decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
IBM's Objections to SCO's Privilege Log - as text
Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 07:43 PM EDT

Here's IBM's Objections to SCO's Privilege Log[PDF] as text, thanks to Feldegast, who certainly earned a gold star with this thankless task. The detail is a bit overwhelming as it is, so he left the footnotes on the page where they appear, rather than clustering them at the end, as we normally do. I hope it helps.

Footnote 1 is interesting, because SCO's privilege logs from November and December of 2004 had 19,207 entries. This one, filed in March, has only 2,998 entries, and IBM has no clue why. So IBM reserves the right to object and to compel production of the missing documents. That indicates a woops. But until it plays out, we won't know what happened, but it is definitely something to keep our eyes on.

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

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
[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-Plaintif
International Business Machines Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRCT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.


Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

IBM'S OBJECTIONS TO SCO'S
PRIVILEGE LOG

Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C . Wells

1

Pursuant to this Court's January 18, 2005 Order, Defendant International Business
Machines Corporation ("IBM") respectfully submits its Objections to The SCO Group, Inc.'s
("SCO) Privilege Log as follows:[1]

I. SCO IMPROPERLY CLAIMS ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OVER
MATERIALS WHERE NO ATTORNEY WAS INVOLVED.[2]

OBJECTION SUB-CATEGORIES SCO PRIVILEGE LOG ENTRY NUMBERS
SCO Claims "Attorney Compilation of Information", But No Attorney is Identified 1595, 1604, 2268, 2269
SCO Claims "Attorney Discussion", But No Attorney is Identified 134, 182, 272, 328, 629, 716, 726, 994, 1351, 1491, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935,1996, 2138, 2163, 2204, 2589, 2668

SCO Claims "Attorney Draft of Document", But No Attorney is Identified

(continued)

6, 10, 141, 264, 273, 301, 312, 396, 467, 468, 481, 562, 585, 773, 782, 798, 829, 832, 878, 913, 949, 951, 952, 966, 969, 971, 993, 995, 1112, 1138, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1170, 1172, 1173, 1176, 1179, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1193, 1195, 1196, 1258, 1260, 1261, 1265, 1361, 1495, 1496, 1504, 1514, 1515, 1518, 1519, 1593, 1607, 1611, 1624, 1626, 1655, 1692, 1697, 1711, 1712, 1713, 1714, 1715, 1716, 1743,

 


[1] SCO's original privilege logs, provided to IBM in November and December of 2004,
contain 19,207 entries. The privilege log SCO filed with the Court on March 10, 2005, however,
contains only 2,998 entries. IBM has requested that SCO account for the 16,209 documents that it
removed from its privilege log. This morning, counsel for IBM had a brief telephone conference
with SCO about this discrepancy, but we do not fully understand what documents have been
removed from the log and why. IBM therefore reserves the right to make further objections and to
compel production of the missing documents.

In addition, entries 2546 to 2998 on SCO's privilege log (bates numbers SCOR0005569 to
SCOR0007192) refer to documents that purportedly have been redacted by SCO. However, to
date, SCO has not produced these redacted documents to IBM. Because IBM has not had an
opportunity to review these 1,623 documents, IBM reserves the right to make additional
objections to these documents.

[2] SCO provided a "List of Attorneys in SCO's Privilege Log" together with its March 10,
2005 privilege log. None of the attorneys from SCO's list appears in the entries listed in this
section.

2

(continued)

1755, 1773, 1774, 1781, 1782, 1783, 1804, 1894, 1902, 1917, 1951, 2002, 2003, 2059, 2065, 2066, 2070, 2079, 2132, 2177, 2179, 2180, 2195, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214, 2215, 2218, 2221, 2223, 2224, 2229, 2232, 2241, 2246, 2247, 2256, 2262, 2265, 2271, 2275, 2276, 2277, 2278, 2279, 2280, 2281, 2288, 2289, 2297, 2302, 2312, 2315, 2317, 2325, 2327, 2335, 2338, 2339, 2340, 2343, 2350, 2359, 2366, 2368, 2370, 2373, 2382, 2392, 2393, 2394, 2395, 2396, 2402, 2403, 2404, 2405, 2435, 2446, 2448, 2449, 2458, 2459, 2461, 2462, 2464, 2466, 2468, 2473, 2475, 2480, 2482, 2483, 2484, 2485, 2490, 2506, 2507, 2548, 2762, 2779, 2851, 2903, 2929, 2958, 2959, 2960

SCO Claims "Attorney Edit of Document", But No Attorney is Identified 327, 479, 935, 1134, 1259, 1262, 1494, 1628, 1810, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878, 2225, 2255, 2257, 2284, 2286, 2287, 2291, 2300, 2301, 2310, 2311, 2341, 2342, 2346, 2347, 2372, 2375, 2397, 2425, 2432, 2433, 2436, 2439, 2481, 2487, 2491, 2500, 2501, 2502, 2503, 2504, 2505, 2508, 2509, 2524, 2527, 2845, 2852, 2853, 2854, 2855, 2860, 2915, 2916, 2928, 2933, 2934, 2945, 2964, 2965, 2980, 2981, 2983, 2989

SCO Claims ''Attorney Legal
Advice", But No Attorney is
Identified

(Continued)

7, 9 ,11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29, 46, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 63, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 90, 95, 96, 99, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 216, 230, 237, 329, 334, 335, 469, 473, 489, 499, 513, 517, 525, 533, 558, 574, 576, 586, 601, 604, 605, 606, 614, 616, 624, 630, 637, 647, 650, 652, 653, 654, 658, 761, 794, 805, 823, 876, 879, 907, 910, 946, 950, 954, 962, 981, 1177, 1178, 1181, 1223, 1230, 1276, 1287, 1293, 1324, 1354, 1364, 1365, 1368, 1383, 1388, 1391, 1392, 1393, 1401, 1402, 1404, 1406, 1407, 1408, 1410, 1415, 1427, 1431, 1443, 1448, 1451, 1452, 1468, 1480, 1499, 1500, 1509, 1510, 1512, 1521, 1522, 1531, 1532, 1534, 1552, 1564, 1565, 1567, 1569, 1570, 1571, 1588, 1589, 1599, 1608, 1610, 1665, 1733, 1734, 1744, 1748, 1752, 1761, 1775, 1776, 1780, 1786, 1789, 1790, 1799, 1800, 1808, 1812, 1819, 1824, 1827, 1830, 1874, 1897, 1898, 1907, 1908, 1924, 1925, 1941, 1945, 1975, 1976, 2067, 2073, 2085, 2086, 2119, 2121, 2122, 2134, 2167, 2176, 2190, 2194, 2196, 2205, 2216, 2222, 2227, 2231, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2243, 2253, 2282, 2290, 2330, 2331, 2332, 2351, 2352, 2355, 2377, 2378, 2379, 2380, 2381, 2383, 2384, 2385, 2386,

