|
Groklaw's Eyewitnesses Report on the G2 Intervention/Unseal Hearing |
|
Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 07:35 PM EDT
|
Frank Sorenson and Chris Brown were both at the hearing today on G2 et al's motion to intervene and motion to unseal. Chris tells me he feels it looks bleak for G2. Reading their reports, I'd say he is probably right, because their main beef was that Maureen filed a report about the December hearing that Groklaw's eyewitnesses disagreed with, and she got a lot of negative comments about it. But the simple remedy is obvious: she can attend the hearings and file eyewitness reports about what she actually sees and hears. Problem solved. The hearings are all open to the public.
Judge Kimball pointed out he hasn't sealed a thing, and IBM argued that anyone is allowed to attend the hearings, so how can you argue the public has no access? Could there be a more public litigation? SCO, I gather, agreed with IBM's position, which was that the parties can challenge the other side's designation of confidentiality, if needed. SCO did add a gratuitous dig about IBM that I don't understand, because if they wish, they are free to challenge anything IBM seals. They seemed to want to have all Project Monterey materials unsealed. They do, do, do want that email they shouldn't have read aloud at the December hearing made public, do they not? G2 is their support on that, and repeatedly asked only for filed documents, not all documents exchanged in discovery. Excuse me if my cynical side views it that SCO and their buddy G2 would like to out IBM in public, so the email can be known, while protecting SCO's sealed documents. Sounds fair to them.
Because Andrew Stone, G2's lawyer, is new to us, you might like to read his bio. Here is Frank's report:
************************
The hearing lasted about 45 minutes.
IBM was represented by Amy Sorenson and Todd Shaughnessy (Amy Sorenson
spoke)
SCO was represented by Brent Hatch and Ryan Tibbitts (Hatch Spoke)
G2, Forbes, & Cnet were represented by Andrew Stone
First off, Stone was _very_ difficult to hear and understand. He spoke
quickly and quietly, and did not enunciate. There were times we just
couldn't hear what he was talking about, let alone what he actually said.
Kimball said that he had read everything and was familiar with it.
Andrew Stone: His clients are all media entities.
Kimball [paraphrasing]: I know what you want. You want _in_, and to see
everything.
Stone: Every time my clients report on this case, they receive a
blizzard of emails and responses [indicating the public's interest]
Stone: One of my clients reported on a hearing in October, and online
community attacked the story, disputing what happened. The transcript
was sealed, so we can't show what really happened.
Stone: The Protective Order allows parties to unilaterally claim
confidentiality
Stone: There is intense public focus from the online community. The
Court's ultimate opinion will rely on source documents. Having those
available will help the public understand the decision.
Kimball: He hasn't relied on any confidential materials in any of his
decisions yet, so this hasn't been a problem yet.
Stone: We need to change the role of my client and become parties to the
protective order due to our common law right of access.
Stone: Speaks about the "10th Circuit Test" for balancing whether
documents really should be sealed/confidential. At this point, we
really can't argue whether the balance is appropriate because we haven't
seen them yet.
Stone: There are fewer than 50 sealed documents filed so far. We only
request access to the filed documents (not all discovery).
Stone: IBM has cited rulings that there is no right of access to
discovery disputes. This takes a very narrow view. We want the parties
to state the basis for confidentiality of all currently sealed docs.
Kimball: asked who would like to go first
Amy Sorenson: We're ready
Sorenson: G2 cannot credibly claim this lawsuit has been a closed case.
~ He acknowledged it's listed as a "High Profile Case" on the court's
webpage, and the hearings have been open to the public.
Sorenson: Three reasons justify denial.
~ 1 - Conduct of the parties in this case has been in following with the
Protective Order, and they've tried to make things available and only
redact or seal when absolutely necessary
~ 2 - G2's First Amendment argument is not supported by a Supreme Court
ruling
~ 3 - Their recommended method for unsealing is not reasonable or
feasible. Too time-consuming to examine everything.
