decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
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

Username:

Password:

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:02 PM EST

Hold on to your hats! IBM has subpoenaed Microsoft! And Sun! At last, we're getting to the core of the matter. We're going to get to find out the whole story. I'd pay for this. No kidding. Feast your eyes on these and don't skip the topics for deposition:

If anyone has time to do a plain text of the topics, I'd appreciate the help. What a day.

I love Sun's. Among other things, IBM would like to have them testify about such matters as "restrictions or prohibitions on Sun employees having access to any UNIX product, including, but not limited to, its source code." And they'd like to hear all about all communications between Sun and SCO since June 28, 2002 (isn't that the date Darl joined SCO as CEO?), including any chats about any software licensing agreements and what Darl said to Scott McNealy in May of 2003 regarding SCO's rights to the UNIX operating system and "discussions of business opportunities between SCO and Sun." Oh, and involvement by Sun in the development of Linux.

IBM would like Baystar to hand over documents about any communication between Baystar and Microsoft regarding SCO, IBM or the SCO v IBM litigation and all documents regarding agreements between Baystar and SCO and all documents regarding Baystar's investment in SCO, and all documents concerning Baystar's knowledge of SCO's business". Say, that should be easy for a "pure financial animal".

Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft. Do tell IBM all about any agreements between Microsoft and SCO, and all communications or agreements relating to SCO or this litigation, including all communications between Microsoft and SCO since June 28, 2002, including Darl's communication in May of 2003 "with Steven Ballmer regarding SCO's rights to the UNIX operating system". Oh, and IBM would like to hear about "Microsoft's business strategy regarding Linux", and they'd like to chat about the Caldera antitrust litigation against Microsoft too. Me, too. Me, too. Now about those shredded documents... And finally, they'd like "all communications or agreements relating to SCO or this litigation, including all communications with Baystar, Royal Bank of Canada, and Everyone's Internet, Ltd."

Yoo hoo. PIPE Fairy. Hope you like sunshine.

As for HP, IBM would like to see their contract licensing them to use UNIX. They'd like to know about any restrictions on employees having access to UNIX source code and all documents concerning "any agreements relating to any Hewlett-Packard software product involving Hewlett-Packard and AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, Tarantella, or SCO." And any documents regarding any open sourcing of any HP UNIX product and all documejnts concerning the origin of any UNIX source code "publicly disclosed or open sourced by Hewlett-Packard." And they would like to see, or hear about, any agreements between SCO and HP. They'd like to know more about the indemnification plan of HP's also. And this is interesting, number 12:

12. All documents concerning any efforts to ensure or maintain the secrecy or confidentiality of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods, including but not limited to: (a) any rule, policy, practice or procedure relating to the confidentiality or secrecy, or lack of confidentiality or secrecy, of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods; any breach of any such rule, policy, practice or procedure; (c) the use by any person of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques,, or methods; and (d) the disclosure or availability of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods to any person.

I begin to think that every question we've had, we will finally get to know the answer.

I see comments indicating that some of you thought discovery was over. Here, from Groklaw's IBM Timeline page, is the schedule:

22-Dec-05 - Final Deadline for Parties to Identify with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material

27-Jan-06 - Close of All Fact Discovery Except As to Defenses to Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material

17-Mar-06 - Close of All Remaining Discovery (i.e., Fact Discovery As to Defenses to Any Claim Relating to Allegedly Misused Material)

As you can see, we're in the part that I've highlighted in red, which is over on March 17. It's all about defenses now. In other words, SCO filed it's list of ha ha allegedly misused material, and now IBM gets to do discovery to establish its defenses. Don't forget the expert witnesses also:

14-Apr-06 - Initial Expert Reports

19-May-06 - Opposing Expert Reports

16-Jun-06 - Rebuttal Expert Reports

10-July-06 - Final Deadline for Expert Discovery

And then, ta da! Dispositive motions.


  


IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP! | 829 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
IBM Subpoenas Microsoft, Sun, Bay Star and HP!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:15 PM EST
First link doesn't work, got 404 doc not found.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft, Sun, Bay Star and HP!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:15 PM EST
FINALLY!!! Thanks IBM. I can sleep well tonight!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Documents... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 09:26 AM EST
  • What bugs me - Authored by: lifewish on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 09:24 PM EST
IBM Subpoenas Microsoft, Sun, Bay Star and HP!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:17 PM EST
Frankly its about time for some of this to come out and IBM has thus far
operated very transparently given the circumstances and the information
involved. It will be interesting to see some of the court filings that start
when we get to the motions phase.

As it is, with all the recent um.... legal oddities.... on SCO's behalf, I keep
waiting for the headline that SCO is suing itself, outrageous though that may
be. SCO suing oldSCO for giving up information to The Open Group which would
later comprise some of the released specifications... that IBM somehow forced
them to divulge....

I realize that the very concept of this happening is virtually impossible in the
current legal system and absolutely absurd on its face however I cannot say
anything at this point is either too absurd or impossible for SCO to attempt in
court these days.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about Canopy and Yarro?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:24 PM EST
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Thread
Authored by: tbogart on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:30 PM EST
Wow, been awhile since I started one of these ...

Please make the links clickable following the instructions on the posting page
....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Errors and Corrections here
Authored by: AJWM on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:30 PM EST
Aside from the obvious 404 we seem to be getting on the PDFs...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why now?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:31 PM EST
Haven't they subpoened most, if not all, of these before?

I remember, for example, a letter from SCO to IBM being posted on Groklaw, in
which SCO claimed that BayStar was planning to seek a protective order to
prevent themselves being deposed.

