|
|
|
| Authored by: iceworm on Sunday, July 11 2004 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
| I am starting to punch in text (eyeball -> (vim) -> *.txt [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RandomX on Sunday, July 11 2004 @ 09:36 PM EDT |
| I'll do 12-14 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MT on Sunday, July 11 2004 @ 10:02 PM EDT |
| Apologies to Mr. Shakespeare
IBM: Friends, Coders,
businessmen,
lend me your ears;
I come to bury Linux, not to praise it.
The evil that
men code lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bugs;
So
let it be with Linux. The noble Darl
Hath told you Linux was
infringing:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath
Linux answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Darl and the rest --
For Darl
is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men --
Come I to
speak at Linux's funeral.
It was my tool, useful and free to me:
But
Darl says it was infringing;
And Darl is an honourable man.
He hath
brought many investors home to SCO
Whose dollars did the corporate coffers
fill:
Did this in Linux seem infringing?
When that the poor need
patches, Linux hath wept:
Infringement should be made of sterner
stuff:
Yet Darl says it was infringing;
And Darl is an honourable
man.
You all did see that at the Linuxcon
I thrice presented it a
software patent,
Which it did thrice refuse: was this infringement?
Yet
Darl says it was infringing;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak
not to disprove what Darl spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do
know.
You all did love it once, not without cause:
What cause withholds
you then, to mourn for it?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish
beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the
courtroom there with Linux,
And I must pause till it come back to me
....
But yesterday the word of Linux might
Have stood against the world;
now waits it there.
And none so poor to do it reverence.
O masters, if I
were disposed to stir
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
I should
do Darl wrong, and Boies wrong,
Who, you all know, are honourable men:
I
will not do them wrong; I rather choose
To wrong the dead, to wrong myself
and you,
Than I will wrong such honourable men.
But here's a parchment
with the deal of Linux;
I found it in its headers, 'tis its will:
Let
but the commons hear this testament --
Which, pardon me, I do not mean to
read --
And they would go and kiss dead Linux's wounds
And dip their
compilers in its sacred code,
Yea, beg a hair of it for memory,
And,
dying, mention it within their wills,
Bequeathing it as a rich
legacy
Unto their issue.
Fourth OpenSourcer: We'll hear the will:
read it, IBM.
All: The will, the will! we will hear Linux's
will.
IBM: Have patience, gentle friends, I must not read it;
It
is not meet you know how Linux loved you.
You are not wood, you are not
stones, but men;
And, being men, hearing the will of Linux,
It will
inflame you, it will make you mad:
'Tis good you know not that you are its
heirs;
For, if you should, O, what would come of it!
Fourth
OpenSourcer: Read the will; we'll hear it, IBM;
You shall read us the
will, Linux's will.
IBM: Will you be patient? will you stay awhile?
I
have o'ershot myself to tell you of it:
I fear I wrong the honourable
men
Whose lawyers have stabb'd Linux; I do fear it.
Fourth
OpenSourcer: They were traitors: honourable men!
All: The will!
the testament!...
IBM: If you have tears, prepare to shed them
now.
You all do know this license: I remember
The first time ever Linux
put it on;
'Twas on a summer's evening, on internet,
That day it
open-sourced itself:
Look, in this place ran Boies' dagger through:
See
what a rent the envious Didio made:
Through this the well-beloved Darl
stabb'd;
And as he pluck'd his cursed suit away,
Mark how the blood of
Linux follow'd it,
As rushing out of doors, to be resolved
If Darl so
unkindly knock'd, or no;
For Darl, as you know, sold a Linux
distribution:
Judge, O you gods, how dearly Linux loved him!
This was
the most unkindest cut of all;
For when the noble Linux saw him
stab,
Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms,
Quite vanquish'd
him: then burst its mighty heart;
And, in its license offering up its
code,
Even at the base of Stallman's statue,
Which all the while ran
blood, great Linux fell.
