|
|
| SCO's Letter to the Red Hat Judge |
 |
|
Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 10:25 PM EST
|
It's a good thing I took a play day to rest up a bit, because today has brought a lot of court filings. On top of the motions in the SCO v. Novell and SCO v. IBM cases, SCO also filed its quarterly letter to the SCO v. Red Hat judge [PDF]. Here it is as text.
How the judge, or anyone else, can possibly get a hold on what is happening in these cases from the letters she gets from the parties, I can't imagine. So here is a list of the various documents referenced in the letter.
SCO Disclosure to IBM: SCO's Disclosure of Material Misused by IBM [PDF; text]
IBM's Counterclaims:
Discovery Motions:
SCO's Second Amended Complaint Against Novell: Do you suppose SCO's tactic is to file so many confusing motions no one can keep track? Remember UserFriendly's rendition of what SCO's attorneys sound like? Your Honor, on behalf of my client, The SCO Group, I'd like to move that we engfeh the wubbly umple borpy. I agree, so I don't guarantee that this list is complete or even exact, but it can help you to get the picture a lot more clearly than the letter, which doesn't mention at all IBM's Motion to Compel Production of Documents on SCO's Privilege Log [text and Memorandum in Support; and SCO's Memo in Opposition & Broderick Declaration - text]. IBM's Reply Memorandum is sealed, but there is a Todd Shaughnessy Declaration in Support. If you note any mistakes, omissions, etc., please let me know, so I can perfect. I'm going cross-eyed at this point and need your help to get this done.
*******************
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
[letterhead]
January 3, 2006
BY ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson, Chief Judge
United States District Court
[address]
RE: Red Hat, Inc. v. The SCO Group, Inc., C.A. No. 03-772-SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
Pursuant to this Court's April 6, 2004 Order, SCO respectfully submits this 90-day status report to apprise the Court of events that have transpired since our last update (on October 3, 2005) in SCO v. IBM, Case No. 03-0294 (DAK), which is currently pending before the Honorable Dale A. Kimball in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.
SCO Disclosure of IBM
On December 22, 2005, pursuant to the Court's Pre-Trial Management Order of July 1, 2005, SCO submitted its Disclosure of Material Misused by IBM, specifically identifying (from an even larger universe of code and related materials) 293 separate technology disclosures made by IBM in violation of SCO's contractual and other rights. The number and substance of those disclosures reflects the pervasive extent and sustained degree to which IBM disclosed methods, concepts, and literal code from protected UNIX and UNIX-derived technologies.
Dismissal of IBM's Counterclaims
On October 10, 2005, based upon a stipulation by the parties, the Court dismissed IBM's three patent-infringement counterclaims with prejudice.
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
January 3, 2006
Page 2
Discovery Motions
On October 7, 2005, the Magistrate Court postponed a ruling, pending re-briefing, on SCO's December 23, 2004 Renewed Motion to Compel seeking Linux-related documents from IBM's senior executives; denied in part SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel dated September 6, 2005, ordering IBM to produce materials from twenty Linux developers identified by SCO; granted in part SCO's motion for leave to take additional depositions; and denied IBM's request to lengthen its additional depositions. On October 27, SCO objected to the Magistrate Court's order insofar as it denied SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel of September 6, 2005. On December 16, Judge Kimball affirmed the order.
On December 20, 2005, after the parties had re-briefed SCO's Motion to Compel of December 23, 2004, the Court found that SCO had correctly read past Court orders and directed IBM to produce Linux-related materials from the files of two additional IBM senior executives. On the same date, the Court granted IBM's motion to compel SCO to produce attorney-client privileged documents of SCO's predecessors-in-interest.
On December 29, 2005, SCO filed its Motion to Compel certain discovery
and 30(b)(6) witnesses, including numerous categories of damages-related
materials, documents concerning Project Monterey, documents related to
IBM's ongoing Linux activities, and all versions of AIX from 1985 to 1990.
SCO's Second Amended Complaint Against Novell
On December 30, 2005, SCO moved the Court for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in which SCO re-asserts the slander-of-title claim in its original Complaint and asserts four additional causes of action covering the same subject matter as Novell's seven counterclaims.
Sincerely,
/s/ Leslie A. Polizoti
Leslie A. Polizoti
cc: Peter T. Dalleo, Clerk (By Hand)
Josy W. Ingersoll, Esquire (By Hand)
William F. Lee, Esquire (By Fax)
Edward Normand, Esquire (By Fax)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 11:55 PM EST |
for PJ
---
There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want its hide.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 11:56 PM EST |
And follow the red guidelines for making clickies.
---
emerge addict since Gentoo version 1.2, 2002.
compiler error: value of "_Trust_Microsoft" always fails.
"Sony BMP has created serious public-relations ..."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off Topic Here - Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 11:58 PM EST
- More DRM Follies - The Cold Light of Day - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 07:32 AM EST
- RIAA employing scare-tactics - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 07:48 AM EST
- Legal fallout from Sony's CD woes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 09:50 AM EST
- The death of P2P, Long live P2P - Authored by: Winter on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 10:30 AM EST
- SCO's Letter to the Red Hat Judge - An SNL skit? - Authored by: clark_kent on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 10:37 AM EST
- "Mass. to stay the OpenDocument course despite CIO's departure" - David Berlind - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 01:27 PM EST
- Motorola dumps Apple for Linux - theinquirer.net - Authored by: clark_kent on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 03:43 PM EST
- Xbox supply still too short - Awww!!!!! - Authored by: clark_kent on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 03:49 PM EST
- Off Topic Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 03:55 PM EST
- "Beating Microsoft to the punch" and fixing their bugs. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 04:24 PM EST
- Stirring the Googlepot :) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 06:09 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: WhiteFang on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 12:01 AM EST |
... the Court found that SCO had correctly read past Court orders
...