My real questions are:

1. Why now? And why is this different from previous IBM subpoenas?

2. Isn't discovery, essentially finished? [as IBM pointed out in response to
SCO's attempt to extend the deadlines for depositions]


Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

How you spell RICO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:35 PM EST
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Question about IBM Subpoenas
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:39 PM EST
Can someone explain why these subpoenas are not barred by the recent discovery
deadlines. Although I haven't read the subpoenas yet, didn't the end of
discovery apply to IBM claims against SCOG as well as SCOG's claims against IBM?

---
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 | # ]

Angling for lack of Source protection?
Authored by: starsky on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:43 PM EST
Possible IBM angle.

It looks from the exhibits that IBM are trying to establish to what degree SCO
"protected" their source. If SCO gave everyone their source code, and
none of the source code agreements restricted access to the source, then they
have no case for an entirely different reason.

Particularly I liked the request for identity and contact details of all
representatives of each co that had access to the source code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

All communication between HP and SCO since June 28th 2002
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:45 PM EST

What happened that day?

No. 9 HP Subpoena - PDF

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Baystar Topic 8
Authored by: starsky on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:47 PM EST
Baystars response to and efforts to comply with this subpoena and IBM's Subpena
dated May 10 2004

Another one to watch for !

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM wants Microsoft's Linux Strategy?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:49 PM EST
IBM wants Microsoft to disclose the strategy Microsoft has against Linux. That
shoudl be interesting, but I expect Microsoft will object to that one. I would
sure like to read it.

---
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 | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:53 PM EST

since June 28, 2002 (isn't that the date Darl joined SCO as CEO?)

I couldn't find anything announcing exactly when McBride took over, but the SCO Group Web site has a press release announcing his hiring, the press release is dated June 27th, so it was at least in that time frame.

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft,! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Authored by: brian-from-fl on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:53 PM EST

IANAL, but it seems to me that a good lawyer won't ask a question to which he or she does not already know the answer.

Is is safe to assume that IBM's lawyers already know either the answers, or exactly where the answers are?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM wants Communication between Microsoft, EV1, Baystar and The Royal Bank of Canada.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:55 PM EST

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

They won't get much out of Microsoft
Authored by: skidrash on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 11:00 PM EST
Cringely wrote an article about how many plaintiffs have complained over many
years about MS's "good faith (ha ha ha)" in producing documents.

I think PJ once made some comments about this, where MS claimed the personnel
who negotiated the contract had no documents but later the lawyers who wrote the
final copy did, even though they took part in none of the negotiations.

Also about one case in which the judge ordered the jury to take into account
that MS had destroyed documents rather than turn them over in discovery.

Sorry I don't have the time for specifics, I'm running out the door right now
...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Contacts sensible... but why complain about others' actions?
Authored by: dwheeler on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 11:03 PM EST
IBM's strategy appears to be to show that "no one else protects sources and methods this way". In some ways it seems to me it doesn't matter what others do; if a contract says you have to do X, then you need to do X, even if no one else listens to the contract.

On the other hand, if the same contract were used with others (appears likely), and if someone who was authorized to interpret it in a certain way confirmed that interpretation, then obviously that would be relevant.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Short notice?
Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 11:07 PM EST
Isn't the notice rather short? Looking at the subpoena sent to Sun, it is signed
Feb 21, with the deposition set for March 7 --ie. 2 weeks. I thought that I had
read on GL that 30 days was more appropriate?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Good luck getting documents from Microsoft
Authored by: cmc on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 11:11 PM EST
Perhaps I'm being too cynical here, but I doubt Microsoft will have much to say.
If my memory serves me correctly, Microsoft has a policy that all email is
deleted after a certain period of time (I thought it was 30 days, but that may
be wrong). I don't know financial or securities law, so I'm not sure how that
meshes with Sarbanes-Oxley. Since this is all hearsay, I cannot verify it, but
it certainly does sound plausible. So, if it truly is Microsoft's policy to
delete all emails after 30 days, why wouldn't they tunnel their dealings through
that, knowing that all traces will be erased (as long as the other party has a
similar policy)?

cmc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections - Yeah it's anonymous but nobody else has stepped up
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 11:13 PM EST
open sourcing of any HP UNIX product and all documejnts...

obviously should be "documents"

[ Reply to This | # ]

It all goes away ...
Authored by: dkpatrick on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 11:20 PM EST
when Microsoft tells SCO that SCO has lost the case and they should withdraw.
IBM may well have that strategy in mind. That way Microsoft won't have to show
anything.

---
"Keep your friends close but your enemies closer!" -- Sun Tzu

[ Reply to This | # ]

But will Microsoft ever turn over *any* relevant documents?
Authored by: OmniGeek on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 11:20 PM EST
Given MS' known propensity for conveniently having not retained the
incriminating e-mails someone else wants (their wink-wink-nudge-nudge policy on
destruction of e-mails is documented), I'm afraid that PJ is a bit
overoptimistic in saying we'll get the answer to the burning questions. (Much as
I'd dearly love to see the truth about the PIPE fairy appear as Exhibit XXX.)

I rather expect that it will be decades before MS turns over anything actually
relevant to this case, if indeed they EVER do; they'll resist, twist, delay, and
just "not find" the interesting bits until we're ALL old and gray.
Remember, ANY involvement on their part is a Very Bad Thing to have documented
against them, and they've had a LONG time to cover their tracks. Those
chair-throwing, oxygen-supply-cutting convicted monopolists are used to playing
very dirty, and I expect this to be no exception.

---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Baystar
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 11:24 PM EST
It is just me, or does IBM seem to be particularly belicose with regard to
Baystar? I notice that with the other's requested to provide documents, IBM
seems to be fairly specific, but with Baystar, IBM seems to say "We want it
all, no wiggle room, no exceptions."