O, what a fall was there, my businessmen!
Then
I, and you, and all of us fell down,
Whilst bloody treason flourish'd over
us.
O, now you weep; and, I perceive, you feel
The dint of pity: these
are gracious drops.
Kind souls, what, weep you when you but behold
Our
Linux's license wounded? Look you here,
Here is itself, marr'd, as you see,
with traitors.
First Opensourcer: O piteous spectacle!
Second
Opensourcer: O noble Linux!...
All: Revenge! About! Seek! Burn!
Fire! Kill! Slay!
Let not a SCO exec live!...
IBM: Good friends,
sweet friends, let me not stir you up
To such a sudden flood of
mutiny.
They that have done this deed are honourable:
What private
griefs they have, alas, I know not,
That made them do it: they are wise and
honourable,
And will, no doubt, with reasons answer you.
I come not,
friends, to steal away your hearts:
I am no orator, as Darl is;
But, as
you know me all, a plain blunt man,
That love my friend; and that they know
full well
That gave me public leave to speak of him:
For I have neither
wit, nor words, nor worth,
Action, nor utterance, nor the power of
speech,
To stir men's blood: I only speak right on;
I tell you that
which you yourselves do know;
Show you sweet Linux's wounds, poor poor dumb
mouths,
And bid them speak for me: but were I Darl,
And Darl IBM, there
were an IBM
Would ruffle up your spirits and put a tongue
In every wound
of Linux that should move
Freemen of the world to rise and
mutiny.
All: We'll mutiny ....
IBM: Why, friends, you go to
do you know not what:
Wherein hath Linux thus deserved your loves?
Alas,
you know not: I must tell you then:
You have forgot the will I told you of
....
To every world citizen it gives,
To every several person, its
copyleft....
Moreover, it hath left you all its works,
The right to copy
and to distribute,
And make your changes; it hath left them you,
And to
your heirs for ever, an uncommon kernel,
To code at will, and recreate
yourselves.
Here was Linux! when comes such another?
First
Opensourcer: Never, never. Come, away, away!
We'll find SCOs flaws in
the court place,
And with the errors write them up on Groklaw.
Take up
the case!
Second Opensourcer: Go fetch Pacer.
Third
Opensourcer: Download pleadings.
Fourth Opensourcer: Download
forms, orders, any thing.
[Exeunt Coders with the internet.]
IBM:
Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot,
Take thou what course thou
wilt!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Whiplash on Sunday, July 11 2004 @ 10:04 PM EDT |
This is great.
Given a properly skilled lawyer you can obviously file motion after motion after
motion. What with reply briefs, memos in support and addition memos in support;
its good to be a lawyer on this thing.
Is their a limit to how many motions you can submit? Have their been cases where
Judges have said: "Enough!" and is the SCO mess anywhere near that
point?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Sunday, July 11 2004 @ 10:05 PM EDT |
| Not that anyone actually pays attention but I thought I'd try. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- More on MS's new product: MS Think Tank (r) - Authored by: SmyTTor on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 02:27 AM EDT
- John Harrop Declaration for SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 02:53 AM EDT
- Microsoft Search Technology - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 10:01 AM EDT
- Injunction by Storage Technology using DCMA - Authored by: joef on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 10:31 AM EDT
- Open source kills jobs, says Gates - Authored by: clark_kent on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 10:53 AM EDT
- Laura Didio opens mouth, spews chunks. - Authored by: GrueMaster on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 11:10 AM EDT
- Laura Didio opens mouth, spews chunks. - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 11:33 AM EDT
- Laura Didio opens mouth, spews chunks. - Authored by: moogy on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 11:50 AM EDT
- Please *look* at the figures - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 02:12 PM EDT
- No moves TO mickeysoft ! - Authored by: grundy on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 02:52 PM EDT
- "unprecedented hype" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 11:19 PM EDT
- Interesting, Microsoft actually posts this. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 11:31 PM EDT
- Laura Didio opens mouth, spews chunks. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 13 2004 @ 02:37 AM EDT
- PUBPAT announces Microsoft Patent Watch - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 11:51 AM EDT
- OT: Unix and Longhorn - Authored by: penfold on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 12:11 PM EDT
- The strong case against Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 12:27 PM EDT
- Novell deadline - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 12:57 PM EDT
- Open request to GrokLaw in regards to StoreTek - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 01:19 PM EDT
- Dar Windows user - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- My bad on attack - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 01:46 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: brian on Sunday, July 11 2004 @ 11:40 PM EDT |
....But I think SCO is correct to ask for the board
minutes and material just as much as IBM should have
SCO's. To say that the IBM board knew nothing about their
Linux strategy and there is no responsive material in
there is hard to believe. This isn't to say that I think
they will get anything incriminating out of it but in the
intrest of fairness IBM should turn it over. As for every
iteration of AIX / DYNIX on the planet or access to their
rcs SCO should be denied until they provide substantative
evidence (meaning instances of true line-for-line copying
from Unix to Linux) that those files are required.
