|
SCO's Motion to Depose Denied; Motion to Compel Denied w/o Prejudice - Updated 5 |
|
Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:26 PM EST
|
First word from the courthouse on today's hearing. Chris Brown was there and is driving home, after which he'll amplify, as will others, I anticipate: SCO lost on both the motion to compel and to
take the depositions.
However on the motion to compel it was without prejudice to refile.
Judge Wells was VERY emphatic in her denial of SCO's motion on the depositions.
I will write more when I get home.
The hearing was 2 hours long. More now from Chris, who made it home safely. And then we have a second witness, Justin Findlay, who also attended and has had time now to type up his notes. And now a third.
Chris reports: Pamela,
Appearing for IBM was Todd Shaughnessy and Gregory Curtis. For SCO was
Brent Hatch, Mark James, and sitting at their table, Darl McBride.
Intel's Anthony Marks also appeared.
Judge Wells held a sidebar at the beginning to discuss a future order
and hearing not associated with today's topics.
Brent Hatch started out talking about the request to take the
depositions of Intel, Oracle, and The Open Group. Judge Wells brought
up her October 12, 2005 order and said that depositions MUST be
completed by the cutoff date. That any that cannot be taken by that
date must be forgone. Brent stated that they properly noticed the
depositions before the cutoff date and that they were not taken for
reasons outside his, or his client's, control. That the problems were
caused by third parties. Judge Wells asked if the subpeonas were
defective in some manner. Hatch: "Yes, they were". Judge Wells asked
when they were corrected and Brent replied the day before. He said that
these third parties were aware of Judge Wells' October 12th order and
were using a strict interpretation of it to delay the depositions such
that they don't have to be done.
Judge Wells asks "How can you interpret my order in any other way than
how it was phrased?"
Brent goes on to, essentially, explain how. He described Intel's
"complaining" about technical problems with the subpoenas but that they
were aware of the deposition subject since January 12th (15 days before
the deadline). That they had adequate notice. Judge Wells said that if
she were to accept Brent's argument then court orders would have no meaning.
Brent points out that Intel (based on Intel's motion) indicated they
were aware of SCO's attempts in this matter since November. Wells asks
"Did you say you were aware of your desire to depose Intel since
November?". Brent answers "Yes". Judge Wells follows up with something
to the effect that if SCO was aware since November they should have had
enough time to properly notice them. Brent replied that they did
(referring to the Jan. 12th notice).
Todd Shaughnessy for IBM provides a summary of the defects in the
subpoenas SCO sent Intel, Oracle, and The Open Group. He says SCO
acknowledges they did not serve proper subpoenas until the afternoon of
Jan 26th for a 9 am deposition with document production and one, or a
series, of 30(b)(6) witnesses. Anyone would hold that to be insufficient
notice. He says he cannot speak for Intel, Oracle, or The Open Group.
He then goes into details of the subpoena defects.
With no objection from Todd or Brent, Intel's attorney Anthony Marks
addresses Judge Wells.
Anthony Marks says that SCO asserts some kind of wrongdoing by Intel.
He says that Intel takes its reputation as a good corporate citizen
very seriously and felt compelled to appear before Judge Wells. He
provides a timeline to Judge Wells and points out that Intel was not
noticed of the depositions until the day before they were to be taken.
He said Intel estimated 3 to 9 30(b)(6)individuals would be required. He
disputed SCO's "45 day" figure they claim Intel had been aware of the
subpoena. Mr. Marks personally handled it and said that subpoena in
November was for a different subject, for specific documents, which
Intel responded to 45 days or more ago. He says that SCO's assertions
"were offensive to (him)."
Brent Hatch responds. In discussing the timeline he mostly repeats
his earlier assertions about adequate notice. He quotes from
Kuperics case where "lawyers messed up big" but
eventually served the subpoena 15 minutes *after* depo time. The court
found it sufficient because the deponent was fully aware of the depo
time. That there had been no change in the date and had time to
prepare. In the present case, Intel knew the topics as early as the
12th or 13th of January.
Judge Wells rules from the bench: The subpoena of January 12th
provided inadequate notice or time. She finds the January 12th subpoena
was defective in both substance and service. That even had it not been
defective it provided inadequate notice and time. SCO's motion is
denied. Her October 12th orders were clear, not subject to unilateral
decisions to violate. Todd Shaughnessy is to prepare the order. Zounds. Not subject to unilateral decisions to violate. She's caught on, I see. More on the second matter shortly.
2nd Update: This is the headline for today, methinks. I hear from Chris that Judge Wells told Darl to be quiet!! He was there, and he was talking to one of SCO's lawyers. Here's what Chris told me: Shortly into the second portion of the hearing, while Darl was busy
Googling and talking to Mark James, Judge Wells asked him to be quiet,
that she knows he wants to talk (presumedly to Mark James), but to just
pay attention.
Darl spent most of the hearing, while sitting between Brent Hatch and
Mark James, Googling and looking at documents.
: )
I am speechless.
: D hahahahahaha
Oh, my, oh, my. I can't breathe. I did ask if Chris could see what Darl was Googling about, but he huffily if jokingly told me that he doesn't sit on *that* side of the room, so he couldn't see. And with that, I'll go finish working on the rest of Chris's report, on the second motion. Like any of us can pay attention now.
3rd Update:
Here's Chris's report on the second motion, the Motion to Compel:
Judge Wells moved onto SCO's Motion to Compel. She asked SCO's Mark
James to address IBM's recent document production and how it affects
SCO's Motion to Compel. She asked him to address SCO's claim of IBM
having pre-1991 AIX source code in North Carolina. Judge Wells also
asked SCO if they have found, after all the discovery provided by IBM,
any evidence of source-code misappropriation by IBM or do they need more.
Mark James says that IBM's recent production of 340,000 documents are
still being reviewed. That it's difficult to say what has been mooted,
that a number of issues have beem mooted. More production is
forthcoming from IBM as well. SCO has identified some issues, some
items not satisfied, and have provided a list of them to IBM. Mark said
that "Yes, we *do* have evidence of source code misappropriation" but
said essentially that that doesn't mean that no more code production is
required.
Regarding Project Monteray, Mark says IBM claims they've given them
everything. SCO is still reviewing and after they do they might come
back and say some is missing.
With regard to the pre-2001 production, Mark says they addressed it on
page 6 of their reply memo. That SCO believes IBM's violations go back
to 1998. That if there are responsive Linux documents pre-2001, IBM
should produce them.
On AIX versions pre-1999 IBM says thay have produced all, but can't
find pre-1990 software. Their position is they've looked everywhere
that SCO and IBM have suggested they look.
Judge Wells asks if this hearing should be continued until SCO has had
the opportunity to review IBM production. Mark says, Yes. IBM's Todd
Shaughnessy respectfully asks that the Motion to Compel be denied, and
that he's prepared to address this in detail. Wells tells Mark James to
proceed.
Mark says they need IBM to provide someone to explain how they
interpret their AIX licenses because they are so similar to SCO's license.
Mark claimed that at a deposition of SCO's, with regard to the
"Chicago Seven", IBM's counsel limited the deposition topics and
instructed the deponent not to respond on topics outside IBM's list
Mark said that this was improper of IBM.
Judge Wells asks IBM's Todd Shaughnessy to address 1) IBM's alleging
much of SCO's motion is moot (in what way?); 2) is there any further
information IBM has that SCO or IBM would use at trial? She said she
doesn't want either opponent to use information at trial that they have
withheld. Is IBM prepared to provide an affidavit to that effect? 3)
Pertaining to old AIX/Dynix source code, do you have any? Are you
prepared to provide an affidavit? 4) Something else I forgot to write down.
Todd responds, discussing the financial information production. He says that
they spent four months, over 1,000 hours, collecting and providing to
SCO more than 23,000 pages with summaries, overviews, & supporting
information. IBM's Mr. Sandy spent over 300 hours preparing and spent a
full day with SCO's lawyers at deposition to explain and make sure they
understood the production. SCO says IBM provided too much information.
SCO asked, "How are they to interpret 23,000 pages?". IBM agreed to
allow SCO to depose Mr. Sandy for another day and explained it all
again. Todd says that IBM requested much the same information from SCO.
However what SCO provided on their deposition was a deponent who had
spent less than one hour talking to others (as opposed to Mr. Sandy's
several hundred). SCO's deponent's most common answer was "I dont'
know, ask 'X'." IBM asked him, "Did you ask 'X'?" to which he would
reply "No." SCO's deponent had only spoken with one other person to
prepare, as opposed to Mr. Sandy speaking with over 80 people.
Todd has been asking Mr. Normand repeatedly what items SCO is
missing. What items are the subject of today's hearing and Motion to
Compel? Mr. Normand kept saying, "I don't know." Todd didn't receive
notice of what they claim to be missing until this morning when he
received an email for four points. He said he was expecing to come to
the hearing today and be "sandbagged" with a bunch of items by SCO that
they didn't know about.
Judge Wells addressed how she has very little tolerence for poor
communications between counsel.