Not that I don't disagree, but I do wonder.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Everyone who had access to Unix source code
Authored by: TimMann on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 11:26 PM EST
HP subpoena item 10 asks for "The identity of and contact information for
all representatives of Hewlett-Packard who have had access to ... UNIX source
code ...".

That's a *lot* of people. As a result of mergers, HP is successor to Compaq and
DEC. I had access to Unix source code when I worked at a DEC (and later Compaq)
research lab, as did a heck of a lot of people in both research and product
organizations. It may have been mildly restricted, IIRC, but easy enough to get
permission that I don't recall jumping through any hoops.

I recall also having access to Unix source when I was a grad student at
Stanford. This was in the mid-1980's before BSD had been cleansed of AT&T
owned code. We ran 4.1 and 4.2 BSD and did a fair amount of hacking (in the
good sense) on it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question about subpoenas and business practices
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 11:28 PM EST

Hi there,

Just curious, in normal business operations, shouldn't my agreements/ contracts with other entities remain private? If I were Sun or HP I wouldn't want to turn over my license agreements in case it had competitive information in it.

Question for the legal people: Can Sun or HP say those are private somehow? Would that be "under seal" stuff? Or do they have to cough up the documents regardless. It's unfair that IBM has to go through this, but it seems also unfair that everyone SCO's done business with is, too. (not that I'm crying or anything)

I guess I'm just thinking that if I were in business, I'd hate for my contracts with one party to become public knowledge if I were competitors with another.

Can anyone help me with a clue on this? Do the people subpoenaed have to give over everything? I guess there's a "quash" thing. Any guesses as to what these folks can quash? (and what does quash mean anyways?)

Thanks,
anonymous newb

[ Reply to This | # ]

Headline fun
Authored by: rdm on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 11:34 PM EST
I had a do a quick double-take when I saw this headline.

Twice. Once to make sure I was not reading El Reg, and once to make sure that
Yahoo! Was! Not! Involved!

Ahem.


---
Reality might not get out of Beta, today. (O.Timas, "Bot" - S.Gange)

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 11:38 PM EST
Something tells me most of the responses are going to be sealed :(

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Authored by: mossc on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 11:54 PM EST
One point of these depositions might be to address the fact TSG claimed that Sun
and HP were in compliance. If they are doing the same thing IBM is doing then
that can't be consistant with TSG's previous statements.

It might force the issue and have TSG explaining that the "evidence"
they had at the beginning was no good and they had to make up new claims based
on the derivative works theory.

Chuck

[ Reply to This | # ]

excerpt from Sarbanes Oxley
Authored by: mossc on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 12:04 AM EST
Section 1519 states: "Whomever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates,
conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document,
or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the
investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of
any department or agency of the Untied States or any case filed under title 11,
or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined
under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

If data provided from depositions/subpeonas of different parties don't match
there could be trouble for some high level executives.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Holy Frijole!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 12:14 AM EST

I go off to answer some emails and what happens? IBM ups the DEFCON level a notch or two.

This made my day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

delete parent so they can re-post
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 12:21 AM EST
Hopefully, PJ will delete this post and you can re-post without your
"apparent need" to lower Groklaw's standards, which I, for one, have
appreciated lo these many years :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow.
Authored by: Dave23 on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 12:25 AM EST
I'll ask again as I did on another branch: if this is the period for IBM's discovery pertaining to their defenses, why are Microsoft and Baystar being subpoenaed now, rather than (say) six months or a year ago, during initial discovery?

What's the logic here? I am obviously missing something. The only thing I can think of is "unclean hands." Or is there something buried in SCOG/BSF's December bill of particulars that opens SCOG (and its enablers, actual or alleged) up to this riposte?

IANAL

---
Gawker

[ Reply to This | # ]

I Rephrased Wow, for anon ...
Authored by: Pugs on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 12:31 AM EST
... who didn't read the posting rules.

First comment:
Note that, unlike SCO's recent Intel, et al subpoenas, all of the depositions
are noticed for places convenient to the deponent, such as in Seattle for MS.

Second comment:
IBM is sending a message. It's not to SCO. It's not to MS. It's not to Baystar.
It's to the world.

The message is this (rephrased by me - Pugs) -- "Do not, under any
circumstances, ever mess with us. We will destroy you, and dance on your
grave."

Ignore the Sun and HP subpoenas. They're directly related to the case, relating
to trade secret protection, business relationships, and such. Much will be found
helpful to IBM, at little cost to Sun & HP. Life will go on and documents
will be produced; they have little incentive to hide a thing.

Baystar's got real problems, and the documents IBM's asked for mean people
involved are probably going to jail. The SEC and multiple state regulators will
be coming after them if they deliver the documents asked for, and if they miss a
single one, there's precedent for a judge telling a jury that if anything's
missing, they can presume that it was destroyed and incriminating. Bad News for
them.

For Microsoft, this is devastating. If they can't produce many of these
documents, people are going to jail because of SarBox, and the fines will be
uncomfortable. The SEC will be interested in stock manipulation issues. And
EVERY single antitrust regulator around the world will be digging through the
documents for more fodder. Microsoft is boxed in -- if they produce, they're in
trouble, if they don't, they may be in worse trouble.

IBM just inserted the keys, started the countdown, and launched the missiles.
Microsoft and Baystar are just beginning to learn what it's like to bring a
knife to a nuclear war.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow! Rephrased!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 12:40 AM EST
The message is this (rephrased by me - Pugs) -- "Do not, under any
circumstances, ever mess with us. We will destroy you, and dance on your
grave."

Unfortunately, that's NOT the message. The message is as would be delivered
by Tony Soprano having a bad day.

