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
SCO to the Judge: We Demand More Discovery & Throw In Some Sanctions
Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 09:40 AM EST

SCO is unhappy with IBM's affidavits from its executives stating presumably that they have no further documents in their possession to turn over in discovery regarding their "Linux strategy." SCO refuses to take them at their word. They want... drum roll... more documents and emails! And sanctions! So onto their steed they hop and file with the court a plea for more documents and sanctions against IBM for not producing what IBM says it doesn't possess. It's in the form of a Renewed Motion for Discovery [PDF]. The prior motion for discovery hasn't even been ruled on yet in full.

Oh, and now they'd like to depose somebody too, someone officially representing IBM, so they can grill him, presumably on this matter. No doubt they'd ask for the rack, if we were still in the Middle Ages. Or, better yet, just toss the IBM executive into the ocean, with a weight around his neck. If he floats, he's telling the truth. Let's get this settled once and for all.

It's all couched in the same abusive language we've come to expect from SCO when they are talking about IBM. They seem unable to be calm and polite, unless it's all an act. The odds of them getting sanctions at this point, on the materials we are reading here, seem to me to be about zero. While they may get more discovery of code ordered if they keep screaming about it, sanctions for not producing emails and documents that no one can find would be quite a stretch. SCO seems to think a hunch is the same as proof. It isn't. So unless there is something in their sealed memorandum to justify such a request, this call for sanctions seems to be a lot of fuss over nothing.

They mention that February 11th is the cutoff date for fact discovery, so now, at the 11th hour, SCO would like to do that deposition. I notice they phrase it like this: "the currently scheduled, impending close of fact discovery", which seems to hint that they may ask for more time for fact discovery. Surprise, surprise. They haven't asked yet, but what do you want to bet when we get closer to February, they start demanding a change in the schedule? I am not a betting person, but if I were, this would be the moment. And if, miracle of miracles, SCO wins this motion and gets to do the deposition, there likely would have to be a delay, just to accommodate all the deadlines that would ensue while SCO does the deposition and they fight about whatever details they can think of.

It all strikes me as being more for the peanut gallery than anything else, and setting up for the delay I project they may be wanting. The bottom line is always the same. SCO filed a lawsuit without, they now claim, the evidence to back it up, MIT spectral analysis stories notwithstanding. Now, they are standing before the court begging for help to try to find some evidence to prove their allegations, and as the tide now turns, and IBM has started to talk about all the damage SCO has done to IBM, it must be a mighty scary position for SCO to be in.

The request for the deposition is in their language wanting the judge to "compel discovery regarding SCO's Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of IBM," and the paragraph about "IBM has improperly refused to produce Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses", which is a new request, I believe, at least new to us, and here is the pertinent Rule 30(b)(6):

(b) Notice of Examination: General Requirements; Special Notice; Method of Recording; Production of Documents and Things; Deposition of Organization; Deposition by Telephone. . . .

(6) A party may in the party's notice and in a subpoena name as the deponent a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or governmental agency and describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the organization so named shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify. A subpoena shall advise a non-party organization of its duty to make such a designation. The persons so designated shall testify as to matters known or reasonably available to the organization. This subdivision (b)(6) does not preclude taking a deposition by any other procedure authorized in these rules.

(UPDATE: I found a case for you, which centers around EOPs, which I think will help you to comprehend what SCO is asking for here, which is essentially to depose someone high up enough at IBM to testify knowledgeably about any Linux strategy.) In other words, Judge Wells told IBM to provide affidavits from its executives that there were no further documents related to Linux other than the ones IBM had already provided. She did this because SCO said it didn't believe there wasn't more. Evidently IBM has so provided the required affidavits, but SCO isn't satisfied with them and characterizes them as "cursory". I expect if someone publicly called me a liar, I might be a tad terse myself.

They also mention Rule 37(b)(2) which is the sanctions rule and which reads like this:

(b) Failure to Comply with Order. . . .

(2) Sanctions by Court in Which Action is Pending. If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party or a person designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a) to testify on behalf of a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order made under subdivision (a) of this rule or rule 35, or if a party fails to obey an order entered under Rule 26(f), the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others the following:

(A) An order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;

(B) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party from introducing designated matters in evidence;

(C) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party;

(D) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order treating as a contempt of court the failure to obey any orders except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination;

(E) Where a party has failed to comply with an order under Rule 35(a) requiring that party to produce another for examination, such orders as are listed in paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this subdivision, unless the party failing to comply shows that that party is unable to produce such person for examination.

In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising that party or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Without reading the supporting memorandum, we can only guess at part of this, but they seem to be putting the cart before the horse. They appear to have asked to depose some executives and IBM has declined. The judge to my knowledge has never ordered any such deposition, so surely they can't be asking for sanctions for that refusal. What they are asking for here, it appears then, is sanctions against IBM for "failing" to comply with Judge Wells' orders. There were two discovery orders from Judge Wells. In Judge Wells' March 2004 order, this is what she ordered IBM to produce from its executives:

3. IBM is to provide documents and materials generated by, and in possession of employees that have been and that are currently involved in the Linux project. 1 IBM is to include materials and documents from executives including inter alia, Sam Palmisano and Irving Wladawsky-Berger. Such materials and documents are to include any reports, materials or documents from IBM's "ambitious Linux Strategy." Steve Lohr, A Mainstream Gian[t] Goes Countercultural; I.B.M.'s Embrace of Linux Is a Bet That It Is the Software of the Future, N.Y. Times, March 20, 2000, Business/Financial Desk. The Court finds these materials are relevant because they may contain information regarding the use or alleged misuse of source code by IBM in its contributions to Linux. 5. IBM is ordered to provide further responses to SCO's interrogatory numbers two, five, and eleven. These responses are to include relevant information from all sources including top level management. . . .

