decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Intel Calls SCO a Liar in Utah Court Filing
Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 11:03 PM EST

Well, *now* SCO's really gone and done it. They got used to IBM's restraint, I guess, and told a story to the Utah court, and now they are being called on it. First, we saw Oracle dispute SCO's story about the subpoenas in its motion to quash in California, and now Intel has filed in Utah a Nonparty Intel's Response to SCO's Motion For Leave to Take Certain Prospective Depositions [PDF], and they are hopping mad. Mad enough to tell Judges Kimball and Wells that what SCO said about Intel is "unfair and untrue":
Although Intel takes no position on whether SCO's Discovery Extension Motion should be granted, Intel is compelled to respond to SCO's misrepresentations about Intel's conduct.

Intel won't stand by and let itself be maligned. Why should it? I've been unjustly maligned in public, and I know just how Intel feels. Some of you asked if the court in Utah would find out about the California matters, and it just did.

Here's the essence of Intel's beef:

SCO represents that Intel "was given adequate notice" of the depositions SCO seeks but "did not appear."... That statement is at best a half-truth. It is true that Intel didn't appear, but it is false that Intel's absence came despite "adequate notice." In fact, SCO first properly served Intel with its subpoena at 3:26 p.m. on the day before the discovery cut-off, in which it demanded that Intel produce witnesses to testify on a host of discrete topics and produce documents the very next day. That same day, Intel responded in writing, objecting that it was unreasonable to expect Intel to comply with SCO's requests on a few hours notice, and notifying SCO that Intel would not do so.

SCO didn't tell that part to the court in its motion, did it? Intel also informs the court that both SCO and Intel will wait to pursue motion practice in California regarding SCO's projected motion to compel until the court in Utah decides whether or not SCO gets to do this new discovery at all.

What did SCO want from Intel? Witnesses and documents on six topics, "communications between Intel and IBM, Intel's relationship with SCO, and issues related to the UNIX application program interfaces, developer guide, application binary interface and interface definition."

Again, as in the Oracle matter, there was, Intel says, no meet and confer, which is a California requirement. You can't just unilaterally schedule a deposition there. As for giving them less than 24 hours, you'd give your boss more notice than that for a dinner party invitation. By the way, they gave Open Group 18 hours' notice as well.

Worse, SCO sent a fax to Intel's legal department, even though they knew, Intel tells the court, that Intel had an outside counsel for such matters. SCO knew who to properly serve because it had dealt with that outside Intel counsel 45 days before. This is getting weirder and weirder. Was SCO messing up on purpose?

The fax purported to be a notice of a deposition, even though you can't serve by fax, and there was no subpoena attached in any case, and Intel was demanded to send a witness cross country to New York for the deposition, and you can't make third-party witnesses travel more than 100 miles. So the subpoena was defective. Intel told SCO that. On January 26, SCO sent a subpoena telling Intel to produce documents and appear for a deposition at 9 a.m. the next day. But there was no list of deposition topics, as required, and no notice. So how was Intel supposed to figure out who to send to testify?

Intel told SCO about the new defects, and SCO sent another subpoena, again demanding Intel show up the following day. Here's a little Intel understatement:

Why SCO waited until the eleventh hour to seek this discovery when discovery has been ongoing in the case for the past two years is unclear. More importantly, had SCO planned adequately, the discovery could have been obtained from the parties to the litigation -- including SCO itself, given that SCO seeks evidence "concerning Intel's business relationship with SCO."

And for the killer blow, Intel ends like this:

Intel takes discovery obligations seriously. SCO's attempt to blame Intel for creating SCO's need for more time simply ignores the facts.

Here's the bottom line. It isn't just IBM now telling Judge Kimball and Judge Wells that SCO doesn't always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is going to cost them. Remember when your mom told you not to lie? She was absolutely right. And in a courtroom, once you've lost your reputation as a truth-teller, the game is so over.

Here's Intel's Notice of Entry of Appearance of Counsel [PDF] and the application [PDF].