I intended to put in a language alert, but it's late and I forgot. Sorry. But
read
the PDFs and tell me that the original was wrong...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SOX retrospective ?
Authored by: starsky on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 12:42 AM EST
I don't think that documents predating SOX are subject to the restrictions. If
that is the case, then most of the documents requested are pre sox, and not a
problem.

Can anyone confirm ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

If this were a comic book...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 01:08 AM EST
This would be the latest issue of "The Incredible IBM". The front
cover blurbs would be "vs the Savage SCOrpions of Slime!" and
"Only ONE shall survive!".

Page one would reveal 'Carl McBribe', the lead SCOrpion of Slime, standing
triumphantly on the unconscious body of a lawman when someone taps him on the
shoulder...

"Two words...", says a gruff, unseen voice.

Turn the the page for a double-page spread featuring the hulking, Incredible IBM
about to bring the double-hammers of justice down on McBribe's head...

"IBM SMAAAASSHH!"

Sorry, I get carried away sometimes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 01:31 AM EST
They as officers of the court would be duty bound to take positive action to
ensure that justice is served. In the stipulated case I imagine the appropriate
response would be to involve the AG. An additional beauty would be that the
record from the court would be used on face value.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PDF to Text
Authored by: sjlilley on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 01:43 AM EST
Skimming through the comments I can't see any claims on doing this work. I
trust some of you will already be on with this, but I'd like to help.

Has anyone claimed the Microsoft document yet? If not I'll get it done tonight.

---
Steven J Lilley

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas or a Bad Day for Monopoly
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 02:05 AM EST
.
.
1. The dreaded day has arrived. What bad timing with the EU threatening to
fine the Monopoly and force some action! What could this do to stock trading?


2. This case was never going to be about lil' ole SCO v. IBM. It is about THE
MONOPOLY and sco v. IBM. Has anyone noticed that there is a pit bull attached to
the giants thigh?

3. M$ will move for protective orders. They will have to argue to the judge
that their financing is irrelevant. They will also have to say they didn't
check the code. They relied on SCO. Linux Strategy?! How will they explain a
little part of that strategy that calls for indemnification due to risky code?
ON what basis? Can they cite an example of LInux code that needed
indemnification? There are too many goodies to mention in this little package.
M$ will stonewall. They ought to just move to intervene since SCO is pulling
their pants down. If they don't get offensive, things could get much worse.
Clarity is the enemy of FUD.

4. Maybe SCO will get that delay as one or another party is joined. If we are
going to have to do all this work with subpoenas and depositions, we might as
well make it count and put a pot o" gold at the end of the 'bow. There's a
new virus out there. People sit down at their computers, sneeze, and realize
that trusted computing does not include M$.

---
webster
-----------Free China

[ Reply to This | # ]

No matter how quietly..
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 02:43 AM EST
skeleton creep about in their closets, they always rattle.

IBM has been litigating longer than almost everybody who is involved, or has
even heard about this case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fishin' slack
Authored by: lsmft on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 02:47 AM EST
I often wondered why IBM had not worked harder to have this farce dropped long
ago, here's one thought. Based on the long trail of "creative
storytelling" in this case some SCO execs may shortly be in some very hot
water. If the real target of IBM was not SCO but the people behind SCO then
perhaps they "allowed" this all to occur to get the SCO exes in so
deep that they will be forced to cut a deal to save their own skins that
includes pointing their fingers at a rather large Seattle based company. (my
theory is a little shakey in that Microsoft is also a large chip customer of
IBM, oh well)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Should we volunteer information to IBM??
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 03:54 AM EST
As a contractor/consultant who designed several key hardware components and
unix device drivers for a company's particulare product line. That product line
and division which was subsequently purchased by SUN. Naturally, during
development I had access to several versions of SVRx unix code during
developement.

Would that classify me as a representative of SUN?

I.E. Under "documents to be produced".

"10. The identity of and contact information for all representatives of
Sun who have had access to and worked with or developed UNIX source code, and
the other projects/products on which they have worked. "


If yes, should 3rd parties I.E. "Contractors/consultants" contact IBM
and supply the info anyway? I.E. Just in case SUN doesn't ante up all of the
documents? Whom should we contact and how?

If no, why did IBM leave so much weasel room and use the term
"representatives"?

Note: To date I've not submitted any contributions to Linux. Hopefully that will
change in the near future. (post SCOG)..

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM forgot to mention European companies ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 04:38 AM EST
... because there were lots of companies developing their own UNIX derivatives.
I started my career as a UNIX trainer in 1989, and my company switched around
this time from a BSD based UNIX to an ATT based UNIX derivative. My company also
had a big UNIX development department.
The training department also offered a highly successful training on the UNIX
kernel and concepts back then (I think it was the only training available on
this topic worldwide), discussing all the methods and concepts. The trainer of
the course had to have access to the (ATT) sourcecode, too.
Also an american book was published in the early ninties called "The
magical garden explained". It also explained methods and concepts of ATT
UNIX together with snippets of pseudocode. A higly informative book, maybe it is
still around in some library.
So I suppose the cat was out of the bag (is this correct?) long before TSCO even
existed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Everyone's Internet?
Authored by: marbux on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 04:44 AM EST
Sounds like the Nazgul have at least a sniff that the well publicized SCO license to continue running the Linux servers at Everyone's Internet might have been paid for by Pipe Fairy too. Any other reason that topic would be addressed in the Microsoft subpoena?