Todd goes on to explain production made in various categories,
addressing SCO's list. He told of IBM's efforts to find pre-1991 source
code. He explains that during one of SCO's depositions an IBM deponent
told of a mainframe computer in Texas that at one time had pre-1991
source code on it. When she was asked further about it she said she
doesn't know if any source code is still on it, but she believes the
hardware had been shipped to North Carolina. Todd explained how they'd
followed up on this, that people had said the source code had been
removed before the hardware had been shipped, but that even if the code
were left on it's disk, the equipement is so obsolete it couldn't be
retrieved.
Mark James responds. He discussed the 340,000 document production of
IBM's and how SCO hasn't finished reviewing it. That they don't know how
much of the Motion to Compel has been mooted. Wells asks about the four
items SCO identified to IBM and how SCO knows they haven't been mooted
by the production.
Mark James replies that they might be mooted, but SCO has done a
quick cut of the documents and right now don't believe they have been
addressed. Judge Wells asks, "How can I order IBM to produce documents
that they say they have produced?" I don't recall Mark's reply.
Judge Wells says they will recess while she deciedes how to address
the issue. Judge Wells returns from chambers about five minutes later.
She says that she will deny SCO's motion to compel without predjudice.
That SCO has 30 days to renew and MUST clearly and narrowly define
documents required. There are questions asked and Judge Wells further
clarifies that that applies to both the January production and the
currently pending motion to compel. 4th Update, Justin Findlay: Justin was also in attendance, and here's the first part of his report, with more as he finishes typing: I was unfortunately a train late and had two minutes to run from the
train station to the courthouse, so I came panting into the room where
Magistrate Wells was presiding right at 2:30. She had a party of
lawyers at the sidebar taking care of "housekeeping". It took me a
while to figure out how to take good notes on what was being said, so
I may have missed some important things and I apologise now to Misters
Hatch, Shaughnessy, Marks, and James and Magistrate Wells if I have
mischaracterized or misquoted what they have meant or said. I fear I
may have, judging from the cryptic and arcane fragments
and phrases I find strewn across the several pages of notes before me:
Brent O. Hatch:
Mr. Hatch began by arguing that the subpoenas served to Oracle and
Intel and the Open Group were properly served before the deadline on
January 27th.
Magistrate Wells:
In Magistrate Wells' first response she reminded Mr. Hatch of the
literal and emphatic reality of the deadline of discovery which the
court set on October 12th.
Hatch:
Mr. Hatch spoke about the third parties whom they had sent subpoenas
for deposition, etc. had ostensibly become unavailable in the matter
of SCO's discovery requests until after the deadline.
Wells:
Magistrate Wells asked when the subpoenas were served.
Hatch:
They were served on January 12th. Mr. Hatch made further argumentation
about the rigidity of Magistrate Wells' interpretation of the agreement
over the discovery deadline.
Wells:
Magistrate Wells responds by reading some of the language of said
agreement to the effect that any discovery activity not completed when
the deadline falls shall be forgone.
Hatch:
Mr. Hatch argued about the third parties avoiding discovery until the
deadline had drawn near or passed. SCO had served their subpoena to
Intel January 12th, or 15 days before the deadline.
Wells:
Magistrate Wells says that 30 days is needed for adequate response to a subpoena.
Hatch:
Mr. Hatch argues that in this district (the district of Utah) 10 days
is commonly accepted as reasonable. Intel had been working with SCO
in their discovery process since November on discovery related to that
which SCO is seeking from their present subpoena to Intel, and because
of this SCO didn't wait until the last minute on the discovery it
wants, but rather suffered the lack of due responsibility from third
parties and potentially IBM, supposing IBM might say: "SCO is asking
for so many extra depositions". IBM and 3rd parties are using
technical defects in SCO's service of subpoenas to thwart discovery.
Wells:
Magistrate Wells supposes that the court orders and rules are for no
other purpose than to be broken.
Hatch:
Mr. Hatch argues that there is always work to be done near the end of
discovery. Every lawyer will not have time to fully explore all
germane discovery. IBM has turned over a large amount of documents 2
days before the discovery cutoff. Some depositions cannot be done
until "late in the game" because during the course of discovery a
party may learn information upon which to base more discovery.
Todd M. Shaughnessy:
The documents IBM had provided to SCO were delivered before the document
request due date. SCO didn't properly serve subpoenas on third
parties since no correct subpoena was served until one day before the
discovery cutoff. Mr. Shaughnessy does not purport to represent
Oracle, Intel, et al. SCO's defects were not "technical defects" but
rather the worst kind of defects possible. Indeed, SCO's subpoenas
1) required nonspecific documents; 2) failed to include specific witnesses for deposition; would necessitate witnesses to travel 2000 miles to New York.
SCO chose not to follow rules. Subpoenas cannot be faxed but must be
served in person. You can't send a "flurry of faxes" to just anyone
within a company's legal department, as corporations have extablished
proceedures for such things. SCO did not conform to the rules of the
Northern District of California for the serving of subpoenas. SCO has
imposed an enormous burden on 3rd parties with their last minute
discovery.
Magistrate Wells formally requests both counsels whether Mr. Marks
representing Intel may present his arguments. No objections.
Anthony Marks: Mr. Marks says SCO's counsel has insinuated that Intel
has supposedly conspired in preventing SCO's sought discovery. Intel
endeavors to be a good "citizen corporation" and is a "fair litigant"
and therefore takes SCO's attributions and claims seriously. Intel
had not recieved an effective subpoena until the afternoon of January
26th. The document served to Intel contained six enumerated topics
each with several subsections. Three to nine employees would need to
be deposed. To properly address the issues more than ten employees
would have to be deposed. Intel had indeed been party to the case
earlier in which they provided SCO a "discrete" set of documents.
Wells: Magistrate Wells asks where Mr. Marks is located.
Marks:
Arizona. SCO has asked Intel for all documents Intel has related to
SCO and all documents related to IBM. The subpoena served (on the
26th) was not valid. There was no personal service (as it was faxed).
Intel had no obligation to respond to the subpoena as it was thus
invalid. Two weeks was not enough time to produce all that was
required of Intel to produce under the breadth of topics nominated and
SCO should have known. Nevertheless, Intel responded providing a
"forutious roadmap" against what SCO had hitherto erred in requiring.
Intel chose to spend money and legal resources on filing a brief to
make clear the incredibly onerous nature the production of all SCO
asks Intel for in the time appointed by the court.
Hatch:
Mr. Hatch again speaks about the matter of SCO's discovery at hand
being related to discovery SCO has been seeking since as early as
November 2004 and argues that SCO deserves, as IBM also deserves, to get
discovery late in the game since not all the discovery a party may
desire is known to that party at the beginning. Mr. Hatch then
produces a document related to a 1991 Cooperige(?) case where a the
court ruled a subpoena served 15 minutes after the time scheduled was
valid although the party served took counsel and rejected the subpoena
on technical grounds, yet in this (SCO v IBM) case Intel had ten days
or since the 12th or 13th of January at least. SCO had dealt with
Intel over these "very matters" 45 days earlier. Instead Intel
doesn't cooperate in good faith.
Wells:
Magistrate Wells rules on the subject of the subpoenas. The subpoenas
served on the 26th gave inadequate notice and time. Even were the
subpoenas served on the 12th not technically defective they would
have been inadequate so near the cutoff. Motion on depositions is
denied. October wording is clear that discovery not completed before
the cutoff must be forgone.
Mark F. James:
IBM has recently served SCO 340,000 documents. SCO is expecting additional documents from IBM. Recently
identified information SCO wants to be produced:
1. IBM Global Market View (I think)
2. FIW(-)C database for AIX
3. Service Tracker
4. Linux financial documents
Yes, SCO has found misappropriated source code. Mr. James mentions
something about filing something under seal. SCO is dilligently
reviewing the documents produced by IBM and has not found all that
they may want to know. IBM represents that they have produced all
documents on Monterey. Our contention is that IBM has arbitrarily set a
2001 deadline on the production of their documents related to
marketing and promoting Linux products and services when that activity
extends as far back as the 1998 time period. If IBM declares they
have produced everything related to pre 1991 AIX source and North
Carolina mainframes, then SCO will accept such declaration. SCO has
recieved 340,000 documents "late in the game".
Wells:
Magistrate Wells interrupts Mr. James here in order to inquire of the
counsels whether the hearing should be adjourned until the matter of
SCO's sifting through IBM's large document production is completed so
as to not waste anyone's time on conjecture.
Shaughnessy:
Mr. Shaughnessy believes that SCO's motion should be denied and
supposes SCO's motive in wanting to argue it is to buy more delay,
therefore Mr. Shaughnessy does not want the hearing adjourned.
James:
Mr. James wants IBM documents and depositions as to the corporation's
opinion on the language in AIX and Dynix licenses. Some language is
simmilar to SCO's license. How do they interpret the language?
Shaughnessy:
Mr. Shaughnessy replies that the language in the licenses should be
legally clear.
James:
The Chicago 7 were seven companies who conferenced in Chicago to
discuss Linux/SCO. Karen Smith of IBM unilaterally limited deposition
to exclude SCO's choice of deposition topics. SCO believes the
Chicago 7 is still an issue.
Wells:
How long will it take to complete discovery of documents IBM has
recently produced?
