|
|
| IBM Granted a Month to Reply to G2, Despite SCO-G2 Alliance |
 |
|
Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 12:53 PM EST
|
In novel writing, they call it foreshadowing. You know, where a character shows up in the narrative and early on says or does something that lets you know what the character is going to be like or the role he or she will play?
G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc., Ms. O'Gara to you, was asked by IBM if they'd grant them a month to answer G2's motion to intervene and unseal the court's files, from December 20 to January 20. G2 said no. They'd only grant them until January 7. When G2 refused to grant the longer extension, IBM filed a motion [PDF], asking the judge to grant them the time they felt they needed. Then G2 not only opposed the motion [PDF], it got together with SCO's lawyers and put together a joint stipulation [PDF] agreeing to January 7 as the date for SCO to respond to G2's petition. So SCO is in a big hurry too, now. Whatever it is these two want revealed, they want it pronto. When, in this entire saga, has SCO ever asked to go faster? Or since when do they volunteer to work over Christmas? Remember last year? And for that matter, since when does SCO ask for less secrecy? The judge granted IBM's motion [PDF] so January 20 is the due date, despite the SCO-G2 alliance. And here are all four documents as text, so you can follow the story. What a surprise. G2 and SCO working together.
IBM's stated reason for asking for more time, aside from the holidays, was that G2 is seeking to unseal all the documents in the case, "including those attached to the summary judgment motions now in the process of being briefed," meaning IBM is still working on them, specifically one which is due on January 14. So IBM asked to be able to respond to G2's request after that, so they could address their motion in one document, instead of "in piecemeal fashion". What are the odds of any judge, or for that matter any law firm, saying no to that? It's kind of unusual for a law firm to decline a first request for an extension. And another thing I noticed. David Boies was listed on G2's Certificate of Service. How often do we see his name on anything? And I saw on the Order's Certificate of Service that there were actually two sheets, the first showing that G2's attorneys went to the court to pick up their copy in person. All in all, everything reeks of urgency and a real interest in this seemingly unimportant matter. There has to be a story here somewhere, and in time we'll find out why this side show seems so vital to SCO and G2. When you consider all the times SCO's has been granted a delay, they had to know he was likely to grant this very reasonable request. Judge Kimball lives in a state that allows certain prisoners leave from the prison to go home for Christmas with their families, for heaven's sake. How likely was it that he'd force IBM to work through the holiday? Perhaps that's why SCO and G2 got together to do the stipulation, because they likely knew the odds were against G2 prevailing. So what is the foreshadowing part? Read G2's Opposition to IBM's motion. Imagine you are Judge Kimball reading it. What do you think he thought of their strident and over-the-top arguments? ("real damage comes with delay" . . . "an entire month late" . . . "G2 is entitled to have its motion heard promptly") Or them opposing such a motion in the first place, when they haven't yet even been granted permission to participate, and there is a rather major holiday going on during that "entire month"? Think he can size up who this party is that wishes to step in the middle of this litigation on behalf of "the public" or what they are going to be like to deal with? This urgency speaks of a deeper motive than just the words on the page. What harm? To whom? And SCO's attorneys, working under a cap on their fees, thought it was important enough to write a stipulation. Every legal document costs the client something. If you were Judge Kimball, would you look forward to G2's participation? I'm not predicting what he'll do, by any means, with respect to G2's motion, but I think I can imagine how he feels. I imagine he feels exactly the way *you* feel when you read this document. Ever get an email from a really obnoxious, demanding, antagonistic person? How did you feel? Does your brain not instantly see what it will be like dealing with such a person and don't you immediately want to escape to the Seychelles Islands or Malta or someplace in a galaxy far, far away from them? Or better, send them there? Seeing SCO and G2 stipulate to January 7, presumably to try to influence Judge Kimball to grant the January 7 date, tells me SCO is not going oppose G2's motion to intervene. That's what I believe novelists call understatement.
**********************
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
Peter H. Donaldson (9642)
[address, phone, fax]
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation
_____________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
____________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
____________________________
IBM'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO G2
COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE, INC'S
MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION
TO UNSEAL COURT'S FILE
Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
____________________________
International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") respectfully moves the Court for a 30-day extension of time in which to respond to G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc.'s ("G2") Motion to Intervene and Motion to Unseal Court's File (Docket No. 340-1) (the "Motion"). IBM seeks to move the deadline from December 20, 2004 until January 20, 2005.
