|
|
| SCO's July 18, 2005 Letter to AutoZone Judge |
 |
|
Wednesday, July 27 2005 @ 08:16 PM EDT
|
SCO has filed its next status report to the AutoZone judge. It's the usual spin. They downplay what they lost in one quick sentence, and they devote a slanted paragraph to what they think makes them look like they are winning. I could write their letters for them by now, if I had no conscience. I'll be you could too, without even reading this one. If anyone has time to do a text version, I'd appreciate it a lot. Thank you. UPDATE: We have it done, thanks to eggplant37. He is so fast. Thanks, everyone for offering.
********************************
[Curran & Parry letterhead]
July 18, 2005
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Robert C. Jones
U.S. District Court, District of Nevada
[address]
Re: The SCO Group, Inc. v. AutoZone, Inc., CV-S-04-0237-RCJ-LRL
Dear Judge Jones:
Pursuant to this Court's August 6, 2004 Order, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") respectfully submits this 90-day status report to apprise the Court of events that have transpired since our last update (on April 18, 2005) in certain other actions.
1. The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation,
Case No. 2:03CV0294 DAK (D. Utah)
Pending Motions
On July 1, 2005, Judge Kimball granted SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition, denied SCO's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, granted IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting the Scope of Its Ninth Counterclaim, and set forth an Amended Scheduling Order with a trial date of February 26, 2007. SCO's December 23, 2004 Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery is pending.
IBM's Motion for Reconsideration of the January 18, 2005 Order
As reported in our last update, IBM asked the Court to reconsider the portion of its January 18, 2005 Order requiring IBM to produce programmer-contribution information for the 3,000 individuals who made the most contributions and changes to the development of AIX and Dynix. In its motion papers, IBM also attempted to limit its other discovery obligations by arguing that it was not required to produce information concerning its Linux contributions. On April 19, 2005, United States Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells (re)ordered IBM to produce "the programmers notes, design documents, white papers, comments and notes, contact information, specific changes made to code, and all relevant non-privileged documents from the files of the 100 individuals who made the most contributions and changes to AIX and Dynix." Order (4/19/05) at 4. Judge Wells contemplates that this preliminary production "will provide a basis for SCO to compare what is in the files of individual developers, versus what is contained in other materials produced by IBM," so that SCO can identify, "in accordance with IBM's representation," additional developers from whos files SCO would like the same discovery. Id. at 4-5.
1
As to IBM's attempt to limit its other discovery obligations, Judge Wells stated that "prior orders make it clear that IBM is to provide ALL non-public Linux contribution information." Id. at 5 (emphasis in original).
G2's Motion to Intervene and Order Re Unsealing of Documents
On April 28, 2005, the Court denied G2's Motion to Intervene and Motion to Unseal Court's File. However, to "minimize the risk of over-designating confidential documents," Judge Kimball ordered the parties to review previously filed documents and notify the Court "as to which documents the parties agree maybe unsealed." Order (4/28/05) at 1-2.
On May 27, 2005, the parties submitted reports identifying documents they believed could be unsealed. IBM's report identified numerous documents that SCO had filed under seal only because they referenced or were materials that IBM had insisted were confidential even after SCO had repeatedly complained that they did not contain any sensitive information.
2.The SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., Case No. 2:04CV00139 (D. Utah)
On June 27, 2005, Judge Kimball denied Novell's second motion to dismiss SCO's complaint, which alleges that Novell slandered SCO's title to UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. Pursuant to an agreement of the parties, Novell has until July 29, 2005, to file its Answer and Counterclaims.
3. Red Hat, Inc. v. The SCO Group, Inc., Case No. 03-772-SLR (D. Del.)
As Your Honor knows, the Court in the Red Hat case has stayed that cause sua sponte. Since our last letter to this Court, the parties in that case have submitted additional 90-day progress reports to the Court.