3

(continued) 2387, 2390, 2398, 2406, 2416, 2417, 2419, 2426, 2427, 2430, 2438, 2442, 2443, 2444, 2445, 2454, 2456, 2457, 2463, 2471, 2546, 2547, 2549, 2552, 2557, 2561, 2563, 2564, 2565, 2566, 2567, 2568, 2569, 2570, 2571, 2572, 2626, 2628, 2629, 2653, 2656, 2657, 2658, 2710, 2715, 2730, 2738, 2773, 2778, 2788, 2797, 2820, 2830, 2862, 2866, 2886, 2887, 2888, 2890, 2896, 2910, 2914, 2942, 2943, 2951, 2957, 2967, 2969, 2970, 2976, 2977, 2978, 2979, 2982, 2987, 2990
SCO Claims "Attorney Request for Information", But No Attorney is Identified 23, 33, 39, 118, 387, 388, 553, 623, 768, 916, 970, 1070, 1270, 1274, 1299, 1300, 1568, 1737, 1787, 2228, 2401, 2706, 2731
SCO Claims "Discussion Reflecting Legal Advice", But No Attorney is Identified 1, 70, 101, 121, 129, 130, 132, 137, 139, 140, 150, 151, 154, 157, 179, 221, 283, 285, 289, 290, 296, 308, 362, 380, 381, 382, 383, 385, 386, 408, 409, 412, 413, 425, 431, 433, 470, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 511, 515, 516, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 526, 527, 560, 636, 649, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 668, 669, 677, 678, 679, 680, 689, 691, 697, 698, 699, 712, 730, 760, 810, 817, 853, 864, 865, 867, 869, 886, 887, 892, 896, 898, 899, 928, 929, 933, 936, 938, 939, 948, 977, 984, 987, 988, 1187, 1220, 1277, 1278, 1279, 1280, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1294, 1314, 1327, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1336, 1352, 1353, 1355, 1356, 1369, 1379, 1382, 1384, 1386, 1387, 1394, 1395, 1400, 1413, 1416, 1449, 1454, 1457, 1459, 1461, 1466, 1474, 1483, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1493, 1497, 1502, 1503, 1505, 1508, 1517, 1526, 1528, 1529, 1533, 1535, 1536, 1556, 1557, 1583, 1644, 1645, 1753, 1764, 1879, 1881, 1936, 1949, 1967, 1990, 1992, 1995, 2072, 2074, 2075, 2092, 2093, 2219, 2226, 2233, 2238, 2248, 2251, 2260, 2274, 2283, 2299, 2303, 2304, 2305, 2306, 2307, 2308, 2309, 2113, 2318, 2319, 2320, 2323, 2363, 2369, 2371, 2418, 2420, 2422, 2424, 2428, 2474, 2550, 2573, 2575, 2582, 2583, 2602, 2604, 2605, 2606, 2617, 2619, 2639, 2718, 2719, 2739, 2741, 2768, 2769, 2770, 2771, 2774, 2775, 2777, 2791, 2792, 2793, 2794, 2795, 2815, 2821, 2833, 2842, 2878, 2966, 2984, 2985, 2995

SCO Claims "Information Provided to Attorney to Solicit Legal Advice", But No Attorney is Identified

(Continued)

27, 30, 38, 44, 126, 192, 193, 275, 278, 279, 280, 291, 307, 309, 416, 421, 422, 461, 477, 480, 514, 572, 646, 651, 783, 784, 785, 799, 812, 813, 848, 890, 893, 894, 900, 902, 903, 914, 924, 937, 978, 1141, 1175, 1235,

4

(continued)

1281, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1288, 1315, 1322, 1323, 1335, 1338, 1350, 1359, 1376, 1378, 1381, 1398, 1411, 1467, 1473, 1527, 1546, 1548, 1550, 1561, 1562, 1603, 1617, 1630, 1632, 1635, 1637, 1639, 1641, 1647, 1662, 1725, 1740, 1788, 1796, 1798, 1965, 2001, 2264, 2266, 2267, 2296, 2316, 2333, 2334, 2421, 2540, 2623, 2638, 2714, 2725, 2732, 2737, 2819, 2879, 2894, 2911, 2994

SCO Claims "Request for Legal Advice", But No Attorney is Identified 4, 22, 24, 31, 45, 51, 61, 108, 110, 122, 142, 159, 167, 212, 215, 217, 222, 227, 267, 271, 339, 359, 378, 389, 391, 394, 414, 417, 426, 452, 509, 510, 512, 775, 776, 779, 780, 793, 795, 796, 797, 807, 811, 819, 821, 833, 837, 838, 840, 843, 846, 849, 850, 870, 875, 901, 906, 909, 975, 979, 996, 1256, 1271, 1272, 1273, 1328, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1357, 1358, 1360, 1371, 1372, 1377, 1380, 1390, 1397, 1409, 1417, 1418, 1424, 1426, 1442, 1453, 1462, 1464, 1481, 1482, 1484, 1492, 1543, 1544, 1559, 1560, 1566, 1602, 1631, 1656, 1657, 1660, 1661, 1736, 1739, 1750, 1751, 1777, 1785, 1809, 1821, 1823, 1825, 1826, 1828, 1829, 1832, 1927, 1943, 1944, 1948, 2019, 2037, 2039, 2053, 2172, 2174, 2202, 2230, 2240, 2292, 2293, 2294, 2295, 2314, 2326, 2360, 2376, 2408, 2411, 2412, 2414, 2423, 2455, 2499, 2511, 2512, 2533, 2541, 2543, 2551, 2553, 2554, 2555, 2556, 2558, 2559, 2560, 2562, 2578, 2586, 2558, 2559, 2607, 2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2713, 2721, 2726, 2776, 2780, 2781, 2782, 2783, 2784, 2799, 2800, 2801, 2805, 2809, 2810, 2811, 2818, 2834, 2837, 2840, 2841, 2877, 2885, 2898, 2901, 2907, 2909, 2932, 2971, 2974, 2992
SCO Claims "Response to Attorney Request", But No Attorney is Identified

28, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41, 87, 119, 338, 427, 428, 430, 808, 874, 891, 941, 942, 955, 1192, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1311, 1553, 1663, 1890, 1946, 1947, 1986, 2239, 2273, 2415, 2460, 2495, 2908, 2950

SCO Claims "Work Product Protection", But No Attorney is Identified

(continued)

49, 62, 64, 65, 66, 94, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 390, 392, 393, 395, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 405, 406, 407, 411, 424, 429 434, 435, 451, 462, 472, 787, 806, 814, 854, 873, 880, 881, 882, 908, 919, 922, 945, 953, 956, 958, 959, 960, 961, 980, 985, 992, 1197, 1200, 1211, 1216, 1217, 1222, 1238, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1245,1246,
5

(continued) 1247, 1248, 1249, 1251, 1295, 1296, 1310. 1312, 1316, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1554, 1594, 1648, 1673, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1729, 1732, 1815, 2217, 2329, 2620, 2621, 2622, 2624, 2630, 2631, 2632, 2633, 2708, 2709, 2722, 2723, 2724, 2727, 2728, 2733, 2734, 2735, 2736, 2764

II. SCO IMPROPERLY CLAIMS PRIVILEGE OVER DOCUMENTS THAT
ORIGINATED WITH THE THIRD PARTIES THAT PREVIOUSLY OWNED
THE UNIX ASSETS; BECAUSE THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOW IN SCO'S
POSSESSION, ANY PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN WAIVED.

OBJECTION SUB-CATEGORIES SCO PRIVILEGE LOG ENTRY NUMBERS
SCO Claims Privilege Over Documents that Originated with AT&T 556, 557, 558, 559, 1610, 1830, 2880, 2913, 2944
SCO Claims Privilege Over Documents that Originated with Unix System Laboratories ("USL") 1758, 2067, 2068, 2069, 2314, 2904, 2910, 2988, 2993
SCO Claims Privilege Over Documents that Originated with Novell, Inc. ("Novell")

543, 544, 545, 594, 595, 596, 597, 610, 611, 612, 613, 620, 621, 639, 640, 672, 673, 674, 675, 682, 688, 689, 690, 696, 721, 752, 753, 754, 755, 1580, 1581, 1755, 1772, 1774, 1790, 1791, 1792, 1801, 1835, 1874, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1899, 1905, 1906, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1918, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 2092, 2093, 2099, 2116, 2201, 2241, 2337, 2338, 2397, 2445, 2454, 2513, 2514, 2516, 2517, 2518, 2519, 2520, 2521, 2522, 2541, 2542, 2543, 2544, 2545, 2548, 2653, 2654, 2655, 2674, 2675, 2679, 2686, 2688, 2689, 2690, 2691, 2692, 2700, 2701, 2889, 2899, 2995

SCO Claims Privilege Over Documents that Originated with The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. ("Santa Cruz")

(continued)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 536, 387, 388, 511, 512, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 538, 540, 541, 542, 560, 561, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 582, 587, 588, 590, 593, 606, 607, 608, 609, 614, 616, 617, 618, 619, 624, 631

6

(continued) 635, 638, 656, 670, 700, 704, 705, 706, 713, 714, 715, 725, 729, 731, 733, 735, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 746, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751, 764, 766, 767, 769, 770, 771, 772, 924, 1270, 1271, 1272, 1273, 1274, 1275, 1276, 1277, 1278, 1279, 1280, 1281, 1322, 1324, 1325, 1327, 1328, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347, 1348, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1354, 1355, 1356, 1358, 1362, 1363, 1364, 1365, 1366, 1367, 1368, 1369, 1370, 1371, 1372, 1373, 1374, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1380, 1381, 1382, 1383, 1384, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1393, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1399, 1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, 1408, 1409, 1410, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, 1415, 1416, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1428, 1429, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 1447, 1448, 1449, 1450, 1451, 1452, 1453, 1454, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1463, 1464, 1465, 1466, 1467, 1468, 1469, 1470, 1471, 1472, 1473, 1474, 1475, 1476, 1477, 1478, 1479, 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486, 1487, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1497, 1498, 1499, 1501, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1511, 1513, 1517, 1518, 1520, 1523, 1524, 1526, 1527, 1529, 1530, 1536, 1537, 1538, 1539, 1540, 1541, 1542, 1543, 1544, 1545, 1546, 1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1556, 1558, 1559, 1560, 1561, 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1566, 1567, 1568, 1569, 1571, 1572, 1573, 1574, 1576, 1577, 1578, 1579, 1582, 1584, 1585, 1586, 1587, 1589, 1590, 1591, 1596, 1597, 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601, 1602, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1739, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1751, 1753, 1754, 1757, 1759, 1762, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1780, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, 1796, 1797, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1802, 1806, 1807, 1809, 1810, 1811, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1815, 1816, 1817, 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821, 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1847, 1848, 1849, 1850, 1851, 1852, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860,
7

