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
Keeping Today's SCO-IBM Motions Straight
Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 05:00 AM EDT

It's getting a bit thick around here, with motions flying every which way. With today's hearing, it seemed a good time to get the SCO v. IBM motion documents organized in one place, showing what goes with what. I expect the SCO expedited motion to enforce the scheduling order will come up today in oral argument, despite it not being scheduled for today. Thanks go to Alan for helping me with this project. I hope you find it useful. If there is a delay, we'll have it for later.

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

Hearing September 15, 2004:

SCO Corrected Motion to Dismiss or Stay, Count 10 of IBM's 2nd Amended Counterclaims - #144

IBM'S Cross-Motion For Partial Summary Judgment on its Claim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement (10th Counterclaim) - #152 [Linux activities]



  


Keeping Today's SCO-IBM Motions Straight | 166 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Keeping Today's SCO-IBM Motions Straight
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 05:08 AM EDT
At what time is it? Please give tell me in gmt.
Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections go here
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 05:10 AM EDT
All errors in SCO's legal strategy go in this black hole (if they fit): .

-Cyp

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic goes here
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 05:10 AM EDT
How do I change the list of motions in the article from Threaded to Nested?

-Cyp

[ Reply to This | # ]

Such a tree view is great, PJ!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 05:14 AM EDT
Thanks for the good work. While following the (IBM) case, I vaguely know where
everything fits, but if you want to know for sure, it's always a bit of effort.


It would be terrific if such a motion/response tree would be accessible from the
menu on the left, and if you had an easy way to tack new filings on it as they
appear...!

Cheers, thanks again


Emile.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Keeping Today's SCO-IBM Motions Straight
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 05:23 AM EDT
Why does SCO get last say in both areas?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where does SCO's request for a change in the schedule fit in?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 06:05 AM EDT
SCO was requesting that some PSJs be delayed till after discovery weren't they?
Is this just the nexty batch, or does SCO have an oppertunity to delay today's
action till February?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Keeping Today's SCO-IBM Motions Straight
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 10:30 AM EDT
Thanks. I was looking forward today... just not sure why.. :-D

What time is it supposed to all take place? When do you think we'll hear
something? Anyone going to the show?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm Confused...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 10:32 AM EDT

OK, this has been going on so long now that I am effectively confused...

Does anyone know where there is a one or two page summary of what's going on, preferrably with links back to motions themselves?

In particular, I would prefer something that details the differences about what the real court issues are (Contract issues, if I understand right), and sidebars it with what SCO is claiming in the press (copyright issues).

CSG_SurferDude Still waiting for my password to show up for Groklaw, it's really being slammed today

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • I'm Confused... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 03:20 PM EDT
Is anybody going to be there?
Authored by: cranesable on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 11:33 AM EDT
Are any Groklaw-dwellers planning to be there? I was hoping to go, but I've got
a meeting at 1:00, so unless it's a really quick meeting, I won't be able to
make it to the courthouse by 2:00. Anybody else planning to go?

[ Reply to This | # ]

More news from SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 11:35 AM EDT
Maureen O'Gara seems to know something that we dont

http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46349.htm

"SCO also claims that one of those [IBM] witnesses, an ex-AT&T Unix
System Labs employee by the name of David Frasure is a felon, recently convicted
of insurance fraud. His rap sheet also says he kited a check."

Now if this is *not* true MO'G is heading straight for a libel suit. Since we
might expect her source to be the SCO one might wonder how safe she is - given
SCO's reliablity in the past.

--

MadScientist

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question for PJ (maybe a dupe)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 11:37 AM EDT
How much are the courts (judges) allowed to let Groklaw influence the way they
rule?

I mean, at what point do we say it's a matter of law to review this site before
ruling? ;)

and if the judges to review this site, what sort of things are they allowed to
use in their rulings?

I guess a legal question would be, could a judge use a quote from Groklaw
verbatim in a ruling? - for example...

and if they did, are we going to have a party that day? :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

30-day delay win for SCO
Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 11:43 AM EDT
IBM 296 PDF is in...

http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/IBM-296.pdf

ORDER GRANTING SCO'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE 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 (EIGHTH
COUNTERCLAIM)

This matter comes before the Court on SCO's Motion for Extension to File
Response to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract
Claims ("Contract Motion") and IBM's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on its Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement (Eighth Counterclaim)
("Copyright Motion"). The Court, having considered the matter, and
having determined that good cause exists, HEREBY ORDERS that SCO is granted an
extension of 30 days to file its responses to IBM's Contract Motion and IBM's
Copyright Motion. SCO's response to the Contract Motion shall be filed on or
before October 13,2004. SCO's response to the Copyright Motion shall be filed on
or before October 15, 2004.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: New IBM filings
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 11:46 AM EDT
IBM-294 and IBM-295 are interesting but moot.

Key points:

1. IBM get to respond to SCO's supplemental memorandum on discovery (already
ordered) - but interestingly SCO didn't want them to have an opportunity to
respond (IBM-294), *oddly* claiming in part that their supplemental memorandum
raised no new issues (so why were they so desparate to file it?)