Sorenson: Protective Orders are commonly entered into and withheld.
Both parties have adhered to it, and have attempted limited redaction
and made things available whenever possible.
Sorenson: IBM recently (in the last week) proposed to SCO that the
remaining memoranda under seal be released. They're in discussions.
[note: she talked about the memoranda, not sealed exhibits, etc.]
Sorenson: The common-law right of access has already been addressed.
Quotes from the "Nixon Court" [1979?] where access has been denied to
the public in the past. Supreme Court has indicated that such decisions
are best left up to the trial court. Confidentiality portion of the
Protective Order tracks along with the guidelines.
Sorenson: Quotes a Chicago Tribune case where material filed in
discovery is not subject to the common law right of access
Sorenson: Quotes from a [something unpronouncable] v. Davis case.
Speaks of a difference between the core judicial process (dispositive
motions) and other motions, etc.
Sorenson: The PSJ motions have been denied without prejudice, so the
materials submitted for those haven't been relied upon for any judgments.
Sorenson: With respect to their 1st Amendment argument regarding the
role of public access in civil trials, there has been no Supreme Court
ruling that such a right exists. They rely on a 10th Circuit decision
that states such a right "may exist."
Sorenson: If The Court is interested in entertaining the Constitutional
discussion, The Court should also look to a ruling from (now-Justice)
Scalia in the DC Circuit [re: role of public access in civil trials?]
Sorenson: Regarding G2 becoming a party to the Protective Order, only
The Court can decide whether seal is appropriate. G2 is a third-party
and doesn't have access and can't do analysis.
Sorenson: This lawsuit is in no way closed to the public.
Sorenson: G2's Motion should be denied.
Brent Hatch: We have properly designated documents as confidential.
Stone's argument about right of access does not apply.
Hatch: Talks a bit about how, on the other hand, "Just because IBM says
something is confidential, it's so" is debatable, and something the
Court may wish to address some time.
Stone: We have no dispute over legitimately confidential documents. Our
concern is that the parties can unilaterally designate as confidential.
Stone: The Scalia decision is 20 years old.
Stone: Our concern is about the process, and having an advocate. If
it's appropriately sealed, we're happy.
Kimball: Will take it all under advisement.
Chris's report:
Brent Hatch passed around a photocopy of an article in the Logan, Utah
"The Herald Journal" with the attention getting headline "SCO Group Asks
to Oust IBM CEO". I cannot find the article on-line at their website.
http://hjnews.townnews.com/
IBM's Attorneys:
Todd Shawnessy and Amy Sorenson (arguing)
SCO's Attorneys:
Brent Hatch (arguing) and Ryan Tibbitts.
G2's Attorney:
Andrew Stone
Andrew Stone spoke first. He spoke exceptionally quietly so it was
difficult to make out all he said. He started out by bringing up last
October's hearing before Judge Wells. He said reference was made to
emails which were partly read in open court. He said one of their clients
reported on this and it was disputed by an online community. He said the
hearing's transcript was sealed and that it raised questions in their
minds about why documents were sealed.
Judge Kimball said "I have not sealed anything."
Again, I couldn't hear a lot of what Mr. Stone said.
He said their is a need for public accepiance of decisions based on
public's interest in the case. He said many companies make their
decisions based on their knowledge of this case. He spoke of "Monday
Morning Quarterbacking". He said he'd attended last Thursday's hearing
and noted that attorney's for both sides based their arguments on public
policy issues (relating to the deposition of a Fortune 100 company's
CEO).
In reference to the emails and other sealed documents he said the "public
is forced to rely on caracterizations of documents made by one side or the
other."
"Materials that are part of public record should be available to the public."
He said that the public has a right to understand, and have access to, the
documents that the court used to make its judgments.
He proposed that they become parties to the protective order and that they
"only look at filed documents, not documents not filed with the court."
He said there are fewer than 50 sealed documents in this case. He said
there is a common law right of access to documents filed with the court.
