|
|
| Judge Kimball's Order on Motions to Bifurcate and Amend Scheduling Order - as text |
 |
|
Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:04 AM EDT
|
Here is Judge Kimball's Order on the two SCO motions, to bifurcate the patent claims, which he denied, and to amend the scheduling order, which he partly denied, partly granted, as text.
******************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
______________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, INC.,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
_____________________________
ORDER
Case No. 2:03CV294DAK
__________________________
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant The SCO Group, Inc.'s ("SCO") Motion for Separate Trials and Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. A hearing on the motions was held on June 8, 2004. At the hearing, SCO was represented by Brent O. Hatch, Frederick S. Frei, and Robert Silver. Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") was represented by David R. Marriott and Todd M. Shaughnessy. Before the hearing, the court carefully considered the memoranda and other materials submitted by the parties. Since taking the matter under advisement, the court has further considered the law and facts relating to the motions. The court has also considered David R. Marriott's letter to the court dated June 9, 2004, and Brent O. Hatch's response to that letter, dated June 10, 2004. Now being fully advised, the court renders the following Order.
I. MOTION TO BIFURCATE
SCO seeks bifurcation of three patent counterclaims asserted by IBM. SCO essentially claims that the patent counterclaims are unrelated to the primary claims and counterclaims aserted in this case and that litigating the patent counterclaims together with the primary claims would cause prejudice to SCO, would virtually double the amount of discovery to be completed, and would render the current deadlines impossible to meet.
IBM contends that there is no reason to decide the issue at the present time. IBM argues that only after the completion of discovery and the filing of motions will the court be in a position to meaningfully determine whether to bifurcate the patent counterclaims. Additionally, IBM asserts that there is no reason that the parties cannot complete discovery under the current Scheduling Order.
The court declines to bifurcate the patent counterclaims at this time. As discussed below, the court will amend the Scheduling Order to provide additional time to conduct discovery related to all the claims and counterclaims in this action.
II. MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
SCO has requested that the court amend the Scheduling Order because IBM asserted 14 counterclaims after the Scheduling Order was entered. Thus, the deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order did not contemplate litigating additional claims. Furthermore, SCO claims that IBM has caused delays in discovery thus far, and, consequently, the parties cannot complete the significant amount of remaining discovery by the current deadline of August 4, 2004.
IBM, on the other hand, argues that the delays in discovery are of SCO's own making and that, in light of the resources available to the parties, the remaining discovery can be completed by the August 4, 2004 deadline. IBM also contends that SCO seeks to delay resolution of this litigation to serve SCO's "improper goal of maintaining fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the marketplace concerning Linux and IBM's (and many others') products."
Because IBM's counterclaims were added after the entry of the current Scheduling Order and because the court has declined to bifurcate IBM's patent counterclaims from the remainder of the claims and counterclaims, the court will modify the Scheduling Order. However the court will not modify the Scheduling Order again, absent extremely compelling circumstances.[1] The dates set forth in the previous Scheduling Order are stricken, and the following dates now apply:
EVENT ----------- DEADLINE
Fact Discovery - February 11, 2005
Expert Discovery - April 22, 2005
Initial Report - February 25, 2005
Opposing Experts' Reports - March 11, 2005
Counter-reports - March 25, 2005
Dispositive Motions - May 20, 2005
Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures - September 30, 2005
Special Attorney Conference
and Settlement Conference - October 3, 2005
Final Pretrial Conference - October 10, 2005 at 2:30pm
Exchange of proposed jury instructions[2] - September 30, 2005
Filing of proposed jury instructions - October 10, 2005
5-week jury trial - November 1, 2005
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) SCO's Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice to renew after all dispositive motions have been decided; and (2) SCO's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As set forth above, the court has amended the Scheduling Order, although not to the extent requested by SCO. The dates set forth in the previous Scheduling Order are hereby STRICKEN.
DATED this 10th day of June, 2004.
BY THE COURT:
______[signature]_____
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge
[1] When necessary to accomodate the courts schedule, the court may alter dates that involve the court.