Intel Calls SCO a Liar in Utah Court Filing | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrrections here
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 11:08 PM EST
To the story not what happened

There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want its hide.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off tropic here
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 11:09 PM EST
With lickable clinks

There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want its hide.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Intel Calls SCO a Liar in Utah Court Filing
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 11:12 PM EST
Ouch, that's the strongest I've seen, so far. Boy, there's no punches pulled
there. Now for the rest of the set.

There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want its hide.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Intel Calls SCO a Liar in Utah Court Filing
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 11:26 PM EST
hmm.. it would seem that SCO/BSF expected Oracle & Intel to ignore the (IMHO, purposefully) defective subpoenas.. (even when they didn't, SCO/BSF acted as if they did!) that would let them spin their lies & drag this farce out a little longer.. give it up SCO/BSF! Windows Vista is going to be late (for the 3rd time?) again.

Are they at the point where they can't quit without facing penalties? SCO has been placed as a sacrificial lamb (goat is more like it), still, can it's officers be held financially accountable?

OTOH, in todays U.S. of A., I expect the ridiculous..


[ Reply to This | # ]

A Chicago 7 timeline
Authored by: stats_for_all on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 11:27 PM EST
SCO pulled out of the UnitedLinux consortium about July 1, 2003. SCOX had contributed about 15 engineers, who were picked up by the still independent SuSe. SCOX high value contribution to UL was access to its then considerable channel sales network.

Days later, on July 7, 2003, Novell convened a conference in Chicago to discuss the future of Linux. Attending were businesses such as HP and Oracle that had been left stranded by the destruction of the UnitedLinux consortium. HP and Oracle had both certified for the UL.

Ms. M. O'Gara reported on the Chicago 7 conference on August 1, 2003. Certain details of her account have been confirmed by later Jack Messman interviews. Novell proposed a 3rd "certified' distribution to compete with RH and SuSe. The vendors countered with the proposal that Novell purchase one of the other two, and use its existing channel sales experience to replace the SCOX pull-out.

A Novell-buys-SuSe deal was announced on 11/4/03. The total deal was valued at $210MM, with a co-ordinate $50MM investment by IBM into Novell.

Curiously, DB analyst Brian Skiba announced the deal was good for SCOX because it raised the likelihood of a settlement w/IBM. SCOX shares jumped $2.37 on the upgrade on the day of the buy-out announcement.

Darl McBride, unconvinced by Skiba, threatened to derail the SuSe deal by invoking an ambigous non-compete clause signed by Santa Cruz in 1995. McBride cited the Chicago 7 meeting as evidence of a IBM-led cabal against SCOX. (protest reported 11/20/03 in a CRN intervies)

The SuSe deal was completed on Jan 13, 2004. SCO filed its Novell case on 1/ 20/04.

The Chicago 7 meeting was scarely mentioned again. The 2nd amended complaint against Novell filed on 1/11/06 restates the allegations of conspiracy, and today we learn that SCOX issued Novemeber 2005 subpoenas for IBM testimony (of Karen Smith) on the infamous meeting.

The mysterious osGram site had surfaced the Chicago7 issue during its brief Feb 1-3 existence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The SCO Group attorneys are at the limits
Authored by: AllParadox on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 11:35 PM EST
Judges will let you play some games.

They will let you play them, but only up to a limit.

IMHO, embarrassing the court by making very public lies about what has happened,
and making them in writing in motions filed with the court, are long past the

If I had ever done this in any court, the judge would have hurt me, badly. A
few made very serious promises to do just that, on far less provocation.

Maybe it is just me, but I have to wonder what these attorneys are going to do
for a living after they have their licenses suspended.

PJ deletes insult posts, not differences of opinion.

AllParadox; retired lawyer and chief Groklaw iconoclast. No legal opinions,
just my opinion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Waiting for 3rd shoe to drop
Authored by: hardmath on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 11:48 PM EST
You don't suppose the response from The Open Group will be equally
"unhelpful" to SCO/BSF, do you? How unlucky would that be, three for

-- hm

"We are a leadership brand. We don't copy anyone." Intel VP Ann Lewnes on
sponsoring BMW to compete with AMD/Ferrari

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does IBM get a reply?
Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 12:00 AM EST
Will IBM get to reply and make reference to what Oracle,
Intel and maybe The Open Group said?