He stressed that they want access to all documents and transcripts in the
case, but only those filed with the court, not the hundreds of thousands
of documents produced in discovery.
Amy Sorensen argued for IBM. She said G2 cannot credibly claim this
lawsuit has been closed to the public. She told of the many documents
that have been filed with the court, and that several documents that
contained quotes from confidential information IBM had also filed a
minimally redacted version with the court as well.
She said she had three main points,
1. The conduct of the parties entering the protective order has been
entirely proper. She again cited the redacted versions of documents
filed.
2. G2's arguments are not supported by case law.
3. The proposal is unneccessary, unsupported, and there is no need to
arbitrate.
She said both parties to the lawsuit can challenge the confidentiality of
documents at any time.
She said the parties have tried to make as much as possible public with
limited redactions of quotations of confidential information.
G2's "common law access" either doesn't exist, or has been addressed
already by the parties conduct.
She cited a number of cases where the judges had supported the public
access to documents filed in civil cases were limited. Especially where
their disclosure could be used to slander, libel, or gain competitive
advantage.
G2 had contended that a First Amendment right exists to the documents.
Amy said no such First Amendment right exists. Quoted Justice Scalia
(about 20 yrs ago, while he was on the DC Circuit Court) about application
of a Logic and Experience test.
Amy argued that should G2 have access to the documents, they can provide
no assistance to the court in determining whether a document was
appriately sealed. That that is the discresion of the Judge.
Brent Hatch spoke for SCO. He said he entirely agrees with Mrs. Sorenson,
except with the application in this case. He said that Monterey
documents, a project that has been dead for 5 years, have all been filed
under seal and that he doesn't see why.
Mr. Stone replied that he has not problem with genuinly confidential
material, but that he does have a problem with documents that have been
unilaterally classed as confidential.
He reiterated that they do not seek access to the mountains of material
exchanged in discovery, only those submitted to the court.
|
|
Authored by: Hiro Protagonist on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 08:04 PM EDT |
Corrections go here Please.
---
I Grok... Therefore... I am.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 08:04 PM EDT |
Making links <a
href="http://www.example.com">clickable</a> HTML if you have
them would be appreciated.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Really off topic. - Authored by: Slimbo on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 08:41 PM EDT
- Spanish universities demonstrate against software patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 12:52 AM EDT
- Patents breeding software extortion: Moglen - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 01:07 AM EDT
- "Skype calls are cheap, reliable" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 01:27 AM EDT
- Ad - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 11:27 AM EDT
- Communication? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 11:48 AM EDT
- Communication? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 28 2005 @ 09:02 AM EDT
- Careful if you're on a metered system - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 09:49 PM EDT
- Microsoft to put a spy in PCs with Longhorn? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 03:09 AM EDT
- "Linux moves into enterprise systems design" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 03:57 AM EDT
- "Tech: Where the Last Are First" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 04:12 AM EDT
- "Open Wallets for Open-Source Software" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 04:30 AM EDT
- "SGI to release Itanium workstation" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 04:46 AM EDT
- "European Commission Sparks Software Patent Debate" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 05:24 AM EDT
- Less cash flow - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 08:57 AM EDT
- Nikon's verdict is in - Authored by: sonam on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 07:41 AM EDT
- OT: Bill Gates' business dichotomy - Authored by: GelW on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 10:08 AM EDT
- Microsoft ignores Europe - Authored by: Chris Lingard on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 10:18 AM EDT
- Microsoft to Introduce PDF competitor 'Metro' - Authored by: Ted Powell on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 11:23 AM EDT
- Petulant CEO throws toys from pram - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 11:57 AM EDT
- OT: Dutch plans for iPod tax could kill MP3 industry - Authored by: GelW on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 01:20 PM EDT
- Inquirer says G2 chances are bleak - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 28 2005 @ 08:31 AM EDT
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 08:11 PM EDT |
Stone: There is intense public focus from the online community. The Court's
ultimate opinion will rely on source documents. Having those available will help
the public understand the decision.