[2] Approximately six weeks prior to trial, the court will send to the parties a Trial Order that sets forth deadlines regarding the exchange of jury instructions between the parties, filing of stipulated instructions and proposed instructions to which the parties could not agree, objections to proposed instructions, and responses to the objections. In the Trial Order, the court will also provide deadlines for proposed voir dire, proposed special verdict forms, and motions in limine.
United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
June 10, 2004
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK
Re: 2:03-cv-00294
True and correct copies of the attached werre either mailed, faxed or emailed by the clerk to the following:
Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]
Scott E. Gant, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Frederick S. Frei, Esq.
ANDREWS KURTH
[address]
Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
Alan L. Sullivan, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P
[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: scott_R on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:31 AM EDT |
| 'nough said. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:35 AM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:36 AM EDT |
Put your corrections here, where PJ can find them. And here's the first:
At the very top of the document, NOVELL, INC. is listed as the defendant, but
it looks to me like it should be IBM.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:36 AM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Novell scores again! - Authored by: risacher on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 04:35 AM EDT
- McBride: The Dark Years - Authored by: RedBarchetta on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 05:10 AM EDT
- Other topics and links here please - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 05:29 AM EDT
- very - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 11:44 AM EDT
- And... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 12:44 PM EDT
- very - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:05 PM EDT
- Other topics and links here please - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 05:34 AM EDT
- Other topics and links here please - Authored by: om1er on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 07:05 AM EDT
- MS Korean offices searched - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 08:26 AM EDT
- The Economist article - Authored by: _Arthur on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 11:25 AM EDT
- MS groups Linux with Terrorists - Authored by: SmyTTor on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 12:06 PM EDT
- Hey, I've Solved the OpenSource Indemnity Issue (Newsflash: Aussie Fixes World Indemnity Crisis) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:16 PM EDT
- SCOX stock losing a lot today; heavy trading - Authored by: Dan Lewis on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 02:29 PM EDT
- SCO vs. Sun??? Insert spittake here - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 05:54 PM EDT
- M$ FUD Tour coming to a city near you. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 06:06 PM EDT
- Microsoft's FAT Patent Under Review - Authored by: rharvey46 on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 06:47 PM EDT
- novell vs sco Brent Hatch, one of SCO's attorneys, described the ruling as a "big, big win" for - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 06:52 PM EDT
- novell vs sco Brent Hatch, one of SCO's attorneys, described the ruling as a "big, big win" for - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 07:10 PM EDT
- novell vs sco Brent Hatch, one of SCO's attorneys, described the ruling as a "big, big win" for - Authored by: ChrisP on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 08:30 PM EDT
- novell vs sco Brent Hatch, one of SCO's attorneys, described the ruling as a "big, big win" for - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 08:43 PM EDT
- Hatch references damages examples in conference call - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 06:56 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:39 AM EDT |
The defendant should be IBM, not Novell, Inc.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:51 AM EDT |
Judge Kimball made the most rational decision for himself when he chose not to
bifurcate at the moment, given his expressed distate for duplicative testimony.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 04:13 AM EDT |
Really nice that the cases are moving forward.
So whats up next?
Do we have to wait all summer.....?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: arch_dude on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 05:16 AM EDT |
I got a strong sense while reading the reports of the hearing that Judge Kimball
thinks that most of SCOG's claims and IBM's original counterclaims will be
settled very soon now with summary judgements. Basically, these new dates
(especially the 5-week jury trial) are about right for the patent case. Recall
that the judge asked the SCOG lawyers how long the jury trial would take and if
the sum for bifurcated trials would be longer. The lawyers and Judge agreed that
the combined trial would take ten weeks, and each trial if separated would take
five weeks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: codswallop on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 05:38 AM EDT |
I'm not sure I understand why IBM opposed bifurcation. Granted, they have a
better jury trial case without it, but with bifurcation, they could probably
have gotten something much closer to the original schedule. This would have
killed the case off sooner. I would have thought that was the highest priority.
They still have another summary judgement motion to file. Getting a ruling on
that as soon as possible seems like it would be the critical issue.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 05:49 AM EDT |
I won't cry when SCO goes bankrupt and Darl lands in the
clink, but at the same time I still feel bad about these
software patents.
