|
|
| SCO Files 90-Day Status Report with AutoZone Judge |
 |
|
Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 12:52 AM EDT
|
Here's SCO's status report letter [PDF] to the judge in the AutoZone case. As you will recall, Judge Robert Jones ordered [PDF] the parties to submit status reports every 90 days telling him what has happened in three other cases SCO is involved in, IBM, Novell, and Red Hat: "The parties shall each submit a letter to the Court every 90 days as to the status of the following cases: The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 2:03CV294 (D. Utah); The SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., No. 2:04CV00139 (D. Utah); and RedHat, Inc. v. The SCO Group, Inc., No. 1:03CV772 (D. Del.). The parties’ letters shall be sent 14 days following the dates on which SCO’s status letters are due to the court in the Red Hat case." It's pretty much material we've already seen or know about, and in some cases we already know the outcome, like on the G2 motion, because the letter is dated April 18. It's almost poignant, reading SCO's hopeful words about motions already lost. AutoZone should also have filed a status report as well, and we'll bring it to you as soon as we have it. The only thing I noted was on page 4 where they say the parties in SCO v. IBM have engaged in "additional document and deposition discovery during the period covered by this report". I'd love to know the details on that, but because there is a hold on all dispositive motions in the SCO v. IBM litigation, and that was how we found out about such things in the past when discovery materials were attached as exhibits or the subject of motion practice, we may not get that info until after discovery is done and motions start to fly again. So, what do you think? Shall I file a motion to intervene and unseal? Joke. Joke. I can wait, and anyway, discovery materials are normally exempt. Sooner or later, it pretty much all comes out -- at the very latest, when all the cast of characters write their books about SCO v. the World. Well. Maybe not David Boies. This case probably isn't the one he wishes to be remembered for, I'm guessing. It's only my personal feeling, of course. And, after all, what do I know?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 01:49 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable:
<a href="http://example.com/">clickme</a>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sco gets a big blow in china - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 04:35 AM EDT
- The Unauthorized History of Microsoft... - Authored by: sproggit on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 06:33 AM EDT
- "Intel, BSA join Apple in press freedom attack " - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 09:22 AM EDT
- Buffett: Insurance Abuse Nearly Halted - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 06:38 PM EDT
- A Megachurch's Leader Says Microsoft Is No Match - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 10:45 PM EDT
- Now what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 12:57 AM EDT
- MOG's latest - Daniel Wallace (a Groklaw Gadfly)??? - suing GPL - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 07:07 AM EDT
- How free software is leading to change - Authored by: morven24 on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 09:49 AM EDT
- "The real Window for Linux " - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 10:59 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 01:54 AM EDT |
The thing I can see that needs revision is the time stamp. Perhaps 12:52 PM
would be easier on PJ ?
Cheers![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Pugs on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 02:17 AM EDT |
IBM's Tenth Counterclaim denied with prejudice? If I remember correctly, SCOX
forgot to mention that little fact in 1.3, now didn't they?
Pugs[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 02:29 AM EDT |
Since some people hide anonymous posts, please post corrections under this post
instead of the earlier corrections thread. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 02:31 AM EDT |
Please post OT comments under this thread, instead of the earlier one for the
benefit of those people who hide anonymous posts when reading.
Please make links clickable:
<a href="http://example.com/">clickme</a>
Don't forget to change the Post Mode to "HTML Formatted"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO, IBM Court Battles Over Unix IP Continue - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 04:43 AM EDT
- OT Forget the Book Deals - Authored by: Darth23 on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 05:34 AM EDT
- "Tales from the book Jobs tried to stop" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 07:10 PM EDT
- RIAA Lawsuits Top 10,000 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 07:22 PM EDT
- Patents: I sue you, you sue me, I sue you, you sue me............. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 07:32 PM EDT
- "Secretive Buyer of Some E-Commerce Patents Turns Out to Be Novell" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 08:01 PM EDT
- "A Payday for Patents 'R' Us" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 08:10 PM EDT
- OT here for hide-anon readers - Authored by: webster on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 11:28 PM EDT
- SCO and Monterey on Power - Authored by: cmc on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 01:37 AM EDT
- Prepare to get slashdotted - Authored by: cmc on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 10:37 AM EDT
- BK - here's someone in the press that got it - Authored by: Arker on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 02:13 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 09:02 AM EDT |
If IBM's withdrawal was such a big deal, they could have sued in NY within two
years. Their failure to do so is clear evidence that it wasn't something they
considered sueing over (at least during the time they had available).
If there's any Sys V in linux, why haven't they filed it with the court? After
all, they had plenty of opportunity during IBM's summary judgement
breifing/hearing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 10:58 AM EDT |
I would love to get a window into SCOG v IBM discovery.
One thing that jumped out a me was that in arguing for Sam's deposition, SCOG
said they "intended" to produce Darl. This obviously means they have
not yet produced him.
If I Recall Correctly his deposition was noticed a long long time ago.
I wonder what's holding it up?
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: xtifr on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 09:02 PM EDT |
We may have a temporary hiatus on dispositive motions, but won't we still be
seing motions to compel, motions to amend, motions to whine, and emergency
motions to file overlength memos in support of the spread of FUD?
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 10:23 PM EDT |
Is how much emphasis they put on discovery of AIX, Dynix, deposing Sam
Palmisano, etc. etc.
Maybe these are important issues to SCO. Maybe they simply have nothing better
to say.