1Although not part of SCO's official written motion, SCO raised these discovery issues at oral argument and also alleged in its written memoranda that IBM failed to adequately respond to interrogatories and document requests that are the subject of these discovery items

IBM did, in fact, turn over documents and email. But at the hearing in October, SCO claimed that there simply wasn't enough turned over. If you recall from our eyewitnesses' accounts of the hearing, SCO's attorney, Sean Eskovitz, is reported to have told the judge that SCO found it impossible to believe that IBM had turned over all the documents and email from the Board of Directors and the executives, because there was so little. They believe there simply must be more. IBM's position was that they have already turned over all there is. And why is SCO finding it hard to believe that's all there is? When IBM asked for Darl McBride's emails, there was very little, and SCO's explanation was that Mr. McBride rarely uses email. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why is it hard for them to accept that IBM executives also have no further relevant email to turn over?

Anyway, it's premature to rule on any of this now, IBM maintained, because all of these issues are before Judge Kimball in connection with other motions (IBM's attorney David Marriott pointed to a 2-foot high stack of motion papers on the table, which they said were the documents presented by the parties to Judge Kimball), and depending on how Judge Kimball rules, this whole thing could be moot. And that is when the judge asked if IBM would be willing to provide affidavits. Once again, I caution, as I did that day, that until we see the transcript of this hearing, currently under seal, we don't know for sure what was said with precision.

SCO, of course, asked for a lot more than the executive affidavits, as you can see in this memorandum and this reply memorandum, specifically access to CMVC, but the judge hasn't ruled on any of that yet. IBM's response, in which it essentially said SCO's demands are onerous and neither relevant nor necessary to its case and just an attempt to delay the inevitable, is here. In addition, SCO claimed publicly that it had a mountain of evidence before it filed this suit, IBM pointed out, and it stated in its discovery memorandum, as it has repeatedly elsewhere, that it could prove IBM breached the agreement based on evidence it already has. So where's the need for more discovery?

It was then that Judge Wells reportedly asked IBM if they would be willing to provide such affidavits and IBM said yes. Here is what Judge Wells then said IBM was to provide, in her October 20th order:

2. IBM is provide affidavits from the Board of Directors, Mr. Palmisano and Mr. Wladawsky-Berger regarding production of all non-privileged documents pertaining to IBM's Linux strategy. The affidavits are to be filed within 30 days from the entry of this order.

According to the Pacer list, that's exactly what they did provide. The judge's order didn't ask for more documents and emails. It asked for affidavits that IBM had already provided all that they have in their possession. They evidently provided the affidavits, although they are under seal, so the wording is not publicly known. But they were ordered to provide affidavits and they filed affidavits. So where do sanctions come into this picture?

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

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 THE SCO GROUP

_________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

-----------------------------

THE SCO GROUP, INC.

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

----------------------------------

PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED
MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY

Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

---------------------------------

The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") respectfully moves the Court pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to compel International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") to respond completely and properly to SCO's discovery regarding the files of IBM's executive management and the compel discovery regarding SCO's Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of IBM. SCO bases its Motion on the following grounds:

In disregard of SCO's long-standing document requests, this Court's March 2004 Order, and now this Court's October 2004 Order requiring IBM's executives and Board of Directors to provide sworn affidavits on the issue, IBM has failed to provide documents regarding its "Linux strategy" -- which is at the heart of this case -- or to explain the glaring absence of such documents in its production. Neither SCO's document requests nor this Court's Orders leave any ambiguity regarding the broad scope of the Linux-related documents that IBM must produce. Nevertheless, IBM has apparently adopted, unilaterally, an unduly narrow interpretation of its obligations. Moreover, the cursory affidavits that IBM has supplied in response to the Court's most recent Order raise more questions about IBM'S discovery practices than they answer.

In addition, IBM has improperly refused to produce Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses on several appropriate topics. For example, IBM refuses to provide any witness to testify about the nature and extent of IBM's contributions to Linux -- a core issue in this case. IBM's intransigence thus compounds its withholding of documents and proper interrogatory responses to SCO's prior discovery requests that seek similar, critically relevant information.

IBM has unilaterally blocked SCO from obtaining even the most rudimentary information that it needs to develop its proof for trial. In light of IBM's longstanding delay on this critical discovery -- and in light of the currently scheduled, impending close of fact discovery (on February 11, 2005) -- the Court should order IBM to produce immediately (1) all documents from its executives and Board of Directors that mention or related in any way to Linux and (2) witnesses for deposition who can speak to the full scope of the topics SCO has noticed.

SCO's Motion is supported by the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Compel submitted concurrently herewith.

DATED this 23rd day of December, 2004.

Respectfuly,

By: ___[signature]____
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver
Edward Normand
Sean Eskovitz

Counsel for The SCO Group, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery was served by mail on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation on the 23rd day of December, 2004, by U.S. Mail to :

David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]

Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]

Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]

___[signature]____


  


SCO to the Judge: We Demand More Discovery & Throw In Some Sanctions | 358 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT Goes here
Authored by: Benanov on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 09:45 AM EST
nt

---
That popping sound you hear is just a paradigm shifting without a clutch.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yet Another Stall Tactic
Authored by: Benanov on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 09:51 AM EST
I see this for what this is now--yet another stalling tactic. It's somewhat like watching my ex-girlfriend (who was quite stubborn)
  • Attempt to rearrange the contents of her four suitcases...
  • At 3:30 AM...
  • In the airport parking Lot...
  • in the middle of December... (Northern Hemisphere)
  • while her two pets and I waited for 45 minutes...
  • ...to find out that she really couldn't fit all of the objects she wanted to bring in her bags.