IBM did it to SCO to show what could happen to any
computer company that sues IBM. All four patents were
deliberately chosen to send a symbolic message about how
IBM can crush your company. (They later removed the
patent on Menus with Sub Menus but I think we all get the
idea).
The patent defense attorneys for SCO are just going to do
the same job that they would do for any company.
It makes it worse that the judge and jury will see Hatch
and associate his stinky dishonest tactics with the patent
defense attorneys.
It really is no exageration to say that _all_ major
software infringes on patents. Someone wrote a comercial
version of one of my open source programs and I saw on
their web site that they were "Patented Techniques". What
am I going to do about that? It's probably technically
illegal for me to continue developing my program...
Screw it... I'm going to write whatever I want whether
it's illegal or not. I don't have a family and I'm not a
wuss.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Software patents are evil - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 06:12 AM EDT
- Software patents are evil - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 06:45 AM EDT
- Software patents are evil - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 08:15 AM EDT
- And what if... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 09:34 AM EDT
- There's a game... - Authored by: OmniGeek on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 10:20 AM EDT
- And what if... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 12:29 PM EDT
- And what if... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:04 PM EDT
- And what if... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:06 PM EDT
- And what if... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:24 PM EDT
- And what if... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 04:14 PM EDT
- And what if... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 07:23 PM EDT
- And what if... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 08:37 PM EDT
- And what if... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 09:05 PM EDT
- And what if... - Authored by: PJ on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 08:49 PM EDT
- And what if... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 02:34 PM EDT
- And what if... - Authored by: John Hasler on Saturday, June 12 2004 @ 01:40 PM EDT
- And what if... - Authored by: Tyro on Saturday, June 12 2004 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- sorry... - Authored by: Tyro on Saturday, June 12 2004 @ 05:29 PM EDT
- Software patents are evil - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 08:03 AM EDT
- The JPEG/JPG has been patented - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 04:50 PM EDT
- Purchased Anarchy - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- Software patents are evil - and unconstitutional - Authored by: mjscud on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 06:36 PM EDT
- Software patents are evil - Authored by: PJ on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 08:52 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: arrg on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 08:28 AM EDT |
The way I see it this is getting drawn out just long enough for longhorn to
arrive. If SCO can keep making people nervous about open source, then it gives
MS more marketing power to say things we know are not true but can't prove yet.
I hope the Novell thing gets resolved much sooner, because it will knock most of
the wind out of SCO and MS claims against Linux.
---
Time is funny stuff, space has it's points too.... - Hap[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: justjeff on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 10:07 AM EDT |
Here is my idea. With the jury trial over a year away, I suggest that we all
move to Utah, register to vote, and try to get seats on the jury![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OmniGeek on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
We all, I think, expect that this is how this particular game will end: IBM
moves for dismissal early on, or for summary judgement at a later stage, based
on there being no evidence of wrongdoing; SCO's case is dismissed, the
counterclaim juggernaut moves into high gear, SCO is flattened, geeks dance in
the streets.
My question is, when can we reasonably expect to see the judge entertain motions
for dismissal or summary judgement? I *think* (not a lawyer...) that a summary
judgement motion would have to wait 'till after discovery (so May of '05,
bleah), but what about a motion to dismiss?
---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
Canadian software company Zero-Knowledge Systems this week sued IBM in a
Canadian court, claiming $5.1 million for alleged copyright infringement. The
claim relates to work carried out by both companies in the creation of a privacy
software standard.
http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=ibmsuedoverxmlba1086955649&area=
news
Test of complaint
http://www.synomos.com/html/EPML/documents/86592-1-Statement_of_Claim.pdf
Looks like another deriviative type case where they came up with a stabndard and
then IBM relaesed a later version that may or may not have contained the
original joint work. Sounds familiar.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: clark_kent on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
I am playing Devil's Advocate here. I usually do even though I am all for the
Good side.
I listened to the conference call yesterday.
If I was an investor in SCO, I would want this stuff moving faster than it is
because if SCO truely believes it has something of value that is being stolen,
they would have a clear cut path to their objective. So far, it has been a song
and dance and I think we all know where SCO is going with all of this.
Very possible this will not make it to trial. Should IBM prop up SCO so as to
have the opportunity to cut the head of the snake off? I don't think SCO will
make it on money of sound and legit investors of growing businesses. It may have
to find more snake-money.