James:
A couple of weeks.
Wells: Neither IBM nor SCO can use information witheld from the other
side in the case. IBM was required to produce all versions and
changes to AIX and Dinyx source code. Magistrate Wells says something
about the North Carolina mainframe affair and pre-1991 AIX source
code.
Shaughnessy:
Mr. Shaughnessy begins by giving some background on the production of
their financial info which is the heart of the issue. IBM spent
months collecting documents. William Sandy (Sandve?), consultants, attorneys,
and eighty employees gathered information across multiple divisions
and gleaned information from financial databases. Over 1000 hours
were spent. IBM produced summaries, overviews, and background
information and detailed indicies. IBM produced Mr. Sandy for
deposition in order to explain what he had learned. Mr. Sandy who
spent 300 hours on this project appeared for deposition to walk SCO
counsel through the information. Mr. Sandy spent the whole day with
the SCO counsel. SCO counsel didn't seem interested and instead
talked with Mr. Sandy about other issues. SCO requests a second day
with Mr. Sandy. All of IBM's produced financial documents are in
electronic form. IBM has invested an extrordinary amount of time,
money, and resources. Mr. Shaughnessy then contrasts this effort to
SCO's production of financial information. SCO produces a Mr.
Hunsaker who had spent about an hour talking to a couple of people.
Mr. Sandy had spoken with eighty. Mr. Hunsaker's prevailing answer
was "I don't know".
Mr. Shaughnessy asked SCO counsel via email prior to this hearing why
the hearing is needed; what is missing from our production of
documents and witnesses? SCO counsel replies: "I don't know". Mr.
Shaughnessy is wary of being sandbagged at the hearing with issues he
is not aware of. The first time he learns about the four points Mr.
James presented was at 7:00 PM last night and again at 10:00 AM this
morning.
Wells:
Magistrate Wells has no patience for lack of communication between
counsels before coming to court.
Shaughnessy:
We don't need ambiguity to waste our time. We all have been very busy
with this case.
The motion to compel is just a placeholder so SCO can later decide
what they want produced. Pre-2001 Linux marketing documents are not
relevant. IBM * has* produced pre-2001 financial documents because
SCO has used some of that info in their arguments.
Pre-1991 AIX source code -
IBM produced CMVC and RCS database for Dynix. 400 employes and 4000
hours of work. The database begins at 1991. IBM has been exceedingly
thorough in searching for pre-1991 AIX code. By the time this case
was filed in 2003, pre-1991 AIX source code was obsolete and no longer
archived by IBM. There were no requirements or regulations for IBM to
keep the source of obsolete software. A data recovery center
typically holds customer data and is unlikely to store system source
code. Miss Tonks (Hanks?) understands that the mainframe computers which at
one time held source code for pre-1991 AIX in Austin were shipped to
Raleigh, North Carolina and to her best understanding didn't have any
AIX code stored on them. Even if they did, the hard disk drives are
unusable. Although IBM didn't survey every computer, person, closet,
and database in its 160 countries and 320,000 employees they tried
very hard to follow up.
Chicago 7 -
Mr. Shaughnessy mentions something about 2 30(b)(6). The Chicago 7
convened once and wasn't interested in SCO, just Linux. It's a "dead
letter". SCO concluded the deposition of Miss Smith regarding the
Chicago 7 and did not indicate they sought further deposition of her.
IBM can't produce witnesses for license agreements. It's vague and
amorphous and not a proper topic under 30(b)(6). Why does SCO make issues
of exteraneous contracts when IBM raised objection to SCO's pursuit of
licenses germane to the case and SCO abandoned? IBM doesn't keep a
list of customers who move to Linux from UNIX.
James:
We are dilligently reviewing the 340,000 documents and anticipate many
ares will be mooted. Mr. James wants to be able to address issues
that won't be mooted when review of the documents is complete. Mr.
James alludes to an aphorism of the Honorable (Ronald N.?) Boyce to
the effect that unless the burden of production exceeds the labor of
the Augean stables it is reasonable.
Wells:
The Honorable Boyce had a penchant for animal analogies.
James:
There is no point in saying "We have given you a great multitude of
documents, what need have you of more?" IBM needs to file an
affidavidt affirming that they have produced all they can.
Wells:
Why is this motion not a placeholder?
James:
The motion alludes to document requests months and over a year ago.
Wells:
We shall recess in order to decide how to address this issue....
The motion is denied without prejudice. SCO has 30 days to file a
renewed motion which clearly and narrowly defines areas not addressed
by documents already produced.
Our third witness: SCO vs IBM Hearing 24 FEB 2006
Rm 220 (Judge Kimball's chambers) 2:30 p.m.
Those present:
Judge Wells – presiding
IBM: Todd Shaughnessy; Gregory Curtis
SCO: Brent Hatch; Mark James; the darl
Intel: Anthony Marks
[personal observations noted in square brackets]
Hearing began with a sidebar approximately 3-4 minutes and included
laughter. Judge Wells explained that the sidebar covered some housekeeping
matters and discussed pending motions.
First part of hearing covered Motion regarding SCO's request to depose
Intel, Oracle, and the Open Group.
Hatch: Argued that SCO properly subpoenaed each company – and he was
seeking permission to take depositions.
Wells: October 12 order stated that discovery must be completed by cut off
date; if not completed must be foregone.
Hatch: Simple answer is that companies were properly notified. Since the
companies knew of cut off date, they only had to delay to avoid giving
depositions.
Wells: When were subpoenas served and were they defective?
Hatch: Yes.
Wells: When were proper subpoenas served – day prior to cut off?
Hatch: They knew that subpoenas were coming even though they were
defective.
Well: "...they must be foregone."
Hatch: Technical objections...Intel (3rd party) picked up on cut off date.
Notice was faxed to Intel January 12 (15 days before cut off). 10 days were
more than adequate.
Wells: If I accept that argument, orders have no effect.
Hatch: Why did we wait – certain depositions must be at the end of
discovery period. We recently received 340,000 boxes and have not completed
review.
Wells: SCO knew of cut off - not interested in 340,000 boxes (pages)
Hatch: We will be prejudiced if unable to take these
depositions – request to grant motion.
Shaughnessy: Why are we here? IBM documents were produced timely. SCO's
claim that companies were properly served is "not true" - not served until
the afternoon before cut off. They were required to produce documents and
witnesses. Notices were not remotely close to complying with the
rules; they did not identify who, what documents. Each subpoena failed in
each case. The North California subpoena (in violation to the 100 mile rule)
required the deposition be held in New York (2,000 miles away). Fax service,
however must be served personally. These are not technical defects. Service
was to legal departments – rules required that service be made on registered
agent. In California required to meet and confer. SCO made no effort to
comply. SCO had 2-1/2 years, and identified these firms more than a year
ago. SCO tried to impose burden on 3rd parties.
Marks: Intel tries to be a good corporate citizen and takes charges
seriously. Introduced timeline – not served until day prior to deposition.
Intel responded to SCO's fax. SCO then waited 5 days to serve a
still-defective subpoena. SCO's attorney told Intel about the deadline. Between 3 and 9 employees
would have to attend. Hatch's claim that 30-45 days notice were given is
"simply not true". Marks was from Arizona. These subpoenas looked as though
a recent law school grad prepared them.
Hatch: SCO only presented case law (Cooper): not in technical compliance.
According to Cooper only the notice date is important, not subpoena date.
Consequently notice was adequate, there was no date change, time to prepare,
topics were known. Intel's objections are not enough to stop depositions.
Wells: Prepared to rule: Inadequate notice, defective subpoenas, Wells
order was clear (...must be foregone) – MOTION DENIED
* * *
MOTION TO COMPEL
Wells: Answer the following questions:
1.
what specific items are needed?
2.
do you have evidence?
3.
if granted, how will schedule be affected?
4.
pre-1991 information from North Carolina
James: Filed motion 29 December – still reviewing information IBM provided, and
additional documents are coming. "Number of issues have been mooted" by
information provided, but questions still exist or may still exist – may
want to return to request that information – including Project Monterey.
Wells: Should hearing be continued?
James: Yes.
Shaughnessy: No.
Arguments continued --
James: IBM did not produce documents and witnesses; regarding AIX language
[something about copyrights in headers – similar in language in SCO's
headers – my question as I listened: how could they not be similar?]; something about 'the Chicago 7"
meeting – IBM produced a witness, but unilaterally limited scope of
questions. Should have complete review (of 340,000 documents) completed in a
"couple of weeks".
Wells: [Said something about not being concerned about
miscommunication between lawyers or didn't want to hear it
– it seemed to be directed to SCO].
Shaughnessy: IBM spent months collecting documents re: finances and
produced 23,000 pages with summaries and indicies. SCO spent one day in
deposing IBM's witness – didn't ask much about information provided. SCO
requested a second day – IBM allowed. SCO complained that there was too much
information and wasted a second day-long deposition. In contrast SCO's Mr.