It was a bit excruciating, to say the least. No amount of pleas for reason worked. I ended up shipping the few odd items after I got back home.

(We broke up for other reasons.)

---
That popping sound you hear is just a paradigm shifting without a clutch.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SUGGESTION - An official G2 comments section
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 09:59 AM EST
Why not give Caldera(DBA SCOG) allies the same benefits as Caldera(DBA SCOG)?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: josmith42 on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 09:59 AM EST


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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Same ole, same ole -- tell us everything you ever did with AIX and Linux and Dynix
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 10:04 AM EST
SCO has been asking since 2003 (from their first set of interrogatories) for IBM to produce details of every single contribution, by any person, to any part of AIX, Dynix and Linux - and exactly what every person did.

Obviously this would take an enormous amount of effort - it would involve tracking down the activities of many thousands of people, over more than 20 years.

Moreover, most of this (as IBM repeatedly pointed out), would not even be relevant to the case: It might make sense to track the history of specific sections of disputed code -- but 20 years of history code, where most of the code is not even invoilved dispute?

Anyway, SCO's first motion to compel dealt with this request. And Magistrate Judge Wells declined to order IBM to produce it during/after the December 2003, and March 2004 hearings.

SCO's memo on discovery, SCO's previous "renewed" motion to compel, and SCO's supplemental memo on discovery (and the reply memos in support of each), dealt with this same issue. As did SCO's rule 56f motion in opposition to PSJ on IBM Counterclaim 10. Some of these memos modified the request for 20 years history, to unfettered access to IBM's CMVC and other version control systems. And these motions are still pending to be ruled on.

And I would suggest that SCO's new "renewed" motion to compel, is still about the same issue -- they are still asking IBM to produce 20 years of history of Linux (and presumably AIX and Dynix) :-

n addition, IBM has improperly refused to produce Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses on several appropriate topics. For example, IBM refuses to provide any witness to testify about the nature and extent of IBM's contributions to Linux -- a core issue in this case.


Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Grasping...
Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 10:08 AM EST
Clearly, this is happening because of the sealed email that they found that
actually had some information that they thought they could use. They are going
back to the well. The problem is the affidavits that assert that the well is
dry. I hope they keep up this particular tack. It's really a waste of time, as
it really comes down to "their word against ours" and there is no
supposition that those affidavits are false.

I would hope that the fact that they are pursuing this is that the Boies firm is
completely out of ideas of real legal strategies to pursue.

Most execs DON'T use email nowadays. Not because they aren't tech savvy, as it
used to be just a handful of years ago, but because they know that backups tend
to leave a trail that can't be eliminated. If you wrote an email a year ago, for
example, your mail box would have that email on every backup going back the
entire year. Full backups are usually done weekly in most large enterprises. If
you wanted to get rid of an incriminating email you literally couldn't. There's
52 backups to restore, delete the email, and re-backup. And who knows what
digital traces that leaves? Let alone the fact that it might sit on a disk
somewhere, and don't forget that it's in the backups of every person you sent it
to. Also who knows what might be incriminating in the future? For example,
emails that you are pursuing a Linux strategy are harmless, right?

Anyway, in the end, this is a good sign, because if this is what TSG is spending
their time and money on, they clearly are still focused on using this to delay
based on technical points rather than introducing facts and items of substance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How about some SCO sanctions
Authored by: ahinds on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 10:19 AM EST
It seems to me that IBM could ask for sanctions for SCO's failures to provide
discovery. In addition to the "mountains of code" that have never been
provided, two glaring examples: (1) the missing list of assets that passed from
Old SCO to New SCO; and the settlement of the AT&T/UCB litigation. SCO
couldn't seem to find either document (presumably because both are highly
prejudicial to their case). This despite the fact that Darl claimed during a
conference call to have read the UCB settlement (before the settlement was made
public in Groklaw). If Darl read it, how could SCO claim not to have the
document when it was requested by IBM?

- Alan R. Hinds

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO to the Judge: We Demand More Discovery & Throw In Some Sanctions
Authored by: Woad_Warrior on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 10:24 AM EST
SCO's like the spoiled brat that didn't get it's GI Joe with the Kung-fu grip
for christmas. "(Darl under IBM's christmas tree, rooting through the
wrapping paper looking for what doesn't exist.) It's gotta be here! I know it
exists! Where is my preccciousssss...........

[ Reply to This | # ]

Databse of SCOG press utterings
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 10:26 AM EST
Interesting that you mention IBM's interest in the ways this lawsuit and Darl
McBigMouth has hurt IBM's business - I am sure there are other corporations that
have similar claims.

Is there a central database of all of SCO's press utterings that can be used as
an evidence for this? I know PJ has covered their numerous outbursts in the
articles. But it may be beneficial to have a central page with links to all the
press releases, interviews and speeches, (along with transcripts, while I am in
my wishing mode!) so that they can be used as evidence. I guess we will have to
have other information too, like the name of the journalist, or the place of the
speech, etc., to make it evidence rather than hearsay.