I think Baystar was right. SCO should have turned into a strictly litigious
company. That is all they have going for them now (not really, but their product
push is dropping off and they need to concenrtrate on this litigation because
this is the path they decided to go.) Existing customers are leaving. With this
litigation, they are hasening their demise. And I question the new customers.
Are they on some sort of Microsoft upgrade path with SCO as an interm solution?
Very feasible if Microsoft wants to stoke the fires a bit more and prop up SCO.
After yesterday's conference call, I think SCO's time is running out. I could be
wrong, I have been before.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: clark_kent on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
Little Cheer for SCO Shareholders
Considering the legal swamp the software maker is stuck in, its dismal quarterly
earnings report is hardly uplifting
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2004/tc20040611_3698_tc055.h
tm
----
Stock has gone down since yesterday, holding steady at 4.89
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=SCOX
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 11:50 AM EDT |
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html
SCO:
46.
Recently, Novell apparently registered certain UNIX copyrights with
the
U.S. Copyright Office. Who owns the copyrights, Novell or SCO?
SCO
purchased the UNIX source code, copyrights and claims for UNIX from
Novell in 1995.
1995 would be the APA. So what did
Judge
Kimball make of this?
It is undisputed that the APA did
not
transfer any copyrights. Under the APA, Novell
agreed
that on the Closing Date (December 6, 1995) it would assign all assets
on
Schedule 1.1(a) but that it would transfer no assets
listed on
the Excluded Assets
schedule, Schedule 1.1(b).
There is
no dispute that all copyrights were excluded on
Schedule
1.1(b) and, therefore, no copyrights transferred on the Closing Date
under
the terms of the APA.
SCO
continues in
their FAQ:
An amendment to the purchase agreement in
October 1996
further clarified the actual intellectual property that
was
sold.
What does Judge Kimball make of
this
argument?
The Amendment also contains no transfer language in
the
form of "seller hereby
conveys to buyer." Given
the
similarly ambiguous language in the APA with respect to
the transfer of assets-seller "will" sell, convey, assign, and buyer
"will"
purchase and
acquire-it is questionable on the
face of
the documents whether there was any
intention to
transfer
the copyrights as of the date the amendment was executed.
Moreover, the use of the term "required" in Amendment No. 2 without
any
accompanying list or definition of which copyrights
would be
required for SCO to
exercise its rights in the
technology
is troublesome given the number of copyrighted
works
involved in the transaction. There is enough ambiguity in the language
of
Amendment No. 2 that, at this point in the litigation,
it is
questionable whether
Amendment No. 2 was meant to
convey
the required copyrights or whether the parties
contemplated a separate writing to actually transfer the copyrights after
the
"required"
copyrights were identified.
Therefore,
this is not a case where the court can
immediately
conclude that there is a writing under Section
204(a).
So on the
face of it Amendment 2 is not really a
clarification, but more ambiguity and it's
questionable whether it transfers
anything
Kimball sums up (section
204(a) writing = transfer of
copyright)
Although the case will
obviously require contract
interpretation, at this stage of the
litigation, the
agreements raise substantial doubt as to whether the APA
as amended
by Amendment No. 2 qualifies as a Section
204(a)
writing.
Next in SCO's FAQ they raise the question of a
Novell
press release
Novell
acknowledged this transfer in
its June
6, 2003 press statement which states:
“The amendment [Amendment
II]
appears to support SCO’s claim that
ownership of certain copyrights
for
UNIX did transfer to SCO in 1996.” To see
the original and amended
Novell
Purchase agreement for yourself, go to
www.sco.com/scosource/novell.
