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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

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
Sept. 14 Hearing in SCO v. IBM Moved to Oct. 19 at 10 AM
Friday, September 10 2004 @ 07:25 PM EDT

Judge Brooke Wells has ordered that the hearing on SCO's motion on discovery, set for the 14th of September be postponed, in response to a request from IBM. They asked for and got an order granting them an opportunity to respond to SCO's Supplemental Memorandum Re Discovery. That means that IBM has its hearing on the 15th on its counterclaims, and then SCO must wait until October for its motion to be heard. They would keep filing more memoranda.

Not to fear, SCO lovers. SCO has also filed a motion to extend their time to file a response to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims and IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement. If they're lucky, that will be granted and then the hearing on those matters will be postponed too, and this could all go on for 25,000 more man-years. Our great grandchildren will attend those hearings. If so, ask them to send my greatgrandchildren a report, will you? Put it in your will or something that they contribute to Groklaw V - The Empire Strikes Back? And may the force be with them.

IBM has until September 24 to answer them, and then SCO can answer "if warranted" by October 1 and then no more opportunities. Neither side. That dialogue will be over. Judge Wells, who obviously has the patience of a saint, has finally had enough. She says if anyone wishes to say anything else on this subject, they can wait for the hearing and say it verbally there. The hearing on the Motion to Strike the Declaration of Christopher Sontag will also be postponed to October 19 at 10 AM. Maybe now SCO will stop filing requests for more AIX and Dynix code. You think?

The observant will note that the document is #284. How did we leap from the 260s to #284? Here's how: lots of activity on Pacer. We will post them all as they become available, the ones that are not sealed:

9/3/04 - 269 - SEALED Reply by SCO Grp to response to [245-1] ex parte motion for leave to file a supplemental memo re: discovery (ce) [Entry date 09/07/04]

9/3/04 - 270 - Sealed ex parte order granting [245-1] ex parte motion for leave to file a supplemental memo re: discovery signed by Judge Brooke C. Wells , 9/3/04 cc:atty (kvs) [Entry date 09/08/04]

9/7/04 - 271 - SEALED Memorandum by Intl Bus Mach Inc in support of [212-1] motion to strike the 7/12/04 Declaration of Christopher Sontag (blk) [Entry date 09/09/04]

9/7/04 - 272 - Ex parte motion by SCO Grp for leave to file over-length memorandum re: opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Materials (blk) [Entry date 09/09/04]

9/7/04 -- Proposed document from SCO Grp entitled : Memo in Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Materials Submitted by SCO in Opposition to IBM's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Jgm (blk) [Entry date 09/09/04] [Edit date 09/09/04]

9/7/04 - 273 - Supplemental Declaration of Christopher Sontag Re: In Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike (blk) [Entry date 09/09/04]

9/7/04 - 274 - Supplemental Declaration of Sandeep Gupta Re: SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike (blk) [Entry date 09/09/04]

9/7/04 - 275 - Supplemental Declaration of John Harrop Re: In Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike (blk) [Entry date 09/09/04]

9/7/04 - 276 - REDACTED Reply by Intl Bus Mach Inc to response to [212-1] motion to strike the 7/12/04 Declaration of Christopher Sontag (blk) [Entry date 09/09/04]

9/8/04 - 277 - Motion by SCO Grp to extend time to file response to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Jgm on Breach of Contract Claims and IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Jgm on its Conterclaim for Copyright Infringement (Eighth Counterclaim) (blk) [Entry date 09/09/04]

9/8/04 - 278 - Declaration of Martin Pfeffer (blk) [Entry date 09/09/04]

9/8/04 - 279 - Memorandum by SCO Grp in support of [277-1] motion to extend time to file response to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Jgm on Breach of Contract Claims and IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Jgm on its Conterclaim for Copyright Infringement (Eighth Counterclaim) (blk) [Entry date 09/09/04]

9/8/04 - 280 - Certificate of service by SCO Grp re: responses to 5th set of interrogs (blk) [Entry date 09/09/04]

9/8/04 - 281 - Expedited Motion by SCO Grp to enforce the Court's Amended Scheduling Order Dated June 10, 2004 (blk) [Entry date 09/09/04]