Hunsaker (?) spent less than an hour preparing for his deposition and most
of his responses were "I don't know", you should really ask Mr. X. When asked
if he spoke to Mr. X, replied "No". IBM's witness (in preparation) spent 300
hours and talked to 80 people. Asked Mr. Normand what was required (by this
motion) replied that he didn't know. When asked what was missing replied "I
don't know". Finally, identified 4 databases in an email at 7:00 p.m. 23 February
2006. The first time that IBM was informed of the these 4 databases.
[As James rose to respond, I left for an appointment.]
|
|
Authored by: Sawdust Bytes on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:31 PM EST |
Please, make links clickable, if possible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Baystar: Restoring Shattered Dreams - Authored by: stats_for_all on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:51 PM EST
- Notice to person reposting offensive post - Authored by: PJ on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 08:43 PM EST
- Patents confer rights, but there should be no right to a patent - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:40 PM EST
- I'm an Old Novell Guy - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:43 PM EST
- CC - Authored by: Tufty on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:52 PM EST
- Explanation of terms - Authored by: leonpmu on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 07:47 AM EST
- Questions for Monday's Marketing Call - Authored by: stats_for_all on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 11:05 AM EST
- Of keyboards and cats - Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 11:36 AM EST
- Copy: The EU Commission - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:11 PM EST
- Sony DRM foreshadowing in 2000 - Authored by: raindog on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 01:54 PM EST
- Microsoft in Double Jeopardy Move from IBM??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 04:09 PM EST
- PJ, this thrice deleted post is back again! (n/t) - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 04:19 PM EST
- From Deseret articel - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 05:30 PM EST
|
Authored by: Sawdust Bytes on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:33 PM EST |
Please, place corrections here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- s/Darl McBride/Kevin McBride/ perhaps? - Authored by: jbb on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:55 PM EST
- s/Sandy/Sandve/ - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:21 PM EST
- s/beem/been/g - Authored by: RedBarchetta on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:28 PM EST
- Corrections - Authored by: jbb on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:11 AM EST
- expecing -> expecting - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 03:19 AM EST
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 07:50 AM EST
- s/Monteray/Monterey/ - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 09:17 AM EST
- s/recieve/receive/ - Authored by: BS on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 03:49 PM EST
- forutious => fortuitous - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 04:29 PM EST
- simmilar => similar - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 09:03 PM EST
- extablished => established - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 11:14 AM EST
|
Authored by: ProphetAl on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:33 PM EST |
Excellent news - thanks Chris and everyone else who made it on our behalf.
---
Comments are my thoughts only and not to be attributed to any other
organisation, individual or entity[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:35 PM EST |
Good. An expected and appreciated response!
Thank you, Chris for attending and providing early results!
...D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Sawdust Bytes on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:35 PM EST |
n/t [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:35 PM EST |
Thank you everyone who went and takes the time to report.
I can hardly wait for the reports to come in
---
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 | # ]
|
- Thank You Thread - Authored by: NastyGuns on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:36 PM EST
- Thank You, Thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:43 PM EST
- Yes thank you! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 08:04 PM EST
- Great idea for saying thank you... - Authored by: PSaltyDS on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:06 PM EST
- I'll seond that. - Authored by: morven24 on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:10 PM EST
- Yes, indeed - Authored by: Jude on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:37 PM EST
- My thanks also eom) - Authored by: Latesigner on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:52 PM EST
- Thank You Thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:08 AM EST
- Thanks to CHris & PJ - Authored by: froggie on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:08 AM EST
- Thank You Thread - Authored by: AllParadox on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:58 AM EST
- Count me in too! - Authored by: ofermod on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 01:45 AM EST
- hear hear (n/t) - Authored by: ile on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 03:14 AM EST
- Thank You Thread - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 11:44 AM EST
- Thank You Thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:44 PM EST
- Thank You Thread - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 01:11 PM EST
- Thank You Thread: Hall of fame - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 02:33 PM EST
- Thank You Thread - Authored by: 351-4V on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 11:03 PM EST
- Thank You Thread - Authored by: rc on Monday, February 27 2006 @ 11:54 PM EST
|
Authored by: darkonc on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 07:42 PM EST |
I was kinda hoping that she'd pull out a cluestick (in the form of some
imaginative sanctions) and beat them senseless with it.
OK. Maybe that was
something of a null statement... and a fantasy.
...but it was a good one
while it lasted. --- Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel
within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kaemaril on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 08:01 PM EST |
Isn't it about time the courts started cracking down on SCOs antics? How
about dismissal with prejudice? How about the judges stating in open
court that they believe SCO are gaming the system and won't tolerate
it?
It's not like SCO can pull the Microsoft defence, and claim the
judges were biased. Not successfully, anyway. No judge in their right mind could
(or should) take the crap SCO are trying.
When this is over, I
want to see disciplinary action. There's vigorous advocation and then there's
just taking the mickey. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ChrisP on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 08:57 PM EST |
" Zounds. Not subject to unilateral decisions to violate."
Is this message in lawyerspeak, containing meaning a non-lawyer like me wouldn't
catch on to?
---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 08:59 PM EST |
Based on the report of the first motion it didn't seem like it took two hours.
I'm very glad that Wells is now acting decisively. She has lately taken command
of her courtroom and control of this case.
---
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: Jude on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:02 PM EST |
Wells asks "Did you say you were aware of your desire to depose Intel since
November?".
Brent answers "Yes"
IANAL, but I'll bet there were LOTS
of better answers that Hatch could have
given without risking any
impropriety. I'll bet this was a big factor in Wells'
decision on this
motion.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:04 PM EST |
> Judge Wells asks "How can you interpret my order
> in any other way than how it was phrased?"
This is a pretty good question.
A Judge should give clear orders; it is a part of
his/her job. If SCO thinks that there was another, valid,
interpretation to the judge's order then they better
explain to her what she did wrong.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:14 PM EST |
On a list of categories of people you really really don't want to have annoyed
at you, judges come pretty high on the scale.
But, given their propensity for even-handedness, it can be pretty difficult to
do - outside of blatant contempt of court.
I don't know exactly how that phrase translates from lawyer-code into plain
English. But I'm fairly certain that it would include the words "be
afraid"![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:16 PM EST |
Hey everybody!
I'm glad I'm just typing this. It is very hard for me to form a coherent
sentence about this without a massive giggle fit.
I was hoping the judge would rule like this. IANAL, but seriously, ruling
otherwise could create a dangerous precedent, sending the rules of procedure
down the soil pipe. (Hmm...soil pipe, PIPE fairy...I get the feeling there's a
joke there, but I just can't focus on it right now.)
The fact that they admitted to knowing they wanted to do this in November is
where their chances of succeeding in their argument dwindled to the vanishing
point. Although, does this mean these motions are finished, or can they refile
or appeal? I'm guessing an appeal is out, since they have to prove the judge
violated the rules and she in fact reinforced them (I imagine IBM could have
appealed and won had she ruled the other way).
Can the judges PLEASE allow recording devices? I would LOVE to have these on
DVD.
I know I suggested a long time ago (and, IIRC, was pretty much dismissed as a
kook), that IBM might heap so much potential trouble on SCO (jail time, fines,
etc.) that SCO might flip and turn in evidence on who was behind the whole
scheme to begin with, especially now that IBM is chasing Baystar and others.
I'm starting to think this may happen yet.
I don't like to gamble. My friends know that I only bet money if I believe I
have a nearly guaranteed chance to win. Yesterday, I wouldn't have bet any
money on this case. Now, I'd be willing to bet my retirement account on it.
If this truly is the last attempt that SCO has, then great. That means there is
nothing they can do now to put off the inevitable. The light at the end of the
tunnel is an oncoming train. As Miguel O'Hara said in "Spider-Man
2099", "There's a train leaving town at noon. Be under it."
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger
"It's the power and glory, it's war in paradise,
"A Cinderella story on a tumble of the dice."
--Rush
"Big Money"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:18 PM EST |
Golly! Gadzooks! Crikey! Gosh! How could she stoop so low. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:28 PM EST |
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 06:59 PM
EST
If you serve them correctly, you have to ask the questions
If you
make a mess of them, Intel gets to tell the court what they think of your case
and you have to answer the questions.
Now what about
Oracle?
:)
That's my explanation and I'm sticking to
it.
BSF have had enough and Intel can put us all out of
misery?
But what about M$ and anti-trust?
:)
All just
my opinion of course.Groklaw :( Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:36 PM EST |
SCO will appeal Wells' decision to Judge Kimball.
And Kimball will whack them for it. Not sanctions, but very firm words.
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Prediction - Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:44 PM EST
- Prediction - Authored by: electron on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:59 PM EST
- Prediction - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:31 PM EST
- Prediction - Authored by: jdearl on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:38 AM EST
- Slowed Linux???? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 01:22 AM EST
- Prediction - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 06:06 PM EST
- Prediction - Authored by: PJ on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:57 PM EST
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:55 PM EST |
Approximately how much time was spent on each motion?
From Chris' report is sounds like the first motion was dealt with fairly
quickly, of course we don't know if the hearing started on time or how long the
side bar took.
