. It says [Proposed] Order, because SCO wrote it and submitted it for the judge's approval. That way he doesn't need to be bothered and can just sign it if he so wishes. That too is typical.
********************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark R. Clements (7172)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]
Robert Silver, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.
|
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
LEAVE TO FILE
OVERLENGTH MEMORANDUM
Case No. 2:03-CV-0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO")'s Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum having come before this Court on May 28, 2004, and good cause being found therefore, the Court finds as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
SCO shall have leave to file a reply memorandum of up to 20 pages, exclusive of face sheet and any table of contents, in support of SCO's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order.
ORDERED this 2nd day of June, 2004.
BY THE COURT:
__________[Dale A. Kimball]_______
United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
June 3, 2004
* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK * *
Re: 2:03-cv-00294
True and correct copies of the attached were either mailed, faxed or e-mailed by the clerk to the following:
Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]
Scott E. Gant, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
Mr. Alan L. Sullivan, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLLP
[address]
Mark J. Heise, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Mr. Kevin P McBride, Esq.
[address]
Robert Silver, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Mr. David W. Scofield, Esq.
PETERS SCOFIELD PRICE
[address]
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 08:26 PM EDT |
| So when does SCO have to submit the new proposed schedule? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 08:28 PM EDT |
| So when do they file this reply? Isn't it late now? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 08:30 PM EDT |
SCO says IBM is mischaracterizing SCO's statements...
I wonder if SCO will use the argument that Spiegal, CNET, Information Week,
etc., all made scrivener's errors in quoting the various SCOundrels.
...And what SCO actually meant was the exact opposite of what they are quoted as
saying.
They've used this argument two or three times already in their various cases (at
Novell oral arguments, in relation to the various motions to compel, etc.) - so
it doesn't seem to be one that they ever tire of.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 08:32 PM EDT |
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/06/03/HNscoseekscode_1.html
Some attorney quotes on the discovery issues in this one[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hlecuanda on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 09:13 PM EDT |
I agree..
It has been proved time and again, that the more they say,
the better chances at contradicting themselves and sinking
their case further. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 09:16 PM EDT |
Although with such a short document they are unlikely, please reply to this
comment with any typos or errors.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 09:18 PM EDT |
| Please reply to this message with new links
of interest to Groklaw readers.
This makes
it easy to find them. Please try to use the
HTML Formatted mode to
make it easy to click
on a link and follow it directly to the article
of
interest.
This is also the place to start discussions
unrelated to the
topic(s) of the article.
Please choose new and appropriate titles for new
topics [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kjb on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 09:27 PM EDT |
Is there a point that the lawyers will be held accountable for their
deceptions?
There is a foul odor that this system (appears) to condone lying. This is way
past "twisting" the truth.
---
"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
- Yoda[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 09:29 PM EDT |
SCO's been really racking up their "Frequent Liar Miles". I wonder
how many they have to collect before Judge Kimball gives them a
"bonus"?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 12:57 AM EDT |
This is a long post, please see the sub post. I would very much welcome
comments.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: edumarest on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 01:43 AM EDT |
...for SCO's antics regarding the law. If absolutely all members of the lawyer's
profession refused to write this junk then where would SCO be?
These court filings do not reflect well on the legal profession.
At times I have seen judges sanction lawyers for egregious conduct. I look
forward to seeing it here on Groklaw.
PJ, how is the money holding out? You have alluded to copying expenses, etc.
Please let us know because a dollar or euro from each of us would buy a lot of
copies and court document acess. For me I write off my contribution as
entertainment expense. I have a ringside seat to this.
The Amazon Honor System was fast, accurate, and did not charge me a fee to send
a donation. I like it much better than PayPal.
---
...if you cannot measure it then you cannot troubleshoot it, you can only
guess...
SuSE 9.0 on hp pavilion ze 4560us[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 09:49 AM EDT |
The text of this story has appeared in a number of sites already, but this
version has the best headline:
SCO asks for more IBM code as case implodes
IBM apparently hiding open-source code.