SCO will submit its next 90-day update to this Court by October 17, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
CURRAN & PARRY
___[signature]___
Stanley W. Parry, Esq.
cc: James Pisanelli, Esq. (via hand-delivery)
David S. Stone, Esq. (via facsimile)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: meshuggeneh on Wednesday, July 27 2005 @ 08:33 PM EDT |
| not that it's likely or anything. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: meshuggeneh on Wednesday, July 27 2005 @ 08:34 PM EDT |
| Please make clickable links... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Wednesday, July 27 2005 @ 08:35 PM EDT |
It's going to be interesting to see what RedHat and AZ have to say to their
respective judges about the Davidson memo![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Wednesday, July 27 2005 @ 08:51 PM EDT |
I'm working on an OCR.
---
-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, July 27 2005 @ 08:58 PM EDT |
Appears to me that the judge would be better served browsing groklaw for 30
minutes every 90 days, rather than trying to decipher the representations of the
litigating parties.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eggplant37 on Wednesday, July 27 2005 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
I'm going to start work on it right now. So...
Rich[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: xtifr on Wednesday, July 27 2005 @ 09:23 PM EDT |
I'd say there's more than just one slanted paragraph in there! There's the big
one about how Wells "(re)ordered" IBM to produce more discovery (the
"(re)" part is a total fabrication, of course). There's the one
crowing about how IBM really, truly has to produce all "non-public Linux
contribution[s]," and there's the one about how it was IBM that wanted
everything sealed over SCO's objections! (I'm sure it was all IBM's idea to
seal the Davidson letter. Yeah, right!)
Still, there's a couple of paragraphs in there that just state the unadorned
facts. Which has to be a record for a SCO filing. :)
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, July 27 2005 @ 10:37 PM EDT |
I always enjoy comparing the description of the same events. I imagine the
AutoZone version will be along in a day or so.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rp$eeley on Thursday, July 28 2005 @ 02:43 AM EDT |
Respectfully? That's a joke.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NemesisNL on Thursday, July 28 2005 @ 05:33 AM EDT |
These judges surely know by now how linux works. There are NO non public
contributions. Since you can get the source code by defenition ALL contributions
are public. If it isn't public it was never contributed. I swear ...sometimes I
realy believe a lot of people are sleeping on this case or just can't get their
head arround what linux and the gpl are about.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Saturn on Thursday, July 28 2005 @ 05:59 AM EDT |
Curious, I had to look back and check why it was the case was stayed in the
first place, and rediscover who was who asked for a stay. (I wondered whether it
was SCO, given their appetite for delay).
I'm suprised SCO's reports don't reference the irreparable harm they claimed
they would suffer as a consequence of Autozone's application for a stay.
It was SCO who claimed that "AutoZone is infringing valid and valuable
copyrights that SCO owns in the UNIX software by using and implementing Linux
software in its business. It is well settled that infringement of copyrights
such as alleged here constitutes irreparable harm that entitles the copyright
holder to injunctive relief".
You'd think that a report to the judge by SCO might include passing reference to
the mounting and irreparable damage they continue to suffer, and the urgency of
resuming the case promptly to limit that damage. It might highlight the reasons
why the other cases where irrelevant to the reasons for staying this case.
And yet there's nothing.
I'm not saying that I think SCO are suffering irreparable damage, far from it,
but given their claims they aren't behaving like someone who is suffering
irreparable damage at all.
---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My own opinion, and very humble one too.
Which is probably why I'm not a lawyer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, July 28 2005 @ 06:15 AM EDT |
Any chance the judge will forward this with a letter of recommendation for the
author's acceptance to a local college of advanced creative writing?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 28 2005 @ 11:53 PM EDT |
As if PJ (Hi!) doesn't fill her days (n' wee hours) already, but, what if GL
started a stack of 90 day reports - just the facts - that went to press maybe 10
days early, with updates up until the due date for the Judges letters.
It might not take long for the clerks to start to at least use it a reference
check to see if anything in the official, as in "correct", letters
needed some primary-source checking :-)
It would make a good place for new folk to start too...
-- tce
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
