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
IBM Serves a Subpoena on PointServe
Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 09:21 PM EST

Pacer has a new item on the list, a subpoena from IBM to PointServe:

354-1 - Filed: 12/13/04; Entered: 12/13/04
Docket Text: Certificate of service re: subpoena duces tecum upon PointServe by Intl Bus Mach Inc

You remember PointServe. Darl McBride was CEO at PointServe prior to joining FranklinCovey in 2000. And guess who is on the board at PointServe? McBride's old friend, Mike Anderer, the old pal who helped McBride come up with SCO's IP litigation strategy and approached Microsoft on SCO's behalf, according to Newsweek's Brad Stone, which led to the Baystar hookup.

Frank Sorenson noticed something else that is positively riveting. Check out PointServe's management page:

G. Edward Powell, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer - ... For eight years prior to founding PointServe, Dr. Powell was a Member of the Technical Staff at the MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory

Mark T. Lane, Chief Scientist - ... Dr. Lane spent 10 years as a member of the Technical Staff at MIT Lincoln Laboratory

So, what do you think? Has IBM found the "MIT rocket scientists" Darl bragged about and then backed away from and that we imagined had somehow disappeared into the mist or into the Bermuda Triangle, thus becoming, alas, unavailable to testify for SCO as experts at trial about their purported comparisons of UNIX/Linux code?

When Anderer asked for his cut, the revealing memo got leaked to Eric Raymond. I've always wondered if that was a deliberate leak, just Microsoft testing the waters to see if there would be outrage sufficient to block them from taking the next step or whether there would be a green light to continue. Who can forget Anderer's spilling the beans on what he thought was the longterm Microsoft strategy, namely to sue and sue and sue over patents until Red Hat and any other competitive GNU/Linux companies run out of money? Funny how Sun has begun attacking Red Hat in the media. Well, what do you know? Both Microsoft and Sun are PointServe partners. It's a small world, of course, with weird coincidences happening every day.

Morgan Keegan raised money for PointServe, before becoming SCO's investment banker and an early recipient of a warrant for 200,000 shares of SCO stock. If I recall correctly, I believe Morgan Keegan was paid $2M for the Baystar deal. And you'll recall it was a Patrick Scholes of Morgan Keegan who was reported as hinting to the head of Sony a year ago that "Hollywood companies use a lot of Linux," taken at the time as a starting "assault on Hollywood," an assault that went nowhere, as it turned out.

Here's the MIT Lincoln Laboratory home page and a little bit about what they do and yes, according to this page, they are directly linked to MIT:

"MIT Lincoln Laboratory has pioneered in advanced electronics since its origin in 1951 as a Federally Funded Research and Development Center of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."

There is a little more on Mr. Powell of PointServe in this article. Look under the heading "Rocket Science".

A subpoena duces tecum is a demand for a witness to produce documents, or to bring them with him or her to a deposition, for example, so whatever it is IBM is looking for, they believe there is documentary evidence that PointServe has that IBM would like to see.


  


IBM Serves a Subpoena on PointServe | 583 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 09:30 PM EST
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

The plot thickens
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 09:32 PM EST
Reminds me of the old car full of clowns.

I wonder if there's a secret headquarters or at least a handshake.

---
Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Serves a Subpoena on PointServe
Authored by: senectus on Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 09:35 PM EST
I really get the feeling that IBM are not just in it to win, but to completely
demolish SCO and their mates.

Though not surprising at all, it's a little scary to see how thorough and as
well, simple it is for IBM to accomplish.

I'm slightly gladdened to note that IBM really are throwing in their lot with
the Linux scene.
With their new focus on services and rumours of their own distro to soon hit the
web.. its looking exciting.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topics Here
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 09:36 PM EST
Y'all know the drill

-Bubba the Barbarian

[ Reply to This | # ]

Official "The SCO Group" Positions - Sixty days without an official post
Authored by: AllParadox on Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 09:49 PM EST
Main posts in this thread may only be made by senior managers or attorneys for
"The SCO Group". Main posts must use the name and position of the
poster at "The SCO Group". Main posters must post in their official
capacity at "The SCO Group".

Sub-posts will also be allowed from non-"The SCO Group" employees or
attorneys. Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO Group"
must be very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the
honorific "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as
appropriate, use correct surnames, not call names or suggest or imply unethical
or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its employees or attorneys.

