|
|
| More of IBM's Unsealed and Redacted Documents |
 |
|
Friday, May 06 2005 @ 08:47 PM EDT
|
As promised, here are more of IBM's unsealed or redacted documents, with a couple more to go:
- Unsealed Declaration of Irving Wladawsky-Berger, VP, Technical Strategy and Innovation, who says he turned over whatever he had to IBM's attorneys, and they reviewed them and found that he didn't have anything responsive to SCO's documents requests, except for two folders on his computer, which he turned over to the attorneys to give to SCO.
- Unsealed Declaration of Andrew Bonzani, who is the Assistant Secretary and General Counsel, whose testimony is that Board Members at IBM don't keep copies of all the corporate documents, which are collected at the end of Board of Director meetings by his staff. That policy would help to explain why you wouldn't find such documents in the personal files of board members.
- Unsealed Declaration of Alec S. Berman, one of IBM's inhouse attorneys, who says he and Cravath's Peter Ligh went to Sam Palmisano's office on February 18 and 19 to review files and look for documents responsive to SCO's document request, and on both dates, they found documents, which they turned over to Cravath. Later he was informed by Cravath that they had turned over more than 1,000 pages of responsive and non-privileged documents to SCO.
- Unsealed Declaration of Samuel J. Palmisano, CEO and Chairman of the Board of IBM, who declares that he allowed IBM and Cravath attorneys unrestricted access to all his documents, hard copy, soft copy, and email. They searched on February 18 and 19 and took whatever they wanted that they felt would be responsive to SCO's documents requests.
These are all declarations in response to Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells' discovery order. As you will recall, she asked IBM's David Marriott at the hearing in October of 2004 if IBM would be willing to provide such, and he said yes, and it was so ordered in her January 18th discovery order.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ben Hildred on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 09:04 PM EDT |
To make them easy to find
---
It's not chicken soup for the soul; it's more like peanut butter for the mind.
-- The Famous Brett Watson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NastyGuns on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 09:05 PM EDT |
Please post Off Topic comments here.
Extend curtesy and format the post as "html" and create a link as
follows:
<a href="http://www.example.com">your words</a>
---
NastyGuns,
"If I'm not here, I've gone out to find myself. If I return before I get back,
please keep me here." Unknown.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chrisbrown on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 09:08 PM EDT |
Is it that they contain information about IBM's internal operations (e.g.
Secretary maintaining board notes & documents) or that there was more
production of documents following Judge Well's order?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jimbudler on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 09:13 PM EDT |
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-448redacted.pdf
should be
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-448unsealed.pdf
This is clickable
IBM-448unsealed.pdf
---
Jim Budler [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 09:29 PM EDT |
What is amazing to me is that some little company, having shown no evidence
whatsoever, can force a large company (and significant employer) to go searching
through its files for just about whatever it feels like.
What is the true cost of all this? How many of those people going to be laid
off soon might not have been if IBM hadn't had to waste the time and money
dealing with this abusive lawsuit and instead worked on their business?
Are the courts blind to the damage they allow? Isn't someone supposed to show
*some* shred of evidence to be allowed to start a major lawsuit and fishing
expedition?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 09:32 PM EDT |
Put all of your cards on the table.
SCOG is right now trying to figure out how to respond. IBM made a lot of charges
in their sealed filings. IBM can now say we didn't want this to be public, that
nasty MO'G made us do it when the judge order us to review our document.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 09:42 PM EDT |
Remember SCO making the claim (repeatedly) last year, mid last year
particularly, that they hadn't had documents from Palmisano except a couple of
powerpoint slides and a couple of emails....
Remember Maureen O'Gara's several articles about that?
...Turns out over 1000 documents/pages in his possession were turned over.
What's more, the search for these documents was done in FEBRUARY 2004 (which
suggest they would have been turned over in the March or April discovery
production by IBM)
...which of course precede's SCO's complaints.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 07 2005 @ 12:56 AM EDT |
Who/where is/was it said that IBM sealed them?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: codswallop on Saturday, May 07 2005 @ 02:52 AM EDT |
Second installment in the series. The first was the memoranda. Objects are of 3
kinds, depositions, declarations and exhibits.