Wow, the reply by IBM could be pretty entertaining.

The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Intel Calls SCO a Liar in Utah Court Filing
Authored by: kurtwall on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 12:16 AM EST
If I was a member of the Tinfoil Hat Party, I'd speculate that SCOX are laying
the groundwork for appeal on the basis of inadequate representation by counsel.
That's the only way I can make sense of their 11th hour blunders.

But, I'm not a member of the Tinfoil Hat Party, so I simply can't make sense of
such obvious procedural mistakes. Perhaps 3 years worth of lies,
misrepresentation, character assassination, dishonesty, and plain immoral and
unethical behavior have caught up with them and they just can't keep anything
straight anymore.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: WhiteFang on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 12:18 AM EST
The CCs include a large majority of the lawyers in "The Cast" listing.
Including the law firm for S2!!

Intel is _really_ pissed.

Am I correct in assumming that the "Notice of Entry of Appearance of
Counsel" implies that Intel is going directly to Judge Kimbal to put a stop
to this foolishness? i.e. File a motion to slap SCOX down?

DRM - Degrading, Repulsive, Meanspirited
'Nuff Said

[ Reply to This | # ]

I told Darl not to use the Boies Shifty Drive-Thru Stop'n Sue
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 12:51 AM EST
They get everything wrong and the pop is flat.

How many Boies Shifty lawyers does it take to write a supeona?

More than SCO's got!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Intel Calls SCO a Liar; BSF Licking its Wounded Rep
Authored by: webster on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 12:58 AM EST
1. More "slapdash" scrambling. I think someone senior at SCO took a
look at the situation and demanded that they maintain a stern front and
thoroughly litigate all the issues. I guess they didn't realize that putting up
a formidable last minute rush would come off as "slapdash" rather than
tough. This could also indicate some turmoil at BSF with someone reviewing the
situation and realizing they needed more at the last minute. We should see if
any personnel change. That would be a sure sign of turmoil.

2. This sort of thing is the last thing that SCO needs. It is extremely
negative and risks the judge catching the spirit. A judge can not easily rule
in a wholesale manner against a party's discoverey requests, but SCO may have
turned the trick. If this stuff is so insignificant that they did not get to it
until the last minute, they will challenge their own credibility to say
otherwise. They are going to have to prove to the court that these requests
stem from recently discovered evidence ---recently discovered because it was
recently disclosed, not recently discovered because they just got around to
looking at it.

3. The above was written before reading this article and AllP's comment above.
You are seeing the reputation of BSF shred before your eyes. What opponent of
theirs won't take heart and stiffen their opposition in hopes of inspiring
similar antics and failures? I suspect the turmoil is worse than merely within
BSF. I suspect that there are differences among the SCO legal front (Tibbetts
and McBride) the PIPE fairy and BSF. Someone insisted there was an argument and
proof that had to be made and there was not enough discovery to do it. So a
slapdash and late effort had to be made at someone's insistence, with no concern
for the reputation of BSF. Or they made a late stab to stave off criticism with
an eye to our speculation here about SCO suing them someday. With this effort
thay can say they tried and the judge denied them. The third shoe is soon to
drop. There is a very sad day coming for BSF, maybe an expensive one. I hope
they got an indemnity promise from their client for doing these subpoenas late
and slapdash.

4. I think there will be some big news from the SCO ship soon. It would be a
good time to disclose some code or unseal some documents or fire somebody.

-----------Free China

[ Reply to This | # ]

Intel Calls SCO a Liar in Utah Court Filing
Authored by: tredman on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 01:30 AM EST
This all looks like pure desperation on SCOX's part. They've maybe realized all
along that they had no shot with this, what with IBM calling their bluff and
everything. Up until now, the only people who have seen their antics are us,
the small contingent with whom a decision here directly affects. All of the
casual observers got bored and went away a long time ago.