I am sure IBM, Redhat, etc., would have a strong case against SCO for hurting
their business with statements that SCO knew were false (million lines of code,
letters to customers for license on intellectual property they knew they did not
own, FUD against GPL and Linux, etc.).






[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO to the Judge: We Demand More Discovery & Throw In Some Sanctions
Authored by: LarryVance on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 10:29 AM EST
"IBM has unilaterally blocked SCO from obtaining even the most rudimentary
information that it needs to develop its proof for trial.

tSCOg are trying to blame IBM for their lack of evidence. I find this quite
amazing. tSCOg has from the beginning claimed that they have proof that IBM is
a big bad violator of their precious IP (whatever that is). Now IBM is a big
bully that will not give them some evidence that does not exist to use against
them and they are crying like a two year old that doesn't get exactly what it
wants.

---
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR INFLUENCE!
Larry Vance

[ Reply to This | # ]

Panic
Authored by: jim Reiter on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 10:39 AM EST


When in danger,

When in doubt,

Run in circles,

Scream and shout.

Tsg expected to find malfeasance, found nothing which is
what they (TSG) started with, poor TSG.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Panic - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 01:13 PM EST
  • Panic - Authored by: frk3 on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 01:27 PM EST
We have one, they must, too!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 10:44 AM EST
A magic file cabinet, that is. You know, the kind that magically produces any
desired document.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Witches, floating or not
Authored by: piskozub on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 10:45 AM EST
PJ wrote:

Or, better yet, just toss the IBM executive into the ocean, with a weight around his neck. If he floats, he's telling the truth. Let's get this settled once and for all.

Wasn't it the other way? If the witch^H^H^H^H^H executive sinks, it means (s)he is an ordinary person (meaning not guilty). But if (s)he floats, that must be by means of magic, meaning (s)he is guilty and should be burned at the stake.

Which is a nice way of having the same final result in every case. SCO would love the procedure.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Amazing
Authored by: roadfrisbee on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 10:51 AM EST
Especially when you consider that according to Darl, SCO wants to amend their
complaint to just a single count of copyright infringement relating to AIX on
Power PC. What is this, their fall-back position in the event they cannot amend
their complaint yet another time?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Amazing - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 10:53 AM EST
    • Thanks PJ - Authored by: roadfrisbee on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 11:53 AM EST
      • Thanks PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 08:17 PM EST
    • Amazing - Authored by: tbogart on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 09:30 PM EST
  • Even more Amazing - Authored by: jim Reiter on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 07:28 PM EST
SCO to the Judge: We Demand More Discovery & Throw In Some Sanctions
Authored by: phrostie on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 11:19 AM EST
I think IBM should request all communications between SCOX and M$. either
directly or thru 3rd parties. i know it's all been destroyed, but it'd be fun
just to hear SCOX deny it.

---
=====
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 | # ]

Corporate Greed and a related fairy tale
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 11:22 AM EST
Any creative types care to adapt this for SCOX, starring the various Judges as the wish-givers? Well, heck, pick any greed-related fairy tale.

The Little Old Woman Who Lived in a Vinegar Bottle

[ Reply to This | # ]

No, no, that's not how it's done
Authored by: Jude on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 11:46 AM EST
...If he floats, he's telling the truth. ...

He's telling the truth if he sinks, and then you pretend to feel bad about drowning an innocent person.
If he floats you know he's a liar, so you fish him out of the water and then hang him.

[ Reply to This | # ]

On the witness that IBM is not producing
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 11:57 AM EST
From PJ's quoting of the relevant sections of the law, and from SCO's request, I
infer that what SCO is asking for is a single witness who can answer all
questions about IBM's contributions to Linux. SCO wants IBM to present a person
who has the the knowledge and authority to answer all such questions.

I don't believe that SCO is asking to depose a particular engineer or executive
(at least in this instance.) They are asking IBM to find someone who matches a
description of the knowledge that SCO seeks to find.

IBM almost certainly responded "There is no such person. We have no
authority within the company who can answer all such questions. Alternatively,
we would like you to follow the normal rules: Name witnesses that you want to
depose, and we'll produce them for deposition."

Anyway, that's how this layperson interprets SCO's request. I suspect that it
is, as PJ suggests, a PR move combined with a plan for further delay. It's
getting remarkably close to Feb 11, I would expect that we will soon see almost
daily motions from SCO to extend that deadline.

Thad Beier

[ Reply to This | # ]

And if, miracle of miracles, SCO wins this motion
Authored by: NemesisNL on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 11:57 AM EST
Miracles? If the judges stay in character the will get everything they asked for
and then some. I wouldn't put money on SCO not getting what they want. The track
record speaks for itself. Isn't there a ruling due on that little sumary
judgement thingy. What has it been? 1.5 to 2 months now....oh yeah just even
more rope I guess.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"So where do sanctions come into this picture?" Answers from a fly who knows a fly who ........
Authored by: webster on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 12:00 PM EST
SCO is irate because they keep looking like the bad guy despite IBM stonewalling
on the emails and such. This is particularly aggravating because they know
there were such emails. Some were sent by them to IBM. Some were sent by IBM
to SCO. Despite this IBM maintains that they do not have them.

IBM does not have them. IBM has the best document purge system in existence.
They have been sued before in their history, you know. [It is called ENEMA 7.3
gamma for Enemy Notes Expurgation Management Accelerator. It is kept in the
same place as the Software Management System.] IBM does not explain that they
had them, or what happened to them or why. They wisely say they don't have
them. SCO wants to spend time on this issue because it is all that they have
got to do.