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsid=1670[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Best headline - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 11:29 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: BigTex on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 11:02 AM EDT |
In Brazil, Microsoft decries Linux use
http://news.com.com/In+Brazil%2C+Microsoft+decries+Linux+use/2100-1016_3-5226503
.html?tag=nefd.top[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/42859/42859.html
"This would be funny if it weren't so sad:" ... ""What,
exactly is the penalty for mounting a frivolous lawsuit in this country?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: clark_kent on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
Recent article from eWeek claiming Sun Microsystems wishes to Open Source
Solaris.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1606769,00.asp
I wonder who they have to go to in clearing the way for that to happen. Do they
need SCO's blessing because isn't Solaris a "derivative" work of Unix
that SCO claims to own, similarly like Dynix or AIX is? And wouldn't the
exposure of SCO owned code (if SCO REALLY owned it) start more legal fires? And
wouldn't this hhurt SCO's cause against Open Source Linux? Wouldn't some of the
issues SCO has against IBM and Linux show up here as well, if Solaris code was
released as Open Source?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 02:05 PM EDT |
167-1 Filed: 06/02/04
Entered: 06/03/04 Reply to response to motion rply resp m/-/- - - blk 1501090
Docket Text: Reply by SCO Grp to response to [160-1] stipulation motion to
amend [151-1] briefing order as follows: SCO's reply memo in support of motion
to dismss due 6/14/04
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 02:32 PM EDT |
Although there is no link to it on their site, Ken Brown's predictably dense and
meaningless 'rebuttal' to Linus et al is on their server here:
http://www.adti.net/samizdat/brown.reply.june.04.html
WARNING: do not attempt to read while drinking hot beverages or while
maintaining your composure is mandatory.
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Choice quotes - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 02:38 PM EDT
- more - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 02:40 PM EDT
- OT: Brown's hidden rebuttal as a Link and PJ you should read! - Authored by: NastyGuns on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 02:52 PM EDT
- OT: Brown's hidden rebuttal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 02:57 PM EDT
- OT: Brown's hidden rebuttal - Authored by: seanlynch on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- Two words for Ken Brown - Authored by: RedBarchetta on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 03:16 PM EDT
- OT: So seriously off reality it ain't even on the planet - Authored by: cheros on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 03:19 PM EDT
- OT: Brown's hidden rebuttal - Authored by: paul_cooke on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 03:20 PM EDT
- OT: Brown's hidden rebuttal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 03:30 PM EDT
- The crux of the matter - Authored by: Jude on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 04:10 PM EDT
- Ken Brown's other book - Authored by: Asynchronous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 04:12 PM EDT
- OT: Brown's hidden rebuttal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 04:12 PM EDT
- OT: Brown's hidden rebuttal - Authored by: oldgreybeard on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- The funniest thing I have read in years. - Authored by: tintak on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- OT: Brown's hidden rebuttal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 04:32 PM EDT
- "Pure Bread"??? - Authored by: snorpus on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 04:56 PM EDT
- Enough to be dangerous... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 05:04 PM EDT
- OT: Brown's hidden rebuttal - Authored by: archivist on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 05:06 PM EDT
- Spelling? He has heard of it. - Authored by: tintak on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 05:16 PM EDT
- I wonder if - Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 05:19 PM EDT
- "Pure bread"? - Authored by: Stephen on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 05:29 PM EDT
- Brown's hidden rebuttal - Top Level Article? - Authored by: snorpus on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 05:35 PM EDT
- This does answer the question - Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 05:55 PM EDT
- From false premisses spring false conclusions - Authored by: sleadley on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 06:38 PM EDT
- OT: Brown's hidden rebuttal - Authored by: photocrimes on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 06:51 PM EDT
- Absolutely bizarre... - Authored by: jbeadle on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 06:57 PM EDT
- OT: Brown's hidden rebuttal - Authored by: Cal on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 06:57 PM EDT
- Important: Did anyone - Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 07:32 PM EDT
- What MS means by "protecting intellectual property" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 07:36 PM EDT
- a nice breakdown of Brown's - Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 10:29 PM EDT
- Now official, no longer hidden--- OT: Brown's hidden rebuttal - Authored by: mandalay on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 10:56 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: JDL on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
I was about to post that link here myself. It's a stunningly ill-conceived
'rebuttal'. If the actual book reads like this, it may become a comedy classic.
Once again, we see the attempt to bastardize the GPL by insinuating the idea of
'hybrid source'.
Perhaps the worst part is that my fear over Linus' recent action has come true:
Indeed Brown is claiming that the update to the kernel submission process (you
know, add YOUR name, too) is somehow an admission of poor past practices. I
hope that one doesn't come back to bite too much.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: profprof on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 04:32 PM EDT |
In my wildest imagination, I would never have thought a Windows magazine
could be as much to the point about this sad affair as what I read today in the
excellent column by Paul Thurrott in Winnetmag.com. I can't resist quoting it
in full (you'll find it at <http://www.winnetmag.com/windowspaulthurrott/
Article/ArticleID/42859/windowspaulthurrott_42859.html>) for everyone's
enjoyment :
"SCO Is at It Again, Seeks More IBM Code
This story would be funny if it weren't so sad. After spending more than 2
months reviewing the AIX source code that IBM supplied, litigation-loving
SCO Group is apparently having trouble finding all those examples of stolen
source code (similar, I suppose, to the problems that the United States has
had finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) that it complained about in
its $1 billion lawsuit against IBM. So SCO is ... get this ... asking the court
to
require IBM to give SCO even more source code so it can keep looking. Now,
I'm not a legal expert, but shouldn't SCO put up or shut up? And remind me
again: What, exactly, is the penalty for mounting a frivolous lawsuit in this
country?"