So if you hold on one second I'll get my asbestos pants on
for all the flames this will draw...But it is the way I
feel....
B.
---
#ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 12:49 AM EDT |
| We are done. thank you everyone for all the help. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 01:52 AM EDT |
Cases get long. Sometimes to understand what is going on one has to go back
and see how the parties arrived at this point. SCO's position can be capsulized
as follows: "If we knew then what we know now, we would not have filed this
suit. But since we are here, let us look around and see what we can find." The
SCO principals are now silent. The lawyers appear to be in control. They are
struggling valiantly to avoid utter disgrace and worse. It will not be enough.
The SCO lawyers are not into FUD. They are merely trying to make a terrible
situation bad. The fees are thinning out with no shining jackpot at the end of
the tunnel. Their clients, if not they themselves, may get steamrolled in
something far more drastic than they ever thought possible.
SCO sued IBM
saying in court and publicly that IBM had put some of their System V Unix in
Linux.
IBM moved twice to compel discovery because SCO would not specify
any lines of infringement. IBM said SCO had to go first. It is the only way to
know what is relevant. The Court agreed.
On December 12 Judge Wells
ordered the following:
The Court, finding good cause
shown, GRANTS IBM's First and Second Motions to Compel Discovery.
....
(SCO) is hereby ORDERED:
...
4. To identify and state with
specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their
action against IBM. This is to include identification of all Bates numbered
documents previously provided.
...
6. If SCO does not have
sufficient information in its possession, custody, or control to specifically
answer any of IBM's requests that are the subject of this order, SCO shall
provide an affidavit setting forth the full nature of its efforts, by whom they
were taken, what further efforts it intends to utilize in order to comply, and
the expected date of compliance.
...
All other discovery,
including SCO's Motion to Compel is hereby STAYED until this Court determines
that SCO has fully complied with this Order.
On
February 5, 2004 IBM's report on SCO compliance stated the
following:
If, as SCO hints (but does not say), none of the
allegedly improper disclosures made by IBM (or any of the other code in Linux to
which SCO claims to have rights) derive from UNIX System V, SCO should
unequivocally say so, as that concession would eliminate much of our concern
about the Revised Response.
On March 3, 2004 Judge
Wells issued the following:
I.
SCO
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant is hereby ORDERED:
1. To
fully comply within 45 days of the entry of this order with the court's previous
order dated December 12, 2003. This is to include those items that SCO had
difficulty in obtaining prior to the Court's previously ordered deadline of
January 12, 2004.
2. As previously ordered, SCO is to provide and
identify all specific lines of code that IBM is alleged to have contributed to
Linux from either AIX or Dynix. This is to include all lines of code that SCO
can identify at this time.
3. SCO is to provide and identify all
specific lines of code from Unix System V from which IBM's contributions from
AIX and Dynix are alleged to be derived.
4. SCO is to provide and
identify with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights
to.
5. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity the lines of code
that SCO distributed to other parties. This is to include where appplicable the
conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what
circumstances such code was released.
II. IBM
In light of what
the court considers SCO's good faith efforts to comply with the Court's prior
order, the Court lifts the discovery stay it previously
imposed.
At this point SCO has all of Unix, all of
Linux, many versions of AIX and many versions of Dynix. They still can't bring
themselves to specify any lines. Along this route they have abandoned any
trade secrets claims and any claims that IBM put any of their Unix Code in
Linux. What remains of their claim is totally contractual and possibly
irrelevant to the infringement claim.
Given this state of affairs IBM
says to the Court "Declare a Summary Judgment. Both SCO and We agree that SCO
can't specify any lines. There must be no IBM [or any other] infringement."
SCO must respond with lines or reasons for no lines. SCO of course blames their
failure on IBM stonewalling and asks for more time and discovery. They have
plenty of code with copyrights in it. There is no reason to think that they
would do any better with all the code on earth.
The hearings coming up
are going to be dangerous for SCO. The Judge is going to look down from his
bench and ask a direct question of a SCO lawyer and demand a direct answer. It
is no fun appearing in court with no evidence to argue and your fly down. That
lawyer will have to answer honestly despite efforts to misconstrue the question
or give a non-answer. He may be forced to "unequivocally say" the obvious.
They are close to having to admit that they really had nothing to start with.
This proves the counterclaims. All that would remain of the case is adding up
the damages.
The Judge might like to know:
What did
they have in mind when they brought the suit? Did they learn they were
mistaken?
Why can't they specify any IBM original code since the
copyrights are available in Linux?
Why don't they specify code inserted
by others? Is there any?
If SCO can't specify any code, why do they
think IBM put in anything of SCO's?
If there are no trade secrets, no
System V code in Linux, why shouldn't this MSJ be granted?
Even if there
is some IBM original AIX code in Linux, why shouldn't this MSJ be
granted?
Does SCO agree that until its byzantine derivative theory is
established, there is no IBM contractual violation? Is such a violation an
infringement?
SCO is hoping for more time, Victory for a
day. Don't be surprised if IBM doesn't fight the delay so much. At this point
time is starting to work in their favor. SCO can't complain about a rush to
judgment. More time shows their futility--No evidence.
---
webster [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 01:57 AM EDT |
I wonder how the Magistrate is going to view this
one: ...when
the Magistrate clearly had
simply ordered SCO to go first stating that it was
"essential to get the ball rolling in this
circumstance."
It appears SCOX is still trying to pass that off as a
flip of the coin and
they lost.
RS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 01:57 AM EDT |
From page 15 of the PDF:
"...IBM's abuse of the the discovery
process..."
Oh, that's rich...
What's next, IBM kicks
puppies?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 03:27 AM EDT |
I'm starting to be a bit worried now. We all know
what kind of merit SCO's claims can be attributed,
but it seems that SCO will always be able to throw
out nonsense like this motion, twisting the truth,
lying, and they will always get away with this.
Hell, maybe the judge will even agree! It is amazing
how far you can go by lying again and again without
any kind of punishment...
NNP
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 03:59 AM EDT |
IBM haven't complied because they didn't give us enough information! Make them
give us everything!
[Gaa! Ack!]
IBM haven't complied because gave us too much information! Make them cut down
the list of witnesses!
[repeat ad infinitum][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Franki on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 05:04 AM EDT |
Hi people,
In an effort to do something positive for the Linux community, I put together an
overview of how it's all tied together.
There dont' seem to be very many simple overviews that a non insider can
understand, so I decided to knock one up with as many source links as I could
find. (I have not linked to any sites like ms-bs and microsucks or even linux
sites as I didn't want any sites that might be considered biased.)
Its the first article on http://htmlfixit.com
and I'd appreciate any extra sources I might add to it to make it more
complete.
You can add a comment by clicking on the title.
