|
SCO Wants Some IBM Privileged Docs & to Re-Depose Some Folks |
|
Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 12:09 AM EDT
|
SCO has filed a motion with gazoodles of exhibits basically asking to look at some documents of IBM's that IBM claims are privileged, and asking the court to declare that the documents are not privileged and then SCO wants to re-depose some people to ask them about the documents: SCO wants to see some documents again that IBM claims are privileged that came up in some depositions and were withdrawn. When SCO first threatened to file a motion about the documents, IBM threatened them, telling SCO that SCO couldn't file a motion to compel the documents on any basis other than based on the information about such documents provided in a privilege log, and if they did, IBM would charge SCO with unethical conduct. So SCO started asking and asking for a privilege log particularly with regard to a few documents it says it wants its experts to be able to review.
You can read all this in Exhibit G. I'm not positive if we can rely upon SCO's description of events altogether, though, because in an email to IBM's Todd Shaughnessy, Normand says this: If IBM continues to decline to produce a log on those documents, as it has refused to do for months, then SCO will file a motion and leave it to the Court to resolve whatever ethics issues get raised. But scroll down. Just below you can see that just the day before, IBM had informed SCO that they should have it by the end of the week: Ted, I believe (though I'm not positive) that the plan is to get you a fully-updated privilege log by the end of the week. When can we expect SCO's updated log? Todd Does that match what Normand wrote, that IBM was declining to provide a privilege log? I can't believe SCO thinks this exchange will help them. For that matter, a lot of the exhibits could have been placed in one longer exhibit, because they are duplicative. Maybe they are trying for an effect. What's really going on? Look at Exhibit H, where IBM tells SCO that they should be exchanging privilege logs on the same day, but that so far, as of the day after Normand's threat to file a motion and let the ethics chips fall where they may, IBM had repeatedly asked when SCO was planning to do its half of the bargain, and at that point, SCO hadn't even said it ever would provide such a log. Shaughnessy: Ted,
For at least as long as you have been requesting this information from IBM, I have been clearly, consistently, and repeatedly requesting from you, as part of those discussions, a date by which we can expect to receive SCO's supplemental log. To date, you have not even confirmed that SCO will be providing one, let alone when. We believe these logs should be exchanged on the same date, as previously ordered by the Court. SCO, however, apparently believes that IBM must provide a log, but SCO need not do so.
Todd So there is some jockeying going on. To which SCO says, but we only demanded a limited log, not the larger one we need to each turn over later: Todd --
I thought I had been clear in our discussions about the plain distinction between SCO's request for the limited log on the documents identified in the mid-January letter versus the much, much larger supplemental log SCO has been preparing for many weeks (like the much, much larger supplemental log IBM has been preparing during that time). I had informed you that, pursuant to IBM's own view of SCO's obligations, SCO wanted the limited log in order to pursue a motion on re-called documents that I had informed you SCO had already concluded were not privileged. In contrast, I did not understand IBM to have concluded that it would move against any SCO documents on the grounds that they were not privileged -- not that IBM had waived any rights to do so, but that IBM had no present intent to do so. In addition, as I thought I had said to you during one of our calls, SCO has long been preparing and will produce its supplemental privilege log next week, and has never suggested that IBM has waived any rights to pursue the documents identified in the privilege log. Regards, Ted After that comes a silence (at least in email) until March 27, when Normand says he knows IBM was having technical problems with the log, but when would they be producing it? And IBM immediately says that SCO will have it on Wednesday.
If you look in SCO's Memorandum in Support on page 5, you find out that in fact the privilege log was turned over on March 29. But SCO could only find some of the documents it remembered on that list. So, working from the log and from memory, SCO sent IBM a list of documents it wanted that it believes are not privileged, which list you can see in the Memo on pages 6 and 7 and in Exhibit K. Normand asks if IBM is still asserting privilege on those documents and if so why. Normand sends the email to Amy Sorenson also, saying it needs an "immediate" response, to which she says she doubts that an immediate response is possible. On May 2, according to the Memorandum, SCO tells IBM that it felt it had exhausted its required obligations to meet and confer and would file a motion on May 5. Again, according to SCO, IBM tells SCO they would have it ready shortly and to just wait.