IBM wisely purges such material so that the focus will remain on the final
documents such as the APA and amendments. One could quibble and be embarassed
by developing drafts, positions and emails which are not really relevant to the
final action. Purging also protects the executives who will stand by the final
product and not have to defend every draft and email that attended the
negotiation process. He can also purge his mind and easily disremember
discarded details and stand by the final document which she signed.

So SCO invites the Court to go down a dark path that is not worth the candle.
Unless they have an IBM mole who can betray his employer, they don't have
anything. The judge will just throw one more on his SCO peripheral file and
deal with them summarily at the appropriate time. They will probably be
obviated by other more substantive actions.

***
Disclaimer: Non-literal factuations used above to focus on the basic concepts
and methods of the truth.

---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

big lie technique?
Authored by: rsmith on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 12:23 PM EST
It looks like SCO is building a Big Lie here. They keep pounding the same point
over and over again, in the hope the judge will believe them and grant them more
time/discovery.

The problem with this theory is the same as with the theories of conspiracy
buffs. There is no way to distinguish between a "perfect" conspiracy
and no conspiracy. Both leave no trails.

They keep accusing IBM of withholding documents, because if the documents do not
exist, IBM cannot prove that.

In the end it will come down to what factual evidence SCOG has for filing this
suit. And that seems pretty thin to me.

---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO to the Judge: We Demand More Discovery & Throw In Some Sanctions
Authored by: belzecue on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 12:26 PM EST
"...In addition, SCO claimed publicly that it had a mountain of evidence
before it filed this suit..."

McBride et al. really did *think* they had a mountain of evidence. I do not
doubt it. Whatever naive code comparisons (that we don't know about) was
performed by SCO or SCO's agents simply reinforced this misguided belief.

When they showed the 'infringing' code sample at the 2003 SCO Roadshow -- that
was the point where their focus got cruelly yanked back into an extreme wide
shot that revealed their naivety in a very publicly humiliating way. Yes, a
mountain of code. Unfortunately for SCO, the mountain happened to be sitting on
the wrong side of their I.P. fence.

Too much at stake by that time. With the fire raging, when handed gasoline
instead of water they elected to throw it on, anyway.

And, like every kid learns, that is just plain dumb.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Quick question
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 12:30 PM EST
Okay, I know that there are potential ways for people to go after the company
execs, and there are ways to potentially go after the other interlocked Canopy
companies. But... is there any way for IBM to go after the legal firms involved
in this? I have to say that, okay, yes they have to represent their client.
But aren't there limits? It's starting to seem to me that the legal firms
involved in SCOs side need a major lesson. Outside of court sanctions, are
there any actions IBM can bring before the Bar? Or have the lawyers not quite
crossed any lines yet?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO to the Judge: We Demand More Discovery & Throw In Some Sanctions
Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 12:49 PM EST
"-- the Court should order IBM to produce immediately (1) all documents from its executives and Board of Directors that mention or related in any way [my italics] to Linux and (2) witnesses for deposition who can speak to the full scope [my italics] of the topics SCO has noticed" SCOG pleading

I'll make three comments:

(1) SCOG's demand for the docs is simply a fishing expedition.

(2) SCOG's demand for IBM to produce witnesses is a pretty shameless fig leaf to cover SCOG's failure to execute due diligence: SCOG is entitled to depose 1000 people, and has apparently deposed just one so far. I understand that the list of IBM people that the IBM legal team provided to the SCOG legal team includes high level IBM executives not one of whom SCOG has been deposed. If this is the case, then SCOG has only itself to blame.

(3) Fact discovery ends in February 2005, and to date SCOG has done little to nothing to substantiate its allegations in contravention of two court orders to do so. The conclusion is becoming inescapable that SCOG has nothing to show, and that SCOG's stridency will increase as the fact fact discovery period decreases and as the assessment that SCOG has nothing valid to show becomes more obvious with each passing day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mass IP violation
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 12:59 PM EST

We know IBM has documents of mass IP violation. They must produce them or account in full and verifiable detail for their disposal. Any errors or omissions will have serious consequences.

OK, that's a proven strategy in modern times. But without support from the judge, that relied on throwing him out and substituting the military. How are we going to execute such a strategy with what we have?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"SCO"? I've heard that name before...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 01:18 PM EST
I seem to remember a discovery response from over a year ago now. Some company
told the judge that they couldn't respond effectively to discovery for email
records because their own executives (*cough*) don't use email.

I think the company's name was The SCO Group...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO to the Judge: We Demand More Discovery & Throw In Some Sanctions
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 01:46 PM EST
One thing I notice and think about when I read what was ordered is i says
"all non-privileged documents pertaining to IBM's Linux strategy" now
here is a question, wouldn't anything email or memos asking another person in
the company if using this is allowed by the contracts and to get a lawyer to
look at it to make sure be considered privileged? I mean if I write out a list
of questions to ask my lawyer about something. Isn't that considered privileged
because its between me and my lawyer. I would think in a company it would be
considered privileged as well as otherwise you would have to have the lawyers
talk to everyone. just my 2cents

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Discovery
Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 02:18 PM EST
SCO 2003 - No evidence.

SCO 2004 - No evidence.

SCO 2005 - Saturday there still will be no evidence.

Call me psychic!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • More Discovery - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 08:49 PM EST
They might need acting lessons
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 02:37 PM EST
"It's all couched in the same abusive language we've come to expect from
SCO when they are talking about IBM. They seem unable to be calm and polite,
unless it's all an act."