---
Retired lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'll believe when I see
Authored by: grouch on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 04:49 AM EST
Not to throw cold water on the party, but I expect the wicked Beast from the
Northwest to delay, obfuscate, deny and lie. Microsoft is very likely to delay
as long as possible with arguments opposing any and all document demands. I
expect them to deny the ability to produce documents or the existence of
documents as long as possible. If cornered, I expect them to produce piles of
irrelevant documents to hide the relevant ones. I expect them to flat-out lie
about some of them and attempt to seal everything.

The Nazgul will earn a place in history if they can dredge any significant truth
out of that cesspool.


---
-- grouch

http://edge-op.org/links1.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun and HP
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 05:03 AM EST
I recall that SCO and/or it's attorneys (and I am not sure who) stated that Sun
and HP were fully in complicance with their Unix licences, and as such there was
no need to sue them. (Of course, we were amused at that, as Sun had just dropped
some 10s of millions of dollars into SCOx's coffers).

So IBM is going to them and asking what their licences are, and what steps they
took.

If there is no difference, or IBM took greater pains to abide by the terms of
the licence, goodbye license compliance complaints.

PeteS
[not logged in]

[ Reply to This | # ]

In Dave Marriott's shoes, I would have specified a little earlier than 28th June, 2002.
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 05:49 AM EST
In case any such communications occurred *shortly before* Darl became CEO.

But that's just me.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 05:57 AM EST
Ahh, the sound of shredders are heard from the Evergreen state.
You can bet Microsoft no longer has those emails due to a long standing policy
of not keeping incriminating evidence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Defendent or untimely?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 06:08 AM EST

Plaintiff IBM's Notice of Service of Subpoenas Duces Tecum - yes, plaintiff for the countercharge...oops, I meant counterclaims

Yet...

Here, from Groklaw's IBM Timeline page, is the schedule:

27-Jan-06 - Close of All Fact Discovery Except As to Defenses to Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material

17-Mar-06 - Close of All Remaining Discovery (i.e., Fact Discovery As to Defenses to Any Claim Relating to Allegedly Misused Material)

So, in order to be timely, this discovery must be "As to Defenses to Any Claim Relating to Allegedly Misused Material". So, surely either IBM is the Defendent, or this discovery is no longer timely. I'd prefer the Defendent option, but, reading those subpoenas, the timeliness of some of the topics is worrisome.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 06:17 AM EST
IBM gathers more competitive intelligence than any other IT organization on the
planet.

IBM can be incredibly patient, and doesn't forget past wrongs.

These subpoenas are just the entree on the path to the much bigger meals ahead
when IBM's final target moves squarely into the cross-hairs.

Many were surprised in recent times when Bill Gates stated that IBM is
Microsoft's major competitive threat. However on that point, Bill Gates has
indeed got the facts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh to be a fly
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 07:43 AM EST
I would officially like to submit my application to be a fly on the wall in all
four of these depositions. I don't see any of them being "easy"
(except for maybe Sun).

If I were SCO, I would be quaking in my boots right about now. In fact it would
not surprise me if SCO's awesome law firm to start making noise saying all of
this is unfair, and whining that this is their case and IBM should not be
allowed to do this kind of thing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas HP... 12. All documents concerning...
Authored by: justjeff on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 08:01 AM EST
12. All documents concerning any efforts to ensure or maintain the secrecy or confidentiality of any UNIX source code

Way back when, I was working for a company that did a lot of business with HP. At the time, HP had just introduced HP-UX, its version of Unix which ran on its proprietary hardware. I was a Unix fan, and talked to HP employees about it often.

I don't recall what prompted it, but one day, one of the guys I knew showed up at my office with a tape. It was the source code for a no-longer-current version of HP-UX. He thought it might help with whatever we had been discussing.

As I recall, the source tape was unsolicited (though I might have mentioned an interest), and was marked with HP copyright notices. I did look at some files, but don't recall any details.

This was in the mid 80s. It was a different climate, and HP was, apparently, not quite so concerned as they might be today.


[Disclaimer: Before any of you lawyers get too excited, this happened twenty years ago, was informal, undocumented, I do not recall the precise circumstances, I did not sign anything at all, and I believe that I do not even have the tape any more.]

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 08:06 AM EST
What about Linda Gates or the Gates Foundation or other family members investing
in Baystar to indirectly fund SCO?


Yoda1

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Hold Onto Your Wigs And Keys!"
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 08:08 AM EST
Hey, everybody!

Okay, I read that last night before bed, and the thoughts actually interfered
with my dreams. So here we go at the start of the day.

The big question to pop into my mind is, did IBM do this to shake everybody up,
or is there actually blood in the water. A lot of this stuff (Baystar) is not
exactly an open secret, just an unpublicized one. This can't be a surprise to
the parties involved. Do you think IBM has some angle they are exploiting,
something that can get past any legal defenses M$ and company put up, or was
this just to give SCO the night sweats?

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

"You're getting in a fight that ain't so groovy,
"Has you screaming in the night, 'Let me out of this cheap B movie!'"
--Queen
"Headlong"

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Why not Groklaw?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 08:33 AM EST
Given that SCOG has mentioned Groklaw in one of their subpoenas could IBM not
use a subpoena to get all the work done here in front of the court?
You can tell IANAL.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The sound you are hearing...
Authored by: saltydogmn on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 08:35 AM EST
...is hundreds of paper shredders in Lindon, UT, and Redmond, WA, working
overtime.


It's also the sound of tens of thousands of penguinistas engaged in vigorous
hand-wringing. ;-)

I'll bring the popcorn, AND the Molson Ice.