I fail to see that this is anything
other that a way
to generate misleading commentary to feed to the public
and
therefore potential jurors *before* a trial.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LittleBlue on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 08:15 PM EDT |
"Brent Hatch: We have properly designated documents as confidential.
Stone's argument about right of access does not apply.
Hatch: Talks a bit about how, on the other hand, "Just because IBM says
something is confidential, it's so" is debatable, and something the Court
may wish to address some time.
Stone: We have no dispute over legitimately confidential documents. Our concern
is that the parties can unilaterally designate as confidential.
Stone: The Scalia decision is 20 years old.
Stone: Our concern is about the process, and having an advocate. If it's
appropriately sealed, we're happy."
All of this semms to be very hypocritical considering the contents (diminishing
by the day) of SCO's privilege log. Privilege is only a very severe form of
sealing when its there.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 08:24 PM EDT |
Yeah, this sure looks like SCO (at least) is gunning for the Monterrey stuff.
But they don't want anything else unsealed, certainly none of SCO's
stuff.
G2, it sounds like, is asking for more than SCO. I don't know if they
are a useful tool for SCO that is beginning to have interests that sometimes
conflict with SCO's, or if they are co-operating and just trying to make it look
like SCO's position is "the middle of the road."
MSS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: codswallop on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 08:30 PM EDT |
I made a prediction before that I thought that Judge K. would order redacted
versions of the hearing and filed memoranda and leave it at that, and I think
I'll stick with it.
If G2 are asking for access only to the filed and sealed material and SCO and
IBM are negotiating redaction, I think the easiest course for Judge K. would be
to order redaction of the hearing and deny without prejudice the rest of the
motion, awaiting the result of the negotiations between SCO and IBM over
redaction.
This is fair, easy and neat, and doesn't involve too much pondering of the
underlying legal issues, so I think he'll do something very like it.
We'll see.
---
IANAL This is not a legal opinion.
SCO is not a party to the APA.
Discovery relevance is to claims, not to sanity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 08:31 PM EDT |
What kind of shallow online reporting is this?
I want DEPTH! I want BACKGROUND! I want REAL journalism, not this unprofessional
online stuff!
I want to know what state the lawyers come from. I want to know Chris's opinion
of whether they make a lot of money.
I want to know how many times one of the lawyers spoke.
I want to hear how SCO is going to use this victory as a springboard to bigger
victories, until you have to have a license from the Sith Lords to write code OR
post comments on the internet.
And I want to hear about it before it happens, the way real journalists with
inline sources tell it.
But please don't bother me with the details of what they actually said. That
makes my brain hurt, so I can't figure out who's right without help.
OK, OK, you don't have to throw me out roughly. Just tell me again, what's the
URL for Maureen's site?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blang on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 08:36 PM EDT |
was about MOG having made an ass of herself by misreporting what was going on in
court, and got caught for it. Odds are she wasn't even in court, and wrote her
shill piece based on third part info from some SCO insider.
Then she sues the court, pretending to want the sealed records, which supposedly
would "vindicate" her. She knows the court would deny her request, so
teh risk is small for being caught. And if against all odds the request is
granted, the fact that her original report was bogus would be buried in the
hoopla about how she managed to strike a blow for the 1st amandment, and stand
up tyo big, bad IBM.