I get the impression that they are still trying to goad the judges into reacting
in some manner that they can use as leverage in an appeal procedure. While
neither the case nor an appeal have any actual basis in fact, the extra delay
would keep the window open so they can continue to work the press.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO to the Judge: We Demand More Discovery & Throw In Some Sanctions
Authored by: Jaywalk on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 04:44 PM EST
Without reading the supporting memorandum, we can only guess at part of this, but they seem to be putting the cart before the horse. ... it appears then, is sanctions against IBM for "failing" to comply with Judge Wells' orders. ... IBM is to provide documents and materials generated by, and in possession of employees that have been and that are currently involved in the Linux project.
I can guess where SCO's going with this. They have a memo from somebody to somebody saying that he wrote some exec something about Linux. They're going to say this is proof that the execs didn't turn over everything they had. Hence the sanctions.

As an IBM employee, I can tell you how the lawyers are going to answer. If I pull up Lotus notes -- where IBM company emails are kept -- and open my mailbox, there is a button labeled "Change Dcoument Expiration". Pulling up a document at random, I can see the expiration date is in three months (the default) and the pulldown to change this goes only up to twenty four. It's a major pain in the hiney to hold a document for more than twenty-four months.

So here's how it goes:

  1. SCO presents a memo that proves that an exec got a memo.
  2. IBM says that the memo might have existed at one time, but they no longer have it.
  3. IBM points to the companies document retention policy. Since the case is more than three months old, it's unlikely that the document was kept.
  4. IBM says they gave SCO everything that they had. An exec can't be expected to remember all the details of every email he ever encountered.
  5. SCO starts up whining again.
  6. The last step is dependent on the patience of the judge.

---
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====

[ Reply to This | # ]

Witches
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 04:54 PM EST
> Or, better yet, just toss the IBM executive into the ocean, with a weight
around his neck. If he floats, he's telling the truth.

Actually, if he floats, he must be a witch (well, a sorcerer). If he sinks (and
drowns), then he'll telling the truth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I know about due process & rope, but really...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 04:55 PM EST
Can't the judge just say "enough"!

Can the judge rule that since TSG has still not even provided enough evidence to
even support bringing suit in the first place, that all these other motions and
memorandums are irrelevant, grant the PSJs IBM has requested, and dismiss
anything that remains?

Is the justice system so broken that a litigant can keep amending their
complaint and dragging a defendant through the mud without ever even specifying
what exactly the complaint is?

So far, that is all TSG has done.

So somebody please explain: doesn't TSG have to provide the most basic evidence
PRIOR to all this BS? Discovery, unsealing exhibits, amended complaints, these
would all logically seem to be follow-up to an original complaint, yet in this
case the original complaint has never been specified.

I understand that the law permits motions to be filed, but can the judge then
turn around and say "I'm ignoring all that. You have never provided the
basic evidence that you say you brought this suit for, despite two court orders
to do so, so its over. PSJ granted, everything left over is dismissed with
prejudice, and I want to see BSF in my chambers to discuss some sanctions."

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO to the Judge: We Demand More Discovery & Throw In Some Sanctions
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 05:31 PM EST
"It's a fair cop."

Which basically means, "You got me fair and square."

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is disappointed because of Darl's boasting.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 06:10 PM EST
From the vnunet article:
http://www2.vnunet.com/News/1141808

Darl is boasting about what He(SCO) was going to do during discovery.

"So what are you going to do in the meantime? Are you just going to wait?
Well, not necessarily. We have been pretty assertive and pretty aggressive and
we are going to continue that.

So as we move into discovery this will be very nice for us, because now we get
to go in and talk to all their people, their customers. We get to really shake
things up and find out what really is going on over there.

Now, by going into pre-discovery, we have strong enough claims. We'd be fine to
go to court just on what we have before discovery.

Is IBM agreeable to this process? Does it have to be?
In a legal setting it doesn't have a choice. In discovery you get to go in and
investigate the things that relate to the case, and there are a broad range of
things that relate to Linux and AIX. We will be going in with a fine-toothed
comb and coming up with every detail."

I guess SCO is not fine with what they had before discovery after all. Judge
Wells didn't give them free run to really shake things up over at IBM either, at
least not yet. The hour is getting late for them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Epitaph
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 07:05 PM EST
For the company's officers:

"If only he had more discovery!"

Seriously though, with decisions coming so slowly, isn't it inevitable that all
these motions will delay things? The more things filed, the more time it takes
to read and respond, not only for IBM, but for the judge as well. Wells' intent
of not affecting the schedule seems doomed.

Peter

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM to the Judge: We Can't Know What They Mean
Authored by: webster on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 07:19 PM EST
SCO demands management documents and corporate witnesses relevant to IBM's
"Linux strategy." It's all code to IBM. In the context of this case
Linux and Unix and other Systems are all in a jumbled mass of Code. To say
"Linux" in SCOspeak means nothing. SCO must specify the code in
question before IBM can begin to respond. This SCO has refused to do because
they can't. They have no evidence. The judge initially ruled SCO goes first.
They never have so IBM never will. Pray on SCO.

---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO scuppered by IBM's document retention policy
Authored by: gdt on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 07:20 PM EST

It looks to me as though IBM did have an executive briefing on IBM's Linux strategy. That meeting was widely discussed in the trade media at the time -- the CEO learning that a customer had ported Linux to IBM's mainframe and shocked to discover that IBM had no Linux strategy, Wladawsky-Berger presenting a strategy that used Linux to offer a coherent development and deployment platform across all of IBM product range.

But that was years ago, a quick Google search can't find any references despite IBM's Linux strategy being the huge news of the time.