Judge Kimball doesn't seem too
convinced by that
one:
SCO claims that there is no question as to
whether a
sufficient writing exists because
Novell's June
6, 2003
Press Release stating that Amendment No. 2 "appears to
support" SCO's claim of ownership acknowledged that Amendment No. 2
transferred
the copyrights to SCO. Although the press
release may
argue in favor of a finding that
the
copyrights were in
fact transferred under Amendment No. 2, this argument
focuses
on the merits of the action rather than the
threshold question of whether
Section
204(a) is
sufficiently implicated such that
federal jurisdiction exists. The press
release
may
indicate that Novell initially believed that
the APA as amended appeared to be
a
sufficient Section
204(a) writing, but the press
release, alone, does not clearly establish
that a Section
204(a) writing exists or dispose of the Section
204(a) issue that Novell
has subsequently raised in this
case.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
I've followed this performance religiously from down under for the better part
of the year, I'm happy to see a clearer feeling of the judicial system over
there in America. I was concerned that justice would somehow fail in it's
original intent, even if SCO were to lose (let's use MS as an example case
scenario...).
I'm much more convinced now than ever that SCO really has
come to this bloody knife fight wielding a cucumber....
....now then,
where's my popcorn, coke and those really cool 3D Glasses....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:28 PM EDT |
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1610908,00.asp
Marc Modersitzki, SCO's public relations manager, said, "We're pleased with
the ruling. We look forward
to responding to the court's special damages request." This request gives
SCO the chance to amend its
complaint against Novell.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
"I am not hearing of many wholesale swaps from Windows to Linux," says
Laura DiDio of the Yankee Group. "A company has to have a self-sufficient,
experienced I.T. staff that can write custom applications, and be willing to
risk not having an indemnification policy."
http://cio-today.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=Linux--Not-for-Everyone&
amp;story_id=24499&category=entcmpt[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1714&Page=1&pagePos
=5
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
I can't believe I'm arguing this. Simply put, companies wouldn't be offering
indemnification if there customers weren't getting nervous (I know I've read
several articles about this but I don't have time to search them out). The only
reason customers are getting worried is because of the SCO case and their FUD.
So I come back to my original point. The longer this case drags out the longer
the nervous upper management in a lot of companies will wait to make the change.
The longer they wait to make the change the more locked in to MS they get.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lawyers_son on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
I was just having a look over at CNet and they have completely misrepresented
the past couple of days events with a headline that reads:
Mixed
rulings advance two SCO cases
And a sub head that reads
this:
The SCO Group won two and lost two in its Unix-related lawsuits
against IBM and Novell, with a federal judge issuing rulings that, among other
things, granted SCO's request to delay the IBM trial.
Find the
story here
Will the FUD ever stop?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NemesisNL on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 06:07 PM EDT |
Though I might share the text. Somehow it seems to describe the mood McBride
must be in, the song is called "why does it always rain on me":
I can't sleep tonight
Everybody saying everything's alright
Still I can't close my eyes
I'm seeing a tunnel at the end of all these lights
Sunny days
Where have you gone?
I get the strangest feeling you belong
Why does it always rain on me?
Is it because I lied when I was seventeen?
Why does it always rain on me?
Even when the sun is shining
I can't avoid the lightning
I can't stand myself
I'm being held up by an invisible man
Still life on a shelf when
I got my mind on something else
Sunny days
Where have you gone?
I get the strangest feeling you belong
Why does it always rain on me?
Is it because I lied when I was seventeen?
Why does it always rain on me?
Even when the sun is shining
I can't avoid the lightning
Oh, where did the blue skies go?
And why is it raining so?
It's so cold
I can't sleep tonight
Everybody's saying everything's all right
Still I can't close my eyes
I'm seeing a tunnel at the end of the lights
Sunny days
Where have you gone?
I get the strangest feeling you belong
Why does it always rain on me?
Is it because I lied when I was seventeen?
Even when the sun is shining
I can't avoid the lightning
Oh, where did the blue skies go?
And why is it raining so?
It's so cold
Why does it always rain on me?
Why does it always rain on....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MikeA on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 06:22 PM EDT |
| From CRN News article...by Paula Rooney
Not only does this article
completely spin the issue backwards, she gets some material facts wrong, and it
appears she also misquoted Darl in a very funny way:
"After earnings
calls on Thursday, before the rulings were issued, SCO CEO Darl McBride
predicted that the court would ultimately uphold SCO's legal positions against
IBM and Novell. "Novell says they transferred copyright, but they never
did."
That's funny. Does that count for the quote
database?