This thread requires an extremely high standard of conduct and even slightly
marginal posts will be deleted.

PJ says you must be on your very best behavior.

If you want to comment on this thread, please post under "OT"


---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stats4All comments on PointServe
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 09:53 PM EST
Stats_for_all, a no account type, is glad the PointServe connection is finally
getting "above the fold" attention. Here are extracts of my posts on
McBrides
connection to this outfit:

Darl McBride, during his brief stint as CEO of PointServe, concluded a $50MM
financing deal which included a reciprocal advertising buy. The deal broke
down quickly and PointServe filed suit weeks after McBride's return to Utah
against Cox Cable to escape the ad buy obligation.

Pointserve is a Austin Texas startup founded about 1997 (under the name
Epicron) by former MIT rocket scientist's G. Edward Powell and Mark T. Lane.
Powell and Lane joined Rick Bayless who had just sold Max Serv (a service
company) to Sears. Together they secured $5.7MM from Dennis Murphree
Ventures, Service Master and the Southern Union Gas company to build a
customer service application.

McBride was hired as CEO in April, 1999 following a period of layoffs. A clear
directive was to secure additional venture funding and pave the way for an
IPO. He departed from the companies original focus by advocating a web
portal/online advertising strategy. Midway through his 14 month sojurn a
$50MM funding deal was announced. The principals were Cox Enterprises
(now Cox Cable), US West Dex (Qwest yellow pages division), and
SCOOT.com. All three were involved in online yellow pages initiatives. In the
case of the Cox sub-deal, PointServe was to purchase $10MM in advertising
from Cox in exchange for the (approx $30MM) capital investment.

All three new investors were permitted seats on the PointServe board, and a
Cox representative served briefly.

Pointserve was reported in 2003 to have earned a paltry $6MM over the
course of its existence. Press releases have identified software customers
identical with those identified as investors: Southern Union Gas and
ServiceMaster.

Peter H. Kelley the SUG COO and his suborbdinates, , formerly served on the
PointServe Board. Southern Union Gas used PointServe to purchase Servana
(another SUG investment) in 2001. A special feature of this transaction is the
benefit it paid Dennis Thomas, former chairman of the Texas Public Utilities
Commission (now on the PS advisory board).

Mike Anderer (S2 Partners, LLC) has recently secured a seat on the PointServe
Board of directors. SUG representatives are now absent, as are
representatives from Murphree Ventures whom also formerly served.

The ascension of Anderer to the board raises the question of what financial
role the McBride//Anderer axis continues to play in the company. The
investment of Scoot.com has been written down to zero, but is still
outstanding (Dec, 2003) and available for sale. Anderer and Greg Shaw of
Initiate may have been brought in to market the company shell in exchange
for stock.
The other 3 board members (Powell, Logwinuk (sp), and Charles aka Rick (?)
Bayless have been associated together since before the 1997 founding. A
Columbia, SC (Anderers stomping ground) connection exists in the divisional
AOL Service deal announced in 2002.

Oddly, two board names Gregory Logwinuk (not Lok) and Rick Bayless (not
Charles) appear in corrupt form on the Board of Directors web page. (Charles
Bayless is a retired Dynergy exec) Rick Bayless the longtime Powell associate.

A Thomas Meredith is on the advisory board, I believe this is former CFO of
Dell, now acting as private investor.

FROM Yahoo post Number 167601 April 12, 2004
Researching PointServe, I came on a reference to a lawsuit filed against the
company on 4/14/03 for stealing and distributing another companies source
code.
From the Austin Business Journal article:
<snip>
During the fall of 2000, PointServe was struggling with its mobile workforce
software, according to the suit, and decided to scrap its version of the
technology and replace it with Brazen's.

The suit claims PointServe offered to buy Brazen in late 2000 and agreed on a
fair market value of $9 million. Brazen's founders licensed exclusively,
without royalties, the source code to PointServe, the suit states.

Brazen's founders allege they discovered recently that PointServe breached
the merger agreement and the license agreement by wrongfully disclosing
Brazen's source code to Southern Union Co., a PointServe investor and
customer.