(continued) 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870, 1872, 1873, 1895, 1903, 1904, 1926, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1937, 1938, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1959, 1961, 1969, 1970, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2038, 2039, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2054, 2055, 2056, 2057, 2058, 2060, 2061, 2062, 2063, 2070, 2071, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077, 2078, 2080, 2081, 2082, 2083, 2084, 2085, 2086, 2088, 2089, 2090, 2091, 2113, 2199, 2205, 2206, 2209, 2210, 2219, 2220, 2229, 2239, 2242, 2243, 2244, 2245, 2248, 2249, 2251, 2252, 2254, 2258, 2259, 2260, 2261, 2262, 2263, 2264, 2272, 2273, 2285, 2286, 2287, 2288, 2290, 2291, 2292, 2293, 2294, 2295, 2296, 2298, 2312, 2316, 2317, 2318, 2319, 2320, 2321, 2322, 2323, 2324, 2326, 2327, 2329, 2331, 2332, 2333, 2334, 2336, 2339, 2340, 2341, 2342, 2344, 2345, 2346, 2348, 2349, 2350, 2351, 2352, 2353, 2354, 2355, 2356, 2357, 2358, 2360, 2361, 2362, 2363, 2364, 2365, 2366, 2367, 2368, 2369, 2371, 2376, 2377, 2380, 2383, 2385, 2388, 2389, 2406, 2409, 2410, 2411, 2412, 2413, 2414, 2415, 2419, 2420, 2421, 2422, 2423, 2426, 2429, 2434, 2442, 2444, 2458, 2459, 2462, 2465, 2466, 2467, 2474, 2478, 2481, 2486, 2492, 2495, 2499, 2525, 2526, 2528, 2529, 2530, 2531, 2533, 2536, 2546, 2608, 2609, 2610, 2611, 2612, 2613, 2614, 2615, 2616, 2617, 2618, 2619, 2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638, 2639, 2652, 2659, 2660, 2661, 2663, 2665, 2666, 2676, 2677, 2681, 2683, 2684, 2685, 2697, 2698, 2699, 2704, 2705, 2706, 2773, 2774, 2775, 2776, 2777, 2778, 2779, 2780, 2781, 2782, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, 2789, 2790, 2791, 2795, 2796, 2797, 2798, 2799, 2800, 2801, 2802, 2803, 2804, 2805, 2806, 2807, 2808, 2809, 2810, 2811, 2812, 2813, 2814, 2815, 2816, 2817, 2818, 2819, 2820, 2821, 2822, 2823, 2824,
8

(continued) 2825, 2826, 2827, 2828, 2829, 2830, 2831, 2832, 2833, 2834, 2835, 2836, 2837, 2838, 2839, 2840, 2841, 2843, 2844, 2846, 2847, 2848, 2849, 2850, 2852, 2853, 2854, 2855, 2856, 2857, 2858, 2859, 2860, 2861, 2862, 2863, 2864, 2865, 2877, 2878, 2881, 2882, 2883, 2894, 2886, 2887, 2888, 2890, 2891, 2893, 2894, 2895, 2897, 2912, 2916, 2917, 2918, 2924, 2926, 2927, 2928, 2930, 2931, 2932, 2935, 2936, 2937, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2943, 2948, 2952, 2954, 2955, 2956, 2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962, 2963, 2966, 2967, 2968, 2969, 2970, 2971, 2972, 2973, 2974, 2975, 2976, 2977, 2978, 2979, 2980, 2981, 2982, 2984, 2995, 2986, 2987, 2989, 2991, 2996

SCO Claims Privilege Over Documents that Originated with AT&T, USL, Novell, or Santa Cruz [3]

(continued)

8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 535, 539, 547, 548, 549, 552, 553, 554, 555, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 583, 584, 591, 592, 598, 599, 600, 622, 636, 637, 641, 642, 644, 645, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 676, 681, 683, 694, 685, 696, 687, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 701, 702, 709, 710, 711, 717, 718, 719, 720, 722, 723, 724, 726, 734, 756, 757, 758, 759, 765, 1514, 1515, 1575, 1594, 1595, 1605, 1606, 1607, 1608, 1609, 1610, 1743, 1744, 1745, 1746, 1750, 1756, 1757, 1760, 1761, 1763, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1793, 1794, 1795, 1903, 1805, 1831, 1840, 1861, 1862, 1871, 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1894, 1996, 1898, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1917, 1919, 1924, 1925, 1940, 1941, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1991, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2064, 2065, 2066, 2068, 2079, 2087, 2094, 2095, 2096, 2097, 2098, 2100, 2101, 2102, 2103, 2104, 2105, 2106, 2107, 2108, 2109, 2110, 2111, 2112, 2114, 2115, 2117, 2118, 2119, 2120, 2121, 2122, 2123, 2124, 2125, 2126, 2127, 2128, 2129, 2130, 2131, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2136, 2137, 2138, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2142, 2143, 2144, 2145, 2146, 2147, 2148, 2149, 2150, 2151, 2152, 2153, 2154, 2155, 2156, 2157, 2158, 2159, 2160, 2161, 2162, 2163,

[3] SCO's privilege log fails to identify the business entity with whom the listed documents
originated. In this section, IBM has identified documents that, according to the log, can only have
originated with either AT&T, USL, Novell, or Santa Cruz.

9

(continued) 2164, 2165, 2166, 2167, 2168, 2169, 2170, 2171, 2172, 2173, 2174, 2175, 2176, 2177, 2178, 2179, 2180, 2181, 2182, 2183, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, 2188, 2189, 2190, 2191, 2192, 2193, 2194, 2195, 2196, 2197, 2198, 2200, 2203, 2204, 2207, 2208, 2216, 2222, 2223, 2224, 2225, 2228, 2230, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2240, 2253, 2266, 2267, 2268, 2269, 2274, 2313, 2314, 2328, 2396, 2398, 2399, 2400, 2401, 2402, 2403, 2404, 2405, 2438, 2439, 2440, 2441, 2447, 2449, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2460, 2461, 2463, 2496, 2497, 2510, 2515, 2523, 2524, 2534, 2537, 2538, 2539, 2540, 2667, 2668, 2669, 2670, 2671, 2672, 2678, 2687, 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2702, 2898, 2902, 2903, 2905, 2906, 2907, 2908, 2911, 2914, 2940, 2945, 2946, 2947, 2949, 2950, 2951, 2953, 2983, 2990, 2994, 2997, 2998