---
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: Khym Chanur on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:57 PM EST |
So SCO's theory is basically: if the party being served receives a suboena for a
deposition with technical defects, they should act as if it had no defects and
start preparing for the deposition, because they know the serving party will get
around to serving a corrected subpoena? And thus not starting preparation upon
receiving a defective subpoena is a form of gaming the system? --- Give
a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be
warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Dave23 on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 09:58 PM EST |
From the report (many thanks!):... Judge Wells asked if the
subpeonas were defective in some manner. Hatch: "Yes, they were". Judge Wells
asked when they were corrected and Brent replied the day before. ...
...
Wells asks "Did you say you were aware of your desire to depose Intel since
November?". Brent answers "Yes".
So, the subpoenas could
have gone out in in early December, not January 12th.
Were SCOG/BSF
in a resource crunch? Or were they attempting to game the system and injure
both IBM and third parties unilaterally? You decide.
If you really care.
The result is fixed, now.
IANAL
--- Gawker [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:09 PM EST |
Sort of sends the message - "Not only are IBM going to beat you to a pulp
[in legal terms], but we'll be happy to hold you down while they do it!"
Intel get a heck of a lot of bad press, partly because they've had the same
dominant market position on the hardware side as M$ do on the software side.
I would have expected them to ignore SCO's rantings as just another attempted
smear on their name.
Instead, they genuinely seem to have taken offence.
Another triumph for SCO. What do you do when you're losing against one of the
world's biggest software manufacturers? Insult one of the world's biggest
hardware manufacturers as well, just for good measure!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Being a third party has some updside - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:39 PM EST
- Intel's lawyer was a pleasant surprise - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:43 PM EST
- Intel sending their own lawyer was a pleasant surprise - Authored by: sef on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:17 AM EST
- Intel sending their own lawyer was a pleasant surprise - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 01:22 AM EST
- No comparison to the evils of Microsoft - Authored by: grouch on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 02:17 AM EST
- Intel sending their own lawyer was a pleasant surprise - Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 04:07 AM EST
- Intel's self-image - Authored by: overshoot on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 10:48 AM EST
- Intel are a legal department to fear - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 05:22 PM EST
- Intel sending their own lawyer was a pleasant surprise - Authored by: darkonc on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 12:48 AM EST
- "Only the paranoid survive" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 08:41 AM EST
|
Authored by: tredman on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:09 PM EST |
You know, it's a shame we can't gamble on here. Otherwise, I'd be organizing a
Groklaw pool right now. Everybody gets to pick a date that SCOX files their
next Motion to Compel; winner take all. I'm not sure which date I'd pick, but
I'm guessing that we're talking about days (or a small number of weeks) before
it happens again.
---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- You'd have to factor in a "rollover" as well ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:22 PM EST
- I'll take March 13th (n/m) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:26 PM EST
- A pool? - Authored by: McLae on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:29 PM EST
- A pool? - Authored by: tredman on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:42 PM EST
- A pool? - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 01:11 AM EST
- A pool? - Authored by: tredman on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 02:12 AM EST
- Darl? BSA? - Authored by: Fogey on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 09:00 AM EST
- SCO's Motion to Depose Denied; Motion to Compel Denied w/o Prejudice - Updated - Authored by: red floyd on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:11 AM EST
- February 29th, of course. (n/t) - Authored by: jbb on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:16 AM EST
- give me a sec, and I'll go get the other seven Nebraska meat workers to put in... (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:42 AM EST
- SCO's Motion to Depose Denied; Motion to Compel Denied w/o Prejudice - Updated - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 01:13 AM EST
|
Authored by: imjustabigcat on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:28 PM EST |
Googling???!!!
It beggars description.
Well, I suppose it could have been a stress-relieving activity....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gadget on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:35 PM EST |
I heard he was looking up "Courtroom Etiquette for Dummys"
ROTFLMAO[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ray08 on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:41 PM EST |
You jump off the port side, I'll take the starboard!
---
Caldera is toast! And Groklaw is the toaster! (with toast level set to BURN)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bmcmahon on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:44 PM EST |
I'm curious what reasons D. McBride had for sitting at the bench there.
From the update (judge told him to be quiet), it sure doesn't sound like he
was there to say anything to the court.
From the description of
him Googling all the time (and attempting to talk
to others), I get the
distinct impression that (A) he feels that All Is Not Well
with the way the
case is going, and therefore (B) he Feels The Need To Help.
Common executive
disease -- believing that, in spite of having a whole
platoon of highly
qualified (and highly paid) experts hard at work on the
problem, what the
situation really needs is the input of the high-level types
(who don't really
know what's going on, or what to do, but they're the chiefs,
by
golly!).
Funny-but-true story: A friend of mine, senior I.T. guy for a
large
midwestern financial outfit, gave me a tour of the facility, some many
moons
ago. They had the classic IBM mainframe setup, with a "dinosaur pen" of
Big
Blue Iron, glass walls, raised floors, the works. Next door was the
Operations
Room, with the rows of consoles, and rows of operators peering
intently into
the consoles.
Adjacent to the Ops Room was the "Situation
Room". It had a nice conference
table, chairs, a whiteboard, and a door to
Operations that was always
kept locked.
See, this place had
learned long ago that, when there was some kind of
system crisis in progress,
senior non-technical management would often
experience an urgent need to
help. Of course, actually
letting them in to Ops would only
delay the resolution of the
problem, if not outright derail it.
The
solution was the Situation Room. It gave them a nice place to corral
the
"helpful" PHB types, where they could see the action, even feel like they
were
part of the solution, but not actually get in anyone's way.
I think Darl
was there to be helpful ... probably much to the
distress
of the
lawyers. But you can't very well tell your client to go away, can you?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mr.mighty on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:44 PM EST |
Well, it's not that much of a surprise. How many people could resist the
temptation of telling Darl to shut up and pay attention?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tredman on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:45 PM EST |
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I was going to come up with some academic, thought provoking analysis of that
event, but some things just speak for themselves.
Why couldn't SCOX have been a Tampa company? I'd have paid good money to see
that.
---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Glenn on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:48 PM EST |
I believe that The SCOG fully expected to lose this one. The third string was
the only one that showed up. none of the heavy hitters were there.
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: electron on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:56 PM EST |
Sounds like the lawyers wanted Darl to front up with them, but he didn't
particularly want to be there.
Or maybe they really are being micro-managed by the SCOundrel.
---
Electron
"A life? Sounds great! Do you know where I could download one?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 10:59 PM EST |
Interesting that nobody from Boies Schiller was present for SCO, only the local
counsel.
Was this perhaps a way for Boies Schiller to distance themselves from this
deposition notice fiasco? But, but --- Boies Schiller signed the documents,
didn't they? But -- maybe their client -- Darl and company -- overruled the
advice of counsel and demanded the noticing of the depositions?
From the sound of the quotes from the hearing, SCO's local counsel sounded
eminently capable of being responsible for the improper/faulty notices -- but
Boies Schiller signed them. What gives?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:11 PM EST |
Sounds like Wells is on top of it and is expecting SCOG to tighten up. She could
hardly prevent SCOG from filing another motion, but she could and did order SCOG
to be specific.
I think it hilarious that after asking for the Sun, the Moon and the stars SCOG
now says they don't understand what IBM gave them because they got too much.
Based on the description of the financial deposition, I imagine IBM will be back
with laser focused motions to compel fairly soon.
It occurs to me that IBM may have another strategy for dealing with SCOG. Since
they can't cost SCOG more legal fees, they may be able to cost them staff time,
through a through examination. I can think of lots of colorful ways to describe
the types of examination but in deference to PJ and the overall tone of Groklaw
will not go there.
---
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 | # ]
|
- Get out the broom, It's a clean sweep - Authored by: tredman on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:15 PM EST
- Hey Steinmetz, why don't you take either a break or Ritalin - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:52 AM EST
- Well you're a cheery little moron aren't you. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 01:03 AM EST
- Hey Steinmetz, why don't you take either a break or Ritalin - Authored by: tredman on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 01:42 AM EST
- Hi Darl - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 02:56 AM EST
- Hi Darl - Authored by: WhiteFang on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 08:23 AM EST
- Hi Darl - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 10:17 PM EST
- If you're getting tired, why don't you take your own advice? n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 06:33 AM EST
- Rsteinmetz, I believe you have received a compliment - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 10:10 AM EST
- Hey Steinmetz, why don't you take either a break or Ritalin - Authored by: inode_buddha on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 10:16 AM EST
- SCOG has done this before - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 01:53 AM EST
- Thank you for your comments, Rsteinmetz - Authored by: AllParadox on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 10:24 PM EST
- Get out the broom, It's a clean sweep - Authored by: darkonc on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 01:34 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:13 PM EST |
Post possible Darl googling topics here.
I suggest:
extradition laws
"i lust for darl" (zero hits)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Google Topics here - Authored by: CanonicalKoi on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:36 PM EST
- Google Topics here - Authored by: WhiteFang on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:36 PM EST
- Cheap Gags...Can't Resist..... - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:44 PM EST
- Possible keyboard alert ... - Authored by: AntiFUD on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:55 PM EST
- Most likely - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:48 AM EST
- Google Topics here - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 02:26 AM EST
- Monster.com - Authored by: McLae on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 03:04 AM EST
- Google Topics here - Authored by: kbwojo on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 03:59 AM EST
- Google Topics here - Authored by: snorpus on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 07:38 AM EST
- Google Topics here - Authored by: om1er on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 10:18 AM EST
- Google Topics here - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 11:01 AM EST
- Groklaw - n/t - Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:04 PM EST
|
Authored by: Dave23 on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:22 PM EST |
It seems that SCOG/BSF have been having difficulties drinking from the firehose
that is the discovery they requested from IBM.