The more sites that host these sorts of articles, the more the world will get
out, htmlfixit is pretty popular now, (not compared to groklaw, but still.....)
much appreciated.
regards
Franki[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ile on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 05:47 AM EDT |
In one of the footnotes there is a rather peculiar comment
about one of the deposed witnesses having been convicted
on several counts of insurance fraud. Anyone has any
inkling of what this could be all about?
Thanks
ile [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Insurance fraud? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 11:30 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 05:49 AM EDT |
When, O Darl, will you stop abusing our patience? How long, is your madness
still to mock us? When will come an end to the unbridled audacity of your
swaggering about? ...
Do you not feel your plans are detected? Do you not see that your conspiracy is
already blocked and rendered impotent by the knowledge of it all possess?...
Shame on this age and on its principles. The Court is aware of these things;
the Magistrate sees them; and yet this lawsuit lives. Lives! ay, papers the
Court with motions...
.For what, O Darl, can give you any pleasure in this business? There is not a
single person in it, outside your band of profligate conspirators, who does not
fear and hate you. What mark of commercial baseness is not stamped upon your
life....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alan Bell on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 06:17 AM EDT |
they blather on about rc_protect a bit
http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2001/Mar/4132.html
http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/paper/rclockpdcsproof.pdf
http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rcu/patches/rclock-2.4.1-01.patch
and just to help SCO out a little the mysterious rem could be
Bob Miller <rem at osdl.org>:
which I found here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/9/14/18[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: roxyb on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 06:18 AM EDT |
| Instead of stating that TSCOG's request is reasonable
(which it seems to be,
at least superficially), you should
maybe begin thinking on what grounds TSCOG
can ask for all
board packages (i.e., it must be relevant to TSCOG's
current
claims and be non-privileged). The same goes for
Palmisano's and
Wladawsky-Berger's e-mails, notes, etc.,
it must be non-privileged and
relevant to the TSCOG's
case.
If it doesn't fulfill these two criteria, I
doubt that
TSCOG's screaming can force the judge to order IBM to
surrender
(for example) the projected Linux Service
revenues by region and platform (as
it isn't related to
the TSCOG's case as it currently stands). TSCOG is
currently trying to make IBM surrender anything that has
any relation to
Linux and/or Unix/AIX/Dynix, but I doubt
any judge will fall for such a cheap
trick, as it is my
understanding that discovery has to be relevant to the
case.
The same goes for the list of names in CMVC, as it can't
be
relevant. An example is my name, that will be found,
but I haven't worked on
AIX since 1993, so why is that
relevant? A number of names that exists in CMVC
can't be
found (some were Indians that now work for other companies
in other
countries; one of my guys were an Argentinian,
living in France and with
Israel and U.S. citizenship, God
knows where he is currently...). Furthermore,
IBM can't
provide contact information for the majority of names in
CMVC, as
they are under no obligation to keep track of old
staff and consultants (heck,
they probably have no idea in
which country I am currently residing and they
are under
no obligation to keep track of it).
This seems like a long shot
of TSCOG to make IBM look like
stalling. If IBM's counsel certifies that they
have
surrendered all relevant information, it is up to TSCOG to
prove
otherwise (or up to the judge to specify *exactly*
what must be surrendered,
like she did in the case of the
specifity of lines of code).
Of course,
IANAL, especially not a US one, but the legal
systems usually is trying to
adhere to the principles of
fairness and logic in nearly all Western countries
(except
when it comes to taxes, of course :-)
Roland Buresund
---
--
I'm Still Standing...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 08:05 AM EDT |
I have to belive they are going for size over substance. This could have been
written up on half the paper.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alan Bell on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
have they dropped claims for RCU anywhere yet? the RC_PROTECT stuff is RCU
related. Here is the linux RCU page which
has some interesting stuff in it.
Read-Copy Update was
originally designed for DYNIX/ptx, a UNIX operating system from Sequent Computer
Systems Inc., now a part of IBM. Similar methods were also used for Tornado and
K42 OS projects at University of Toronto and IBM
Research.