The depositions will probably stay sealed, they are not intended to be public
documents, and I believe the consent of the deponent would be required.
IBM would love to go public with some of the declarations like Kernighan and
Michael Davidson (I think). They have analysis of the code.
It will be interesting to see what SCO does about its declarations. The IBM move
is intended to put pressure on them. I suspect that were they to become public,
you'd see more of the holes in the SCO case.
As for the exhibits, who knows, but I'm betting they almost all stay sealed.
Bottom line, maybe some interesting stuff, but the memoranda and interrogatories
would be juicier, given the depositions stay sealed.
# [info] 193-I, 206-S-2, 228-36, 291-8, 350-S1 - Deposition of David Rodgers,
June 10, 2004 (2004-06-10) [sealed]
[info] 228-53, 238-24 - Deposition of Erik W. Hughes [sealed]
# [info] 228-59, 238-21 - Deposition of Erik W. Hughes, excerpts from Exhibit
3(a) [sealed]
# [info] 238-23, 250-7 - Deposition of Christopher Sontag, 30(b)(6) (2004-05-12)
[sealed]
[info] 228-5 - Deposition of William M. Broderick (Rule 30(b)(6)) (2004-05-11)
[sealed]
# [info] 197 - SCO's Declarations in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's
Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Jgm [195] [sealed]
# [info] 198 - SCO's Declarations in support of SCO's Motion for Continuance
Pursuant to Rule 56(f) [195] [sealed]
# [info] 203 - SCO's Declaration of Chris Sontag in Support of Reply Memorandum
Regarding Discovery (2004-07-12) [sealed]
# [info] 288 - SCO's Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans in Support of SCO's
Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery [sealed]
# [info] 317 - SCO's Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans re: [316] SCO's Reply Brief
[sealed]
# [info] 289 - SCO's Declaration of Barbara L. Howe in Support of SCO's
Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery [sealed]
* [info] 350-S8 - Declaration of Michael Davidson (2004-11-22) [sealed]
# [info] 252 - IBM's Declaration of Brian W. Kernighan [sealed]
# [info] 305 - IBM's Declaration of Ron Saint Pierre [sealed]
# [info] 306 - IBM's Declaration of David Bullis [sealed]
UUU[info] 331 - IBM's Declaration of Alec S. Berman (2004-11-19) [ Groklaw ]
[sealed]
UUU [info] 332 - IBM's Declaration of Irving Wladawsky-Berger (2004-11-19) [
Groklaw ] [sealed]
UUU [info] 333 - IBM's Declaration of Samuel J. Palmisano (2004-11-19) [ Groklaw
] [sealed]
UUU [info] 334 - IBM's Declaration of Andrew Bonzani (2004-11-19) [ Groklaw ]
[sealed]
# [info] 345 - IBM's Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy in Support of IBM's
Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended
Complaint [sealed]
# [info] 220 - IBM's exhibits to Declaration of Amy F. Sorenson [219] [sealed]
# [info] 251 - IBM's Exhibits re: [250] Reply Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy
[sealed]
# [info] 234 - IBM's Exhibits to the Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy in
Support of Motion for Partial Summary Jgm on Breach of Contract Claims
(2004-08-13) [sealed]
# [info] 239 - IBM's Exhibits to [237] Declaration of Amy F. Sorenson
(2004-08-16) [sealed]
# [info] 243 - IBM's Exhibits to Declaration of Amy F. Sorenson in Support of
IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Jgm on its Counterclaims for Copyright
Infringment (Contains exhibits 5.1-20.3) Clerk's Note: These [9] boxes are
housed in the 5th floor sealed room of the courthouse [sealed]
# [info] 293 - SCO's [sealed] Exhibits to [290] Memorandum in Support of SCO's
Expedited Motion to Enforce the Court's Amended Scheduling Order Dated 6/10/04
[sealed]
# [info] 350 - SCO's Sealed Exhibits to [348] SCO's Declaration of Jeremy Evans
[sealed]
---
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 Saturday, May 07 2005 @ 01:33 PM EDT |
If they have this declaration, doesn't it give SCO the right to question him
about it in court? I suppose the questions could be limited to: "Did you
sign this declaration and is it true?" but I have been very impressed by
SCO's 'creativity'.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: codswallop on Saturday, May 07 2005 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
| The third and last group of the sealed case documents, grouped by type.