III. SCO IMPROPERLY CLAIMS PRIVILEGE OVER DOCUMENTS DISCLOSED
TO OR CREATED BY THIRD PARTIES.

OBJECTION SUB-CATEGORIES SCO PRIVILEGE LOG ENTRY NUMBERS
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with Investment Advisor S2 Consulting 16, 420, 423, 429, 456, 1206, 1211, 1238, 1673, 2624, 2867
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with Investment Advisor Kimble Jenkins of Morgan Keegan 330, 331, 333, 453, 459, 461, 465, 1198, 1201, 1203, 1204, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1214, 1221, 1317, 1326, 1615, 1619, 1621, 1623, 1625, 1627, 1629, 1633, 1638, 1640, 1646, 1663, 2765
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with Investment Advisor Whitney Company 408
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with Menzies Chartered Accountants 58, 59, 63, 64
10

SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with Schwartz PR 425
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with AT&T 890, 1607
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with Silicon Graphics, Inc. 1672
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with Santa Cruz 659, 1786, 1820, 2408, 2469, 2470, 2488, 2489, 2532, 2533, 2682
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with Thomas Kroeger 2928, 2929
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with Cendant Corporation 141
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with "jetsonsystems.com" 1178, 1268
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with Tarantella 1513
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with IBM Employee Haig McNamee 1361
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications Between Santa Cruz and the United States Patent and Trademark Office 2704
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications Between Santa Cruz and Dell 2589
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications Between Santa Cruz and IBM 2798, 2859, 2860
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications Between Santa Cruz and Caldera 2886
SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications Between Santa Cruz and Peoplesoft 2915
11

SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications Between Santa Cruz and Novell 1994, 2087, 2660, 2940, 2946

IV. SCO'S LOG CONTAINS NUMEROUS ENTRIES THAT LACK BASIC
INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR IBM AND THE COURT TO ASSESS THE
VALIDITY OF THE ASSERTED PRIVILEGES.

OBJECTION SUB-CATEGORIES SCO PRIVILEGE LOG ENTRY NUMBERS
The Following Privilege Log Entries Contain Email Addresses Not Included in SCO's Email Directory [4] 516, 1335, 1336, 1382, 1383,1462, 1528, 1529, 1562, 1733, 1734, 1846, 1981, 1982, 1990, 1992, 1995, 2226, 2292, 2294, 2384, 2387, 2389, 2412, 2413, 2426, 2432, 2433, 2492, 2493, 2494, 2777, 2799, 2803, 2804, 2924, 2925, 2926, 2927, 2929
The Following Privilege Log Entries Lack Information Regarding Author, Recipient, CC(s), and Business Entity [5] 6, 396, 428, 903, 941, 1493, 1494, 1496, 1497, 1502, 1504, 1509, 1512, 1514, 1515, 1522, 1583, 1781, 1782, 1783, 1879, 1897, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1975, 1976, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2079, 2179, 2180, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214, 2215, 2218, 2220, 2221, 2227, 2229, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2241, 2247, 2256, 2257, 2265, 2266, 2284, 2286, 2289, 2290, 2297, 2305, 2312, 2317, 2325, 2327, 2330, 2343, 2353, 2355, 2359, 2372, 2373, 2375, 2378, 2379, 2381, 2382, 2390, 2391, 2398, 2406, 2418, 2424, 2427, 2428, 2454, 2456, 2457, 2462, 2464, 2473, 2483, 2484, 2485, 2487, 2500, 2501, 2502, 2503, 2504, 2507, 2512, 2527, 2547, 2910, 2964, 2965, 2982
The Following Privilege Log Entries Lack Information Regarding Date 833, 837, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 911, 912, 1072, 1073, 1088, 1141, 1861

[4] SCO's Email Directory is found in Exhibit 2, to SCO's Privilege Log.
[5] Because SCO is improperly claiming privilege over documents involving several different
companies, SCO's privilege log entries should have identified, at a minimum, the name of the
company, or "Business Entity", from which the document originated.
12

The Following Privilege Log Entries Lack Information Regarding Date, Author, Recipient, and CC(s) 122, 159, 162, 192, 193, 237, 307, 426, 427, 475, 499, 783, 784, 785, 966, 1193, 1505, 1624, 1626, 1628, 1632, 1641, 2302, 2472, 2980
The Following Privilege Log Entries Lack Information Regarding Date, Author, Recipient, CC(s), and Business Entity 99, 119, 196, 310, 312, 313, 421, 481, 534, 562, 585, 604, 605, 623, 629, 643, 646, 773, 782, 832, 878, 894, 913, 949, 952, 995, 1167, 1168, 1170, 1172, 1176, 1190, 1191, 1260, 1261, 1592, 1603, 1604, 1644, 1647, 1692, 1711, 1712, 1713, 1714, 1715, 1716, 1835, 2132, 2301, 2315, 2347, 2370, 2416, 2425, 2437, 2443, 2446, 2448, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2471, 2476, 2477, 2479, 2656, 2668, 2696, 2763, 2772, 2947
The Following Privilege Log Entries Lack Information Regarding Date and Business Entity 834, 835, 836, 1492, 1510, 1850, 1855, 1860, 1871, 1964, 2059, 2900, 2931
The Following Privilege Log Entries Lack Information Regarding Date, Recipient, CC(s), and Business Entity 154, 157, 175, 955, 1516, 1525
The Following Privilege Log Entries Lack Information Regarding Business Entity 8, 532, 533, 552, 555, 578, 620, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 667, 668, 669, 677, 678, 679, 680, 685, 686, 692, 693, 695, 697, 698, 699, 730, 752, 758, 759, 761, 768, 799, 1359, 1361, 1557, 1575, 1607, 1745, 1749, 1756, 1761, 1772, 1776, 1777, 1831, 1881, 1927, 1941, 1948, 1949, 2065, 2066, 2103, 2147, 2190, 2191, 2199, 2202, 2225, 2226, 2255, 2267, 2268, 2269, 2306, 2329, 2338, 2407, 2432, 2433, 2442, 2455, 2482, 2493, 2494, 2508, 2510, 2541, 2657, 2658, 2680, 2693, 2879, 2898, 2929
The Following Privilege Log Entries Lack Information Regarding Recipient 2222, 2911, 2942
The Following Privilege Log Entry Lacks Information Regarding Date, Author, CC(s), and Business Entity 2478
13

DATED this 11th day of April, 2005.