The problem with taking three years to fall, however, is the whole physical
rules of acceleration, and after all this time, 30 feet per second per second
has added up to a reentry freefall that would scare the begeebees out of a
hardened fighter pilot. You can only bring so many major players into the fray
before the public at large starts to notice. A quick bankruptcy death of the
company is the only thing standing between them and having CNN, Fox News and
MSNBC fighting over the exclusive.

And to those of you who are worried about impending appeals, I wouldn't sweat it
too much. The Federal Appeals Court will probably give Judge Kimball a medal
for having the patience of Job...

"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hey,'s not lying!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 01:47 AM EST
Haven't you ever heard of the adversary process. It's not our job to spout the
IBM line. Judge Kimball has been around the block. Both sides get to present
their position. We simply stated ours which might be the whole picture, or
half, as determined by the court, not a pack of biased bloggers.

This is simply discovery in big time litigation. It is no big lie despite IBM
trying to orchestrate it as such. Indeed Judge Kimball is going to grant a
reasonable amount of this discovery. In no time this will be considerer another
drop over the dam.

So stop trying to suspend, disbar, and criminalize, an earnest party seeking
justice. Your hysterics undermine your position.

Do this stuff downstream. You are poinsoning the water.

Trolling for Truth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Intel Calls SCO a Liar in Utah Court Filing
Authored by: photocrimes on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 07:41 AM EST
I'm going to guess SCO is using the Microsoft defense now. They know the case is
lost, or at least feel it will be. Like Microsoft knew it was guilty. It has now
turned to a try to get out alive game.

What they will do from this point on is walk just on the edge of the law until
they work some of the major players up to the point of busting. Purhaps get a
judge to say some things she shouldn't etc.... Microsft by the book.

I think right now they are on a fishing expedition, but not for code. I think
they are waiting for the other side to trip up and give them something they can
use for technical reasons.

The SCO show, never a dull moment. And no, I don't think SCO is doing this
because all of their lawyers are a bunch of bumbling idiots, I think they know
what they are doing.

//A picture is worth a thousand words//

[ Reply to This | # ]

Notice of Entry! THWAPP!
Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 08:13 AM EST
The notice of entry is a whap to the face ... informing all and sundry exactly where to send all legal documents (I assume it's the same law firm that SCO had previously been working with). It's a "Send them OVER THERE you NITWITS!" notice.

And it's sent to the same long list of lawyers as the reply to the motion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe it's an exit strategy on the part of Normand
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 08:26 AM EST

IIRC Edward Normand is appearing pro hac vice because he's licensed to practice
in a different state.

So he had to ask the court's permission to appear for SCO.

Maybe he's hoping the Judge will rescind that permission so he can escape the
coming train wreck? [grin]

[ Reply to This | # ]

The game is not over!
Authored by: BobDowling on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 08:29 AM EST
And in a courtroom, once you've lost your reputation as a truth-teller, the game is so over.

Only if your victory condition is to be awarded the case. If your victory condition is to stall for at least N years then this does not follow.

The system is being gamed. The legal community is so used to people needing to have cases found for them to declare victory that they assume it's the only way the courts can work. If a plaintiff's mere presence in court is sufficient for a victory in the real game then the legal profession seems to find itself completely adrift.

Unless very severe punishment is set on the lawyers for the plaintiffs this case is only going to be the first of many. How much money has been soaked up? It's a pittance compared with many companies' warchests . (Not just Microsoft's!)

A new way of playing the FUD/marketing/shares game is being researched here. Unscrupulous but very sharp people are looking on to work out what they could do with similar doomed court cases stretched over many years. Schemes to bankrupt opposing companies are being refined, even beyond the current court cases. New mechanisms for feeding press releases with court tit-bits to compliant journalists are being developed.

My prediction is that the SCO vs IBM case will come to be seen as the prototype for a standard form of business attack in the future, taught to businessmen in their MBA classes and to lawyers at law school. The legal profession will become stooges of marketing unless overwhelming sanctions are applied to the people, and not just the companies, involved in this case at the end. The Bar Association needs to come up with penalties that rank alongside the Romans salting the earth over the razed sites of their enemies' cities.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Obligation to make fools of themselves?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 08:38 AM EST

I don't understand why SCO's lawyers are so continually willing to make fools of
themselves. Is that really part of their legal obligation to their clients?