So, no matter what, a win-win fro MOG. If the request is not granted, she can
go on saying: I was right, but the court refuses to let me prove it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- This whole thing - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 08:51 PM EDT
- This whole thing about MOG - Authored by: dht on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 09:05 PM EDT
- To be fair - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 10:42 PM EDT
- To be fair - Authored by: dht on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 11:48 PM EDT
- To be fair - Authored by: kwatson on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 12:53 AM EDT
- To be fair - Authored by: dht on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 01:18 AM EDT
- To be fair - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 06:38 AM EDT
- This whole thing -- should be a clue... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 09:43 PM EDT
- She wasn't in court. - Authored by: Latesigner on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 09:52 PM EDT
- This whole thing - Authored by: dht on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 12:37 AM EDT
- This whole thing - Authored by: wings on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 01:58 PM EDT
|
Authored by: stend on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 09:07 PM EDT |
Hmm, that's an intriguing headline. I suspect that a headline writer saw the
AP headline "SCO
Group Asks to Depose IBM CEO", and used a synonym of 'depose' without
bothering to discover what meaning of 'depose' was being used. Convenient
headline for SCO. :( [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 09:10 PM EDT |
In the sealed docs game:
TSCOG...28
IBM.....27
Court....1
Please note that this is a 'two scoops of raisins' score... how big is a
scoop/sealed document? At least a couple IBM ones are actually boxes of stuff,
listed as one sealed submission. Both sides have sealed docs from (depositions)
people.
---
Nothing screams 'poor workmanship' like wrinkles in the
duct tape.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 09:20 PM EDT |
Ok, do I get some of this right. "The media" is complaining they are
getting drowned out by bloggers who are reporting the story of a hearing, they,
"the media" did not think it important to attend?
Its a sad day people... sad day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Latesigner on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 09:40 PM EDT |
Unsealing documents isn't going to redeem O'Gara's reputation.
I wonder who's paying the legal bill for this farce?
---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 10:08 PM EDT |
I can't wait to hear the Judge's ruling on this, I'm really starting to like
Judge Kimball <GRIN>.
And if I was a betting man, I wouldn't put money on G2 winning the motion.
---
Wayne
telnet hatter.twgs.org
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 10:39 PM EDT |
To put it bluntly, MOG was caught in a lie when she claimed to have been in
court in December when she actually wasn't - and reported on the court hearing
as if she was present.
I see her suit as grandstanding, self-promotion and an attempt to become a part
of the story she is "reporting" on - the kind of conduct that is
considered very unprofessional for a journalist. I very much doubt that her suit
is getting anywhere with judge Kimball, who certainly has no use for a
colonoscopy from G2 even as he is running a trial. Finally, I will note that
conscientious journalists such as Bob Mims have been able to report accurately
without resorting to anything like MOG's lawsuit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 11:23 PM EDT |
Both accounts, say towards that end that Mr Stone's only issue is with the
documents that a side "unlaterally" classes as confidential.
If you recall, the protective order, says the disclosing party determines
whether to file an item in discovery (and hence when it turns up later in the
case), as confidential or not. And, yes I guess that is a unilateral
classification (although subject to challenge of course).
Of course the first logic flaw is that Mr Stone implies there are two classes of
documents that are confidential - (1) those that one side has
"unilaterally" classed as confidential, and (2) some that became
confidential thru some other route. Well it turns out, that (2) is an empty
set [because even the sealed transcript of the Wells hearing is sealed because
it contains items which IBM had "unilaterally" classed as
confidential]
There is also a 2nd logic flaw (pointed out by Sorenson) which is that there is
absolutely no obvious way [and none was proposed by Mr Stone] that Mr Stone or
G2, could properly determine if any of the "unilaterally classified as
confidential" material [which of course means everything] was correctly
classified.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Confidential docs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 11:39 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Graywing on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 11:26 PM EDT |
It just occured to me that none of the Eye-witness reports indicated that she
was at the hearing today, or last week for matter. Did anyone there notice if
she was there?
---
Ahh!! The mind what a wonderful trap.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bbaston on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 11:37 PM EDT |
Many many Microsoft suits have been sealed by the courts, and maqny many
settlements have resulted in agreements not to disclose.
Each time, the
public is denied knowledge that may (at the least) influence decisions to buy or
develop for Microsoft products.
So (some lawyer out there) can we the
people intervene to learn the details of sealed court information, or force its
review, or inhibit this particular tried-and-true bullying tactic as commonly
used by Microsoft?
Wouldn't it be nice to have another set of court
unsealings on the level of the unvealing that one Groklawyer forced on past Unix
copyright court battles?
One can dream. --- Ben
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO,
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold.