On May 4, Shaughnessy writes to Normand saying that SCO will have the log on the next day, but on Monday, it would like to telephone conference to talk about "outstanding SCO discovery issues." Next, Exhibit N is the email from Gregory Lembrich at Cravath with the list of entries from the privilege log that SCO was asking for. At which point, SCO filed the motion. What it wants from the Court is an opportunity to look at the documents again in camera, and if the Court agrees with SCO that the documents are not privileged, SCO wants to be able to re-depose the appropriate people. So... they want to see privileged materials (Memorandum, p. 9), whether or not they can ultimately use them? I have a better idea: how about the Court reviews the documents without SCO peeking over its shoulder and decides, and if they are not privileged, *then* SCO gets to see them. No? Too fair? I can't evaluate what is going on, truthfully, because it is about depositions we know nothing about and documents we haven't seen, but I am sure, when IBM files its side of the story, we will get a clearer picture. Two of the documents SCO wants to see are about "the Journaled File System", and that is a totally losing claim for SCO, from all I know, no matter what it tries and no matter what documents it looks at. Frankly, reading the emails is a little like listening to a divorcing couple fight about something they are both livid about and you can't understand anybody fighting over. That doesn't mean this isn't important. It just means I don't see yet why they are fighting so hard here, but as it plays out, we'll find out, I'm sure. What I love about SCO's M.O. is that by filing so many motions, we get a lot more information about what is going on than we would in a normal lawsuit. This is the kind of dispute you normally don't ever hear about on the outside. But SCO, being SCO, just had to file another motion, and with it we are given a window into current events. One thing is for sure. I don't think these lawyers can ever again tell Judge Wells that they have a great working relationship. Not unless they cross their fingers behind their backs, that is. They seem to really despise each other, or at least so it seems to me. The Motion itself is a bit odd. It only opens with Adobe, or at for me it only will open if I use Adobe. So if you have trouble, I can't fix it. If you can, let me know please. Also, if anyone is able to do the Memorandum as text or HTML, that would be appreciated. Just leave a comment so others know not to duplicate effort and then email it to me. Thank you.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 12:24 PM EDT |
I thought discovery was over?
Lawyers_son ~ Can't login for some reason[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LocoYokel on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 12:25 PM EDT |
Exhibit H:
along -> alone ->(sic)
---
Waiting for the games I play to be released in Linux, or a decent Windows
emulator, to switch entirely.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LocoYokel on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 12:27 PM EDT |
Keep it civil per the posting guidlines and make links using HTML per the red
text.
---
Waiting for the games I play to be released in Linux, or a decent Windows
emulator, to switch entirely.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Re-selling gadgets with GPL:ed SW criminal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 02:49 PM EDT
- Florida DUI Article - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 03:35 PM EDT
- Nvidia Releases Free Linux Gelato Renderer - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 07:30 PM EDT
- Another patent troll appears - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 03:02 PM EDT
- Wow - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 03:58 PM EDT
- "trying for an effect" - Monty Python Holy Grail - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 04:27 PM EDT
- " Visto plots float as it sues BlackBerry maker" - Authored by: Brian S. on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 09:25 PM EDT
- Get Legal - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 10:12 PM EDT
- 'Judge Edwards told the FCC's lawyer that his arguments were "gobbledygook" and "nonsense."' - Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, May 08 2006 @ 03:00 AM EDT
- ODF already available at ISO - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 08 2006 @ 03:39 AM EDT
- Off Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 12 2006 @ 03:56 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 12:51 PM EDT |
The motion opens fine with Konqueror 3.5.2 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I can read it - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 01:12 PM EDT
- Can read motion. - Authored by: Gerry on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 01:34 PM EDT
- Can read motion. - Authored by: denver.co on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 01:37 PM EDT
- Can read motion. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 01:46 PM EDT
- Ghostscript can read the Motion - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 02:03 PM EDT
- SuSE 10.0, Firefox 1.0.8 and more OK - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 10:00 PM EDT
- gpdf works for me - Authored by: rherror404 on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 11:44 PM EDT
- xpdf reads it. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 04:51 AM EDT
- re: Can read motion. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 08:12 AM EDT
- Can read motion. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 09 2006 @ 04:13 AM EDT
|
Authored by: TerryL on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
Hmm, not sure what your problem with the motion .pdf file is PJ. I've just
loaded the latest Fedora Core 5 on my ancient notebook to try and saw this
article. Clicked on the motion link and it popped up in Evince 0.5.1 just fine,
On my other PC (Suse 10.0) it opened fine in the browser (Adobe I think) but
saved to disk it opened OK with Xpdf, KPDF and KGostView.