Isn't there any safe zone for a lawyer between dereliction of duty and abuse of

[ Reply to This | # ]

Intel Calls SCO a Liar in Utah Court Filing
Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 09:03 AM EST
"Here's the bottom line. It isn't just IBM now telling Judge Kimball and
Judge Wells that SCO doesn't always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth. That is going to cost them. Remember when your mom told you not
to lie? She was absolutely right. And in a courtroom, once you've lost your
reputation as a truth-teller, the game is so over." PJ

If the law and the facts are not on SCOG's side, SCOG is not credible and its
outside lawyers are not credible, what's left?

Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers are consultants, right?
Authored by: phantom21 on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 09:44 AM EST
Something I'm wondering here.

Suppose SCO goes to its lawyers and says, "we want you to
file another series of discovery requests on these 3 firms
tomorrow for this information."

The lawyers, knowing this is too close to the cutoff date
say, "we can't do that. It would be a bad idea, and we
can't justify it at this time and date. We'll probably
get hammered by the judge, and may even get sanctioned.
We suggest we not do this."

SCO says, "we need to do something to extend the discover.
We haven't found anything and we need more time. Our
sponsors are late with their products, and we need to

Shouldn't the law firm basically say no, they can't do it?

I mean, you have a high profile law firm which may get
sanctioned by the courts with a stunt like this. Don't
they have to protect themselves? Forget ethics for the
moment, can't the law firm be hurt badly by this type of

Just asking.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm finding it hard to buy these "mistakes".
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 09:45 AM EST

Too many, too simple, and that's just for the office staff and not the lawyers.

Indeed, whoever sent that fax to Intel, even if they didn't know the law, would likely question the reason since they "never normally do that" and have likely been told how to serve a subpoena properly even if they have to pay a courier to get it there.

Too many mistakes even for a last minute "rush".

Therefore, by my reasoning BSF must have acted deliberately.

What outcome are "they expecting"?

That's a question of probability which can probably be best answered by Groklaw's lawyers.

That likely outcome is what BSF must be seeking, which is entirely different from "winning their case".

Surely it can't be just more "delay by discovery" carrying as it does the damage to the reputation and possible career damage to their lawyers with any court censure.

The last outcome expected by anyone who is involved in or informed on this litigation is a judgement resulting from trial some years down the line.

Some individuals and companies with direct involvement in this saga are very much at risk from criminal charges. Are BSF trying to "find a way out"? It could become "every man for himself" when they shortly have to run for the lifeboats. Is this some kind of positioning by BSF which may have little to do with SCOG's court case?

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Intel had no choice
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 09:46 AM EST
Intel is facing trade commission and monopoly action complaints from some
governments and AMD. Intel cannot afford to look anything but squeaky clean
when it comes to legal actions. (Not that I think they are anything else.)

Trying to tag Intel may be the biggest SCO/BSF mistake so far.

-- Alma

[ Reply to This | # ]

A state of mind
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 09:59 AM EST
I sometimes participate in chess tournaments. I have encountered a few players
that when in a bad situation would do some rash and stupid moves. They just lose
faster, but it seems that by being rash, they get some odd feeling of being in
control of the situation for the short while they still have before everything
collapse. They feel in control because their stupid moves are really pushing the
game ahead not realising they are accelerating their loss. Of course first rate
players never do that.

This situation reminds me of such players. I first thought SCOG wanted the
subpeonas to be ignored to be able to tell tall tales to the judge and get more
discovery. But this is so stupid. Their mistakes are well beyond clever gaming
of the system. They are just being rash and stupid because they are losing and
can't take it. Of course the first rate lawyers are no longer supervising the
case. It seems that capping the legal fees is biting SCOG in the end.

This is consistent with Mad Scientist's theory of SCOG being sociopaths unable
to see the truth when it is visible right in front of their eyes. They move
rashly ahead thinking they move their case forward when they are actually
crashing it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is just a widening of the net...
Authored by: chrsgo on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 10:01 AM EST
SCO is trying to bring other people into the mix that would have the money and
inclination to buy them out rather than deal with them.