---
Change is merely the opportunity for improvement. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 07:33 PM EDT |
I read someone else's comment about the APA and the amendment, and this occured
to me:
The original version:
- very clearly states that NO copyrights are transfered at all. There is no
room for debate about this, it's in black and white.
The amendment:
- states that copyrights which were required for blah, blah would be transfered.
[allegedly transfering the copyrights]
My thinking:
- Why would SCO suddenly ask for this?, and why would they want it?
- Why would Novell give SCO something for no reason? [and no cash]
My crazy idea:
- SCO were audited. Maybe an internal audit, or an audit prompted by a
potential investor or takeover?
- as a result, someone told SCO management that, for whatever reason, a SCO
product was 'unsafe'. Maybe UNIX/UNIXware, caldera Linux, or "something
else"...
- SCO asks Novell for whatever copyright it is they need to shut up the auditor.
Novell understandably doesn't want to. They know about AT&T/USL and have
steered well clear of that whole mess. Novell knows how complicated this whole
area is, and don't want to go within a mile of it.
- voila, an impasse. So Novell and SCO come up with a beautifully meaningless
clause, for the sole purpose of placating the auditor/investor/lawyer [e.g.
"if we needed this, Novell are happy to help", there's no problem
here!]. Novell are also happy as they don't have to look at the BSD/USL thing,
don't have to give anything to SCO, don't have to claim ownership of copyrights
that are disputed, and at the same time they maintain relations with SCO.
----
It would be interesting to know if SCO/Caldera were performing any audits?, or
talking to any investors/potential buyers around that time?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 11 2004 @ 09:20 PM EDT |
Some new Microsoft
propaganda. They use 7-Eleven as a featured case study.
Industry case
studies, business analysts' reports, and test lab results provide insight into
the advantages of the Microsoft windows platform. Here are the facts you need to
make the choice between windows and Linux.
Detailed
financials show the total Linux costs are higher than total windows costs by 5%
to %20.
windows users have fewer
vulnerabilites.
Large Enterprises: Switching from
windows to Linux "prohibitively expensive, extremely complex, provides no
tangible business gains."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 12 2004 @ 07:36 AM EDT |
I would like to learn more about the functions of the jury in these federal
trials. I've been told that in PA state courts that the jury trail is a right
of the defendant and the defendant can request trial by judge instead of jury.
Does this type of rule apply in federal courts? Could Novell & IBM ask for
a non-jury trial and negate the "big-gun" advantage that SCO is
supposed to have with a jury?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 12 2004 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
The "indemnification policy" Microsoft gives for Windows is a
closed-source product.
If you can't see the source code, you don't know what they are hiding in there.
For all I know, it could be an old smelly and rancid crypt of stolen I.P. But
we
will never know that if outsiders can't see it. I have suspected that all along
since Microsoft pushed the model.
You can take source code from open source, compile it, and verify it is the
actual code that runs the product. In closed source, for all I know, Microsoft
could have two sets of source code. In stipulation, one set for
"shared-source" to governments that doesn't have stolen I.P. (and
they
do not bother to compile it to see if indeed it is the real product,) and a
second set for the real thing that may contain stolen I.P.
And placing court systems aside for the moment, there are different levels of
justice that can be bought into. You just have to know what the cost is and how
to buy it. Microsoft can say, "YES this IS the source code. Now what will
it cost us for you to take us at our word and without futher research into the
matter? Stock options? Free software?" Software Analyst takes the bride
and
reports to judge, "Your honor, this IS the source code." - when it
really wasn't.
This is what I think happened early on with Microsoft. Remember the geek
picture
of all 11 employees of 1975 Microsoft? Do you think that company would get
anywhere in this world selling traffic light software? Enter playboy, Steve
Ballmer...
Steve: Hi Bill. You know you really suck at running this company. Your just a
geek trying to run this thing. You need to get past your geekdom. Tell you
what.
I'll do the marketting, you do the development, OK?
Bill: yeah, whatever. I just want my software to thrive. But it is no better
than some of the big shooters software.
Steve: It doesn't have to be better. It just has to look like it looks better,
get it? It is all perception.
Bill: Well, Paul and I have been working on an OS for the Altair system, but we
are not getting it. I heard someone in Seattle has a Disk Operating System that
is a simplified Unix clone and runs in single user mode all the time. Maybe we
should license the software from the guy.