But their relevance to SCO v AutoZone is marginal at best - because SCO v
AutoZone is supposedly about some kind of alleged copyright violation associated
with Linux.
I have long thought that SCO may not be entirely sure what they are suing
AutoZone for.
(1) If you go back to SCO's motion to dismiss or stay IBM's 10th counterclaim
(in SCO v IBM), they argued that SCO v AutoZone was supposedly about the
"exact same issue" (I think this was the very words they used) as
IBM's 10th counterclaim.... namely whether Linux infringes SCO's copyright in
some way.
Darl has also made the same point in conference calls, where he said that
AutoZone being an ex-customer was not relevant to SCO v AutoZone, and that
essentially the same lawsuit could be filed against any Linux users
...BUT...
(2) If you go to SCO's opposition to AutoZone's motion for stay or more definite
statement, they argued that sCO v AutoZone is supposedly about somewhat
different issues that those in IBM's 10th counterclaim. For example, the shared
library issue, which they also raised in the hearing on this motion.
(despite the fact that no Shared Library copyright certificate appears in the
long list of copyrights in their complaint)
...BUT...
(3) If you go to the statement of basis of claim for injunctive relief in SCO v
AutoZone, it's extremely vague, but it again reads more like (1), the issue is
supposedly AutoZone's use of Linux and certain kernel features.
...AND...
(4) We can observe (as Judge Kimball did) that SCO appear to have nothing in
support of (1) or (3) [we simply don't know if they have anything on (2)].
In SCO v IBM, SCO's claims appear to reduce to whether IBM can contribute IBM's
own code to Linux. We all think we know the answer to that from $echo, the side
letter, and so on. But IBM contributing IBM's own code is so far all they seem
to have been able to find.
...AND...
(5) We can observe how long this preliminary discovery period in AutoZone has
gone on, and on, and on.
... AND...
(6) We can observe SCO's extreme vagueness, in the AutoZone case
-- the incredibly vaguely worded complaint
-- the incredibly vaguely worded statement of basis for injunctive relief
-- their resistance to offer AutoZone a more definite statement (don't they want
to tell AutoZone, specifically what AutoZone has allegedly done wrong, so that
AutoZone can stop? It makes no logical sense to seek a preliminary injunction
from the court when they might get the exact same relief directly from AutoZone,
much sooner and much cheaper, if they simply told AutoZone what AutoZone has
allegedly done wrong.)
THEREFORE...
I speculate that SCO are struggling to find anything to use against AutoZone.
I speculate that SCO can't find any copying of the code that they claim belongs
to them.
I speculate that the best that SCO will be able to find for the AutoZone case
(if anything), is IBM's own AIX/Dynix code being contributed to Linux.
I speculate that SCO will
EITHER - Try to use IBM's AIX/Dynix code in Linux, as basis for SCO's copyright
suit against AutoZone. Of course, there is a major disconnect there, in that
even if SCO's copyright registrations on SCO's code are valid, they certainly
don't cover IBM's code.
AND/OR - I speculate that in the end SCO will (in similar fashion to they tried
in Daimler Chrysler) to ask to stay the AutoZone case, blaming the delay on
IBM's discovery conduct (of course they will call it "misconduct").
Of course, there are *several* major disconnects there, including:
-- when SCO sued AutoZone, they didn't indicate any connection or dependency on
the IBM case
-- when SCO sued AutoZone, they supposedly thought they had evidence, but now
the claim would be they can't get evidence without certain info from IBM
-- in the IBM case, SCO wanted AutoZone to go forward *before* the IBM case, -
SCO's motion to dismiss or stay IBM CC10 (now SCO would be saying the reverse is
necessary)
-- in the AutoZone case, SCO wanted AutoZone to go forward *before* the IBM
case, - SCO's opposition to AZ's motion for stay or more definite statement (now
SCO would be saying the reverse is necessary)
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 06:27 AM EDT |
Maybe I am dumb (but my ego doubts it) but I cannot seem to see what the next
scheduled event in this litigation is.
Could someone please tell me - or tell me where to find it? To me the timeline
looks as if there is no impending deadlines - I don't think that this would be
correct so obviously I am thinking that I am missing something.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
Wasn't there supposed to be a progress reporting mechanism to the Judge on the
Redhat case? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 11:28 PM EDT |
<i>" So, what do you think? Shall I file a motion to intervene and
unseal?"</i>
Coffee-spew! LOL![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: drichards1953 on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 10:00 AM EDT |
I monitor the stock price of SCOX (SCO Group) mostly to watch a bad company
tank. For the past several weeks someone tried hard to keep the stock price at
about $4.00 a share, plus or minus a few cents. There was little or nothing to
justify this. They have no profits and minimal assets, and there easily could
be questions about their ability to continue to operate.
Yesterday, in very heavy trading, for SCOX, the price dropped to $3.50 per
share and nothing was done to stem the drop in price. This morning, at 9:32 am
(EDT) (Tues May 3, 2005) the last posted price was $3.36, more interesting is
the first purchase of the stock for the day, at 9:30 am (EDT) was at $3.22. The
volume was very heave for SCOX, over 3100 share two minutes into the trading
day. IT clearly appears that something is up. Someone is dumping SCOX. The
question is clearly what is going on. What do they know? Or did they figure out
that SCO is not on solid ground in all their litigation? This could potentially
be fun to watch.
Dennis
---
Dennis
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