"In the software industry a developer's software source code is his very
life-
blood," the suit states. "Disclosing software source code is the
equivalent of
giving away a company's most valuable assets."
</snip>

SOURCE seebizjournals/austin/stories/2003/04/14/story5.html


TimeLine

1997 Epicron founded, superceeds (?) Wintel, Inc
1998 Pointserve (aka Epicron) raises $5.7MM from Murphree, ServiceMaster,
Southern Union Gas.
November 1998 Frank Jackson laid off, later files suit alleging discrimination
and securities fraud
1999 (?) Name change to PointServe
April, 1999 Darl McBride appointed CEO
Feb. 9, 2000 Pointserve raises $50MM in 3rd round from Cox Enterprises,
Scoot.com and US West Dex (Qwest)
July 2000 Darl McBride leaves Pointserve
Sept 19, 2000 PointServe sues Cox Enterprises over $10MM round trip ad buy
November 2000 PointServe purchases Brazen Software for $9MM in
Pointserve stock
Dec 2000 Scoot.com fully writes off value of Pointserve stock
April 27, 2001 Pointserve puchases Servana from Southern Union investors
Spring 2001 Layoffs
Sept 4, 2001 Southern Union deal
Nov 2001 layoffs
March 3, 2002 layoffs
April 2002 Colombia SC AOL division selects PointServe
Dec 2002 Brazen software spun off with Rick Bayless, CEO
March 2003 Former Brazen owners sue for theft of trade secrets
June 2004 (?) Mike Anderer (S2 Partners) becomes director
Aug. 4, 2004 PointServe announces Servicemaster deal

www.pointserve.com/company_board.shtml
www.pointserve.com/company_management.shtml
Frank Jackson suit (Cause No. SA99CV0716, U.S. District Court, San Antonio.)
...........austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/1999/08/09/story4.html
Cox suit: [Travis County District Court, Cause No. GN0-02774]
...........bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2000/10/02/story8.html
Brazen suit:[Travis County District Court, Cause No. GN-1300836]
............austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2003/04/14/story5.html
Colombia SC software buy
............bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2002/04/08/daily42.html
Skeptical review of SUG
...........thestreet.com/p/rmoney/theturnaroundartist_up/10036762.html

August, 1999 Greg Logwinuk,CFO
Oct 1999 Dave Cary appointed CFO
May 2002 Bob Smith appointed CFO
Sept 2004 Greg Logwinuk,CFO

Unknown:
William M. Custer dba as Custer Capital / Capvest / LoneStar / Columbus
Internet invests in Pointserve (probably 2nd round ?). This is a Columbus or
New Albany Ohio local VC.

[ Reply to This | # ]

These aren't the MIT scientists - SCO *swore* there aren't any
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 10:09 PM EST
Before speculating that PointServe might be MIT rocket scientists, I recommend that you review the declaration of John Harrop submitted by SCO, it's document 199 on the docket. It also references a sealed declaration by Sontag [particularly with regard to code comparison issues].

Among other things, it clearly states, that SCO could (theoretically) compare Linux and UNIX - but it's hard, time-consuming (and they claim harder without all the AIX and Dynix code) -- and they have never even had the opportunity to perform any such comparison. See paragraphs 59, 61, 66 and 67 for example. Here are some extracts (retyped so may have typos) - emphasis added:
59. ... By examining the source code in early and then subsequent versions of AIX, Dynix, ptx and Dynix/ptx, SCO can relate an existing version of AIX, Dynix, ptx, or Dynix/ptx code to UNIX code. Assuming that the Linux code is similar to AIX, Dynix, ptx and Dynix/ptx code, SCo can then prioritize its search effort to find evidence of substantial similarity between UNIX and Linux code. Without the ability to prioritize its search efforts, SCO may be required to spend an enormous amount of time, on the order of 35 many-years, searching Linux code for evidence of copying. (Sontag Decl Para 15, 29-54; see also SCO's Memorandum Regarding Discovery, dated May 28, 2004 (Exh. 23))

...

61. The evidence SCO currently has -- a few versions of AIX that IBM selected, Linux code and System V code - is insufficient to prioritize and avoid lenghty analysis because IBM could have copied System V code into early versions of AIX and Dynix, and subsequently modified in the later versions that SCO has. Tracing the derivation of SCO-owneed UNIX code from System V into the code's current form in Linux will be facilitated by SCO's access to IBM's Configuration Management Version Control (CMVC) and the versions of AIX, Dynix, ptx and Dynix/ptx (Sontag Decl. para 31-35)

...