So what happened to the documents? They're gone, victims of a harsh document retention policy with strong enforcement. From which you can gather than IBM is used to being sued.

So am I shocked that there are few relevant documents in the files of IBM's execs? Not at all. Retaining the documents has little utility: strategies change, and it's the current refinement that is of interest; and an exec can always ask for another briefing, so there's little point in retaining the slideware; and finally these execs don't keep their own files: people are paid to do that, and those people's main concern is keeping only those documents that will be called upon again.

It's interesting that the recent case where IBM found a document which should have been produced during discovery, that document was stored on an out-of-the-way computer beyond the operation of IBM's automated document expiry mechanisms.

IBM have a reputation as being sticklers for corporate procedure. It looks like that reputation is backed by actuality. SCO's on-going surprise that a corporate policy might be executed says more about SCO than about IBM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

General question
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 07:24 PM EST
Hi,

I live in Germany and I am not so familiar with US law, but I followed every
Groklaw article since the beginning. (Thanks for the good work) Since some
months I'm really curious while looking at SCOs actions. As far as I can see,
SCO has very good attourneys (or at least they are no beginners) and these
attorneys risk their reputation, if they lose. So I asked myself, do these
(stupid) motions from SCO have a deeper meaning. Might they be used for example
in appeal? Might SCO argue, that judge Kimball has never understood the case and
has never ruled in favour of SCO. Does SCO allready try to influence appeal?

Thanks in advance for any answers ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO to the Judge: We Demand More Discovery & Throw In Some Sanctions
Authored by: tredman on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 07:49 PM EST
The one thing I've loved watching these last couple of years is SCOX's
arrogance.

It was arrogance that SCOX thought they could go after not only the largest
computer company in the world, but also a social movement, the likes of which
have not been seen in four decades.

It was arrogance that SCOX could serve briefs (note plural) labeled
"Renewed Motion to Compel" in order to produce documents and testimony
that the judges themselves haven't required IBM to produce.

It was arrogance that SCOX would talk of sanctions as if they're a right of
providence instead of something that they have to ask the judges for.

It was arrogance that convinced SCOX that they could send out threatening
letters about Linux to Fortune 500 companies and not expect a few of them to
bite back.

The arrogant don't usually fall, they crash.

Tim

[ Reply to This | # ]

Precedent for this
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 07:51 PM EST
Do any of you law people out there know if there is any kind of precedent set in
a case that IBM can reference that would pertain to undue and unnecessary
discovery and/or requests?

They just gotta have some sort of a basis to keep this up. Let's say I sue
Microsoft for copyright infringement. I can't produce any evidence of my own
accord so that's what discovery is for, right? I ask for Windows code. And
everyone who contributed to it. And all the emails that pertain to it. And
depositions...etc.

And let's say I'm a gazillionaire and can keep asking for this stuff for the
rest of eternity, no matter how much stuff they do provide.

I can't believe there's not some case MS can point to and say "hey, this
idiot can't keep this up forever. He's gotta have some _evidence_ we infringed
in order to continuously ask for the world..."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who sets the Tone?
Authored by: emgrasso on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 08:32 PM EST
What generally determines the tone of legal documents like
this one? Is it the customer or the lawyers? Do any of the
lawfirms representing SCO have a previous reputation for
nastiness?

For that matter, how much attention do the customers
usually pay to the wording of legal motions, etc.? I can
imagine looking for a firm with a particular courtroom
style, but I've never heard suggestions that one should
look for particular documentary styles.

Based on reading too many British mysteries, I suspect
their split system makes it easier to mix and match
styles: icy formality in the documents vs frothing pitbull
in court, or, I suppose, vice versa.



---
Elyse M. Grasso

[ Reply to This | # ]

What if SCO is, as they say, "0WN3D"?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 09:08 PM EST
Through all of the blustering, delay tactics and such, I still get the feeling
that SCO knows exactly what they are looking for with these Discovery Demands.
They know it exists, or at least THINK it exists, or did at one time. Whatever
it is, some piece of "evidence" that they THINK is damaging to IBM, or
they THINK could lead to evidence that is damaging, they can't show it because
they aren't supposed to have it. "Unclean hands" as it were.

Maybe some ex-IBM employee (or maybe even a current IBM employee) has revealed
something to SCO that they shouldn't have. Maybe they got it some other way.
However they got it, SCO decided to file their lawsuit based on this
"evidence", and can't go further until they can get it from IBM
directly. They were pushing hard for the CMVC, now it's executive's emails. So
far, they haven't found what they are looking for. So they delay, misdirect,
whatever it takes to keep the case from falling apart until they get it.

Whatever it is, they sure think it's worth bankrupting SCO over. It would be
ironic if whoever gave them the "evidence" gave them a red herring,
knowing full well that Darl McBride would self-destruct SCO trying to prove it.


And Darl's just the sucker, I mean, man for the job.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO to the Judge: We Demand More Discovery & Throw In Some Sanctions
Authored by: jacks4u on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 01:29 AM EST
Upon reading this, I immediatly had one question:

How does this "needed" discovery material fit with the
complaint/claims/counterclaims?

Hasn't SCO been saying that THIS action is mainly a contract issue? and weren't
some of the allegations dropped?

I'd like to see a list of the curent claims/counterclaims again - just to see
how information/emails regarding IBM's Linux activities will further SCO's
claims.