2. SCO got an extra 30 days to respond to IBM's summary judgement motions on
Counterclaim 8, and SCO's contract claims (1-4). SCO have until 13 Oct, and 15
Oct (IBM-296). IBM opposed this extension. (IBM-295)

3. IBM-295 contains several interesting snippets:
(i) SCO have only done one deposition so far (third party witness)
(ii) SCO have not noticed any other depositions
(iii) IBM previously agreed to adjourn the depositions of SCO employees. SCO
was supposed to come up with a schedule to fit the revised court schedule, but
never did, hence IBM's notice of depositions (see recent Groklaw story).
(iv) SCO wants to extend the discovery period further, perhaps even by *years*
[hence if IBM's PSJs are postponed until the end of the discovery period, they
could be waiting a *long* time]


List of documents:

IBM-291 SCO - Redacted Memorandum - to enforce scheduling order (seems to be
redacted version IBM-286)

IBM-294 SCO's Response to IBM's Ex Parte motion for leave to file a memorandum
in response to SCO's supplemental memorandum on discovery and continue hearing
date, They ask that IBM not be allowed to respond to SCO's supplemental memo
(they make the rather bizarre claim that it is unnecessary because their
supplemental memo doesn't raise any new issues -- in which case why did they
file it?), and the 14 Sept hearing not be continued. (IBM's motion has been
granted - see IBM-284-2).

IBM-295 IBM's response in opposition to SCO's request for additional time to
respond to IBM's summary judgement motions on Counterclaim 8, and SCO's contract
claims (1-4)

IBM-296 Order granting extension of time for SCO to response to IBM's summary
judgement motions on Counterclaim 8, and SCO's contract claims (1-4). They have
until until 13 October on the Contract motion, and 15 October on the Copyright
motion.

IBM-297 Order granting SCO leave to file overlength memo to enforce scheduling
order (IBM-291 and IBM-286)

IBM-298 Order granting SCO leave to file overlength memo in response to IBM's
motion to strike materials submitted in response to IBM's PSJ motion on
Counterclaim 10 (IBM's Linux activities don't infringe SCO's copyrights).


Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

P.S.
Why is groklaw so __slow__ today?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Where SCO got the idea that JFS (etc) are controlled by the agreement?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 12:33 PM EDT
p47 (in PDF) of IBM-286 "SCO's expedited memorandum to enforce the schedule order" (quoting from Frasure/Wilson BSD depositions)

"If the source code, the Unix source code was - was required, was used to generate the enhancement, was required the - the rest of the enhancements work, then we had an interest it it."

Compare this to:

The language of page 2 of Hatch's April 19th letter, where he explains that as IBM's Linux (JFS etc.) contributions from AIX/Dynix are derivatives and/or controlled by the license, because they will not function without UNIX, and require UNIX to function

(If somebody has text version of this letter, please copy the relevant part or post a link)

(It's almost the same)

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO

[ Reply to This | # ]

Keeping Today's SCO-IBM Motions Straight
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 01:41 PM EDT
I was wondering why SCOG was yakking about "extraneous evidence" and
expounding on the need to revert to the "plain text of the AT&T
contracts", when the plain text is not always as clear as we would like
(that's what amendments and claifications are for).

The reason is actually very simple: (1) the declarants concur with our
interpretation of the contracts; (2) the clarification written in the AT&T
$echo letter concurs with our interpretation of the contracts. In other words,
SCOG got creamed. This is why SCOG wants only the text of the contracts to be
considered, because SCOG feels it has a better chance if the declarants and the
$echo newsleter are ignored.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Report 1
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 01:41 PM EDT
The Lawyers limo just left and heading for the court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Report 1 -- I love it!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 01:48 PM EDT
  • Report 1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 02:05 PM EDT
  • Report 1 - Authored by: raynfala on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 03:01 PM EDT
    • Report 1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 03:16 PM EDT
Keeping Today's SCO-IBM Motions Straight
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 01:44 PM EDT
I was wondering why SCOG was yakking about "extraneous evidence" and
expounding on the need to revert to the "plain text of the AT&T
contracts", when the plain text is not always as clear as we would like
(that's what amendments and claifications are for).

The reason is actually very simple: (1) the declarants concur with our
interpretation of the contracts; (2) the clarification written in the AT&T
$echo letter concurs with our interpretation of the contracts. In other words,
SCOG got creamed. This is why SCOG wants only the text of the contracts to be
considered, because SCOG feels it has a better chance if the declarants and the
$echo newsleter are ignored.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Any news from the front line?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 05:30 PM EDT
I know I sound eager, but..... this waiting for news is like slow death.... Does
anybody have an update? Comment? Gossip? I won't be able to sleep tonight if I
don't get some news about what's going on inside that courtroom!!!

Thanks a lot.

------
IANAL,IMHO, IAJACG (I am Just A Concerned Geek)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO vigil techniques...suggestions welcome
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 06:03 PM EDT
I have a browser tab open on the newest comments to the last article. I also
have one open on the headlines for any new articles. I refresh these
frequently.

What other sites could one put in another tab to check for the earliest news?

---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

Keeping Today's SCO-IBM Motions Straight
Authored by: mwexler on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 06:07 PM EDT
I'm not sure how you handle user authentication, but I can certainly see how
that would be an issue. The simplest thing would be to cache items that aren't
based on user preference. Graphics, PDF files etc. Also, perhaps the cache site
could be used for folks who aren't logged in.
As far as bandwidth, how much bandwidth does groklaw use?
Is this a permanent requirement or just a temporary growing pain?
Earlier I suggest setting up a network of machines using DNS RR to share the
load (I know this is less than perfect). How many other people would be willing
to chip in and share the load?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Expert's - er, lay witness' name misspelled in 56(f) motion
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 09:24 PM EDT
I love it: the last paragraph of the 56(f) motion starts thus:
"This Motion is supported by the Rule 56(f) Declaration of John K. Harrop, the declarations of Christopher Sontag and Sandeep Gumpta (sic) and SCO's Memorandum in Opposition ..."
Don Andrews (dwandre)

[ 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 )