[ Reply to This | # ]

On MS shreading it's emails
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 08:37 AM EST
There is a lot of discussion here today about MS shreading it's emails. Here's what it might leaad to, Morgan Stanley offers $15m to make up for missing emails. One can only hope.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who killed IE for Unix?
Authored by: Limulus on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 08:47 AM EST
Microsoft getting a subpoena to produce info on Unix-related matters piqued my interest; did you know that Microsoft had ported Internet Explorer 4 and 5 to Unix? (and also Outlook and their Media Player, as I recall). I only found that out fairly recently and since there was no Wikipedia page for it I made one: Internet Explorer for Unix

The curious thing was not so much that Microsoft made one in the first place (they did it to undermine Netscape), but rather, what happened to it. One day in the third quarter of 2002 it was there and the next day it wasn't.

I'm wondering if maybe some light will be shed on what really happened and why... If anyone here happens to know, please post it or update the Wikipedia page, thanks! :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Digital Alpha 64-bit processor
Authored by: IMANAL on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 08:53 AM EST
In 1994 Digital (aka DEC) donated a computer with a Digital Alpha 64-bit processor to Linus Torvalds in an attempt to boost the sales of that computer. John "maddog" Hall wrote much of that 64-bit code on behalf of Digital as described in his nice article from 1999.

Digital was later bought by Compaq and recently Compaq was bought by Hewlett-Packard (aka HP). Does that mean that HP 'inherited' the contributions to Linux made by DEC?

As a side note one may note that IBM asked HP for which contributions it has made to open source, albeit based on UNIX.



---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's control of Microsoft's UNIX derived code
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 09:06 AM EST
It will be interesting to see if Microsoft agreed to allow AT&T, it's
successors in interest *and/or* SCOG to have control over code they derived from
UNIX in these contracts.

Scott

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why ask Sun, MS for communications with SCO?
Authored by: bobyrne on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 09:18 AM EST
I thought it was normal that you should not ask a third party (such as MS or
Sun) for information that could be supplied by one of the parties to the case.

Why, then, does IBM ask these third parties for their records of communications
with SCO instead of asking SCO directly?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Authored by: tredman on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 09:31 AM EST
This latest IBM endeavor shows a great deal of focus and intent on IBM's part.
They've probably had these documents prepared for some time now, and have just
been waiting for SCOX's discovery period to end and their turn to begin.

I think it is also a healthy dose of karma. When I first read the subpoenas, I
noticed that all of them asked for everybody who had access to UNIX source code.
With HP and Sun, this is most definitely a TON of people. I kept thinking that
it sounded overly broad to me, but then I began to grin. IBM is just hoping
that SCOX and others make some kind of comment about an overbroad request, to
which IBM is going to answer with reams and reams of motion practice, all
authored by BSF, to back them up.

Precedence can be an ugly thing, particularly when it backfires in your face.

---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE

[ Reply to This | # ]

A smarter question for IBM to ask
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 09:37 AM EST
Since IBM is asking for communcition from the companies to SCO when McBride took
over the CEO spot, I think another question for IBM to ask is what converstions
/ emails did you have with McBride before he took over the top spot?
Me thinks that this was planned from the start.
BTW how did McBridge get the top spot?
Are those records open to be looked at?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why are the subpoenas slightly different?
Authored by: Mike Hirst on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 09:54 AM EST
The differences between the three for Sun, HP and Microsoft are interesting.

In Exhibit A (HP) they ask for information of "open sourcing" and the
"origin" of openly disclosed or open sourced code.

In Exhibit C (Microsoft) they appear to only ask for the origin of code, not the
code itself. Was this an oversight?

In Exhibit D (Sun) they ask for both, as in Exhibit A. Additionally they ask for
"Involvement in the development of Linux". Why was this not also asked
of HP, given the SGI memory allocater code submitted by HP?

Linux is not listed in the definitions section as it is for the Microsoft
subpoena. Again, was this an oversight? Does it matter from a legal standpoint?

One last thing, why is the term "open sourced" not defined
specifically, as terms for "document", "communication" etc
are? Does this not give a way to weasel out of diclosure e.g. Sun saying CDDL
does not equate to open source so we will therefore disregard any possible links
there.

First Post - after years of lurking!

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Authored by: greybeard on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 10:30 AM EST
I would hate to be the person(s) responsible for HP's reply. They likely have
records of their own involvement that can be unearthed. However, they are
entangled with all of their purchases over the past few years. In acquiring
Compaq, they subsumed the licensing history of Digital, Compaq and Tandem. It
may not be easy to find the bodies as, at least in the case of Tandem's UNIX
(and other) licensing, the Compaq legal storm troopers showed up after the
purchase and removed all of our (Tandem's) records of contracts and other
legalities. It was a real misery to try to keep up with royalties and deadlines
when all of the the governing documents were "disappeared" into some
Compaq empire builder's domain. No doubt they did pretty much the same thing to
Digital's files, which would have been orders of magnitude more complex than
Tandem's. Since no one in Compaq had any of the history (or cared)and given
that software was a dirty word in Compaq generally, there is no telling what
happened to the records.

One reason that I have always assumed that IBM is completely clean with respect
to derivative works is that we (Tandem) had a similar heartburn over the UNIX
source licenses. (SVR2 and particularly, SVR3) We were doing some interesting
work with the source to produce a version of UNIX suitable for a new fault
tolerant system and did not fancy giving the source code or IP back to AT&T.
(At the time both AT&T and the industry still thought of AT&T as a
competitor in the systems business) It took several months to eventually get
the sort of side letter that acknowledged the interpretation of derivative works
that IBM has deposed from former AT&T licensing managers. The short of it
was that we had a piece of paper that said, in effect, that what we create is
ours even though it is embedded in the SVR3 source and object. If little ol'
Tandem saw this and obtained satisfaction it is a certainty that the massive
legal power of IBM did the same or better.

Curiouser and curiouser.