66. Another way for SCO to discover relevant facts to oppose IBM's Tenth Counterclaim is to compare the source code (i) in UNIX and AIX, Dynix, ptx and Dynix/ptx, (ii) in AIX, Dynix, ptx and Dynix/ptx and Linux, and (iii) in UNIX and Linux.

67. SCO has not been given a reasonable opportunity to complete any of the kinds of comparisons necessary to uncover facts relevant to SCO's opposition to IBM's motion for summary judgement. In addition...


Furthermore, later in the same Harrop declaration, again referencing a sealed Sontag declaration, they say, more than once, they haven't compared Linux and UNIX. For example is paras 91 (which again is about how IBM need to produce AIX and Dynix versions since the beginning of time) and 93 - emphasis added

91. ...Those limitations have precluded SCO from completing the source code comparisons necessary to obtain facts essential to justify opposition to IBM's motion for summary judgment.

93. ... SCO and its experts have have not sought to undertake any wholesale comparison of the source code in any two computer operating systems (Sontag Decl. paras 15, 18-23)


In short, it's pretty simple.

Both Mr Harrop, and Mr Sontag (the later is sealed, by we know enough from other documents that reference it such as Harrop) have submitted sworn affidavits saying that SCO have NOT done a full deep dive comparison of Linux and UNIX

I'd suggest that we stop looking for MIT rocket scientists who did this for SCO. I'd take SCO at their word on this.

Now, can we on to IBM's Lanham Act counterclaim? :-)

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

MIT - Licoln Lab connection
Authored by: micheal on Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 10:18 PM EST
"and yes, according to this page, they are directly linked to MIT"

(I live about a mile from Lincoln Labratory. Thirty years ago I was in the Air
Force stationed in a building connected to the lab by a hallway and ate lunch in
the lab on occasion.)

Some years back there was a controversy about the relationship between MIT and
the Lab with respect to the type of research the lab was doing and there was
some type of divesture by MIT. I don't think MIT has direct control over the lab
anymore.




---
LeRoy -
What a wonderful day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

We've known about PointServe for over a year
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 10:21 PM EST
Thanks to statsforall over at Yahoo digging up the dirt we've known about them
for a while. So I assume IBM's lawyers have too. Maybe there's something new
which finally pushed IBM over the edge... they could have served this a while
back. Or maybe they wanted SCO to think they weren't going to. Or maybe this
is a signal: "hey, we can dig deeper and deeper as long as you want to play
this game" :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Paranoia
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 11:15 PM EST
"Funny how Sun has begun attacking Red Hat in the media."

Okay, this is in the verge of paranoia. What do you expect Sun to do? Red Hat
is a major competitor for Sun. More importantly, RH is a major long-term threat
to Sun. So why is it shocking that Sun doesn't like them? But drawing a
connection between that and Suing the heck out of Linux companies is totally
unwarranted.

Sun doesn't have the patent portfolio that other companies do, nor does it have
the litigation history of other companies. It does have a history of being
open-mouthed. They publically criticize any competitor (Microsoft, IBM, HP and
Red Hat that I've seen this year).

I distrust big corporations just as much as anyone in the FOSS world (probably
more). But let's be reasonable people. I have no love for Sun, but this is
getting ridiculous.

Believe it or not, Sun is not the spawn of the devil. It's just antoher greedy
company with no love for its competitors. That's no different from IBM, HP or
RH. They are not a litigation company (unlike SCO), they obey the law (unlike
Microsoft), they have a good record of open standards (unlike MS, IBM and HP)
etc.

Okay, so their CEO is a troll. Sun flames every competitor, and every
competitor flames right back. This is bad and stupid. But it's not evil. The
world is not divided into good companies and evil companies. And the definition
of "good company" is not "contributes to open source" or
"likes Linux".

As an aside, if "goodness" was measured by lines of code contributed
to open source, then Sun would be the best entity after UC Berkeley.

But I digress.

Best,
Daniel Carrera.
OpenOffice.org volunteer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Serves a Subpoena on PointServe
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 12:13 AM EST
While SCOG claims code violations and is not doing any investigative work (most
probably because SCOG knows in advance what the results of such investigative
work, IBM is not shy about issuing subpoenas and actually investigate something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Spectral Analysis?
Authored by: inode_buddha on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 01:20 AM EST
If you check out the docs and pretty pictures here, maybe that's what they mean. [Strange Attractors and TCP/IP sequencing at lcamtuf.coredump.cx/newtcp/]. Not that it does much to help someone's legal case, IMHO.

---
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." -- Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

PointServe in their phone book
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 08:41 AM EST
I did a google search on "(512) 617-5300", the PointServe phone number
.... interesting the the folks that have the POINTSERVE phone number on their
website.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM may have a unique opportunity here...
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 10:22 AM EST
It remains to be seen just how far IBM will unravel the thread. I hope that if
the thread leads all the way to Redmond, IBM will not take the short sighted
view and let Microsoft off the hook.

It is very likely that Microsoft has violated their consent decree at some point
in their involvement with SCO and/or Pointserve and/or Baystar and it is also
possible they have run afoul of the Sherman Act yet again as well. They are the
chief coordinator and, either directly or indirectly, they are one of the key
funding sources for SCO's legal assault against FOSS and Linux through their
attack on IBM.

Without a doubt, there are threads here and there that lead all the way back to
Redmond, let us hope that IBM grasps those threads with an iron grip and tugs
until the whole ugly mess is dragged into the light of day.

---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Serves a Subpoena on PointServe
Authored by: kberrien on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 11:21 AM EST
<drool> <drool>

This whole thing has the makings of a great trial and scathing back room deals,
conspiracy, et al. If IBM continues down the varies trails of deceit, even if
SCO's case falls before trail, it might still be VERY, very interesting.

Thanks for the early xmas present IBM!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darth McBride
Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 12:13 PM EST
*waves hand
Those aren't the MIT units you are looking for.

---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: My take on things
Authored by: LarryVance on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 12:14 PM EST
I believe that the whole thing started with Darl trying to get some money where
he deserved none. A scheme was cooked up where a lawsuit would be filed against
IBM (partially in retribution for shunning them after they acquired part of SCO)
in hopes that they could be silenced with a buyout. They had to establish some
sort of monetary value on the damages -- hence the licensing scheme was born. I
do not think that they wanted to actually sell the general public these
licenses, but that they wanted to use them to say, "Look, we lost all this
possible income because big bad IBM stole our business away".

I am absoluteley convinced that this was a scam from the getgo and that not only
Darl is involved, but that there are several greedy people in the background.

It is a bit like the fight on the playground where the spectators chant and
encite the fight, but when the principal comes they scatter to the four winds.

---
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR INFLUENCE!
Larry Vance

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO: "Please buy us, IBM!"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 01:06 PM EST
From the Wired article about Anderer:

Anderer [...] expresses surprise that IBM didn't simply purchase SCO and donate the Unix code to the public domain; it would've been much cheaper than the current legal fracas.

Yup, there it was right from the beginning of their plan. An attempt to get IBM to buy them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Serves a Subpoena on PointServe
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 02:10 PM EST
Though I am certainly not a fan of SCO and the morons that appear to run things
in that company, I would hesitate to immediately assassinate the character of
the those subpoenaed from PointServe. It may actually turn out to be a blessing.


This man Powell, though degreed in "rocket science" actually has a
strong background in applied pattern recogniton, not a trivial problem domain in
artificial intelligence. Stats4All's detailed treatment of the company implies
he may not be a stellar business person, and his associations may be dubious,
but it would be a tactical blunder to underestimate what this person may
contribute to any legal proceedings. On either side.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Serves a Subpoena on PointServe
Authored by: frk3 on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 02:33 PM EST

Quote from PJ's article "... It's a small world, of course, with weird coincidences happening every day...."

In my own personal experience and view, there are no coincidences, to a great degree. Things happen for a reason, someone or someones wanted certain things to happen, talked to the right people, who contributed to help make the thing happen. Sorry for being so general, but hopefully it relays the point I am making.

A certain series of events were put into play before, during and contines in regards to TSG vs. IBM, etc. People wanted to make money by trying to force a settlement with IBM, spread FUD (as a possible to help make more money), etc. Sympathetic ears listened and threw money at the scheme, scam or whatever you want to call it.

It is no coincidence that certain individuals and companies have, directly or indirectly, been involved in this whole mess from TSG's side of things. I do not think there was some big under handed conspiracy.

However, the prospect of poor to bad press regarding Linux and IBM's alledged involvement would have been of interest to Microsoft (and possibly others).

Too many things add up to it just being a plan, conceived by one or a few, that was put into action by TSG and others helping them. This plan back fired big time when IBM chose to stand up and fight.

So, I do not see that there are too many weird coincidences, I am just a bit surprised that we haven't (yet) found out about even more coincidences, connections, etc. But I do think that more will be coming to light, very very soon, and that will confirm much of what has been suspected or speculated here on Groklaw and other places since this whole mess was stepped in by TSG.

[ Reply to This | # ]

One out of how many?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 04:35 PM EST
I seem to recall that shortly after the Mark Anderer leak and the Baystar-M$
connection being exposed that IBM was serving subpoenas on quite a few entities
including Baystar, S2 et. al.

Other than the fact that Anderer/S2 was objecting to being served I also don't
remember hearing about anything else following up on that.

Does anyone here have any other info on that? A list of who was served? Is this
current subpoena a follow-up on something discovered previously?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM is going fishing
Authored by: WildCode on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 05:17 PM EST
No-one appears to have considered that IBM is fishing, throwing out some baited
lines (subpoenas) and seeing what it catches (through depositions). Maybe they
are fishing for cod (SCO's MIT experts), or for eels (The origin of SCO FUD).

Following the tides (money) could of cetainly lead IBM to several fishing spots
(SCO alligned companies). But unless they throw in some baited lines, they won't
know if there is anything worth catching.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Payment to Novell
Authored by: roadfrisbee on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 05:52 PM EST
I can't remember for sure, but wasn't that only on contracts that Novell already
had in place at the time of the sale? I know that for those contracts, the
successor was only entitled to a fee for the actual collection. If this were a
new contract, wouldn't TSOG be able to keep it all? Or is it an old contract
that was 'renegotiated'?

IANALBILTPOTLO (I am not a lawyer, but I like to pound on tables like one)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why was this one filed?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 06:18 PM EST
Why was this notice of service filed?

There has been one other notice, by IBM to the whole world and none from SCOG.

Did IBM serve discovery requests which were refused?

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Serves a Subpoena on PointServe
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 06:52 PM EST
Is anyone in a position to produce a SCO personnel pedigree diagram in the
manner of the UNIX/Linux pedigree diagram?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Building Bricks (shows my age).
Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, December 15 2004 @ 10:53 PM EST
I remember as a child, some relative would always give a Christmas present of "building bricks". Yesterday's Lego. Small cubes of wood cut an inch or two square. You could build houses and bridges and all things like that, but the most popular build was a straight up tower to see how many bricks you could place one on top of the other, until it became so unstable the crash was inevitable. Just before that stage was reached as you added the last brick or two, it would start to wobble and you had to "oh so delicately" try to manouvre the bricks where the fault would occurr.

SCOG are manouvering bricks.

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hahahahaha!....Hahahahahah!.....wipes tears...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 08:29 PM EST
For personal reasons only, it would have been satisfying for SCO to continue
shrinking and then quietly disappear from radar. Then one day "extra
special" good news comes to remind people why SCO is a perfect example of
how scum of the earth will act and attempt to glorify the right to try and get
shareholders as much money as they can(has everyone forgotten that investing in
stock is nothing more than gambling in Vegas with a few more rules!). How
ironic! the statement used by Darl "Foot in mouth" McBride's opening
attack against IBM has succomed to the light of truth. Of all thats happened in
the previous three years the "MIT "professors" of computer
science confirm suspicions and reveal criminal intent was the source for Linux
surpassing Unix" was the primary reason SCO gave in explanation for their
honorable intention of making wrongs right. Well we learned that someone who
claims to have the goods yet is incapable of showing the slightest bit of the
claimed "goods" is 99.99% of the time lying. With SCO's initial
"Zen" of accusations shown to be an elaborate haox, what judgement can
be delivered that makes crooked people fear punishment for their actions?

[ 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 0.08 seconds