I could see it if they were claiming that IBM was trying to put them out of
business, and were looking for an email like this:

to: IBM bord of directors
from: Senior IBM staff

Hey, guys - let's jump on the Linux bandwagon, and make SCO's products
worthless, that way we'll never have to pay another license fee to them, and
besides, their stuff is junk any way.

IBM Lifer
SCO = Screw Completely Over

If, on the other hand, This information is still relavant to pending
allegations, then I'm spouting gibberish, and applolgise for taking up valuable
server spacce

my dime's worth may not be worth a dime, as IANAL. My oppinion is mine - if it's
yours also, great! if not, then see the the beginning of this sentence

jacks4u

[ Reply to This | # ]

About company email
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 02:20 AM EST
Some years ago I was involved with a company that was suing a (very large)
company for breach of contract. During discovery we were somewhat unhappy with
the pitifully small amount of email produced, and we suspected some sort of
refusal to produce.

However, after we protested to the court our opponents produced their written
policies on email. In essence, the company used centralized email servers
(Microsoft Exchange servers) under the control of the IT department and all
emails resided on the servers only. Emails were read using Microsoft Outlook
but the emails themselves were never downloaded to the disks of the email
clients. The actual files resided on the servers only. Company policy was for
the IT Operations group to delete all emails from the sender's Outbox one month
after they were sent, and to delete the messages from the receivers' inboxes
after two months. People had the ability to flag messages as non-deletable, but
this seemed to be a rarity. The reason given for this policy was "to save
disk storage space" but the attorneys readily offered that another primary
reason was to reduce exposure in law suits.

In the end we gained almost no useful information from discovery, which is where
we expected all the evidence of wrongdoing to be hiding so their policy was
quite successful. I was surprised that company communications can be discarded
so quickly, but since that time I have heard of several other Fortune 500
companies that have similar email policies. I also vaguely recall an article
discussing the way that emails tend to encourage informal communications, far
more open than paper based memos. And often far more more damaging as a
result.

I wonder if there is a similar policy in force at IBM. After all, this isn't
the first time they have been involved in a court case, and I'm pretty sure that
their IT group knows how to set up scripts to delete data from an email server
after a specified time interval :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Exit Strategy
Authored by: jig on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 05:26 AM EST

This is all a showy exit strategy.

SCO's Lawyer's have been given $'x' million to put up bluster and gruff untill
date 'y'. But, this is on the condition that the SCO loss be an unsatisfying one
for FOSS, the GPL, and Linux (and incedentally IBM). So, they have to develop
conspiracy and bluff to the point that it has a life of its own, at least as
much as possible, in the corporate world if not everywhere. Then, they end the
litigtion by falling prey to what they construe as a technicality, in essence
doing what they can to set up a 'spector of oogly'. That is a technical term. It
means a taint of something distastefull enough to make a superstitious entity
shy away. Their excuse to the court, and to the world, is that they want to be
able to bring the suit, or aspects of it, up again in the future, so they've
tried to 'get the story out there'. This probably has also been sold as a way to
help the SCO law firms save some face, as well as get paid.

Seems far fetched? Huh. Not to me. I'm trying to find other ways to explain
their current buisness strategy, but can't. They seem intent to destroy their
company and feed the remains to their law firm in the process. There is
something else driving them off this cliff: it obviously isn't self preservation
or rightousness, both of which require the type of introspection that would give
them pause.

The reason why they keep filing these out of order (literally) filings is
because they have a finite time to get it all done by, AND it bolsters their
technical loss claim.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ooh, I know who IBM should put up to be deposed
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 05:54 AM EST
Sauce for the goose.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO to the Judge: We Demand More Discovery & Throw In Some Sanctions
Authored by: Stumbles on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 07:05 AM EST
All this demanding by SCOG reminds me of a skit from Monty
Python of a similar vein. Where many things are demanded
and IIRC the final demand is one of the demand may or may
not be in fact true or a demand (something like that
anyway).

While I understand the reasoning's presented by Groklaw. I
am still disappointed the judges allowing this to continue
while SCOG is still in violation of two court orders to
present their initial evidence.

In my mind this opens a Pandora's box and encourages the
money pockets to file suits to hurt the "little guy".

---
You can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question to PJ...
Authored by: Night Flyer on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 02:43 AM EST
PJ, in your reply to JIG's 'Exit Strategy' you say: "I did note the
comment yesterday from Utah, which I had to remove because of some information
they really ought not to have placed on a public board, but info no one who
wasn't an insider would have known, telling me in no uncertain terms to stop
writing about SCO and Canopy and to leave them alone."

Can you post the text minus the 'information they really ought not to have
placed on a public board'?

Your comment is tantalizing. It may give us some better reading of the internal
goings on in SCO, and thus some insight to its strategy.

Actually many of your regular readers and contributors hear of SCO's complaints
that its postings are deleted sometimes with a shrug of the shoulders, sometimes
with curiosity.

Personally I'm just curious about what sort of postings are received and
deleted. Are they disrespectful rants and personal attacks, FUD/distortions,
libelous statements with names and addresses?

How might you categorize this latest deletion?

-----------------------

Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Question to PJ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 12:43 PM EST
I volunteer to be a witness
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 08:36 AM EST
I, personally, can testify as to IBM's "Linux strategy".

Their strategy is: "Wouldn't it be nice if our customers could take the
money they're now sending to their operating systems (which we don't make money
on), and could spend it on hardware and support (which we DO make money on),
instead? And we don't even have to develop the operating system, a bunch of
volunteers are doing it for free, without us."

(Note: This strategy is also the answer to the FUD about "You can't make
money on free".)

[ 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 )