---
-greybeard-

[ Reply to This | # ]

GPL has a mutuallly assured destruction?
Authored by: IMANAL on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 11:16 AM EST
Thanks to a link provided by "Brian S." here I found the following snippet I have never seen discussed before:

"because the GPL license has a mutually assured destruction clause in section 7,
if anyone is sued over a patent infringement, no one is licensed under the GPL
to ship GPL-ed products."
"


In the article it is said that Bruce Perens disputes the validity. But still... That seems to be a time bomb. Counterstrike for real, or not? Any GPL savvies?



---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

PIPE Fairy encore
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 11:19 AM EST
I think that IBM should put more effort into investigating the second coming of
the PIPE Fairy. IBM has subpoenaed Microsoft and SCO. I think that IBM should
also subpoena Krevlin, some Caiman Island banks, et al.

------------------
Steve Stites

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Agreed... (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 05:51 PM EST
Pauline Jones?
Authored by: finman on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 11:35 AM EST
c|net has posted an article, and refers to PJ as Pauline Jones. c|net Story

---
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are." Pigkiller, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is overbroad
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 11:36 AM EST
So, we have seen that IBM has asked each of these three (HP, Sun, M$) to come up
with a list of all people that have had access to UNIX source code.

This brings to mind two questions:

1) What is going to happen when each comes back and says "This is an
overbroad request, it could be literally thousands of people".

2) Why didn't IBM ask: "What instruction did you receive from AT&T,
Novell, Santa Cruz, Tarentella or SCOG about protection of this source code?
And did you place authorization procedures in order to limit access to this
source code?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 11:47 AM EST
Just a short note... Has anyone already mentioned that M$'s Xenix was a direct ancestor of oldSCO's Unix and thus M$ has been in the know about Unix since the early 80's?

Just a curious side note...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Possible red herring?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 12:27 PM EST
What if IBM doesn't really want this, or doesn't want it very badly? What if
the real point is to get SCO to drop their inquiries into Intel, Oracle, and the
Open Group?

My reasoning is as follows: IBM is going to have a bit of a hard time (not
impossible, just hard) telling the court, "SCO sent the subpoenas too late,
they are overbroad, and they are irrelevant. But we, on the other hand, are
seeking things that are actually relevant, and our subpoenas are not too
late." Granted, IBM's requests are actually more relevant than SCO's. But
IBM, by filing these, is blurring the line, and actually hurting their case for
blocking SCO's subpoenas.

But what IBM has done is place SCO in an either/or position: Either IBM gets
their subpoenas, and SCO gets theirs, or neither side gets the subpoenas. I
think it's going to be hard for the courts to say yes to IBM but no to SCO on
this. So IBM may really be saying, "SCO, you don't really want to go after
Intel, Oracle, and the Open Group. Let it die. And we'll stick to the court's
schedule. Otherwise, really bad things may happen to your case."

IANAL, and even more to the point, IBM hasn't told me that this is really what
they're up to...

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Transcripts
Authored by: aj on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 12:33 PM EST
I've sent PJ IBM-630 and pages 1-7 of IBM-630A.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unix Source at Sun
Authored by: rweiler on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 12:40 PM EST
I worked for Sun from 1988 to 1997. Any software developer could get read access
to the Unix source anytime they wanted to, probably most non-developers could to
if they wanted to. Most of the released versions were NFS mountable via the
automounter. CD to the right directory, and viola!, the source was there. You
had to sign a piece of paper when you joined that you would keep Sun's source
and any source that Sun licensed from a third party confidential, pretty much
the same agreement as anywhere else. I suspect that what IBM wants to show is
that their treatment of Unix source wasn't different from industry standard, and
as near as I can tell, it wasn't.


---
Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from
being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush

[ Reply to This | # ]

PIPE fairy
Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 12:46 PM EST
> Yoo hoo. PIPE Fairy. Hope you like sunshine.

Of course she does.
That's why she sepnds so much time in the Bahamas,
the Cayman Islands and Barbados.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 01:12 PM EST
Interesting Timeline ...

Oct 2003: BayStar Capital invests in SCO to the tune of $50 million.

July 2003: Sun Microsystems and SCO sign a deal that gives Sun increased rights over its own Unix variant.

May 19 2003: Microsoft buys a Unix license from SCO.

May 2003: SCO requests the destruction of .. documents .. relating to an out of court settlement between Caldera (now SCO) and Microsoft.

Jan 2003: SCO retaines David Boies.

Aug 2002: Caldera announces that they're changing their name to the SCO Group ..

June 2002: Darl McBride hired on as CEO of SCO formerly Caldera.

Aug 2000: Caldera acquires the Santa Cruz Unix division. Loan guarantees provided by the Canopy Group.

Jan 2000: Caldera settles lawsuit with Microsoft.

The gangs's all here .. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whither RBC?
Authored by: rweiler on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 01:27 PM EST
I'm surprised that IBM didn't subpeona RBC regarding the source of the funds
that they invested in SCO. Perhaps that subpeona has been issued in Canada? I'd
be really surprised if the money went in one hope from Microsoft to RBC to SCO,
so a subpeona to Microsoft probably isn't sufficient.


---
Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from
being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does this include me?
Authored by: mlwmohawk on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 01:57 PM EST
I worked for Sytron Corporation in the '80s, we were a tape backup software
house. Myself and a coworker were at Microsoft for about a week.

While we were there, we were encouraged to look around at the vast Microsoft
network. Our host was quite pleased with how cool Microsoft was.

On on server we noticed the source code to various UNIX packages. (This was
before Linux and BSD Lite). My coworker copied tons of source on to 1.20M
floppies.