Perhaps you need to check your installation PJ
---
All comment and ideas expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those
of any other idiot...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: iksrazal on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
I thought discovery and production of documents is over. I thought all
depositions are over. I was under the impression that expert summary is well
under way, leading up to a blizzard of partial summary judgments starting around
july.
However, now there's a chance of more depositions and more hearings about
production of docments?
I've been paitiently believing that in the near future SCO will get the knockout
blow, but the future never seems to arrive. Sigh. Maybe something will happen in
the Novell case.
iksrazal[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
Is this a legal term?
IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ted Powell on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
"Also, if anyone is able to do the Memorandum as text or HTML, that would
be appreciated. Just leave a comment so others know not to duplicate effort and
then email it to me. Thank you."
I've emailed the raw text to PJ. Don't let this discourage anybody from
producing an HTMLized version!
---
"If you don't have the source code, you are probably going to
be screwed in the long run." --Philip Greenspun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
Wow. That's an impressively short motion from SCO -- it barely has any argument
at all beyond the salient facts.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 01:37 PM EDT |
Yes, I know, we are talking about SCO, but shouldn't this be denied purely on
the grounds that they missed the boat?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Arnold.the.Frog on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
Others can do the exhibits if they insist!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 02:10 PM EDT |
ONLY if the documents were both privleed and non-responsive could IBM have
legitimately claimed not to list them in the logs.
IF they are privleged and responsive IBM should have included them in their logs
and IBM should never have produced them in the first place.
IF the documents are either privleged or non-responsive then IBM should never
have produced them in the first place.
Seems like IBM made an error along the way, of course this could be some sort of
elaborate sandbag, but I don't see it.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gdt on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 02:37 PM EDT |
Cravath is tough on discovery issues. IBM's ability to conduct a "reasonable
search" can be contested given IBM's woeful errors in the Compuware fiasco. So I
wouldn't be in a rush to suggest that IBM's position is necessarily lily white.
Although with SCO's track record to date... :-)
You might also be
interested in the Tyco litigation, as that also has Boies and Cravath at
loggerheads about discovery practices. Again with an interesting financial angle
involving Boies.
...IBM would charge SCO with...
Surely
"IBM would accuse SCO of..."?
I have a better idea: how about the
Court reviews the documents...
I wonder at which point the Utah
court considers a special master? That would remove the opportunity for much
further motion practice. But I don't live in the US, so I'm not sure if they are
used to the same extent as in Australia.
Thanks for a wonderful
blog. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: red floyd on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 03:01 PM EDT |
Shaughnessy: "SCO, however, apparently believes that IBM must provide a
log, but SCO need not do so."
Isn't this the entire story of the discovery phase, wrapped up in a nutshell?
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
There are a few names that dont ring bells for me here
Greg Lembrich - he is a lawyer for IBM.
David Bullis
Warren Washington
Helene Armitage
Rose Ann Roth
Dan Frye
William Baker
The rest I think are/were IBM'ers. Anyone here able to help out as to who these
people are?
--
MadScientist[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Who's who in this set - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 07:45 PM EDT
- Thanks - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 07:10 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
I have been making it a point not to entertain the notion that SCO's purpose is
to help delay the widespread adoption of linux in corporate environments until
MS had Vista available to the market, but reading of yet another delay in the
release of Vista and seeing this makes me wonder.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Delay - Authored by: BsAtHome on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 04:02 PM EDT
- Delay - Authored by: Kalak on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 08:48 AM EDT
- Delay - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 06:57 PM EDT
- Delay - Authored by: Wol on Monday, May 08 2006 @ 03:50 AM EDT
- unlikely - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 05:51 PM EDT
- conspiracy theories - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 07:12 PM EDT
- Delay - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 09:09 PM EDT
- Value of FUD - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 11:16 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
IBM are threatening SCO with a complaint about acting unethically.