The spin on this is so fast I wonder that the letter doesn't
fracture! Even graphite composite flywheels with magnetic bearings can't spin
this fast!
Whoa Nelly! I do think we've finally found our new perpetual
motion machine
Feel free to groan now.
;-D
---
emerge
addict since Gentoo version 1.2, 2002.
compiler error: value of "_Trust_Microsoft" always fails.
"Sony BMP has created serious public-relations ..." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 12:01 AM EST |
It's a shame GrokLaw keeps me informed about the truth
---
---
That's not a law suit. *THIS* is a law suit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 12:35 AM EST |
"and that big mean IBM made us miss Christmas with our families..."
At least for those who are Christians - if any of the BSF attornies are of other
faiths, they should fill in the appropriate holiday (if any).
---
Wayne
http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: _Arthur on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 01:25 AM EST |
Since they were compelled to disclose ALL the infringements they had
knowledge of, and the code discovery period is over now, I guess we'll
never now how many more "technological disclosures" SCO chose not to
accuse IBM of.
Of course we went from Copyright Violations to "indirect obfuscated
infringements", to Technical Disclosures.
Like, say, if a IBM programmer say that the Linux Scheduler is much more
efficient than the AIX one, now that's a "Technological Disclosure",
hence Unfair Competition, even if it enhanced (or didn't) a product that
Caldera was selling at the time, so it benefited Caldera
/me mind boggles.
_Arthur[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 05:59 AM EST |
Er, didn't IBM decide to drop that counterclaim in the interest of expedience,
on the basis that SCO's revenues of late amounted to little more than a gnat's
sneeze, so there was no incentive for pressing the matter?
---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 08:13 AM EST |
On December 29, 2005, SCO filed its Motion to Compel certain
discovery and 30(b)(6) witnesses, including numerous categories of
damages-related materials, documents concerning Project Monterey, documents
related to IBM's ongoing Linux activities, and all versions of AIX from 1985 to
1990.
Okay, waitaminnit. Why in the world, already
having all of AIX and Dynix from 1991 forward, would they now need everything
from 1985? Linux wouldn't even be begun for another six years or so in 1985, and
in 1985 AT&T still owned UNIX. How in the world can this be relevant to the
claim that IBM improperly contributed code to Linux? Especially any of the code
listed in the Motion to Amend in Novell (assuming that this material is similar
to the disclosures TSG made to IBM on Dec 22)?
---
"When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 09:52 AM EST |
| The more obvious conclusion...
The number and substance of those disclosures
reflects the pervasive extent and sustained degree to which SCO will go to
balloon up the threat of stolen methods, concepts, and literal code from
protected UNIX and UNIX-derived technologies in order to present it to the
press and investors.
---
Are you a bagel or a mous? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 11:05 AM EST |
Hallelujah!
At least we didn't have to cringe as in previous filings
when reading about the "numerousity and substantiality" of the complaints.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jdg on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 12:07 PM EST |
n/t
---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 03:54 PM EST |
.
.
*****"On December 22, 2005, pursuant to the Court's Pre-Trial Management
Order of July 1, 2005, SCO submitted its Disclosure of Material Misused by IBM,
specifically identifying (from an even larger universe of code and related
materials) 293 separate technology disclosures made by IBM in violation of SCO's
contractual and other rights.."*****
1. Every filing is a magnficent opportunity for FUD. With such swanky lawyers
doing it, who wouldn't be afraid? Who would ever use Linux knowing there are
far more than the 293 IBM abuses out there? They must be losing millions in
sales thanks to these suits, especially in this era of M$ security!
2. Why waste it all on IBM? Now SCO can go after others for use of what IBM
and maybe others abused. It won't become known in these suits. The next
targets won't be such deep pockets, i. e. money deep and lawyer deep. New
targets will be designed to cave in rather than go through another marathon,
litigation charade. Vindication is nearer.
3. IBM Linux activity is going to be construed as broadly as possible.
Everyone will try and hide under their wings--IBM approved, contributed,
recommended, reviewed etc. It won't work. They'll all have to pay their own
lawyers and costs and suffer slow downs.....or pay SCO. FUD Rules!
4. Now who says GL isn't fair?
---
webster
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 04:30 PM EST |
Is there anyone in the computer industry who doesn't think of SCO and snicker?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 04:34 PM EST |
>How the judge, or anyone else, can possibly get a hold
>on what is happening in these cases from the letters
>she gets from the parties, I can't imagine.
It is easy to understand that:
1) The case is complicated.
2) Judge K. has not established any facts (yet).
3) Judge K. future findings will probably be relevant to
the Red Hat case, and therefore it is a good idea to
freeze the Red Hat case, at least till Judge K. will
establish the facts he can. (If, in the Judge's
opinion, a fact is not disputed because no counter-
evidence was presented, he can skip the "finding of facts
by jury" phase and just establish the fact. If the
opposing party thinks that the judge was wrong they
can appeal, but only with evidence that had been
presented to the judge.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