Well, if one is vague and non-specific, one may be required to swallow Niagara
Falls. And whose fault is that?
Wells certainly shouldn't cut SCOG/BSF off if there really is something they
need that hasn't been supplied to them; but she is certainly allowed to expect
SCOG/BSF to know and understand what they've received -- particularly when IBM
deponents/experts have attempted to explain it to them repeatedly. I think her
decision is a reasonable one for the time-being. Particularly the 30-day limit:
If SCOG/BSF can't get their act together by then, they are indeed hopeless.
IANAL
---
Gawker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:38 PM EST |
From the last part of the ruling its as if we can expect SCO to come back in 30
days and say we need more. So we know for sure they will try again. It's
almost if they *really* didn't lose the motion. Hate to say it but they can try
again in 30 days, or am I missing something?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tufty on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:51 PM EST |
>
Mark says they need IBM to provide someone to explain how they interpret their
AIX licenses because they are so similar to SCO's license.
<
Now its copyright of licences
Ohnowaitaminute
If the licenses are so similar why do they need someone to explain it?
>
SCO's lawyers at deposition to explain and make sure they understood the
production. SCO says IBM provided too much information. SCO asked, "How are
they to interpret 23,000 pages?". IBM agreed to allow SCO to depose Mr.
Sandy for another day and explained it all again. Todd says that IBM requested
<
and I thought their problem was that there was too little!
>
Judge Wells addressed how she has very little tolerence for poor communications
between counsel.
<
Yowch, strike two!
>
Judge Wells asks, "How can I order IBM to produce documents that they say
they have produced?" I don't recall Mark's reply.
<
Chris, court reporters are not supposed to ROFL and miss replies - :) -
seriously though, nice work.
>
Judge Wells says they will recess while she deceides how to address the issue.
<
To cool off or stop laughing?
Now what will SCO say to Kimble or will they learn from the last time?
---
There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want its hide.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:53 PM EST |
Brent points out that Intel (based on Intel's motion)
indicated they were aware of SCO's attempts in this matter since November.
If this is indeed what Mr. Hatch said to Judge Wells,
then it is indeed a mistruth, as nowhere in Intel's filing does the word
"November" appear.
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to
it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sk43 on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:55 PM EST |
Anyone know which firm he is from? One would presume Cravath et al, since
Marriott did not show up. Attempts to find him on the Cravath et al. website
are stymied by a Flashplayer blockade.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 11:57 PM EST |
Okay hold the phone.
Let me get this streight: The SCO Group after
months(years) of claiming infractions and improper copying of SyS V code into
Linux, asks for very broad discovery and get it. (i.e. whaling expidition) Then
after having gotten almost every thing you asked for except the kitchen sink and
the moon, have the nerve to say in open court that they don't understand what
IBM gave them!
I have cry foul and throw the yellow (or brown B.S.) flag
on this one. I mean come on don't tell me you had the technical
knowledge/expertiese to "discover" all these millions of line of code copying
(after already providing lots of information freely to create open standards)and
then not have the technical expertiese needed to analyze the all the many
documents and code provided to you after having asked for it all.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:10 AM EST |
TSG in front of Judge Wells;
--quote--
Todd responds, discussing the financial information production. He says that
they spent four months, over 1,000 hours, collecting and providing to SCO more
than 23,000 pages with summaries, overviews, & supporting information. IBM's
Mr. Sandy spent over 300 hours preparing and spent a full day with SCO's lawyers
at deposition to explain and make sure they understood the production. SCO says
IBM provided too much information. SCO asked, "How are they to interpret
23,000 pages?".
--end-quote--
"Miss, my brain's full. Can I go home?"
-- Gary Larson, The Far Side
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dkpatrick on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:22 AM EST |
Judge Wells says she doesn't tolerate poor communication between lawyers but the
evidence is that she does. At any time she could have mailed SCO to the wall for
their deliberate misinterpretation of the rulings but they've never been
penalized. So where's the incentive for them to do any better? More to the
point, they ARE showing contempt of court.
And SCO has been told to show with specificity what they are asking for in 30
days. IN 30 days they will produce some trash or not produce anything at all and
IBM will be forced to make a motion which SCO can then rebut ... and on and on
it goes.
In my opinion the judges are continuing to let SCO have their head and like any
child, SCO will continue to push for even more.
With all due respect, how can this be viewed as justice?
---
"Keep your friends close but your enemies closer!" -- Sun Tzu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ah but the depositions show.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 02:06 AM EST
- I despair ... - Authored by: garbage on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 02:45 AM EST
- I despair ... - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 05:07 PM EST
- ..but you have a sadistic mind - Authored by: ile on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 03:37 AM EST
- "mail them to the wall" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 03:46 AM EST
- I despair ... - Authored by: Carla Schroder on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 08:50 AM EST
- I despair ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 10:13 AM EST
- yes, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 04:21 PM EST
- I despair ... - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 03:14 AM EST
- I despair ... - Authored by: darkonc on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 09:09 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 01:15 AM EST |
I know that judges have discretion on what they allow in their courtrooms. I
assume that Judge Wells disallows recording of the proceedings, leaving us
Groklaw-ers to read Chris's great notes. (Thanks Chris!)
But what are the limits of this prohibition? I assume that a spectator could
take complete shorthand notes of every word said, a full (independent)
transcription. So why not an audio (or even video) recording? Yes, there will
be an official court transcript, but that may take time to appear.
And, even if there will be an official transcript, would it not be a useful
tactic for say IBM to pay a stenographer to take complete notes from the
audience, giving IBM a full transcript immediately (I'm sure David Marriot would
love to read it ASAP, and would likely memorize it in one pass). Even if that
just gives IBM a few days advance transcript, surely the cost is minor and
someone like David Mariott would love every edge he can get, especially if a
loose end appeared that they could follow up imediately and not a week later.
And finally, if Darl was typing away on a laptop during the hearing, and was
-CONNECTED TO GOOGLE- that means there's an Internet connection in the
courtroom! Is this only for use of the litigators? What would prevent a
fast-typing spectator from giving a live transcription of the hearing to Groklaw
as it happens?
Would it be legal/ethical for a participant to email a colleague DURING the
hearing, and receive a reply DURING the hearing?
Just curious about courtroom protocols, limits, and information strategies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 01:27 AM EST |
.
.
1. This is just a bump in a long road. If these matters were so significant
that SCO could neglect them and then bungle them, then they were doomed to
denial. This saves a few parties a lot of trouble. It may undercut some
arguments anticipated by SCO that are probably never going to be made.
2. Things continue to go south for SCO. It is getting easier to deny them.
They have lost credibility. But I will wait for the transcript.
3. A new cast showed up to change their luck and bolster their credibility. I
don't know if Darl was the one to do that. I think he wanted to make an
appearance to defy all his critics and show that life in the cross hairs can
appear to be normal. Can't wait for the transcript! I think he has been
limping since SCO Forum with the coded Code.
4. SCO is just going through the motions, literally and figuratively. They
know they are going to lose. They are making mistakes because they think it
eoesn't matter. They are right.
5. They know what IBM has. Just the mountain of evidence that PJ has found has
made their arguments untenable. It wasn't supposed to matter. Linux was being
sued. And that was bad and risky. With overlength motions and mountains of
discovery, no one would fathom the truth. No one would hear the child shout
that the emperor had no clothes. But it is a new day. The old media cannot
channel the millions of interested browsers to a few controlled sites. Pj's
shout was heard and it gathered and spread the truth. We are lucky to
participate.
6. Poor Hatch. The transcript might help or hurt him. I think tha day was
doomed, but he provided a dramatic hook with which the judge proceeded to hang
him. Don't blame him for the loss. Give him credit for the drama and set up.
In the heat of battle sometimes you kill your own.
---
webster
-----------Free China
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 02:48 AM EST |
I am amazed that the CEO of a company would choose to spend
his time at this
rather minor hearing. I would think that
he has much better uses for his
time. Even if he didn't
have anything better to do, it doesn't make any
sense to me
that he would show up in this public hearing and thus
demonstrate that he has nothing better to do. Even with
all the things he's
done, it is hard for me not to feel
sorry for him. It seems very sad to me --
like King Lear
slowly going insane after making some unwise, life altering
decisions.
As others have noted, it is also very interesting that no
one from BSF was there. I've posted before that I think
the best
explanation for the very erratic behavior coming
from the BSF/SCO camp is a
rift that has developed between
BSF and SCO.
Darl's presence and BSF's
absence at this hearing are
another indication that SCO and BSF are just not
getting
along anymore.
PS: You were right Dave23, but I just
couldn't believe it
was actually Darl until PJ confirmed it.
--- Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power
to make you commit injustices. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wharris on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 03:13 AM EST |
Judges, like politicians, are unable to admit "Oops, I made a
mistake." But this is
as close an apology as IBM will get for Wells' earlier ruling that SCO had been
acting in good faith and IBM needed to turn over every version of AIX ever
conceived of.
I particularly liked how she looked straight at IBM and said that neither party
would be able to use evidence in trial which they did not disclose during
discovery. And I'm glad that she has noticed SCO's habit of misinterpreting
court
orders. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: chrisbrown on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 03:20 AM EST |
Brice Wallace of Utah's Deseret Morning News was present and filed this
report: Judge
rejects SCO motions in its lawsuit against IBM. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TAZ6416 on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 03:31 AM EST |
Pretty poor advert for a company if it's own CEO dosn't use their own
products.
Jonathan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: globularity on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 04:32 AM EST |
Brent Hatch "He said that these third parties were aware of Judge Wells'
October 12th order and were using a strict interpretation of it to delay the
depositions such that they don't have to be done."
Judge Wells asks "How can you interpret my order in any other way than how
it was phrased?"
Judge Wells "Her October 12th orders were clear, not subject to unilateral
decisions to violate."
I guess she only intended her october 12th order to be interpreted
"strictly"
Nice one SCOX, just admitting what they have demonstrated that they think the
judges orders are meant to be interpreted loosly.
Mark
---
"It's all about myths and conceptions" I think that is what Darl meant to say.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 05:24 AM EST |
"Magistrate Wells supposes that the court orders and rules are for no other
purpose than to be broken."
Not happy with SCO, I'd say. Distinctly peeved. I can't wait to read the full
transcript of this hearing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PeteS on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 07:11 AM EST |
and visualising the attorneys for SCOG having their own entrance to the
courtroom with a sign
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here."
The entire tone of this hearing (according to what we know - thanks guys!) was
hardly to the benefit of the SCO cause, from what I discern.
PeteS
---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 07:55 AM EST |
Shut up, Darl.
Shut up, Darl.
Shut up, Darl.
Shut up, Darl.
Shut up, Darl.
Shut up, Darl.
...
Shut up, Darl.
Heh heh...
Sorry but it sounds funnier each time :)
---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"
Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 08:27 AM EST |
He signed those subpoenas and did some of the motion practice, so he should have
been at the hearing and tell what he was thinking and doing then.
Judge Wells could have asked him some interesting questions. :-) Did he fear
this?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Signatures - Authored by: ak on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 08:58 AM EST
- Signatures - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:38 PM EST
- Signatures - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 12:26 AM EST
|
Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 08:38 AM EST |
I note that this is the first time that SCOG is using the "We haven't had
the time to press incoming discovery" response.
I fully expect that SCOG will be arguing that IBM's PSJs are premature either
because SCOG is still processing incoming discovery, or that SCOG has more
demands for discovery in the pipeline.
The good news is that SCOG's entire litigation strategy is based on gaming
discovery, because the blindingly obvious reason is that SCOG has nothing else
to work with.
It does gets worse for SCOG: IBM has been asking judge Wells to order SCOG to
release the substantiation for its allegations, with specificity. And to date,
SCOG has not complied in any meaningful way and has gotten away with it, because
judge Wells did not press hard enough for compliance with her orders. Now that
it's IBM turn to demand discovery, IBM has now the opportunity to insist that
SCOG comply with judge Wells' orders.
---
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 08:42 AM EST |
From the start, SCO has been talking past the court to a public audience, most
likely Congress.
SCO has only been pretending to litigate, to maintain the public deception that
something is wrong with Linux.
IBM, in the meantime, is beavering away behind the scenes preparing for the real
litigation that is to come.
SCO -- an illusion of litigation for an illusion of a company.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 09:55 AM EST |
Intel Calls
SCO a Liar
Can I presume that what Intel filed was considered in Judge
Wells' decision? I didn't notice any reference to the document in the reports.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 11:01 AM EST |
TSCOG realized back in January 2004 that they could not win legally. So,
they changed their strategy for the fourth time (i.e., after scratching
trade secrets/patents, copyright, or contracts, it became truckloads
of evidence/briefcase/Wookie/looks like UNIX code/smells like UNIX/
TSCOG owns you/we can beat these judges).
TSCOG can win with no evidence before a local jury of their peers by
out lying everyone. Without any legal evidence, it's just TSCOG's word
against IBM's word. Remember Daryl thinks big, really big, bigger wins.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 11:46 AM EST |
Re: IBM's 340,000? latest documents, Intel, Oracle and The OpenGroup
SCO
want to drown themselves in a mountain of irrelevent paperwork, some of
which(code on bits of a 1990 mainframe which has been broken up and shipped
around, paperwork from what was a small outfit in the UK, X/Open - Open Group)
could take months to obtain and even longer to digest.
ISTM SCOG and BSF
don't want to move on past the discovery stage of this case.
They are playing
the small firm versus the giants for all it is worth.
I expect IBM to get
relatively timely responses to their discovery requests from Intel, Oracle and
HP. They are trying to move on from the Itanic/64bit Windoze plot and are
probably already resigned to the hand smack they will receive from the Microsoft
anti-trust case Judge although Intel have some anti-trust problems of their own
to deal with.
IMHO SCO's faulty subpoena requests were at best an attempt to
delay procedure, at worse an attemt to uncover some of the information which IBM
will obtain from those companies.
Armed with this information and a delay in
procedure, the organisers of the SCOG scam can attempt to cover their tracks.
Targetted shredding and alternate theories.
:)
BSF's tactics have changed,
but they no longer seek eveidence which they know is not there, they seek to
delay the inevitable whilst the guilty parties attempt to make good their
escape.
Just in my honest opinion - unless the Court stays on top of this, we
may as well go back 2 years. Brian S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AllParadox on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 12:52 PM EST |
"Mr. James wants IBM documents and depositions as to the corporation's
opinion on the language in AIX and Dynix licenses. Some language is simmilar to
SCO's license. How do they interpret the language?"
Mr. James actually said this in open court.
Dang.
You only paid to look at the cards, Scooter. Lessons cost extra.
From the legal viewpoit, the words of a license or contract speak for
themselves. If there is a context that will change the meaning of a vague term,
then it may be considered in evidence. Otherwise, the plain meaning rules.
You never ask the other side to provide a legal explanation for the
interpretation of their contract. Never, never, never.
Every accredited law school I have ever heard of teaches you not to ask for this
in court, and why.
IMHO, this is something most traffic ticket lawyers know not to ask.
I am beginning to understand why this case is such an unpredictable disaster.
IMO, it is becoming clear that these folks are just way out of their league.
---
PJ deletes insult posts, not differences of opinion.
AllParadox; retired lawyer and chief Groklaw iconoclast. No legal opinions,
just my opinion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 01:40 PM EST |
Or flicking rubber bands around the courtroom.
Sorry PJ, I just couldn't concentrate after reading that bit.
---
SCO: hunting for snarks in an ocean of sharks
---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 02:55 PM EST |
Wells: "Did you say you were aware of your desire to depose Intel since
November?"
Hatch: "Yes."
Judge Wells follows up with something to the effect that if SCO was aware since
November they should have had enough time to properly notice them.
Brent replied that they did (referring to the Jan. 12th notice).
Marks disputed SCO's "45 day" figure they claim Intel had been aware
of the subpoena. Mr. Marks personally handled it and said that subpoena in
November was for a different subject, for specific documents, which Intel
responded to 45 days or more ago. He says that SCO's assertions "were
offensive to (him)". [Is he saying: liar, liar, pants on fire?]
So, when Hatch answered "Yes", he should, strictly speaking, have
answered "No, your Honor, not with regard to that particular subpoena, the
subpoena first correctly served on 26th January, 2006." That would have
been the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Instead, he
answered "Yes", meaning: yes, I was aware of my desire to depose Intel
in November, for specific documents on a different subject (your honor).
But I don't think Wells was fooled. That's why, at the end of the hearing, when
Judge Wells said "NO", they heard it in Tennessee ;)
Well, that's my take, anyway.
---
SCO: hunting for snarks in an ocean of sharks
---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 03:11 PM EST |
Can IBM request the logs of the computer that they send the second time to BSF?
Can they determine if *ANY* attempts at using the computer have been done? I
suspect it would be very hard for BSF to defend against "We need all
this" and then several months later be shown to never have used it.
Can IBM request the source code (AND CVS repositories) of SCO for all of their
code and do the comparison themselves?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 03:54 PM EST |
"That SCO has 30 days to renew and MUST clearly and narrowly define
documents required. There are questions asked and Judge Wells further
clarifies that that applies to both the January production and the currently
pending motion to compel." So what I hear is that they get more discovery.
The door isn't closed yet. How many times have we heard this type of thing?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: alansz on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 04:16 PM EST |
Well, somebody at SCO finally took the hint that referencing Judge Boyce's
opinions might be worth something, eh?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: arch_dude on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 04:20 PM EST |
<SILLY>
All along, we have completely misunderstood TSG's cause of action. But now we
know. TSG now tells us that IBM's AIX contracts are "substantiallay
similar" to the original AT&T contracts. Since TSG claims to be the
successor in interest to AT&T with respect to the contracts, TSG is the
defacto owner of the copyright on the language of the contract itself. When IBM
used substantially similar language, methods, and concepts to produce the AIX
contracts, they stole TSG's valuable intellectual property!