-+++->> Have you donated to Groklaw this month? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 12:06 AM EDT |
I do so wonder, since PJ and grolkaw folks have uncovered and published so much
regarding Monterey; and indeed the original BSD case itself -- what does SCOX
hope to gain? Could there *possibly* be anything left besides the way ???
---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 12:30 AM EDT |
A normal person wanting to write a story about an event, (in this particular
case a court date), would simply attend the event and write the story.
But, Maureen O'Gara seems to have developed an alternative approach...
First, you don't attend the event
Second, you write about it anyway
Third, when your story is questioned, you call in the lawyers... to try to get
the definitive account of the event
Fourth, you get two other parties to join you in this action
...etc
Now, I don't know what, if any, connections there are between Maureen O'Gara and
SCO, but Darl's crew also follow a similar principles in their approach.
A normal person who believed their copyright was infringed (assuming for a
moment that Darl's crew genuinely believe their copyright has been infringed),
would try to identify the infringing activity, stop the infringement, and then
perhaps seek damages for any losses suffered from the infringement.
But Darl's crew a different approach...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 06:56 AM EDT |
Oh no! We're doing it again! Won't somebody stop us! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Rasyr on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 06:59 AM EDT |
<hr>
<b><i>Brent Hatch spoke for SCO. He said he entirely agrees with
Mrs. Sorenson, except with the application in this case. He said that Monterey
documents, a project that has been dead for 5 years, have all been filed under
seal and that he doesn't see why.</i></b>
<hr>
I find this bit very interesting......
First off, Monterey had nothing to do with the original lawsuit, and was only
introduced in SCO's attempt to amend the complaint a third time. An attempt,
which they sealed themselves.
Why is SCO's lawyer saying that he doesn't see why it should be sealed, when
they were the ones who started sealing documents about Monterey? Or am I mixed
up here?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fudisbad on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 07:03 AM EDT |
Stone: Every time my clients report on this case, they receive a blizzard of
emails and responses [indicating the public's interest].
It is a reasonable assumption that at least half of them would be flames and/or
corrections. Does not indicate the public's interest at all through G2, CNet or
Forbes. They could go to Groklaw instead.
G2 only get at maximum 5000 reads per article, and most of those are curious
people from here or Y! SCOX.
---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
Darl McBride, show your evidence![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rao on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 08:49 AM EDT |
. . . were all of SCOX's lawyers able to stay awake this time?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 09:53 AM EDT |
"Stone: Every time my clients report on this case, they receive a blizzard
of emails and responses [indicating the public's interest]"
Everytime Groklaw reports on a case, it receives a large number of responses.
Should Groklaw and its readers run to the court demanding to see the
confidential documents in order to verify speculative comments? I do not think
so.
Classifying documents as confidential is an important part of society.
Unfortunately, not enough things are considered confidential. My personal
information is shared with unauthorized (by me) parties all the time. Government
agencies and insurance companies being the worst offenders.
I do believe in freedom of information concerning the public good. That not
enough pertinent information concerning the activities of government officials
and the lobby groups are made public.
There are enough attornies in this case that they should be able to work out
what is and is not confidential. If SCO really believed everything should be
made public then they would release all information. Obviously, they do not.
Also there are the judges who are supposed to see that there is a fair trial and
they are in a position to protect the confidentiality of both sides.
I think the press sometimes goes too far and attempts to try and convict
defendants in public, without all of the evidence. That is not their job. If
this type of hearing took place with every court case, then the courts would
never get anything resolved.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
One thing that damages G2's case and Hatch's statement about objecting to
unilateral classification as confidential is that normal court procedures and
the protective order itself allow for the other party to object to the
classification of a confidential item and argue that it shouldn't be considered
confidential. If, as Hatch seems to imply, they believe IBM has incorrectly
sealed material, why haven't they followed the procedure and challenged it?
Especially since, once they challenge, the burden according to the protective
order would be on IBM to show that the material is properly confidential.