G2's Motion seeks to unseal all documents in this case, including those attached to the summary judgment motions now in process of being briefed. IBM's reply memoranda supporting its motions for summary judgment are currently due on January 14, 2005. IBM would like to be able to address all documents attached in summary judgment briefing at once, not in piecemeal fashion. Counsel for IBM contacted counsel for G2 to request a 30-day extension based on these concerns as well as on the holiday schedule, but G2 would only agree to grant an extension until January 7, 2005, well short of the 30 days requested. G2's offer does not address IBM's desire to address all relevant documents at once.
Based on the foregoing, IBM respectfully requests that the Court extend the deadline to respond to G2's motion 30 days until January 19, 2005.
DATED this 20th day of December, 2004.
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
___[signature]___
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy
Amy Sorenson
Peter H. Donaldson
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation
Of counsel:
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Donald J. Rosenberg
Alec S. Berman
[address, phone]
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the ___ day of December, 2004, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was delivered by hand to the following:
Michael P. O'Brien
Andrew H. Stone
JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & McDONOUGH PC
[address] and was sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the
following:
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
Robert Silver
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
_____[signature]___
Michael P. O'Brien (USB #4894)
Andrew H. Stone (USB #4921)
JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & McDONOUGH PC
[address, telephone]
Attorneys for G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
_______________________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION, a New York corporation,
Defendant.
_______________________________________
G2 COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE
INC.'S RESPONSE TO IBM'S EX
PARTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE MEMORANDUM
IN RESPONSE TO G2 COMPUTER
INTELLIGENCE, INC.'S MOTION TO
INTERVENE AND MOTION TO
UNSEAL THE COURT'S FILE
Civil No. 03CV0294
Judge Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
_______________________________________
G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc. ("G2") submits the following memorandum in response to IBM's Ex Parte Motion For Extension of Time. G2 objects to a further extension beyond that which G2 agreed to, until January 7, 2005.
Further extension is unreasonable. IBM's desire to await response until it files its latest papers is of no avail. G2's motion contemplates ongoing responsibilities of the parties in this matter to justify the sealing of any document filed with the Court. It is no less efficient to justify filings sealed to date now, rather than wait for those to be filed next month. This responsibility is not onerous; the protective order in this case obligates counsel to have a "good faith" basis for designating materials confidential in the first instance. And IBM certainly has the legal resources to have responded to G2's motion in a timely manner, much less an entire month late.
While counsel for G2 believes in accommodating reasonable requests for extension, it has done so in this instance; counsel consented to a nearly three week delay. There are no real efficiencies in waiting, but real damage comes with delay. G2 is entitled to have its motion heard promptly, without being tied to IBM's briefing on its motion for summary judgment. Morever, the public is entitled to review nonproprietary matters that are filed under seal in this action promptly. Accordingly, G2 respectfully requests that the Court deny the ex parte application for extension beyond January 7, 2005 and require delivery of IBM's response on G2 by close of business on that day.
Dated this 21st day of December, 2004.
JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & McDONOUGH PC
By: ___[signature]______
Michael P. O'Brien
Andrew H. Stone
Attorneys for G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 21st day of December, 2004, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to be mailed, postage prepaid, to the following:
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
Hatch, James & Dodge, P.C.
[address]
David Boies
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
[address]
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
[address]
Todd Shaughnessy
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]
Advid Marriott
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]
Donald J. Rosenberg
[address]
____[signature]______
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
Sean Eskovitz (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group
_______________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
_______________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
_________________________
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND
TIME FOR SCO TO FILE REPLY TO
G2 COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE,
INC.'S MOTION TO INTERVENE
AND MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT'S
FILES
Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
__________________________
Plaintiff The SCO Group ("SCO"), by and through counsel, and movant G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc. ("G2"), by and through counsel, hereby stipulate that SCO may have through January 7, 2004 in which to file a response to G2's November 30, 2004 Motion to Intervene and Motion to Unseal Court Records ("G2's Motion"). In the event that the Court grants Defendant IBM additional time beyond January 7, 2004 to reply to G2's Motion, SCO's response shall be due on the same day as IBM's response.
DATED this 20th day of December, 2004.
By: ____[signature]______
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.