If IBM won't play ball, let's try Intel(big money), Oracle(big money), The Open
Group(???, reputation, smoke screen). Expect others as the delay runs out and
the potential buyers aren't going for it. Eventually someone will, maybe, they

If getting bought out is the tactic, and leaving yourself on the open market is
the only way to do that, then delay delay delay. And if your only potential
buyer is currently beating the snot out of you for being a PITA, then find other
potential buyers and do your song and dance for them.

Of course I find SCO's sales tactics a little too forceful. Even the shadiest
of used car dealers have gotten better than that these days.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gettting personal
Authored by: lsmft on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 10:16 AM EST
Most individuals(think you or me) and small companies if "treated" to
the kind of coutroom antics that go on here I think would lose by simply not
being able to afford to defend themselves. When you have actual proof of lies of
a plantiff, can a defendent ask the criminal courts to intervene? And can the
corporate veil be pierced and individuals taken to task?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cutting Losses?
Authored by: joef on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 10:34 AM EST
BSF has long since hit the fee cap on this caper, and the prospects of an
enormous contingent windfall from a big win are vanishingly small. Could this
be part of an end-game strategy designed to cut their losses short?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hey SCO! Here's a new case for ya!
Authored by: raynfala on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 10:58 AM EST
Boy, SCO really got their reputation harmed by Intel's nasty, nasty filing.

Maybe they should sue Intel for slander?



[ Reply to This | # ]

I have asked before
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 11:17 AM EST
SCO had no case from the beginning and have never shown any evidence.

It seems their game plan was:

  • As a company on the way to bankruptcy, claim IBM committed all kinds of improbable offences.
  • Request a copy of IBM's entire correspondence files for the last twenty years, together with every line of code ever written by an IBM'er and their programmer notes.
  • If IBM does not settle to avoid the huge costs involved with this discovery, sift through the materials produced in the hope of finding something embarrassing they can use to blackmail IBM into a settlement. Further, see if you can damage IBM's business by making outragious public claims again with a view to pressing IBM into a settlement.
  • In the worst case, go bankrupt (which was going to happen anyway).

It is my view that SCO's chances at the beginning were actually excellent (given the way the US justice system works). It is a tribute to the excellence of IBM's lawyers and the determination of the company to see this through that SCO did not succeed. If this had worked, they would probably have collected big money over a period of time: the SCOsource scam would have become potent (corporations would pay the protection money to avoid getting dragged into expensive litigation, however groundless the associated legal claims).

Is any of the above incorrect?

What is to stop others trying similar gambits?

What changes to the US justice system could be made to prevent these kinds of abuses? Would it be reasonable to expect some kind of evidence of wrongdoing before subjecting corporations to discovery processes costing tens of millions of dollars? Or, is the view that it is OK to initiate litigation on a hunch that you might find evidence later?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Next Move?
Authored by: MplsBrian on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 11:38 AM EST
How long can we expect the court to take to rule on SCO's Motion to Extend
Discovery, or whatever they called it? Is this before Kimball or Wells?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Intel Calls SCO a Liar in Utah Court Filing
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 11:38 AM EST
Talk about worlds colliding...I went for a jog this morning with my iPod and wanted to listen to this cool CEO interview show called Business Jive. So I start running and listening and who is the interviewee? Darl McBride, and he even referenced all this new stuff.

He spends most of the interview talking about his own life history and it really sheds some light on his strategy.

I assume you can hear him at:

Sorry I don't know the RSS feed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 11:50 AM EST
More importantly, had SCO planned adequately, the discovery could have been obtained from the parties to the litigation -- including SCO itself, given that SCO seeks evidence "concerning Intel's business relationship with SCO."

This could be an attempt by SCO to "prove" they are held by others to be oldSCO. On the other hand, this could prove just the opposite, as they were not a party to the agreements for which they seek more information.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Possible reason for defective subpeonas
Authored by: micheal on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 11:58 AM EST
BSF percieves that they are in deep trouble. If BSF puts the blame on someone
else (who, in return, will put the blame on BSF or someone else) then BSF may
escape sanctions.