Steve: License my a$$! If you don't own it, you can't control it! And you need
to dump Paul! He is geek baggage. He wants thing fair and square. People who
play fair get run over. You need to run other people over before you get run
over.
Bill: Well my mother always taught me "Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you."
Steve: No, it's "Do unto other BEFORE they do it unto you." That
Jesus
freak who teaches that stuff doesn't know what it is to live. Didn't he
read," Eye for an eye?" I keep one step ahead of that. I dominate and
I am in control! Step asdie Bill, you need someone who is in control of this
company to take it anywhere, especially if were are to play up against
monopolist IBM! They don't care about the consumer, why should we?
Bill: Isn't the government taking care of that? I mean, all that anti-trust
stuff. They are in big trouble.
Steve: Who has time to wait for the government? Profits happen today. And IBM
will be weak. This is the time to move!
Bill: Well I have an appointment with the company in Seattle to discuss
licensing of that Disk Operating System.
Steve: And you weren't going to take me along? You buddy, your pal?
Bill: Sure, whatever.
Steve: Leave Paul here. He is an old has-been.
Bill: But, but...
Steve: Who's your daddy? Who's your daddy ?!?
Bill : Yeah, whatever...
(In Seattle)
Steve: Let me do the talking first, Bill. you give them some stupid technnical
speel, and I will use my wit and cunning to steal this package from him.
Bill: Yeah, whatever...
Steve: Hello my software guy, I'm Steve and this is Bill. We are from
Microsoft,
and we are interested in buying your DOS for the Altair system.
Software Guy: We are not selling it anymore. We believe we have a market for it
with IBM and their new line of Personal Computers. It is sure to beat out the
Apple ][.
Bill: I guess we will be off then.
Steve: Wait. I want to see this software. Maybe we can get into the PC business
and we can hook up with you too?
Software Guy: Sure. No problem. Here it is running on an Altair. And it is
currently stored on these two disks.
Steve: Could we have a copy of those, maybe to try out the product ourselves?
Software guy: No, because it contains the source code as well. And we don't
want
to give it out. Excuse me, I have to take this call. I won't be long.
(software guy leaves area)
Steve: Quick Bill! Copy the dam disks! We will take these disks to IBM
ourselves!
Bill: What? Are you crazy? That is stealing. We can't do that. It is wrong. It
violates the programmers ethics code.
Steve: Ethics don't make money. Having a product does. Who's side are you on
anyway?
Bill: I dunno.
Steve: Make the copies. If anyone asks, just say I told you to do it and that I
am your boss.
Bill: You my boss? Who owns this company?
Steve: You do. Just do as I say and everything will be ok.
Bill: All right. But what would Paul say about this?
Steve: Forget him. He doesn't know what it takes to make money.
(Software guy comes back)
Software Guy: So are you interested?
Steve: We will think about it. I will call you later.
Bill: See ya.
(Steve and Bill leave the Software Guy's building)
Steve: See how easy that was!
Bill: What are people going to say. Do I tell them we got our first OS by
copying somebody's disks?
Steve: No, you say your paid a decent sum of money for it, and you keep on
walking. By the time the feds catch up with us, we will be the Monopoly, not
IBM. We will even buy out Parker Brothers and own the game! Plus
you keep the source code under wraps so nobody can see what we are using to
make
it work.
Bill: Are you sure nobody will find out?
Steve: Did anybody find out who did Jimmy Hoffa in? How about John Kennedy? Do
you know if AT&T didn't steal someone's code? Nobody will find out.
Especially since I accidently knocked over a small can of rat poison and some
of
it happened to land in the guy's coffee.
Bill: I was wondering what you were doing with that coffee. It looked like you
were intentionally doing that.
Steve: No one has to know, do they?
Bill: Whatever.
And the rest is history. IBM gets the flame. AT&T is broken up. And
Microsoft steals the show. They were at the right place at the right time. Was
it the right thing to do? Who is to judge?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vito on Monday, June 14 2004 @ 02:10 AM EDT |
| Just Curious. Could/would SCO appeal this? If so, how far could it go? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