9/8/04 - 282 - Ex parte motion by SCO Grp for leave to file over-length memorandum re: In support of Expedited Motion to Enforce (blk) [Entry date 09/09/04]

9/8/04 -- Proposed document from SCO Grp entitled : Sealed Memorandum in Support of Expedited Motion to Enforce (blk) [Entry date 09/09/04]

9/8/04 - 283 - Ex parte motion by Intl Bus Mach Inc for leave to file a response to SCO's Supplement Memorandum Re: Discovery and to Continue Hearing Date (blk) [Entry date 09/09/04]

9/10/04 -284 - Order granting [283-1] ex parte motion for leave to file a response to SCO's Supplement Memorandum Re: Discovery and to Continue Hearing Date, Hearing scheduled for 9/14/04 is rescheduled: Motion hearing reset for 10:00 10/19/04 for [190-1] motion to compel discovery, set for 10:00 10/19/04 for [212-1] motion to strike the 7/12/04 Declaration of Christopher Sontag signed by Judge Brooke C. Wells , 9/10/04 cc:atty (blk) [Entry date 09/10/04]

9/10/04 - 285 - Amended Magistrate Notice of Hearing Motion hearing reset for 10:00 10/19/04 for [212-1] motion to strike the 7/12/04 Declaration of Christopher Sontag, reset for 10:00 10/19/04 for [190-1] motion to compel discovery To be held before Judge Wells cc:atty ( Ntc generated by: JD) (blk) [Entry date 09/10/04]

So both poor Mr. Gupta and Chris Sontag say some more about IBM's Motion to Strike Materials and Mr. Harrop also files more words, and there is a new declaration from Martin Pfeffer, whoever that turns out to be. There is a patent and trademark attorney with that name, but I have no idea if that is who has provided the declaration or for which side. Google shows a microbiologist with that name too, but not even SCO would argue that biology requires them to have more AIX and Dynix code. You know. So evolution can proceed or something? No, it's most likely a SuSE guy that Google turns up, don't you think? We'll just have to wait and see.

Also, I note with a sigh that SCO has filed an Expedited Motion to Enforce the Scheduling Order, with a memorandum in support. I am guessing *that* is where they put their continued requests for more AIX and Dynix.


  


Sept. 14 Hearing in SCO v. IBM Moved to Oct. 19 at 10 AM | 184 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 08:19 PM EDT
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Items Here
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 08:21 PM EDT
2nd post!?

[ Reply to This | # ]

News And Links Go Here
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 08:25 PM EDT
News And Links Go Here

[ Reply to This | # ]

Enforce schedule *GUESS*
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 08:29 PM EDT
The enforce schedule motions are interesting...

It's SCO that wanted a longer schedule (and IBM didn't). SCO have already in their other filings mention the schedule several times, and argue that IBM's motions for summary judgement are premature.

So my *GUESS*: SCO are objecting to IBM filing summary judgement motions before discovery is complete

If this *GUESS* is correct, I'd refer to Rule 56 (a) and (b)

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.

P.S.
Any change we can see the redacted IBM memo

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fishing Expiditions Go Here
Authored by: bsm2003 on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 08:36 PM EDT
IE Trolls.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Viral code NEEDS a microbiologist!
Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 08:52 PM EDT
"Google shows a microbiologist with that name too, but not even SCO would
argue that biology requires them to have more AIX and Dynix code."


They could be explaining the viral nature of Linux :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Martin Pfeffer -- AT&T/USL/BSD connections?
Authored by: rand on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 09:35 PM EDT
There was a Martin Pfeffer at AT&T, who retired as "General Attorney-Intellectual Property Matters" and is now "of council" at Ostrolenk, Faber, Gerb & Soffen, LLP. He apparently was/is a patent attorney (I found one publication which may be his, a report on a patent workshop.)

So this might be about how the licenses were interpreted, or about the patent counterclaims.

Whoa! Hold the presses! This just popped out:

"USL failed to affix copyright notices to its 32V UNIX operating system in both source and object code until 1984 (Pfeffer Decl.,at Paras 4-5;[fn5]"
from the SU PPLEMENTAL AMICUS BRIEF in the BSD case, and
"Relying on this inscrutability for protection from disclosure, AT&T has distributed 32V object code publicly subject to notice of copyright but without redistribution restrictions (Pfeffer Reply Decl. at P 4)."
in the USC Regents Decision, available at Tux Rocks .