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

____[signature]___
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy
Amy F. Sorenson

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

14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 11th day of April, 2005, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid:

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
Edward Normand
Sean Eskovitz
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[Address]

____[signature]__

15


  


IBM's Objections to SCO's Privilege Log - as text | 315 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
IBM's Objections to SCO's Privilege Log - as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 07:51 PM EDT

I'm not grasping the "whoops." Is it that SCO has dropped 16,000 documents from the privilege logs? If so, are the dropped documents entirely unavailable to anyone?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Objections over Santa Cruz docs
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 07:54 PM EDT
It is interesting that SCOX is claiming priviledge over documents that
originated with the old SCO (Santa Cruz Ops).

It seems here they are trying to say they are separate and distinct entities yet
in other arguments they frequently try to blur this distinction, even to this
court.

This "playing both sides" seems very dishonest. Do judges ever take
note of such tactics?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections go here
Authored by: old joe on Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 08:04 PM EDT
if there are any

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 08:05 PM EDT
So i know where I goofed

---
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 | # ]

Off Toppic Here
Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 08:17 PM EDT
Please make links clickable and submit HTML posts as HTML

<a href="http://www.example.com>link</a>

---
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 | # ]

Sincere thanks to Feldegast
Authored by: Nick on Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 08:23 PM EDT
Thank you, Feldegast, for doing this. Just looking at those long lists of
numbers is daunting enough. I imagine it was a difficult task to get them all
down and right. I can't imagine the proofreading process! :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think SCO did this on purpose...
Authored by: mwa on Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 08:38 PM EDT
So they could claim it would take another 27,000 man-years to identify all the
reasons for privilege...

---
My comments on Groklaw are released under the Creative Commons license
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0. P.J. has permission for commercial use (she's
earned it!)

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Objections to SCO's Privilege Log - as text
Authored by: BsAtHome on Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 08:42 PM EDT
It has been a hell of a job for IBM to find objections to 2280 of the 2998
entries. A whopping 76%! They have so made a total of 3178 objections to 2998
entries (2 entries have 4 objections, 79 entries have 3 objections, 1632 entries
have 2 objection and 1465 entries have 1 objection).

You've gotta love those guys for using a destill of this kind :-)


---
SCOop of the day, Groklaw Rulez

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank you feldegast (eom)
Authored by: Latesigner on Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 08:52 PM EDT

.

---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How much work.........
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 08:55 PM EDT

will be required from SCOG's lawyers to respond to this?

Even on the basis that most are probably clerical/simple errors which can be corrected quite easily, each faulty entry will presumably require some level of individual attention. Other errors could prove to be embarrassing.

Is it normal to challenge priviledge logs in this detail?

Will it prove to be just a few more weeks lawyering work or may IBM be interested in explanations for a few needles in feldegast's haystack?

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Strange
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 09:03 PM EDT
The one i noticed was this one: SCO Claims Privilege Over
Communications with IBM Employee Haig McNamee. Can someone
whit a little bit of understanding of such issues try to
explain the reason for trying claiming this. How can SCO
claim privilege over communications with IBM?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Any mention of the "rocket scientist" research?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 10:16 PM EDT
SCO was at one point claiming that they weren't going to use their
"evidence" researched by MIT rocket scientists because they didn't
need it. I think IBM mentioned it at one point in discovery and SCO said that
it was protected. I'm not sure how that would work. Do we know if SCO properly
documented it in the priviledge logs and if so is it one of the entries which
IBM is disputing?

I'd just love to see IBM tear up that report, if it exists.

[ Reply to This | # ]

II. ... Third Parties - Santa Cruz
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 10:23 PM EDT
    II. SCO IMPROPERLY CLAIMS PRIVILEGE OVER DOCUMENTS THAT ORIGINATED WITH THE THIRD PARTIES THAT PREIOUSLY OWNED THE UNIX ASSETS; BECAUSE THESE DOCUMENTS A,RE NOW IN SCO'S POSSESSION, ANY PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN WAIVED.
    ...
    SCO Claims Privilege Over Documents that Originated with The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. ("Santa Cruz") ....

SCO is going to have to defend (?) their right to use their status as successor in interest to obtain privelege for communications between Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz's lawyers.

What will happen?

---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)

[ Reply to This | # ]

What goes around, comes around
Authored by: AllParadox on Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 10:28 PM EDT
I see this as a trap that IBM laid for tSCOg.

The "personality" characteristics of both tSCOg and their lawyers were
known by IBM and counsel well before this suit was filed.

I strongly suspect that IBM was overjoyed at the chance to file privilege logs
without hearings on the basis for the privilege. Knowing tSCOg, as nearly
everyone did from their public announcements, they knew that tSCOg would
massively abuse the agreement to respect each other's privilege assertions
without a hearing. Lots of things that had no business being labeled
"privileged" were added to the list, with, I am sure, all sorts of
spurious justifications, or maybe no justifications at all.

IBM attorneys knew that tSCOg, like an alcoholic, simply did not have the
self-control to leave it be. Eventually, tSCOg would find something that they
wanted out in the open, and would demand hearings on all the
"privileged" documents.

IBM has lost nothing here: they still get the same hearing on privilege.
However, tSCOg now has the opportunity to solidly demonstrate to Judges Kimball
and Welles, and to any reviewing appellate court, that they have actively lied
about the privilege attached to many important documents. If the communication
is not between a company employee and an attorney, or is not a closed-door
session to discuss aspects of such a communication, then it is not privileged.
Unlike most things in the law, this one is pretty simple. So much the worse for
tSCOg.

Beware what you really want. You will get it.

---
PJ edits insults, not ideas.

AllParadox; retired lawyer and chief Groklaw iconoclast. No legal opinions,
just my opinion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What are the potential ramifications?
Authored by: jbb on Sunday, April 24 2005 @ 11:26 PM EDT
It appears that tSCOg may have greatly abused the whole concept of privilege logs.

Is there some line they can cross that will cause them to get into trouble for this? Can the judge punish them?