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO has a new footgun...
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 12:02 PM EST
...but no legs left to stand on.

Is this BSF's way of saying that SCO's fun and games in the courtroom are over
and now it's time for some Fun and Games of their own devising?

We're still sitting here patiently, waiting; so are IBM; so are the judges, so
are Novell and the rest. Has BSF lost it? Has SCO?

Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the

[ Reply to This | # ]

What was the date of the first filing to Intel
Authored by: jws on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 01:40 PM EST
I know that Intel replied on Jan 26 from what is posted, but what is the date of
the first round of serving (defective). I guess Jan 26 was busy, but was all
the first round of motion on the previous day?

I recall in another posting about this last minute stuff that things started on
Jan 20 for IBM leading to the deadline, that is why I'd like all the times in
this cleared up.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Possible Rift Between SCO and BSF?
Authored by: jbb on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 02:39 PM EST
Like everyone else, I've been wondering what on Earth could be happening to cause such strange behavior from SCO's lawyers at BSF.

I think BSF got really peeved with SCO sometime around the end of Summer and beginning of Fall 2005. Something came up, perhaps that engineer's report giving Linux a clean bill of health, that made BSF feel deceived by SCO. However it happened, BSF found out that SCO does not have a case and to make matters worse, BSF found out that SCO knew this all along and had been duping BSF.

Unfortunately for BSF, they can't just drop SCO as clients because, IIRC, SCO gave BSF a cool $20 million to see the current cases to the end.

Even though McBride has been staying out of the news, I bet the lawyers at BSF have been getting and earful and a half. In fact, I bet that McBride and his min^H^H hench^H^H high ranking officers have been trying to micro-manage the IBM case.

The micro-management on top of the earlier deception made some people at BSF furious. They already knew that they were just wasting their time and money on the SCO cases.

I think that BSF is doing some kind of work-to-rule thing to satisfy the micro-management demands of SCO and at the same time they are trying to get the judges upset at them.

BSF does not want to keep throwing good money after bad. They don't want to wait until this summer when IBM gets to file their PSJ's again. BSF wants this case over ASAP so SCO can go belly up and BSF won't have to deal with them any more. Or, barring that, they want to get fired by SCO so they can get out of their contract.

Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think BSF wants more money - no honor among thieves
Authored by: dyfet on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 02:51 PM EST
I think they saw SCOX get another pipe ferry and they want their cut. I imagine in such a scenareo they agreed to the cap based in part on the idea that SCOX would be drained anyway, so there was not more money to possibily collect, and now suddenly, viola, there is.

Is there no honor among thieves?! :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not even funny.
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 10:26 PM EST
You don't tell a company at 3:45 pm that you want them to deliver multiple
depositions the next day on multiple topics.

I'm not a lawyer, but that's just plain obvious.

If what Intel is saying is true, I can see only two reasons to do this.

A) This is a delaying tactic to try to extend discovery


B) They sat down and had a last minute brainstorm and said "who else can we
get depositions from? I know we have only one day and nobody will bite: we will
try it anyway. We can ask the judge to extend discovery for these depositions
because we asked for them before the deadline and we will claim they are at the
'heart of the case.'"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Intel Calls SCO a Liar in Utah Court Filing
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 12:49 AM EST
Suddenly, I've got a hankerin' to buy a laptop with an Intel chip.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Possible Theories why BSF did this
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 10:04 AM EST
Beyond the rather obvious ploy for more time I think there are two other
possible reasons BSF did this;

First is to set up a trial strategy to portray SCOG as a victim of the
"Chicago 7". This strategy would be primarily used to confuse the jury
and to create press, if anyone still cares.

Secondly these moves will provide a pretext for SCOG to maintain they lost on a
technicality or pursue appeals, stringing out the conclusion and allowing them
to never admit defeat. We have seen something like that in the DCC case where
SCOG apparently still insists the case is not dead and is somehow still before
the Michigan court.