Is this because this motion is supposedly based upon documents that IBM are
claiming privilege for, implying that SCO has therefore read them and is acting
on their contents?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
SCO says that IBM *did* produce the documents, and SCO's lawyers have already
seen them, but they got "yanked back" when IBM claimed privelege. So,
while the horse is not over the horizon, it did manage to cross the threshold of
the barn door.
Given that, they'd like to have a little conference with the judge and argue
that the documents should not be priveleged. While the judge could do it solo,
it's not like it's really giving anything away to SCO's lawyers; the question is
whether they can officially see it.
I haven't waded through all the exhibits to see if this is actually the case
(I'm going off SCO's claims, and they can be downright miserly with the truth),
but it's not a ridiculous request.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tanstaafl on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
... aren't ALL of TSG's motions odd? Sorry; couldn't resist.
I successfully used Ghostscript 8.15 (CYGWIN port) to read it, but gswin32c.exe
8.00 apparently couldn't handle the font; it had lots of boxes where letters
should be. The best part has to be the document information; it's a Microsoft
Word document, but the PDF producer is AFPL Ghostscript 8.50. Golly, why did
they _dare_ to use an (almost) open-source tool for that? Maybe they can't
afford Acrobat or the MS PDF generators (at least, let's hope so!).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 07:20 PM EDT |
"If you look in SCO's Memorandum in Support on page 5, you find out that in
fact the privilege log was turned over on March 29. But SCO could only find some
of the documents IT REMEMBERED on that list. So, working from the log and FROM
MEMORY, SCO sent IBM a list of documents it wanted that it believes are not
privileged, which list you can see in the Memo on pages 6 and 7 and in Exhibit
K. Normand asks if IBM is still asserting privilege on those documents and if so
why."
PJ accepts as true, the representation of Normand (set forth in the memorandum)
that SCO "destroyed" the inadvertantly released priviliged docs, as
good faith legal practice would require them to do.
I don't believe for a nanosecond that those docs were destroyed by SCO, and in
fact they are, right now, likely sitting on Normand's desk. His references of
"trying to recall from memory" what those docs said, therefore, is
just "nod-nod-wink-wink" show-business for the judge.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 08:05 PM EDT |
I see a lot of people complaining that discovery has been closed.
What I think people are forgetting is that a recent Gartner report said that
Vista was going to slip even further into 2007. It was going to slip even past
the trial date.
Therefore, the trial needs to be delayed until at least summer 2007.
This is the first steps towards accomplishing that goal.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 08:36 PM EDT |
Forget all the history of how we got here (which is frankly obfuscation for
reasons that I'll come to), the question is what specifically does SCO want?
What SCO wants is described on point 15 of page 7 of the memorandum PDF.
Specifically:
- Item 11
- Item 12
- Item 22
Item 22 came up in David Bullis' deposition, and items 11 and 12 came up in
William Baker's depo.
So why am I asserting the history of why we got here is largely irrelevant?
Because despite SCO claiming that they didn't get the priviledge log for ages,
etc., etc., - when it comes down to it, SCO's argument is NOT based on the
time/ages/history, but on the content of the priviledge log that they eventually
got (plus perhaps a little bit of having seen and remembered them).
So what are the items:
11, asserted by IBM to be attorney-client priviledged, described as
"Memorandum Prepared at Direction of and Reflecting Opinions of Mark
Walker, Esq. Regarding Compliance with Legal Requirements for Source Code
Management". Notice the Mark Walker, **Esq** - that means he's an
attorney.
12, asserted by IBM to be attorney-client priviledged, also described as
"Memorandum Prepared at Direction of and Reflecting Opinions of Mark
Walker, Esq. Regarding Compliance with Legal Requirements for Source Code
Management". Notice the Mark Walker, **Esq** - that means he's an
attorney.
22, asserted by IBM to be attorney-client priviledged, described as
"Confidential Memorandum Concerning Joint Development Agreement, Prepared
by Sharon Dobbs, Esq and Reflecting Opinions, Impressions and Advice of Counsel.