To
lead with my best stuff, I'll put this first. I'd rather see this than all the
rest combined. I read Judge Kimballs order as suggesting this be at least
redacted. It's not privileged and shouldn't contain much confidential
material.
# [info] 206-S-1 - SCO's Amended Response to IBM's
Fourth Set of Interrogatories [sealed]
These are the privileged
documents SCO was suppose to return. IBM doesn't really care who reads these,
but if it agrees to unseal them, it will have waived privilege, and SCO could
use them as evidence. They'll stay sealed, even if SCO puts them on a billboard.
Judge Kimball won't reward SCO for misconduct.
!!![info]
350-S2 - IBM Internal Email from Ron Smith to Terry McKenna (1997-11-03)
[sealed]
!!! [info] 206-S-5, 291-4, 350-S3 - IBM Internal Email from Bill
Sandve to Kim Tran, January 22, 2002 - 'AIX was derived from System V.'
(2002-01-22) [sealed]
It's hard to see any justification for
sealing these.
[info] 350-S7 - IBM Linux Strategy Presentation
Version 1.0 [sealed]
[info] 157-1, 206-S-7, 228-7, 238-1 [PDF] - SCO Linux
Introduction v1.2 [sealed]
[info] 163-7, 193-J - IBM's Configuration
Management Version Control (CMVC) Introduction Manual [sealed]
# [info]
238-38 - SCO 'Linux License', The SCO Group, Inc. Intellectual Property License
(bates SCO1507766-75) [sealed]
# [info] 238-32 - SCO 'Linux License', The
SCO Group, Inc. Intellectual Property Compliance License for SCO UNUX [sic]
Rights (bates SCO1304158-65) [sealed]
These may contain price
information and involve third parties. That should justify sealing them, though
there's really no reason to.
# [info] 228-58 - SCO's invoices
for Linux products sold after March 7, 2003 [sealed]
# [info] 238-33 - SCO
"Purchase Order" from Leggett & Platt (bates SCO1448148) [sealed]
#
[info] 228-57 - SCO's invoices (attached as Tab 121) to SCO's Revised
Supplemental Resoponses to IBM's First and Second Set of Interrogatories
(2004-01-15) [sealed]
This is too old to justify
sealing.
# [info] 206-S-4, 291-6, 350-S5 - IBM Royalty
Statement, June 30, 1987 - AIX is 'derived from System V' (1987-06-30)
[sealed]
This one sounds like fun.
[info]
228-40 - Caldera Intellectual Property Title and Ownership (bates SCO1178124)
[sealed]
I doubt there's anything confidential in these, but
you could argue that they contain price or marketing
information.
# [info] 206-S-6, 291-5, 350-S4 - Argus Systems
Group, Inc. license agreement with IBM for AIX Source Code - 'AIX is derived
from software under license from SCO.' [sealed]
# [info] 291-7, 350-S6 -
IBM/Supplier Technical Services Agreement between IBM Corp. and CETIA
(2001-02-02) [sealed]
# [info] 238-34 - SCO 'Linux License' for Questar, The
SCO Group, Inc. Intellectual Property Compliance License for Linux (bates
SCO1448558-65) [sealed]
# [info] 238-37 - SCO letter to Lehman Brothers'
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Richard Fuld [ Groklaw ] [sealed]
[info] 250-22 - Document produced by SCO (bates SCO1272238-39)
[sealed]
These are exhibits containing source code. If SCO is
arguing that IBM violated confidentiality, SCO can't very well agree to
unsealing these.
[info] 191 - SCO's Exhibits G, H, I, J to
memorandum in support of SCO's renewed motion to compel [sealed]
# [info]
193-G - AIX file [sealed]
# [info] 193-H - Dynix file
[sealed]
---
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