</SILLY>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 04:22 PM EST |
>Yes, SCO has found misappropriated source code. Mr. James
>mentions something about filing something under seal.
That begs the question, why under seal? Why not file those
examples in the open, so everybody can see that SCO is right?
My guess is that SCO is afraid of *us*. They are afraid that
Growlaw readers and Linux developers will do IBM's work for
free and will shoot down those claims.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 06:30 PM EST |
Notice the blip in the SCOX share price a bit before 4pm?
---
SCO: hunting for snarks in an ocean of sharks
---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 07:59 PM EST |
> Why did Darl go to court?
My *guess* is that it is about time to make a decision.
There are two ways to go:
1) Rational, AKA damage control. Decide that there is not
enough evidence to win anything. Raise a white flag and ask
IBM to give SCO generous surrender conditions. Yes, the
hole will still be pretty deep, but at least SCO will
stop digging.
2) Hold the fort, continue to fight, wait for a miracle.
Darl was in court to see, by himself, the mood of the court
and the mood of the crowd. A decision will probably be
made withing a couple of weeks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: achurch on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 08:25 PM EST |
Is it just me, or does this not bode well for the flurry of subpoenas IBM
launched a few days ago? It seems to me any of the parties who didn't want to
answer could just use Judge Wells' argument that 30 days' notice is required
against IBM. (Not wanting to respond to a subpoena? Heaven forbid . . .) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 08:35 PM EST |
How McBride can Google in Court.
The question was raised about internet connectivity in the courthouse and how
this was possible. Well I have done a little looking about and here is the
answer. There is a nice company here that provides internet access to all of
our Libraries and most of main street in Salt Lake City. This wonderful company
is called Xmission and guess what?
They do this all with Linux.
I do not have a laptop computer so I had no way of knowing if the free internet
service that Xmission supplies to Main Street in Salt Lake City would make it
all the way down to the courthouse. So what is a geek to do. One must go
looking for answers.
So here is the web page about the Main Street wireless service for Salt Lake
City.
http://www.slcwireless.com/
Here is the page detailing the Linux applications used and the hardware used. I
found this most interesting. It looks like Pebble Linux a Debian derivative is
the distribution of choice. If you want to know what hardware is used this page
lists it all. It made my heart jump just looking at the list of equipment.
http://www.slcwireless.com/software.html
And here it is the photo of the actual equipment sending out the free internet
connectivity and if you look to the left you will see the courthouse. Yes the
grey white building on the left is the District Court. You can not get a clean
look because the antenna blocks most of the view.
http://images.slcwireless.com/cgi-bin/img.cgi?uid=57147a908ad03904db60&size=
640
So the mystery is solved. I am sure it would have been much easier for someone
with a laptop.
cxd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AllParadox on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 09:34 PM EST |
Shaughnessy: "Subpoenas cannot be faxed but must be served in
person."
When can you ignore a subpoena? When you didn't get served with it. Very
specifically, a fax to a generic law office fax machine does not count.
For Federal Courts, a process server is a Federal Marshall, or a Deputy Federal
Marshall, or a specially appointed process server (Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 4.1
(a)).
"Service" means that a proper process server physically delivers the
document, here a subpoena, to the recipient. Actual physical skin contact is
not necessary, just convenient.
The subpoenas from "The SCO Group" were not improperly served on
January 12, 2006. They were not served at all. A fax to the wrong fax machine
does not even count as an improper service.
This soap opera continues to be so sad, and so embarrassing to the legal
profession.
---
PJ deletes insult posts, not differences of opinion.
AllParadox; retired lawyer and chief Groklaw iconoclast. No legal opinions,
just my opinion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 10:20 PM EST |
If "methods and concepts" are still in play in this drama, then let me
float this past everyone. Ignore it it you think I am a troll, or that I am way
off base. Or Both.
Could M$ win anything from this case if the "methods and concepts"
ideas gets thrown out?
I give you dotnot, and the way that it is implemented. HTML screen with VB
background program. What is CICS? A screen map with a program behind it.
Okay, you may say, CICS was 24 x80 and HTML is 'unlimited'. Dotnot is event
driven, and CICS was not. well, Event drive means that there is a transparent
layer over the event code, something interperts the button/etal attributes and
the associated procedure. Put that back into the program and you have what we
did in CICS.
So, do you hope "methods and concepts" gets so that IBM can go at M$
for "m&c's"????
I have always thought that webpages in general CICSish and dotnot push the
envelop.
wb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- You seem confused. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 11:50 PM EST
- methods and concepts - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 09:06 AM EST
- we all win - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 09:15 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 10:50 PM EST |
--
Chris Brown reports SCO is relying on the "Kuperics case" - where
""lawyers messed up big" but eventually served the subpoena 15
minutes *after* depo time. The court found it sufficient because the deponent
was fully aware of the depo time."
Justin Findlay calls it "a 1991 Cooperige(?) case" - "where a the
court ruled a subpoena served 15 minutes after the time scheduled was valid
although the party served took counsel and rejected the subpoena on technical
grounds."
So the questionZ are: What is the case that SCO is relying on? How on point is
it? Are the fact patterns the same (especially given Wells' orders on
discovery)?
Me thinks SCO has been known to s-t-r-e-t-c-h 'things' a wee bit in the past.
--[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darkonc on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 11:27 PM EST |
Judge Wells also asked SCO if they have found, after all the discovery
provided by IBM, any evidence of source-code misappropriation by IBM
[--] or do they need more.
Now, am I the only person to get
that as a hilarious backhanded slap to SCO's case?
I'm just glad that I
wasn't in court for this hearing. I would have probably been forced to sit next
to Darl for laughing so hard. --- Powerful, committed communication.
Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: montana on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 12:09 AM EST |
Add webster to the list.
---
Oro Y Plata[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 12:16 AM EST |
It's not acceptable to make accusations on Groklaw
without evidence. I looked at the SCOX materials
someone left a link to, and it's not proof to
me.
You may be right. But what you are relying on is
not evidence, so you can't say what you tried to
say on Groklaw.
This is maybe the time to say this: Yahoo SCOX folks
sometimes find valuable materials. But evaluating it
accurately is lacking. I wouldn't personally rely on
what I read there, absent solid evidence to back
it up. I have also seen a lack of simple kindness.
Let me explain, so this is concstructive. It's
one thing to think you've found something. It's
another to prove it. If you claim something as a
fact before you have evidence to back your claim,
you can do damage to people's reputations unfairly,
and that is never acceptable. I don't care who the
person is. Darl McBride is a human being. He
is therefore entitled to the same respectful
treatment that we would want ourselves. What he
says and does is fair game to analyze and write
about and disprove. But I don't want anyone
to use Groklaw for cheap shots at any fellow
human being. That isn't anything new. Please
read our comments policy and abide by it, because
I do remove memberships when I feel I must. I
feel confident that it won't be necessary here, and
that it's just a matter of acclimating to a
different environment. Thank you for your
effort to apply our policy to your comments.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 10:56 AM EST |
I knew IBM would bury SCO one way or another.
:)
---
SCO: hunting for snarks in an ocean of sharks
---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dcf on Sunday, February 26 2006 @ 12:26 PM EST |
What if SCO is deliberately annoying Judge Wells? Maybe SCO wants to provoke
her into a ruling which they could later argue was a reversible error.
Obviously, the risk of such a strategy would be that while trying to create an
issue for appeal, you could jeopardize your initial trial. However, if the
discovery you are denied is not really relevant, but you can later argue on
appeal that it was, then you might still come out ahead.
Or maybe SCO hopes Wells or Kimball might say something injudicious so they
could later argue prejudice on appeal. I'm just thinking about how Judge Thomas
Penfield Jackson's rulings against Microsoft were overturned on the grounds that
his interviews with the New York Times were improper.
Of course, SCO has looked clueless throughout the whole affair, so probably the
latest bungling and overreaching is just more of the same.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ahinds on Monday, February 27 2006 @ 04:05 PM EST |
"Shaughnessy: IBM spent months collecting documents re: finances and
produced 23,000 pages with summaries and indicies. SCO spent one day in deposing
IBM's witness – didn't ask much about information provided. SCO requested a
second day – IBM allowed. SCO complained that there was too much information and
wasted a second day-long deposition. In contrast SCO's Mr. Hunsaker (?) spent
less than an hour preparing for his deposition and most of his responses were
"I don't know", you should really ask Mr. X. When asked if he spoke to
Mr. X, replied "No". IBM's witness (in preparation) spent 300 hours
and talked to 80 people."
Is this not a discovery abuse? SCO sends a witness to a deposition that can only
respond "I don't know". Imagine what SCO would cry if IBM did that. I
wonder how often SCO has tried this technique? If they are allowed to get away
with this gambit, IBM will learn little in its depositions.
I wonder why IBM didn't complain at greater length, to prod a comment from the
judge about the bad-faith practise. From the accounts, the abuse didn't even
make an impression on the judge.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|