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: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 11:01 AM EST
Can SCO turn around and sue its law firm?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Strategy --> operations --> tactics
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 04:47 PM EST
Unfortunatly in most conflicts it's hard to accuratly determine the strategy of
the participants. Howerver the tactics and some of the operational information
can be gleaned from the tactics.

simple $$$$

generate cash from UNIX operations
generate cash from IP (copyrights/trade marks/patents) in UNIX
Make an assest much more valuable UNIX

Pickup a PIPE or 3 for a lawsuit to increase UNIX value while devaluing a
competitor (LINIX)

While starting the Big action against someone who may settle (if they do you
win) if they buy you out (win), if they fight (see below).

1) extend the fight as long as possible (if case is weak, doing this with a
strong case is poor strategy as a victory will make all of the secondary actions
much stronger)
2) attack as fast as possible (if case is strong)

Action 1 choosen...
1) Using allies and impending effects of lawsuit to start additional cash
actions. (DCX, Autozone, ... and letters of concern about technology 1500ish)
last used in UK early 2006

2) Cause the lawsuit to be much more expensive for you then your target (capped
fees, and amazing discovery requests) hopping for strategy 1 or 2 above to be
back on table.

3) Generate as much FUD as you reasonably can, to gain natural allies from other
1) extend everything on original lawsuit.
2) preempt Novel by filing a seconday action.
3) preempt Redhat by saying IBM is first (this has been done very well)
4) setup possible appeals on original case, and ask for the moon.
5) After discovery, try to get the cards shuffled again by pointing out that
maybe Novel should go first.. (3 more years delay if played right)
6) profit on stock swings as they naturally happen in this type of action
7) gain additional "funds" from natural alliances that wish to see
LINIX be busy.

LINIX/IBM managed to pause Autozone action, (DCX seemed to be an amature attempt
to harrass or the first sign of the importance attached to this matter?), until
IBM is solved.

This is a first blast at SCO strategy.
Also SCO has been severed from canapy via a series of actions, this is important
but I'm not sure for who benefit? SCO or IBM, I think Canapy is very happy to be
rid the risk?

A first blast at SCO Point of View in this matter, hoping to provide a frame of
reference for there actions.

A Subtle Ogre

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Big Boys Legal Toolkit
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 05:20 PM EST
Whether you like SCO or not, the company does illustrate what happens when you
challenge the big boys. I'd hate to really have a case about my technology with
IBM, Intel or MS. Looks like they've got the legal fire power, media support and
deep pockets to hammer your compliant into oblivion--right or wrong. Sad, really

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 05:22 PM EST
I appologize if someone else has made this comment...

I see all of these posts about how SCO's lawyers are damaging their reputation,
and questions asking why they would risk this...but I wonder, are they really
damaging their reputation? Corporations being what they are, would they see this
as 'look at those evil, incompetent lawyers', or (what I think) 'look at those
evil lawyers, doing _everything_ possible to help their client, even what is
unethical and dangerous to their status as a lawyer'? As far as lawyers
representing corporate clients, I think this is all helping their reputation. If
I were an evil corp...I'd want this legal team.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Suggested Descriptive Phrase for Judge to use to discuss this case
Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Sunday, February 12 2006 @ 04:16 AM EST

On the 28th of November 1979, an Air New Zealand DC10 airliner, flew into Mount Erebus in clear weather, on a sight-seeing trip to Antarctica. The New Zealand government set up a Royal Commission to investigate the cause, and Mr Justice Mahon was set up in charge of it. After investigation, he came to give the report, with these memorable words:

[Paragraph 377 of the Mahon Report said in part]:
"... the palpably false sections of evidence which I heard could not have been the result of mistake, or faulty recollection. They originated, I am compelled to say, in a pre-determined plan of deception. They were very clearly part of an attempt to conceal a series of disastrous administrative blunders and so, in regard to the particular items of evidence to which I have referred, I am forced reluctantly to say that I have had to listen to an orchestrated litany of lies."
pg. 33, The Erebus Papers, ed. Stuart Macfarlane, Avon Press Ltd., 1991.

I have no doubt these words are likely to be echoed by the judges in charge of the various ramifications of this case.

finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of these states of view, I duck

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )