|
|
| SCO Asks for Delay on the April 21st Hearing and IBM Gets Really, Really Clear |
 |
|
Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 09:15 AM EDT
|
There are three new filings in SCO v. IBM, and they are enjoyable to me. First, SCO asks for a delay regarding the April 21st hearing [PDF] on their request to amend their complaint again. This would be the AIX on POWER claim, from what they've leaked to the media. They say their reason for wanting a delay is because they are about to get a ton of code from IBM and maybe they'll find some other things to use to amend the complaint. Yeah. Right. Or maybe they read Groklaw and figured out, now that I did all the research for them, that they haven't a ghost of a chance of prevailing on that misguided claim, and so now they would like some time to figure out what to try next. Then IBM has filed their objections to SCO's privilege logs[PDF], and it's hilarious. SCO is claiming privilege on documents and data that originated with other companies, and they even claim privilege over a conversation with an *IBM* employee. And other inanities. Like not listing the names of the attorney involved with claiming attorney privilege. It might not strike you as funny, the way it does me, but I was laughing out loud, and I'm sure IBM's legal team was too, as they drew up this document. Doesn't Boies Schiller have any paralegals? These are fairly basic things. In a privilege log, you are supposed to provide enough information that the court and the other side has a clue what the basis for your claim is. I guess it's in character that SCO tries to keep everyone in the dark instead. If you are not familiar with privilege logs, here's some info for you. Finally, IBM answers SCO's objections to IBM's scheduling proposal [PDF]. I see a real difference in style post-the-Wells-discovery order. IBM is now being very pointed in its expressions. A child could get it. The gentlemanly reserve is gone.
It opens like this: In opposition to IBM's proposed scheduling order, SCO offers five reasons why it should be allowed to keep IBM in the dark about SCO's claims and deny IBM the right to prepare its defense to those claims. Putting aside the fact that SCO made no mention of these reasons during the parties' meet-and-confer, none of them bears scrutiny. There is no good reason why this Court should not impose deadlines for the parties to identify the materials they contend one another misused and then allow discovery related specifically to those materials. It tells the court the discovery she ordered is irrelevant, but it will produce it, and it says that SCO is simply trying to hide the ball -- they believe SCO is angling to keep to itself any specific claim regarding IBM's alleged misdeeds until after discovery is completed, so IBM is kept in the dark and can't defend itself. IBM used to hint, at most, about such mean tricks. Now, they are plainly placing them on the judge's desk. She can't possibly miss their point. They also address SCO's desire to amend the pleadings. SCO filed three complaints already, IBM points out, there was a deadline set, after which the Judge Kimball said there would be no more, absent "extremely compelling circumstances," and SCO missed that deadline -- it came and went a year ago -- and now they do need compelling reasons to amend again, particularly, IBM points out, about activities that SCO has known about for years. (Like AIX on POWER, I presume.) Further, IBM, in effect, says that SCO lied to the court -- there was, indeed, they say, a tentative agreement that SCO violated at the last minute. Now they're raising issues they never even brought up in the parties' meet-and-confer. That is a no-no. Here's just one example of the new IBM style: SCO argues that discovery disputes have taken too long to resolve and proposes a special procedure, including truncated briefing and expedited hearings, to speed things up. . . Putting aside the irony in SCO's proposal,8 SCO fails to establish a need for monthly status conferences. The footnote 8 takes you to this: SCO complains about the time it has taken to resolve discovery issues but overlooks the fact that it has repeatedly filed overlength briefs and redundant motions and that its own shortcomings in discovery necessitated two motions to compel, resulted in two orders requiring it to comply with IBM's discovery requests and triggered a stay of discovery. Similarly, SCO proposes that the Court set up a special procedure for dealing with discovery disputes but ignores the fact that the best way to avoid unnecessary discovery disputes is for the parties to identify the Allegedly Misused Material (which SCO seeks so vigorously to avoid doing) and limit discovery to that material. I see a new policy. Let's call it the scorched earth policy. As for SCO, one Groklaw fan summed it up like this, in an email to me: SCO wants more delays.... :-)
and if they don't get their way - they threaten more delays :-) They are an absolute sketch.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
so PJ can find them
---
IANAL
The above post is (C)Copyright 2005 and released under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 09:59 AM EDT |
I am not familiar with this term.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:01 AM EDT |
Off Topic here, please make links clickable
<a href="http://www.example.com">example</a>
and post as HTML
don't forget to preview
---
IANAL
The above post is (C)Copyright 2005 and released under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
it'll take 431 unless someone has done so already
---
IANAL
The above post is (C)Copyright 2005 and released under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
In the next to last sentence - "the don't get their way"
should be "they don't get their way."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pfusco on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
About time IBM went for the throat
---
only the soul matters in the end[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
Is this where Wiley Coyote looks up and sees the
boulder that end of the rope was tied too is falling
too, and right behind him?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:07 AM EDT |
Trouble is in life, if you talk about them being out to get you early on, the
other party can say "Your paranoid", Only after you garner enough
proof can you show with certanitity, that you're not paranoid, they really are
out to get you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:15 AM EDT |
Lovely! Concise, almost sarcastically clear. Kudos to the Nazgul. I would
imagine that this memorandum was passed around to savor the moment before
filing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:38 AM EDT |
I see a new policy. Let's call it the scorched earth policy.
I
think I'll call it the "call a spade a spade" policy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- spades - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 09:24 AM EDT
- Spade a spade..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 15 2005 @ 08:49 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:40 AM EDT |
Why can't the judge say to either produce the evidence to the court within 30
days or the case will be dismissed summary judgement with prejudice? SCO seems
to be going out for a fishing expedition after Moby Dick. I thought fishing
expeditions were not allowed?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
After Judge Wells completely misinterpreted things, I'm happy to see IBM
change communication tactics.
IBM is still acting like a gentleman. But IBM has finally taken off the gloves
and is focused on crushing the throat of SCO. Brute force rather than finesse.
IBM is finally using blunt, much simpler, clear, plain English language in its
arguments.
The language could have been more brutal. IBM could have said SCO
"lied".
But IBM is still trying to be civil.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rann on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
| SCO is claiming privilege on documents and data that originated with other
companies, and they even claim privilege over a conversation with an *IBM*
employee.
Not to mention the privilege SCOXE is claiming over 3
communications between Santa Cruz and IBM!!!! You'd think IBM has the
right to use their own letters/emails!
The gentlemanly reserve is
gone.
Try more like "Why use an ordinary claw hammer when a 20 pound
sledge hammer can do just as good a job knocking in that finishing
nail........"
Methinks, the Nazgul has decided that they've played with
their food long enough..... from now on, they will not being delicate in their
wording [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: edal on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 11:07 AM EDT |
I pity the poor soul that has to transcribe the log information submitted by
IBM, but having read through both of the IBM pdfs one thought springs to mind.
IBM are fed up with this and the gloves are now off.
About time we had some action.
Ed Almos
Budapest, Hungary[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 11:19 AM EDT |
1. No active web site on this URL
2. Some but not much in archive.org for jetsonsystems.com
3. Whois info for this domain
Jetson Systems Inc
1801 S Federal Hwy Ste 100
Delray Beach FL 33483
US
Domain Name: JETSONSYSTEMS.COM
Administrative Contact:
Edmundson zaidae@jetsonsystems.com
1801 S Federal Hwy Ste 100
Delray Beach FL 33483
US
561.454.2741 fax: 561.454.2699
4.
http://www.businessweekasia.com/technology/content/mar2005/tc20050325_1861_tc119
.htm
Former Microsoft (MSFT ) exec Raburn's Eclipse Aviation, for instance, is
building very light jets, sometimes called microjets, that he says operate at
40% of the cost of today's cheapest business jets. Ed Iacobucci, founder of
software maker Citrix Systems (CTXS ), has hired mathematicians and programmers
at Jetson Systems in Delray Beach (Fla.) to develop an Internet-based
flight-planning system for on-demand air travel. Bezos recently chose a site in
Texas for his Blue Origin startup that's ultimately aimed at colonizing space.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
I half expect IBM to do the "Dead Parrot" sketch next in talking
about every part of the SCO case.
SCO: "Our case has lovely plumage..."
IBM: "The Plumage doesn't even enter into it; the case is clearly
deceased."
...
IBM: "This case wouldn't *foom* if you put 3000 bloody lawyers
through it!" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
Or lets drop 16,000+ documents..from or logs
Lets see IBM find the ones that matter and get the court to agree with them and
fight it tooth and nail.
Given the lack of pace of this trail...add oh 3 more years if SCO get away with
this. So far so good for SOC.
A subtle Ogre [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vengie on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 11:37 AM EDT |
[unless someone has already done it?]
-b
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fmouse on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 11:41 AM EDT |
> SCO wants more delays.... :-)
> and if they don't get their way - they threaten more delays :-)
... which emphasizes what I've been saying since the git-go on this. SCO's
objective is not resolution but litigation. It's the process that they want,
not the product. The longer they keep this farce going, the longer they can
cast doubt on Linux and the activities of IBM which is one of its chief
cyber-industrial proponents.
This is a cynical and IMHO criminal use of the civil justice system to further
their own agenda.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alan Bell on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 11:45 AM EDT |
| The IBM employee was Haig McNamee in the document. g
oogle search any speculation on the subject of the communication? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blang on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 12:10 PM EDT |
So, I guess we are reaching the point where IBM will start to cash in on the
goodwill they have earned with the court.
They have plodded along with all SCO's tricks and lies for so long, and after
Kimball pretty much told SCO last time around, that SCO was on thin ice, and
better head for land, IBM has received the signal they need to get tough.
They've been reasonable, they've not caused delays, they've not made last-minute
motions to upset the cart, while SCO has been stretching the rubber band to the
breaking point all along. SCO knew there would have to be a reckoning, and with
their weak case, and likelyhood that the outcome would be liquidation of their
company, each delay was to te benefit of the past(not future) shareholders, more
time to unload their stock.
Unfortunately, when you eliminate the hedge funds, Baystar, adn the insiders, it
turns out that the SCO trading volume is not able to supprt the unloading even
the smallest of holdings.
Now, here's a question: Didn't Boies receive some of the compensation in the
form of shares? Were these shares restricted in any way? Is there anything
preventing Boies from unloading? If not, we have a pretty serious conflict of
interest, since the tactics of the litigation has a huge impact on the day-today
value of Boies' shares.
Does anyone know how these shares are managed to avoid any insider trading with
Boies SCO holdings?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DBLR on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 12:12 PM EDT |
How can SCOXe know ahead of time that it will once again be requesting the court
for leave to amend for the 4th time?
So what I would like to know is, how does the SCO gang know ahead of time they
will find something from the IBM code dump that will give them cause to file
another amended complaint. Do they already know what will be in the IBM May 3rd
code dump before they receive it? Inquiring minds want to know!
Charles
---
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jdg on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
It appears that SCOX(E) has claimed privelege on many documents that clearly do
not warrent it. Does this hurt them because the court will assume that it is
likely that the documents do not deserve the protection rather than starting
from the presumption of privelege?
---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stats_for_all on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 12:53 PM EDT |
SCOXe seek privledge over 11 documentsin communication with S2
Consulting
(Michael Anderer).
16,420,423,429,456,1206,1211,1238,1673,2624,2867
The document #16 (are
these ordered chronologically?, the defunct Santa
Cruz organization owns #1-5)
interleaves with documents that SCO claims
Attorney Legal advice
privledge.
For the documents 429, 1211, 1238, 2624, SCOXe additionally
claims "work
product protection". The 420's and 2624, 2867 interleave with
"information
provided to attorney to solicit legal advice" or "Attorney Legal
advice".
Implication: 400 series, and 26xx S2 documents were communications
on
legal issues surrounding the Anderer funding campaign. At least 4 are "work
product" documents: hired work of Anderer himself?
Anderer's 12xx series
docs interleave with docs in communication with
Kimble Jenkins (Morgan Keegan's
Seattle agent) indicating these documents
probably have relationship to the
Morgan Keegan funding campaign
Other names:
Menzies Chartered Accountants:
a strictly British accounting company,
includes a corporate restructuring
division. (#50's)
Schwartz PR (#425): New York PR firm with Jupiter media
as the big client,
main emphasis is on "Media and Analyst Relations".
interleaves with the
Anderer docs. Draw your own conclusions.
No author:
421, 426: interleaves with Anderer, why would authorship in this
series be
suppressed ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
Strange that the largest section of the improper priviledge list is documents
from Santa Cruz Operations?
Maybe things like the asset transfer, APA, and other little goodies IBM has been
asking for since day 1?
All things which one would logically think TSCOG would want on the table?
Unless, of course they don't say anything that helps TSCOG... nah, TSCOG would
never do anything like that...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
In reading about the provlege logs is seems that IBM has identified a defect in
a high percentage of the entries. SCOG listed ony 2998 documents in the logs. I
wonder how many are referenced in IBM objections. I imagine some are referenced
more than once.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ahinds on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
What happens now? Does SCO have to produce the documents that are improperly
described in the log? Does SCO have to produce the thousands of documents they
witheld earlier as priviledged but omitted from the log? Does the judge get
involved in reviewing the documents to decide whether they are in fact
priviledged. Or, does SCO just get to (endlessly) ammend their priviledge log?
- Alan R. Hinds[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nealywilly on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
Is this like any other motion -> response -> reply that we've seen? Or is
this just between SCO and the court?
nealywilly[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
For example SCO claims client attorney privilege on a document but fails to
identify the attorney. Does this mean the document will not be privileged, or
does it mean SCO gets another chance to clarify how the document should be
privileged?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 02:42 PM EDT |
| From the subject, "IBM Gets Really, Really Clear"
I'm curious why
they weren't this clear from the start. Was it part of the strategy to be
subtle so SCO and the judges wouldn't know what they were doing? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 03:27 PM EDT |
There is somewhere's between 3,000 and 19,000 documents that SCO seeks to
declare privaliged. It seems IBM is asking for the missing names of the
attornies who these documents were "blessed by" , turning them into
privaliged documents.
1-Can I assume "no tickee, no washee" that unless a specific lawyer
places his name on each document, that they cannot be considered privaliged.
2-Passing boxes of documents onto a lwayer who does not actually look at the
documents does not make them privaliged.
3-If a lawyer say's yes he looked at it then there is at some level a trail
showing that he at some point actually read the document (perhaps if nothing
else a log of hours billed to SCO)
Any lawyer care to comment?
(sorry for the spelling errors)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: senectus on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
And now it's time to put that rope to good use..
First the truss em up like calf at a rodeo show, then the hang em till they're
"dead, dead, dead".
:-)
Nice to see that execution is coming back as a spectator sport ;-) (for rouge
companies that is)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
There is somewhere's between 3,000 and 19,000 documents that SCO seeks to
declare privaliged. It seems IBM is asking for the missing names of the
attornies who these documents were "blessed by" , turning them into
privaliged documents.
1-Can I assume that unless a specific lawyer
places his name on each document, that they cannot be considered privaliged.
2-Passing boxes of documents onto a lwayer who does not actually look at the
documents does not make them privaliged.
3-If a lawyer say's yes he looked at it then there is at some level a trail
showing that he at some point actually read the document (perhaps if nothing
else a log of hours billed to SCO)
Any lawyer care to comment?
(sorry for the spelling errors)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 08:06 PM EDT |
| What are the rules for what counts as "information compiled by attorney" or
"edited by attorney", when claiming privledge on a document? I can't imagine
that it's loose enough that, to hide a damaging document, you could simply give
the document to your attorney, tell him to correct your grammar mistakes, and
*poof*, you have a document edited by your attorney which is
privledged. ---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but
set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from
Terry Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: theMutant on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
IANAL but I think the most hilarious part is SCO's request for monthly meet and
confer meetings to avoid unnecessary disputes. Do they mean like the one's that
were raised by SCO's last minute breaking of the tentative agreement reached
during the meet and confer session???
---
David W. Cooney, CNB (Certified Novell Bigot)
IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