The list of those who have had access to UNIX source is VERY large. At some
point, no matter how many NDAs get signed, when a "secret" is known by
virtually everyone who cares, it can't be called a secret.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 07:30 PM EST
New version of Microsoft Windows due later this year: Vista "PIPE
Fairy" Edition ! ! ! Operates only prior to release of other versions --
then terminates after FUD is exhaused...............

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Authored by: Viv on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 08:33 PM EST
well it seems clear that only one of the parties actually understood that
during discovery you only ask for what you know the other party actually has
as incriminating evidence!

SCO's marvelous attorneys having struck lucky once with an incriminating
email in a previous high level case obviously thought this is how the game is
played, IBM's attorneys on the other hand were only too happy to give them a
sea of paper to paddle around in for the whole of the discovery period.

Now they are going to find out how the game is really played and what it
means when you do not know what's in the other guys filing cabinet.

Viv

---
Is it me or what!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Not sure - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 08:44 PM EST
As a former HP-UX engineer...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 10:45 PM EST
Access to the source code was not very restricted. There were also no efforts,
outside of written notices buried in a stack, to make sure that copies of UNIX
source code didn't walk off with the hordes of employees they laid off.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Yes, but ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 11:56 PM EST
A possible explanation for the super-sloppy legal filings
Authored by: enigma_foundry on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 10:51 PM EST
The reason for these late sloppy filings by SCO is so they can have a whole
bunch of things that they can say they were unfairly denied, and use as the
basis of an appeal.

Now, with the sums of money that are involved here, I wouldn't put it past
Microsoft to bribe or otherwise bring unfair influence to bear on this case, and
they may be able to guide the appeals process to that certain judge that they
can influence, through blackmail, bribery or other means.

Microsoft has shown in their attempted browbeating of the European legal process
that they consider themselves above the law and that they will do anything to
maintain their monopoly on OS and office suite markets.

They will do anything.

Gates should be thrown in jail. Lose the key!

---
enigma_foundry

Ask the right questions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What a difference two years makes
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 11:37 PM EST


I hear a lot of cheering - the Nazgul are winning.

But what were we saying two years ago? Many of us, myself included were
wondering if they were sleeping at their desks. Many of us wondered if they even
stood a chance against the Bois Schiller megamachine!

PJ warned us many times that court cases move at their own speed - in our
impatience many of us would have had Todd Shaughnessy firing motions at TSCOG
like Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner fires bullets.

Instead they've been building a defense that looks rock solid, embarassed the
oposition, and in general looked like the sort of lawyers you'd be a fool not to
hire.

I think that we owe the Nazgul an apology, and they have mine.


---
Wayne

http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's a 2-pronged attack
Authored by: Hop on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 12:53 AM EST
One prong will be trying to show that IBM wasn't doing anything differently than
everyone else, yet IBM was singled out by SCO as violating their license, while
everyone else was in compliance. The targets of this attack are primarily HP and
Sun, with maybe a little MS. IBM may also use this information to show that Sun
and Microsoft did not need to pay for anything extra, so what was that $25
million really for?

The other prong is the Microsoft/Baystar finance angle. IBM is likely trying to
show that the money from Baystar and RBC came from or was prompted by MS.

As for why now... SCO's story of what's going on should be complete. Now, IBM
is going to see if the other players have matching stories. Remember all of the
discovery that IBM provided SCO? I'm betting IBM hopes that SCO will be so busy
with that mountain of data that they will have no time to synch lies with the
rest of the players before the depositions take place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Subpoena to SCO is missing...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 04:16 AM EST
SCO itself was in a premier position apply methods, concepts, headerfiles,
tradesecrets et.al. found in UNIX to LINUX as they had access to the UNIX and
LINUX source code and were active in developing and distributing both.
I think SCO would have a hard time to prove that no communication whatsoever
between both groups of developers took place.
I would suggest that IBM asks for any email, documents, meeting minutes etc.
between SCO's UNIX and LINUX developers covering development topics ....

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM had a Linux code policy in place already in 1999
Authored by: IMANAL on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 05:24 AM EST
From an interview with IBM developer in 2002, about a year before the SCO lawsuit:

"When we had done the so called patch for 390, as I already told this morning, I had a talk with Linus Torvalds about it. I think it was early November 1999, I had an appointment with Linus Torvalds and my key engineer Boas Betzler and Boas wanted to show Linus what this patch was all about, so that he could read into it a little bit and give us advices, on how to do it differently or whatever, right?

I had made this appointment. When our lawyers got hold of the fact that I wanted to show running Linux kernel, including our patch to Linus Torvalds they all of sudden got this idea: "What the hell are you doing? You are doing a distribution". I had no idea what a distribution is and I had not the feeling that I was distributing anything when I showed it to Linus Torvalds but I learned about those legal effects later.

Nevertheless, they said "You can not do this".
"

I repeat, that interview took place one year before SCO's lawsuit. I wonder if the subpoenad parties have had it for so long, too? IIRC, at least Microsoft have had a strict "don't-ever-look-at-GPL-code" policy.

---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

7 Degrees of Separation...
Authored by: NicholasDonovan on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 08:22 AM EST
I've maintained for some time that a certain large
software company had a hand in all these shenanigans
to cast FUD onto Linux.

Ironically enough if you do a little research, look
for a gentleman by the name of Roger B. MacNamee
for a SCO -> Microsoft connection via Silver Lake
Partners, of which Bill Gates is a shareholder.

Oddly enough the whole 'paid-for-opinion' & 'write-&-run'
experts at Gartner are tied in Via Mr. MacNamee as well.

Buy some popcorn. If IBM's attorney's do their job,
this should be fun to watch.


Nick




---
Not an Attorney.
Views expressed are my personal opinions and not necessarily those of my
employer or its affiliates.

[ 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 )