By: ___[signature]___
JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & McDONOUGH PC
Michael P. O'Brien
Andrew H. Stone
Attorneys for G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc.
I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SCO TO FILE REPLY TO G2 COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE, INC.'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT'S FILES to be served on International Business Machines Corporation on this 20th day of December, 2004, by placing it in U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the following:
Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]
Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]
Alan L. Sullivan, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
[address]
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff IBM
Corp.
By: ___[signature]____
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
Peter H. Donaldson (9642)
[address, phone, fax]
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation
_________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
________________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
_________________________________
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM
PLAINTIFF IBM'S EX PARTE MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO G2
COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE, INC'S
MOTION TO INTERVENE AND
MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT'S FILE
Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
_________________________________
Based upon Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation's ("IBM") Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum in Response to G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc's Motion to Intervene and Motion to Unseal Court's File, and for good cause appearing thereon,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that IBM may file its Memorandum in Response to G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc's Motion to Intervene and Motion to Unseal Court's File on or before January 20, 2005.
DATED this 21st day of December, 2004.
BY THE COURT:
___[signature]______
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
U.S. District Court Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the ___ day of December, 2004, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was delivered by hand to the following:
Michael P. O'Brien
Andrew H. Stone
JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & McDONOUGH PC
[address] and was sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the
following:
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
Robert Silver
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
___[signature]____
United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
December 21, 2004
* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK * *
Re: 2:03-cv-00294
True and correct copies of the attached were either mailed, faxed or emailed by the clerk to the following:
following:
Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]
EMAIL
Scott E. Gant, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Frederick S. Frei, Esq.
ANDREWS KURTH
[address]
Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
EMAIL
Mr. Alan L Sullivan, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL
Todd M. Shaghnessy, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL
Mark J. Heise, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
EMAIL
Mr. Kevin P McBride, Esq.
[address]
EMAIL
Robert Silver, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Stuart H. Singer, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Mr. David W. Scofield, Esq.
PETERS SCOFIELD PRICE
[address]
EMAIL
Mr. Michael P O'Brien, Esq.
JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & MCDONOUGH
[address]
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:00 PM EST |
Back when G2 filed the motion, there was a question of why?
My private speculation was there was something G2 knew but couldn't publish
because it was sealed, and if G2 knew it, shouldn't have known it.
So the question was, who told G2 what was in a sealed document?
Now, we can make an educated guess where that leak came from. Is there a
possible contempt of court issue here? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: roadfrisbee on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:04 PM EST |
<tinfoil hat>Since they were pushing for release on or before Friday the
8th, there must be something set for around Monday the 10th that they figure
they need this for to sway public opinion. Probably more bad news for SCO due
about that time, and they need whatever was sealed as their
wookie...</tinfoil hat>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: daavery on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:05 PM EST |
Note that in the G2/SCO stipulation , SCO asked that if IBM gets delayed then
SCO wants the same dealy, so now SCO and IBM both get till 20-jan-05 to answer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:07 PM EST |
This must be about the notorious emails. Nothing else makes sense. SCOG, can't
want their code released nor can IBM. Nothing else in the record seems to be a
good candidate. SCOG must think they are on to something, or they are trying to
make it look like IBM is trying to hide something.
I note the G2 does not move to have the sealed transcript unsealed.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bcomber on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:07 PM EST |
and it coming from SCO/G2's camp. Something is going on behind the scenes.
What I'd really like to see is after IBM responds to this, the judge denies the
motion. Then let's see how far they want to go with it. Can they appeal if the
judge denies the motion to unseal the documents?
Mike
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:09 PM EST |
| Is this good or bad ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbeadle on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:10 PM EST |
You know how...
And I'll start it off.
Thanks,
-jb
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Pop69 on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:21 PM EST |
| I see an advid marriot in the G2 response footers. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections - dates - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:38 PM EST
- Corrections - Authored by: PJ on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 03:01 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:25 PM EST |
Nobody should be surprised. Maureen O'Gara has been an SCO shill for a long time
now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:26 PM EST |
... SCOG2 (i.e. SCO+G2) shows disrepect at least, or incompetance at worst to
continue mis-spelling your opponents name on legal documents, dunnit?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:36 PM EST |
I am now just reading G2's original request to the court to unseal, and I
spotted something I think could be a tactic.
from page
1:
"(1) unsealing each of the sealed documents filed or exchanged...unless
the parties demonstrate that the release of such documents would cause them
specific competitive injury; and (2)modifying protective
order...first make showing that public access...would cause specific
competitive injury..."