---
SCO cannot violate the covenants that led to and underlie Linux without forfeiting the benefits those covenants confer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Note to self
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 25 2005 @ 01:42 AM EDT
Never, ever hire Boies, S, & F, for my legal needs. Okay, dropping the ball
on a few documents, I'll give them, but 76% is nothing more than rank
incompetence.

And then losing 16,000 documents from the privilege log? How do these things
work with those large law firms...are those numbers sufficient for B, S, & F
to drop their association with that particular branch? Is it like revoking a
franchise?

I mean, the merits of the case aside, this is simply appalling. Can the pro and
former pro lawyers out there tell me, are these numbers typical for errors in a
case of this size? Come on now, they're claiming damages of $5 billion! And
they're surely aware that their client's future existence depends solely on a
positive outcome to this case.

Waitaminnit, are they falling on their swords to give SCOX grounds for an
appeal?

bkd

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jetsonsystems
Authored by: Electric Dragon on Monday, April 25 2005 @ 06:27 AM EDT
One entry says 'SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with "jetsonsystems.com"', which piqued my interest.

There's not much on Jetson Systems that I can find, but they appear to be a startup aimed at the small private jet, "air taxi" market that some believe will become popular. This CNet article is the top ranked Google hit for Jetson Systems, which reveals that it was founded by Ed Iacobucci, founder of Citrix Systems and an architect of OS/2. The domain itself doesn't appear to be live, whois merely reports Network Solutions as the registrant (presumably a proxy). DNS shows a CNAME of dayjets.com for jetsonsystems.com, but that domain is also registered by Network Solutions and appears not to be live. Ah, I've just turned up this on the Inq about Ed Iacobucci's new venture. A search through Groklaw turns up a few mentions of the name .... and he's a director of SCO! He is described as one of the independent directors of SCOX in their 10K.

Presumably that's why SCO want to claim it's privileged? I don't know enough about what's privileged and what's not (outside obvious stuff like attorney-client privilege and attorney work product).

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Objections to SCO's Privilege Log - as text
Authored by: rao on Monday, April 25 2005 @ 08:20 AM EDT

It seems like there should be a distinction between what happened before the trial and what happens during the trial. What I mean by that is that if a defendant tells his lawyer that he did indeed commit the crime he is accused of then that should fall under attorney-client privilege. But if the defendant tells his lawyer that he is going to murder the prosecutions star witness, the lawyer should be obligated to inform the authorities.

I don't think that asking people to avoid commiting felonies during the course of their legal proceedings in any way impinges on their right to a fair trial.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: AMD Saw Light in a Dark Time
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 25 2005 @ 08:32 AM EDT
What...

If Fred Weber cs had done what was discussed at some of these meetings about the
Opteron design?

What? Making it it completely self-virtualizable! They would have had a two year
advance on Intel - now they once again have to play catch-up on Vanderpool.

Sigh...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yankakovich Gambit
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 25 2005 @ 11:36 AM EDT
(original setting: M*A*S*H; Pierce and Winchester are playing chess when Pierce
makes his move; dialog adapted appropriately)

SCO: "Let's see you return from this one. Check."

IBM: "Ah, the Yankakovich Gambit."

SCO: "Really?"

IBM: (nods) "Yankakovich was known for making the most moronic move
possible in order to lull his opponent. Well, I'm not gonna fall for it."

[ Reply to This | # ]

some statistics
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 25 2005 @ 01:01 PM EDT

I first thought that they objected to all entries, but some sorting through the pile of numbers revealed the following:

  • The largest number in the list of objections is 2998. Probably this is now the size of the list.
  • IBM objected to 2279 entries, which is 76%. 720 entries (24%) are not mentioned in the list of objections.
  • The clear winners are 1607 and 2929 which they object to for four different reasons ;-)

All the best,
Jochen

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting article here
Authored by: joe_param on Monday, April 25 2005 @ 01:04 PM EDT
Well, well, what do we have here then.
A report is about to be published by Becta, the UK Government's lead agency for IT in education. Quote from article...

Among the key findings will be that primary and secondary schools using OSS substantially reduced the total cost of ownership per PC. Support costs - typically accounting for more than half a PC's total cost - showed the biggest reduction.

From the register here

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Objections to SCO's Privilege Log - as text
Authored by: blang on Monday, April 25 2005 @ 01:17 PM EDT
Jeez, O'Gara's going to get a hernia when she sees this.

SCO has on several occasions tried to read sealed documents in court. And
O'Gara & Co went to great length to get those out, even filed their own
brief withe the court.

SCO is sitting on a mountain on stuff they should have handed over in discovery,
and it seesm like they don't understand the basic rules of privilege.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I got it! Must see shredder log!
Authored by: blang on Monday, April 25 2005 @ 01:23 PM EDT
It's obvious.

The 16,000 documents that are no longer privileged, adn have not been turned
over for discovery, simply don't exist.

They existed in december, but they are no more.

So, the only logical conclusion, is that they have been shredded.

I'm wondering if SCO might have been implementing a document retention policy.
All documents not required by government for recod keeping, and all documents
not necessary for the daily buiness of TSG (most lemonade stands probably have
more), are now being shredded.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Dismissal with Prejudice?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 25 2005 @ 01:52 PM EDT
Does anyone know:
If it is proven that SCOG destroyed the missing 16,000 documents, does their
case then get dismissed with prejudice, considering that IBM would be prejudiced
(read: cannot get a fair trial) as a result of SCOG's actions?

If so, maybe this was SCOG's exit strategy once they realized their bluff had
been called by the judge, and IBM would not settle. Rather than admit fraud, do
something dumb enough to get your case thrown out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some interesting stats...
Authored by: darkonc on Monday, April 25 2005 @ 02:38 PM EDT
Out of 2998 documents that SCO has described as priveledged, IBM has a problem with 2280 of them ( 76% ).

The most referenced documents are 2929 and 1607 (both referenced 4 times)

another 79 have 3 issues and 734 are referenced twice.