Read-Copy Update Previous Versions:
The
earlier patches for Read-Copy Update can be downloaded from the Read-Copy Update
Package in LSE download site.
RCU based on original DYNIX/ptx code (released by
IBM under GPL):
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
SCO is now accusing IBM of delaying the litigation? MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry, couldn't be helped. It's enormously humorous to watch SCO argue that they
have been trying to move expiditiously when the opposite is plainly true.
Methinks both IBM and SCO are going to get a rapping from the Judge on the order
of "this is not kindergarten, start behaving or else"
I have no idea why IBM isn't producing the documents SCO wants (other than not
producing ALL versions of AIX and Dynix), however I look forward to hearig the
reasoning behind this, most likely there is a better excuse than the infamous
Christmas holiday crud SCO tried to foist on the court.
Anyone think we are going to get into arguments about specific wording of
peladings and the meaning of the word relevant? Sigh.....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
Seems this one was written by the PR department again? I
don't think a judge cares about all these hyperboles, does
he? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 11:39 AM EDT |
Red Hat's reply brief memo in support of their motion for reconsideration
Daimler Chrysler's reply brief memo in support of their motion for
reconsideration
If you have either or both, please post link(s)
TIA
Quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 12:18 PM EDT |
The judge is an accomplished and learned individual, I have no doubt he will see
the tactic for what it is. It is his job, remember, to ensure fairness for BOTH
sides, so he gets the wonderful task of presiding over kindergarden like
squabbling such as this.
Don't be swayed by the FUD components of SCO's motions (IBM does this some too
you know), the judge doesn't care about the non-relevant material. He might get
irked that they filed for leave to file an oversize memo just to squeeze in a
bunch of meaningless FUD, but in the end the judge really only cares about
serving the interests of justice (we hope).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
I'm amused by the oxymoron in the footnote on the first
page:
This is the type of information that IBM would be
required to voluntarily produce... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oxymoron - Authored by: moogy on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 02:06 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: AntiFUD on Monday, July 12 2004 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
I note in footnote 15, on page 9 of the PDF, that SCO invoke Rule 26(a)(1):
Quote
Rule 26(a)(1)requires that a party provide "without awaiting a discovery
request ... the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each
individual likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may
use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment,
identifying the subjects of the information."
Endquote
Unless I am a complete idiot (this is possible, but not likely in my universe)
their quote says 'disclosing party may use ...', thus if IBM is the disclosing
party they only need to provide the address and telephone numbers of 'witnesses'
that they (IBM) may use to support their claims or defences. As quoted it says
nothing about providing SCO with names and addresses of people that SCO want to
be herded into their fishing nets.
Could a lawyer, or paralegal, with knowledge of this Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure enlighten me as to whether SCO has this 'back to front', pretty
please?
Or do I need to recalibrate my virtual reality tinfoil headset? If so does
anyone know the settings I should be using?
P.S.: If you live under a bridge, please do not bother to respond.
---
IANAL - But IAAAMotFSF - Free to Fight FUD
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Night Flyer on Tuesday, July 13 2004 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
Just read the adapted works of Shakespeare.
Really impressive!
A tough act to follow.
In the category of a work of art.
(Anyone who missed it should read it: GROKLAW "SCO's Memorandum in Support
of Renewed Motion to Compel, Sunday 08:16 PM"}
-----------------------------------
Also, just read SCO's overlength memo. Is it just me, or are the arguments and
wording a major step up as compared to previous submissions from SCO's lawyers?
For instance, non sequitors and typo's didn't jump out at me as I read it as
they have in other SCO submissions.
I guess SCO's lawyers are feeling a bit cornered and have brought in their big
guns to try and salvage something.
It seems SCO is no longer pursuing the 'millions of lines' theory of copied code
and are hoping for a miracle in IBM's files.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