Would this allow SCO to
litigate and delay over the filing of every document that they and IBM
file with the court? I could imagine a 2-month long sequence of
filing/counter-filing on EACH AND EVERY document from here on out if this
is granted!
Me thinks this is another delay tactic, they want to break the
minute clock down to seconds and ask review for EVERY single filing,
which they could simply contest opposite whatever way IBM declares. "IBM want's
it public, so we want it private...IBM wants it private, so we want it
public..." Could this tactic work? Or would the judge simply put a stop to
this nonsense? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:38 PM EST |
| Maybe this goes back to PJ's eureka
moment about the protective order. Perhaps TSG have received some threating
emails and they want to show the public and get some pity. More PR. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MathFox on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:38 PM EST |
I have the feeling that G2's lawyers happened to stroll in at the clerk's office
when the clerk was working on the stack of orders that Kimball signed that day.
Kimball's order is timestamped 2:15; G2's response 3:50.
---
When people start to comment on the form of the message, it is a sign that they
have problems to accept the truth of the message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dodger on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:42 PM EST |
What everyone on the wrong side of the fence is interested in is DRIVING THE
PRICE OF THE STOCk UP. G2/O'Gara is that reporter that will 1) take the credit
for 'revealing these incredible turn of events', and 2) for presenting these
'atrocities' to the public at large. This will driver her readership up, and she
will phrase everything in terms of how evil IBM is and 'now we really see what
SCO has known from the beginning and why they think they have a chance to win
this case.'
As a stock ploy, it doesn't matter the final outcome of the case. It only
matters that there is vicious news surrounding it for the following weeks, until
IBM puts the damper on and shows why none of this matters. THE PLOY IS THE
STOCK, nothing more.
This is a very good instance to notify the SEC before it happens about how 'the
press' during a suit affects the stock price and how SCOG should be taken to
task. We have forewarning!!!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rm6990 on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 01:50 PM EST |
I think something is strange. If you read through some of O'Gara's earlier
articles (some over a year ago) she was very critical of SCO, and openly accused
MS of funding them in one of her articles. Also, in january of 2003, she wrote
an article predicting this would happen, back when SCO was "investigating
Linux, Mac OS X and Windows for misuse of SCO's intellectual property".
Here is a link to the article.
http://www.sys-con.com/linux/article.cfm?id=381
Notice the date? SCO immediately distanced itself from her.
What I'm thinking is that maybe O'Gara had a contact inside of SCO, but was not
buddy buddy with SCO itself. In the linked article, she doesn't speak highly of
either SCO or Boies.
But what about G2 getting all buddy buddy with SCO now??? Maybe SCO liked the
fact that O'Gara is willing to publish articles without verifying her
information and slipped G2 under the table some cash and some instructions, as
well as maybe some of IBM's sealed documents...
How much money in SCO's numbers seems fudged or is unnaccounted for?
...Who knows, maybe I'm way off base here, just making a guess.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 02:09 PM EST |
Because this shows her to be (figuratively speaking) "in bed" with SCO
and the SCO shill she appears to be.
I agree with other posters that the motivation here might be to continue FUD and
artificially drive up the price of SCO stock. SEC investigation?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 02:09 PM EST |
"Further extension is unreasonable."
Unsupported statement.
"IBM's desire to await response until it files its latest papers is of no
avail."
Wishful thinking.
"It is no less efficient to justify filings sealed to date now, rather than
wait for those to be filed next month."
So saith G2.
"This responsibility is not onerous"
Nothing that either G2 or SCOG demands ever is.
"There are no real efficiencies in waiting, but real damage comes with
delay."
Unsupported statement.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 02:15 PM EST |
IBM's motion requested delay to January 19 but Judge Kimball signed an order
granting delay to 20 January. Is this normal practice or is there a message for
G2 and SCO here?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Cyrock on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 02:20 PM EST |
I think SCO was hoping that IBM would get the extension. IBM stated in their
Motion:
"IBM would like to be able to address all documents attached in summary
judgment briefing at once, not in piecemeal fashion."
This is the same tactic SCO has been trying to use to delay IBM’s Partial
Summary Judgment. I am not a lawyer, but me thinks this make SCO’s argument
stronger.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: StLawrence on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 02:35 PM EST |
Reg Broughton, Senior VP, is no longer listed
on SCO's Company->Execs webpage. In addition,
Thomas R. Raimondi, Director, also has been
removed from that same page, but we knew that
was happening -- he announced his departure
from the board a few weeks ago.
But does anyone know what's up with the removal
of Reg Broughton's bio from the website?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: StLawrence on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 02:39 PM EST |
According to SCO's current website, here are the names of
the individuals
responsible for the management and direction
of
The SCO
Group:
Darl C. McBride, President & CEO,
Director
Chris Sontag, Senior VP & GM of SCOsource
Division
Bert Young, CFO
Ryan E. Tibbetts, General
Counsel
Jeff Hunsaker, Senior VP & GM of UNIX
Division
Alan Raymond, VP
Ralph J. Yarro III, Chairman of
the Board
Edward E. Iacobucci, Director
Darcy Mott,
Director
R. Duff Thompson, Director
K. Fred Skousen,
Director
Daniel W. Campbell, Director
Inquisitive Googlers are
referred to http://www.groklaw.net
for
complete information on the results of the
management of TSCOG by
these individuals.
The Internet has a long memory.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 02:39 PM EST |
"In the event that the Court grants Defendant IBM additional time beyond
January 7, 2004 to reply to G2's Motion, SCO's response shall be due on the same
day as IBM's response."
Give me a break. Like they ever thought it wouldn't be granted.
To the contrary, SCO was fairly sure the extension would be granted, so they
threw this in. It's an old schoolyardish attempt to make IBM look bad.
"Well, WE will be ready on the 7th, IBM wants to wait till the 20th.
They're trying to delay things, Your Honor! If they get to wait, we get to
wait!"
In reality, they've given themselves an extension of time. Too bad the judge
couldn't call them on that.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: CyberDude on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 02:40 PM EST |
I have a question for one of the attorneys who visits the site. I am not a
lawyer by any means, but I do deal with computer forensics and information
security. In fact, I teach infosec and forensics classes, so I am not
completely
clueless when it comes to legal issues as they pertain to information security.
I cannot put my finger on where I came across it, but I seem to remember
something somewhere dealing with the US Legal System and public
information (for the life of me I'd swear it's the FOIA) that states that the
public does have a right to governmental records except in cases of national
security, etc., etc. but, quite specifically, that the public does NOT have the
right to disclosure of information by the legal system. Now, I know that we
have constitutional guarantees of free and open trials, but my understanding
under FOIA is that if a court seals a record, the public, or any other third
party for that matter, has NO recourse to have it unsealed except in the face
of some serious criminal or life threatening issue.
Now, I am probably completely off base, but in light of my understanding of
FOIA and the judiciary, G2 has no standing nor a right to unseal these
documents. Am I completely incorrect?
Thanks so much and best regards
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- FOIA and G2 - Authored by: marbux on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 08:25 PM EST
- FOIA and G2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 09:02 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 02:44 PM EST |
So G2 and SCO stipulated that SCO is already 11 months late?
"...hereby stipulate that SCO may have through January 7, 2004 in which to
file a response to G2's November 30, 2004 Motion to Intervene and Motion to
Unseal Court Records ("G2's Motion")."
I know, a typo, but it's kind of funny, given how late SCO has been, and how
many extensions they've asked for.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 03:17 PM EST |
I don't think this is about getting anything revealed. SCO/MS are simply
interested in the FUD value of being able to accuse IBM of hiding things and
delaying. I've seen this kind of statement in many places and I'm sure we'll see
plenty more of it. O'garra has been made to look really bad here and she just
wants exposure, to get "one up" on PJ and Groklaw. She won't advance
her reputation with those who read Groklaw, and probably not with anyone else
either. This is just a pathetic last gasp aimed at spreading more FUD before the
whole thing falls down around them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 03:19 PM EST |
Throughout this whole FiaSCO, there have been speculations that
SCO knew something we didn't, that they had some ace up their
sleeve. I don't think this was ever the case but I do think that they
may know of weaknesses in their case that we are not aware of.
I think their push for speed on this issue is because they are afraid
that the whole case is about to blow up in their faces. Like the classic
villain, even though they are already fatally wounded they want to
get in one last mean stab at the hero before they die.
---
SCO cannot violate the covenants that led to and underlie Linux without
forfeiting the benefits those covenants confer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 03:43 PM EST |
fore shadowing or fore knoledge of something.
it's almost as if someone(cough, cough, SCOX, cough,) has told G2 that there is
something to find, and where to look. isn't leaking information like that a bit
of a crime. at least contempt of court?
---
=====
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sunfish on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 03:49 PM EST |
My guess is that the documents O'Gara is slavering for relate to IBM's private
views of the open source movement. For example, a few disparaging remarks
capable of driving a wedge between IBM and Groklaw readers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 04:08 PM EST |
1. O'Gara's company = G2
Anderer's company = S2
Questions: Are the surprisingly similar names, just a coincidence?
2. O'Gara's already written stories about what SCO want to put in SCO's 3rd
amended complaint.
Question: How would she know, since it's supposedly sealed?
3. Recent O'Gara storiy talks about tracking down Darl at the airport when he
was travelling to Japan
Question: How come she knows his movements so well.
4. The G2 motion: Some of people on Groklaw have commented on certain oddities
in their motion and how they got involved in this case - and they sort of seem
to have jumped a step before filing their motion to unseal
Question: Could they have jumped a step because they either forgot in their own
mind they are supposedly a separate party from SCO - or perhaps because SCO's
original intention was to file the unseal motion themselves.
5. Another thing about the unseal motion and #4: A while ago there were press
reports (I seem to remember from O'Gara) saying that SCO intended to file a
motion to unseal the documents
Of course, SCO never filed such a motion (instead they simply read aloud
confidential IBM documents during the October hearing in disregard of what the
Magistrate Judge was telling them - and got slapped down with the Magistrate sua
sponte sealing the transcript) --- anyway it's sure convienent that G2 have
filed an unseal motion -- as I guess SCO don't need to do that themselves now.
6. Re: From history Caldera v Microsoft
Microsoft may have been in the wrong, but when did MS settle? Answer: When they
were required, in discovery, to provide large amounts of confidential documents
and trade secrets to Caldera.
In Caldera v Microsoft, a reporter, Wendy Goldman Rohm was covering the case.
She wrote articles and a book that were very pro-Caldera. She has also seem to
know quite a lot about the movements of certain Novell people (who later became
Caldera people - e..g. Dan Campbell, Thompson, Noorda, etc). She also seemed to
know a lot about what was said in sealed MS depositions.
There was allegations that Caldera had provided her with documents, by Goldman
Rohm claims she had another source.
Could O'Gara be playing the Goldman Rohm role here? Many of the people on the
Caldera side are the same (and don't forget in DoJ v MS, Boies represented the
DoJ and this case interacted with Caldera v Microsoft cases and covered some of
the same even issues)
Think about this one.... it could put a whole new complexion on SCO wanting
unlimited access to IBM's CMVC system for example.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 04:47 PM EST |
My take on this is:
same priciple as always: fast with FUD, stall the truth.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: raynfala on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 05:05 PM EST |
I'm no lawyer, but G2's response has to be one of the most obnoxious, bombastic
filings I've seen on the pages of Groklaw. No case law cited, no structured
arguments given, just a bunch of grandstanding and whining with no "meat on
the bones".
Sheesh, if I were the judge, that filing would have depleted any patience I had
for G2.
--Raynfala
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 06:34 PM EST |
I think IBM has every right to believe that the sealed information has already
been leaked to O'Gara.
They should ask the court to investigate this contempt issue first, before the
issue of unsealing is dealt with.
Clearly O'Gara's credibility as an IT journalist has taken a dramatic dive over
her coverage of SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tredman on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 07:52 PM EST |
Okay, somebody pull me out of the fog, I'm a little bit lost, here.
If memory serves right, somebody (might have been Quatermass or PJ, but I don't
recall) actually jotted down all of the document sealings since the beginning of
the case. I also seem to recall that, though the sealings were about 50-50,
most of IBM's were either replies to sealed SCOX documents, or sealed
depositions, so they'd have to be kept confidential.
If I'm right about that, and I may not be, doesn't unsealing a majority or all
of the documents do exactly and precisely squat to IBM? It would seem to expose
SCOX more than them.
No, I think that, as somebody pointed out earlier, it's just another method of
delay. Having to put everything on hold while previous sealed documents are
reviewed and reevaluated just puts off any kind of pertinent material
judgement.
Tim[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 07:52 PM EST |
G2 is not even a party to this case! This is very forward of a third party, with
no connection to the case, to expect a quick response like this over the
holidays, and while IBM is in process of responding to some critical motions.
They only reason I can see for them to be THIS demanding as a third party would
be that they are working in conjunction with SCO, and know what it is that they
are going to see when they unseal. Like other posts here are postulating, I
would also suggest that they are working quite closely with TSG in a coordinated
FUD campaign of some sort.
I have no doubt that there's some interesting dirt that they want to release. I
also have no doubt that it will be only partially useful as real evidence.
If I had to guess as to the reasoning behind this demaning timeframe, I would
propose the following:
1. SCO is trying to set up IBM as delaying something, rather than themselves. It
also allows SCO to paint IBM as having "Something to hide".
2. Releasing this information will not affect the case in any way. The jury will
see it. The judge and both parties see it. Therefore, this is is only for PR and
FUD. More specifically, it is for propping their stock up, which rides up and
down based on litigation news, and not "Legend" or any of their other
new initiatives.
In particular, this then must be for some kind of news-based stock booster (and,
in their wild dreams, some kind of rush to drop money in the SCO Source
Salvation Army bin).
3. SCO knows that if it loses any of the fully briefed motions, it will be in a
PR nightmare, and will have lost the case in the media. They need something else
to hang their hat on, or it will fall on the floor. Those motions could be
answered by the Judge at ANY time. They must feel a bit like Damocles at the
moment, and are probably a bit panicky.
Other that these reasons, there might be other behind-the-scenes things going on
that we don't know about that might cause this urgency, but any of the above are
enough.
I do believe that there's something of interest to everyone behind this, and I
hope that this case does get unsealed; with all parties' permission, of course.
Those sealed filings drive me crazy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 08:15 PM EST |
Given that what SCO probably wants unsealed is that email, and given that the
whole transcript had to be sealed because of SCO reading the sealed email aloud
in court, what are the chances of SCO actually getting what they want, rather
than the Judge simply unsealing all of the bits that are inconvenient to SCO,
and leaving that email sealed?
And, as seems sensible, are the motions/discussions about whether to unseal each
confidential document also sealed themselves?
CK[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 09:00 PM EST |
I wonder when IBM will depose MOG?
As my uncle used to say, "It looks like there's a skunk in the
woodpile."
---
Wayne
telnet hatter.twgs.org
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: karl on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 09:56 PM EST |
My guess is that SCOX has found something during discovery that makes IBM looks
bad... bad enough to get the public to think that there is a genuine issue.
It's the same thing that Hatch (?) tried to read into the record. They're
desperate to get it out to people before the judge rules on IBM's request for
partial summary judgement. If the judge substantially grants IBM's motions,
SCOX fears people will stop believing, their stock will tank, etc.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: joeblakesley on Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 10:16 PM EST |
"Remember last Christmas..."
Don't. You've reminded me of how long TSG has been wasting the court's time with
their pathetic case (or lack thereof).
---
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cheros on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 12:09 AM EST |
As speculated by others below, there hangs a strange whiff of unauthorised
disclosure around this sudden urgency.
Given that G2 and SCO are now openly collaborating, what does this mean for
IBM's confidential material? IBM's no angel, but it is - like SCO - entitled to
the full protection of its confidential documents. Given SCOs apparent and
clearly demonstrated approach to that entitlement (you know which incident I'm
referring to) I think it would not be unreasonable to suspect that the 3rd party
"G2" has had exposure.
If true, this would teether so perilously close to contempt of court that I
would not at all be surprised if it would turn ugly for both SCO and G2.
The purported urgency is interesting, but I'm not sure that isn't just a
sideshow - unless it relates to other (marketing?) strategies in progress or
planned. Given the tangled web of sponsorship it could just be noise to keep
the MS failure to halt its EU penalty off the financial front pages, as an
example. Don't know, just speculating - it's bizarre at best.
It sort of outweirds the SCO case in general ;-).
= Ch =[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AllParadox on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 01:15 AM EST |
If you are an independant journalist or news organization, unconnected to any of
the parties, you may at least get a polite hearing from a judge before he burns
your motion to intervene.