NICE, isn't it ? And coming from '***Windows*** Network & Net Magazine'. Do
YOU believe THAT ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
| I know linux today has been mentioned before here. The founder of that site
that is calling for a boycott of it:
http://yucca.st
andardout.com/lxer/story/14804/index.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 04:55 PM EDT |
This is a classic example of one of several propaganda
methods. Especially the implied mame that open source
software is "mongrel" software (i.e. not "pure bred"...)
and all the psychology that goes with it. Applying the
term "piracy" to the act of copyright infringement is
another similarly classic political use of language.
ATDi is just an example of what we will face in the
political arena. Since companies like Microsoft cannot
compete on core competency, they will try instead to make
laws to outlaw their only competition left, which is
freedom itself. For them to win, basically everyone else
will have to loose.
Of course, in a true closed source shop, where no outside
code is permitted in, it would be tempting to apply the
term "inbred" software, but I don't think and hope we
never need to stoop to their level to fight them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: snorpus on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 07:39 PM EDT |
| Having every web page, every paragraph, every sentence, dissected, and analyzed,
and (usually) contradicted and ridiculed.
Jeesh, it's getting so unsided that
we're giving them hints how to keep things (semi-)private. Next thing, we'll be
conducting online courses in HTML and server security for SCO and AdTI PR-types.
(Hey, how's that for an Open-Source business model???)
---
73/88 de
KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BigTex on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 07:48 PM EDT |
I sent this email to Ken Brown after reading his response found here :
http://www.adti.net/samizdat/brown.reply.june.04.html and received a reply from
him that is too good to pass-up. Please help me refute his latest bs
My email to KB:
I have read your latest swill with a barf bag at my side. As the CTO of a small
investment company that has used Windows and Linux products I can unequivocally
tell you that you need to get back on your meds. You misrepresent quotes, you
tell outright lies and you have the moral and ethical compass of a pedophile.
If I had the same legal grounds that Linus and others have I would sue you back
to the mud puddle where you evolved from.
I don't know how you sleep at night.
Rob Barney
KB's response:
Point out a single lie, misrepresentation, etc. I will
get some meds...just for you.
kb
I have some info together already but most of you know SO much more than I that
I could use any help you have to spare.
Yeah I know I should probably not have fed that troll but I really hate people
like that.
Thanks!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 11:14 PM EDT |
i've been thinking about the ADTI issue. as has been pointed
out, it's interesting from a propaganda standpoint (pure-bred,
hybrid-source, mongrel, etc). But at it's heart, it's simple to
confirm or deny.
ADTI contends that Linus didn't 'create' Linux and implies
that he misappropriated code from MINIX or an early version of UNIX.
Basically the alternatives are this:
1. Linus wrote it
2. he copied the code (illegally)
3. a 3rd person (or group of people) wrote it
One can determine if the answer is either 1,3 or 2 without
even looking at the arguments put forward on either-side. Either
there exists large sections of copied code or there does not.
if copied code doesn't exist then 2 can't be the case: (it's
tautological: if he didn't copy code, copied code doesn't exist in
the first release of Linux).
Additionally Linux, MINIX, and early versions of UNIX are all
currently available. Very simply, we don't have to debate the issue:
we can just look and find out.
In fact someone did. They found none. If anyone else cares
to look they can as well. (I assume SCO would probably have used it if
it existed).
So we are left with either 1 or 3. 3 is not ethical; but
unless someone steps forward to say they actually wrote the code, they
either have agreed to transfer it (e.g. work for hire), or they don't
know or can't notify anyone (and here we run into a problem with Occam
and his razor).
The idea that it is improbable that someone did it doesn't
matter. ADTI's assertions are meaningless [1].
Perhaps there should be a press release: "ADTI's assertions shown
false".
[1] I find it improbable that someone would write what ADTI has
written (and done such a poor job of it), but it doesn't matter,
someone wrote it.
-rm
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: ADTI - Authored by: s21mag on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:04 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