I'm suprised IBM didn't make a point of this. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 10:36 AM EDT |
I've noticed that this is another instance of a lawyer in the court speaking
softly or quietly such that it is difficult for observers to make out what
he/she is saying. This description is never applied to IBM's attorney's, only to
SCO's and now G2's.
Anyone think they may intentionally be trying to make it difficult for observers
to report on the hearing?
-pooky
---
Many Bothans died to bring us this information.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cass.bussell on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 10:59 AM EDT |
IANAL, so I have to ask...
How does this play into the questions about the privilege log? I realize that
this motion only applies to sealed documents that are not a part of discovery,
but I can't help wonder at the timing.
Shortly after SCO 'adjusts' their privileged documents list, this comes out. Is
there any chance that the ruling on this can be used later by SCO for either
removing items from IBM's privileged list or enforcing the items listed by SCO?
Just wondering. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DWitt_nyc on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 11:46 AM EDT |
This is just the latest attempt to muddy the waters, and is all related to Darl
&
Co's complaints about Groklaw--they are resorting to this level, because
of
their side's inability to gain backers, much less a
community.
Evidently, despite their rhetoric, money and professional
connections, the
pro-SCO side is having a hard time selling their
kool-aid--especially galling
is that a scruffy bunch of Linux backers, led by a
plucky paralegal, have co-
opted their million dollar PR FUD machine.
imo,
this complaint is because their side can't create their own SCOklaw site,
and
that their money and influence can't match up with thousands of eyeballs
in the
Groklaw community...
it's really comical, though, to think that G2 is
purportedly doing this in the
name of the public's right to know, considering
that their 'reportage' on this
trial has been most partisan and muddying--not
so funny is their attempt to
characterize Groklaw as the sum of its comments,
while ignoring the massive
amount of pure legal research that has been done by
PJ and co--evidently,
this was good enough for prosco to vulturize for their
own site!
Ultimately, i'd file this action next to the MIT deep-divers,
Blepp's suitcase,
and the AdTI report, each of which served the same purpose in
it's own time,
which is fabricating a belief in the public's mind that SCO has
the 'smoking
gun' in its possession, when all they really have is smoke! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
Something that I just thought of... for some reason it hit me in regards to G2
being a backend for Maureen O'Gara and her "reports". In addition,
all of the Linux Business Week articles describe these coming from "Maureen
O'Gara's LinuxGram". I checked out their website.
http://www.g2news.com (not clickable on purpose, you really don't have to hit
the site)
The most striking statement in describing the "LinuxGram" was this:
What makes us unique is our intelligence. The intelligence comes from:
* The best reporters in the industry. We get the story behind the story.
* A perspective that comes from the years we've been in this industry. We don’t
just rewrite press releases.
* Contacts at the highest level of every company in the industry. We've even
been accused of having bugs in the boardrooms.
* We work harder. We have a proven track record. No other newsweekly breaks more
news. Every week. Week after week.
* A fierce dedication to reporting the facts. We get it right the first time -
our accuracy rate is unchallenged.
Fortunately, I missed the keyboard with my drink (the monitor wasn't so lucky,
though... but it can be cleaned).
Perpetual_Newbie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 05:41 PM EDT |
Media Companies
Seek Documents in SCO's Suit Against IBM Over Code Used in Linux
System
yada yada yada
IBM attorney Amy Sorenson said the media
companies cannot validly claim that the proceedings have been closed or that the
news media have been kept from reporting on the case. The litigation has "in no
way been conducted in secret, nor should it be," Sorenson said.
yada yada
yada [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: anesq on Thursday, April 28 2005 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
I think it's interesting that IBM couldn't be bothered to send their big guns to
argue this motion. While I am confident Ms. Sorenson is an excellent lawyer,
she is the least experienced attorney to regularly appear on the briefs for
IBM.
I suppose even IBM has to economize somewhere. Sounds like she did a good job.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM serious? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 28 2005 @ 09:10 PM EDT
|
|
|
|