The very last thing you want to do is appear that you have allied yourself with
one of the parties, to the extent that you may even be an alter-ego for that
party. Never, never, never, never, never, never file joint motions agreeing to
stipulate in such a situation. Have your friendly party file their *consent*,
not stipulation, at least two days after you file your motion, to at least give
an appearance that they *might* have received it by mail and responded as
quickly as possible.
Judges are not pleased to have their time consumed by frivolous motions,
particularly if the frivolous motion is a clear attempt at an end run around
another judge's ruling. Judges are particularly not pleased to appear to be
patsies for such a motion.
I think chances are pretty fair that the attorney from the firm representing G2
will be the greenest, newest, most vulnerable lawer in the firm. He or she will
be taken into the most senior partner's office, and will learn that the firm's
reputation is riding on this very public issue, and that they are depending on
him. There may be a strong implication that his future prospects with the firm,
including further employment, rest on the outcome of this hearing. Then, during
the actual hearing, everyone else in the firm including secretaries and janitors
will be hiding in a closet.
How I would handle it, if I were Kimball, at the end of the hearing:
"Counsel, very nicely presented. Thank you.
Motion to intervene is granted.
We will review all the sealed documents for propriety of confidentiality, with a
few exceptions.
In anticipation of my ruling today, I have looked at a number of the memo's
identified by IBM. It is obvious on the face of the documents themselves, that
these are protected attorney-client communications. These will remain sealed,
and are not to be disclosed to party G2 without my specific written
authorization. Also, it appears that one of these memos was read into the
record before Judge Wells. The transcript for that hearing will also remain
sealed and is not to be disclosed to party G2 without my specific written
authorization.
The clerk will mail you my list specifying sealed exhibits.
That will be all."
I am not nearly as nice as Judge Kimball.
---
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: waltish on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 01:23 AM EST |
One thing MOG has done it to Mark her self and G2 as SCO schills of the highest
order.
That smell is like the "Bog of Eternal Stench" , If you get even just
a little bit on you the Stench will never fade and nothing will ever remove it.
Me thinks, she must think the gain (money, fame) must be worth the risk of
loosing all credibility.
w
---
To speak the truth plainly and without fear,Is powerfull.
PS: Beware the Gestank of SCO.
PPS: SCO's argument does not withstand analysis.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 05:04 AM EST |
I don't think that IBM need worry too much even if everything does get unsealed.
The truth is the truth, and in reality there is nothing that can be really
damaging (unless IBM is involved in some kind of slave trade while funding
genocide).
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but if the US government suddenly admitted that
they have been studying UFOs for 30 years, I am in the camp of "So ET does
exist, that's interesting."
The biggest problem that I can see is that I am going to have to read pages of
the stuff here.
I remember at the beginning I thought SCO may have a case (it is possible that
IBM may have used some of SCO's code). Then they started acting like idiots,
and I don't think anyone actual would care anymore. SCO have done more damage
to their own business than if IBM leaked *all* of UnixWare source.
If IBM have taken some of SCO's code, there are fixed penalties that are
imposed. Copyright infringment (accidental or otherwise) is *common*. It is
also not the end of the world.
Basically, all these silly problems in the world are caused jerks. Darl McB
should give his bonus to people starving in Africa.
Merry Christmas![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 06:28 AM EST |
It's not. Its lawyers are hurrying. They're effectively running
this case now (Darl intimated as much in the Q4 conference), and are on capped
fees plus a slice of the (heheh) winnings. It's in their interest to get this
thing resolved, including the inevitable appeal, as fast as possible one way
or the other.
SCO quite literally can't afford to keep delaying this
case. It's now put up or shut up time, even for them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kalak on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 10:58 AM EST |
Can witnesses to the hearing talk about this at all, even on general terms (how
"damaging" the read material was to IBM, etc)? Or does the seal
prevent anyone from talking about what was sealed, despite being there? I'm not
used to having the option of asking witnesses to a case, and usually just
getting the news from a source.
---
Kalak: I am, and always will be, an idiot.
Also, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 27 2004 @ 12:50 PM EST |
There's something in those sealed documents that SCO believes would damage IBM.
Not with the case, as the court can see the sealed documents... but with the
Open Source community in general.. and Groklaw in particular.
SCO would probably like nothing better than Groklaw's high powered lights and
telescopes being trained on what may be in IBM's closet, rather than on them.
-JH (not logged in)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