I don't know if that's the same Pfeffer , but it is interesting. IBM could be playing the you-don't-own-smack card. Anyone ever seen that declaration?

---
Eat a toad for breakfast -- it makes the rest of the day seem so much easier (Chinese (I'm told) proverb) (IANAL and so forth and so on)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Declaration of Martin Pfeffer?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 09:37 PM EDT
Who is he and who filed the Declaration?

Both sides filed motions on that day so it could be in suport of IBM's sealed
motion. Neither side show it in the caption of the filings.

It's a little odd that there is no identification of why it was filed. It's also
not marked as sealed, so I guess we get to read it.

Maybe Pacer or the clerk just made an error.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pecked to death by ducks....
Authored by: Latesigner on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 11:07 PM EDT
Wnat stops this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rolled on the Floor Laughing!
Authored by: josmith42 on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 11:21 PM EDT
"Put it in your will or something that they contribute to Groklaw V - The Empire Strikes Back? And may the force be with them."

You know, PJ, this is why you have so many readers. If this site were just a dry recount and rebuttal of events, I expect the readership would be much smaller. But with little gems like this, the bandwidth is being pushed, and we're seeing MySQL's limits. Go PJ! Keep it up!

---
Forty-two: the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything.

[ Reply to This | # ]

But why wait?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 11 2004 @ 01:48 AM EDT
This seems a little odd to me.

If IBM is so worried that TSG might actually get granted their outlandish
discovery motion that they request a delay to submit a further response, then
either;
a) IBM goofed somewhere and are now trying to cover their tail,or
b) TSG actually came up with some real evidence somewhere and IBM is having to
dig to counter.

The paperwork we've seen so far would appear to be leaning solidly in IBM's
favor. I haven't seen anything submitted by TSG that carries any serious
credibility, so whatever is bugging IBM must be sealed.

I can't see this as a good sign, since its been IBM pushing the pace recently
and now they suddenly want to hold back.

Any legal experts see any positive insights here?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM-284 Oct 19 Hearing as html sent to PJ
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Saturday, September 11 2004 @ 08:43 AM EDT
I OCR'd IBM-284, spell checked, redacted, saved as html, and sent to PJ.

The html format used was ISO, UTF-8, Simple, and is supposed to be readable by
any browser, so perhaps Geeklog will be able to handle it.

PJ, please let me know.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ad infinitum
Authored by: tizan on Saturday, September 11 2004 @ 12:51 PM EDT
This is really sounding like the high school problem of "when will you
reach your destination if your speed is proportional to the distance you are
from destination"

The more postponments the more stuff the judge and others have to read and the
more confused they get and more time is asked....etc etc...

So finally there is only one thing happening is September (on the 15th)
...everything else is in october or december...

I am afraid that SCO will go bankrupt before any real judgement is made ...and
some cheaters will go scot free for making wild claims in the first place.

---
tizan: What's the point of knowledge if you don't pass it on. Its like storing
all your data on a 1-bit write only memory !

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sept. 14 Hearing in SCO v. IBM Moved to Oct. 19 at 10 AM
Authored by: marbux on Saturday, September 11 2004 @ 03:04 PM EDT
The number of concurrent motions and related briefs are getting up so high that
it's the kind of situation where--when I was still practicing--I'd typically
prepare binders for the court and opposing counsel for each relevant motion
including all of the papers relevant to a particular motion, with a preceding
cross-reference to all relevant portions.

The problem is that when lots of documents get flying, people invariably begin
discussing concurrent motions in briefs that strictly speaking don't apply. I
always felt in that kind of situation that some party needs to bring all of the
relevant documents together for the court, hence the binders and
cross-references.

It's the kind of thing I'd always do for myself anyway, and it doesn't cost that
much to share the resulting research aid with the court. Copying the documents
for the other side helps them to some extent, but I always felt it was worth it
to aid the court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Over-length memoranda
Authored by: elderlycynic on Monday, September 13 2004 @ 05:59 AM EDT
Has anyone been counting the number of memoranda and the
proportion that are over-length by both parties?

My gut feeling is that SCO have produced almost no in-length
memorand recently.

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.04 seconds