The raw data data (sorted document numbers, sorted by refcount and the list of unchallenged documents) can be found on my website.

complaints about 2929:

  • SCO Claims "Attorney Draft of Document", But No Attorney is Identified
  • SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with Thomas Kroeger
  • The Following Privilege Log Entries Contain Email Addresses Not Included in SCO's Email Directory [4]
  • The Following Privilege Log Entries Lack Information Regarding Business Entity
Complaints about 1607:
  • SCO Claims "Attorney Draft of Document", But No Attorney is Identified
  • SCO Claims Privilege Over Documents that Originated with AT&T, USL, Novell, or Santa Cruz [3]
  • SCO Claims Privilege Over Communications with AT&T
  • The Following Privilege Log Entries Lack Information Regarding Business Entity

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Concerning the "missing" 16,000
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 25 2005 @ 05:09 PM EDT
Why do I have the feeling that some junior Nazgul is working on (or already has
produced) IBM's objections to the "missing" 16,000 documents, and is
simply waiting for SCO to pull an "Oops, I forgot to list THESE."?

And why does that thought make me smile?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interleaves in the Log
Authored by: stats_for_all on Monday, April 25 2005 @ 08:19 PM EDT
SCOXe seek privledge over 11 documents in communication with S2 Consulting (Michael Anderer).
16,420,423,429,456,1206,1211,1238,1673,2624,2867

The document #16 interleaves with documents that SCO claims Attorney Legal advice privledge.

For 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 Anderer documents were communications on legal issues.

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

No author: 421, 426: interleaves with Anderer, why would authorship in this series be suppressed ?

Other names:
Menzies Chartered Accountants: a strictly British accounting company, includes a corporate restructuring division.

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.

[ Reply to This | # ]

One other thought - how much of this is "marketing" by lawyers???
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 12:05 AM EDT
1. In their SEC filings, SCO puts their lawyers fees as a "Cost Of
Sale" in their SCOsource division.

Consider that proposition carefully....

- The so-called "Cost Of Sale" is primarily legal fees for their
various legal cases against IBM, Novell, Daimler Chrysler, AutoZone, Red Hat and
others.

- But they have won a grand total of zero dollars (i.e. no sales) in judgements
through actual litigation and court activities. (so the vast majority of the
"cost of sale" has directly generated precisely zero revenue)

- And the revenue that they have generated from SCOsource, is from license fees
from companies that they have *NOT* sued (and therefore have no, or minimal
so-called "Cost Of Sale" in these sales)


Or to put it simply:

- The so-called "Cost Of Sale" is primarily from one activity (paying
lawyers to take part in the various lawsuits)

- But Revenue is from an entirely different activity (selling licenses to
companies that they have *NOT* sued)


While I admit, that there is an indirect connection between the two, it seems to
me like the main connection is PR and marketing.

(A) The licenses are sold on the basis of being an immunity from lawsuits,
similar to those SCO has already filed.

(B) If (arguendo) IBM or Daimler Chrysler breached their contract, then the
*entire* damages would eventually be paid by them, not by some other company
that SCO isn't suing. Furthermore, if (arguendo) IBM or Daimler Chrysler
breached their contract, I don't see how this would require some other company
to buy a license.


....So if I was a cynic, I might speculate, that the lawsuits are simply PR and
Marketing to sell SCOsource licenses. And, whether I'm personally a cynic or
not - the way that SCO are doing their SCOsource accounts, is certainly
consistent with the cynical explanation.



2. In their marketing materials (see the FAQ on SCOsource on their site), SCO's
advise about whether to buy their SCOsource license product is to consult your
own legal counsel (although their are also some veiled threats that they might
sue you if you don't buy). Again this is consistent with point 1, and this
makes it look like SCO's lawyers are involved in "marketing" SCO's
product.


3. In their marketing letter to Lehman Brothers (which is an exhibit in Red Hat
case), SCO explicitly makes the connection like point 1, and this makes it look
like SCO's lawyers are involved in "marketing" SCO's product.


4. In their agreements with Kevin McBride and BSF (exhibits to their SEC
filings), these lawyers are not only cut into to any win in court or settlement
- but also to license fees (i.e. SCOsource sales).

As far as I can see, these SCOsource sales, would include licenses sold to
companies that SCO is *NOT* suing [although I remember there are at least some
explicit exclusions for Microsoft or Sun].

Again, lawyers being cut into sales to companies which are *NOT* being sued, is
consistent with point 1, and makes it look like SCO's lawyers are involved in
"marketing" SCO's product.


5. Next, we get SCO's lawyers speaking to an investor's conference call (for
example David Boies and Mark Heise in 2003), including when SCO launched their
SCOsource Linux license product. Again, this is consistent with point 1, and
makes it look like SCO's lawyers are involved in "marketing" SCO's
product.


6. Next, we get SCO's lawyers attending and presenting at SCOforum 2003 (Mark
Heise), including participating in very marketing-like activities (like giving
out T-Shirts - the infamous "UNIX in Linux" shorts). Again, this is
consistent with point 1, and makes it look like SCO's lawyers are involved in
"marketing" SCO's product.


7. Next, we review SCO's opposition to IBM's motion for partial summary
judgement on Counterclaim 8 (the one about SCO allegedly infringing IBM's
copyright by distributing IBM's 16 Linux programs on terms other than the GPL
thru their SCOsource sales).

Take a look at their memo carefully. They talk about selling the license
product at some points. At other points they talk about it being a settlement
or waiver of legal claims. It certainly readst to me, as if the two are
virtually indistinguishable even to SCO.

And, again, this is consistent with point 1, and makes it look like SCO's
lawyers are involved in "marketing" SCO's product.


SO THE QUESTIONS ARE...

[I realize that we all probably have some strongish *feelings* about the answers
some of these, but I think any potential answers are more significant and
important if grounded in factual analysis]

(I) Are SCO's lawyers "marketing" SCO's license product?

(II) Are the IBM and other cases, primarily about "marketing" SCO's
license product (their license program)?

(III) If the answer to (I) and/or (II) is "yes", is SCO's lawyers
"marketing" indistinguishable from their activities in the cases? [I
do realize this may not be a straight "yes" or "no" answer,
but also a question of a degree]

(IV) If the answer to (I) and/or (II) and (III) is "yes" - can SCO
legitimately claim privilege on their "marketing" activities simply
because lawyers were involved?

(V) What are the consequences of any of the above?

[ 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 )