Notice the Sharon Dobbs, **Esql** - that means she's an attorney.
Now if you check the other columns, you will see
- 11+12 were prepared by somebody else (other than the attorney), but apparently
written at the attorney's direction.
- 22 was written by the attorney herself (and even came from her files)
The other thing that is interesting, is SCO says it wants to show this stuff to
its expert (presumably items 11 and 12 they mean). I can't imagine why. A
memorandum on what source code IBM should retain, even if non-priviledged, can't
I imagine help in identifying infringing code.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 11:49 PM EDT |
This is all just an excuse for SCO to delay the case further. If their
continued existence wasn't so offensive to me, I would laugh out loud at their
shenanigans.
I find it hard to believe IBM has been the slightest bit
unreasonable about something like privilege logs. Throughout the case we've
seen copious evidence of IBM bending over backwards to be comply with the
spirit, not just the letter, of the law in discovery. They've offered
compromises before Judge Wells when they could easily have asked her to squish
SCO like a bug instead. To outward appearances at least, they've been as fair
as anyone could possibly be.
Contrast this (what we've observed of IBM's
behaviour) with what we've seen from SCO. Rambling, incoherent filings followed
by rambling, incoherent court appearances. Renewed Motion to Compel after
Motion to Compel. A theory of their case that seems to shift every few months
like quicksand, to make sure IBM can't make any sense of it. Filings--beginning
with the very first complaint--that contain numerous deliberate distortions of
fact, and in some cases apparently even bald-faced lies. Novel and unobvious
theories of SCO's rights under various contracts, that are directly contradicted
by a plain reading of the contracts. Three, four or even more briefs devoted
almost entirely to harping on the same subject--begging and begging for
expensive, irrelevant discovery from IBM just to inconvenience them. Motion
trickery to try and have the "last word" in situations where the rules are clear
that IBM is supposed to get that last word. Deliberately bogus 3rd-party
subpoenas followed by filings that accuse those 3rd parties of bad
faith.
Since the beginning of this case nearly 3 years ago, SCO has been
using every sneaky, underhanded trick they could think of. We've seen IBM get
angry once or twice, but we haven't seen them resort to the same sort of dirty
tricks that SCO has continuously employed throughout the case.
I would be
someone a hundred bucks that SCO has no case. Unfortunately, it seems that in
the U.S. justice system, having no case is no barrier to pursuing a frivolous
lawsuit for years and years, at great cost to both parties (and also to the
Citizens of the United States whose tax dollars are funding the Court whose time
SCO is wasting with this shambles of a lawsuit). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 12:44 AM EDT |
You don't suppose, do ya, that SCO might be trying to derail Judge Wells thought
process as she deliberates on IBM's motion to exclude items from SCO's final
disclosure list?
Could SCO really be that transparent? I mean, really?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 02:50 AM EDT |
SCO does not want to get anywhere that it can definitively lose, like
dispositive motions, so they are looking for any excuse to slow things down.
This is just more proof that SCO has nothing after the greatest fishing trip in
Utah history!
And that pretty much sums up SCO's case, it's the one that got away.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Dogeron on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 04:10 AM EDT |
I'm curious about the references to journaled file systems on page 6 of the
memorandum to support.
I would guess that the one that refers to "warp" relates to OS2-Warp
but can anyone clarify/suggest something for the Raptor reference?
Thanks.
--Dog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sk43 on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 09:47 AM EDT |
Document
IBM-63-A
is SCO's Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st set of Interrogatories from Nov,
2003. This is the document where they list a bunch of Linux files, apparently on
the basis that the string SMP appears somewhere in the file. In describing the
list of files, SCO has some interesting things to say regarding
"methods":
Source code files identified by SCO thus far which
are responsive to
Interrogatory No. 1 and part of which include information
(including
methods) ...
"SCO does not
contend that the entire source code in all files identified above contains
proprietary and confidential information and/or trade secrets. Rather,
information (including code and methods) that IBM agreed
to maintain as
confidential is interspersed through parts of each identified
file."
"In addition, source code files
identified by SCO thus far which may be further responsive to Interrogatory No.
I and which may, on information and belief, include information (including
methods) ..."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
OK, these guys don't appear to like each other very much. TSCOG doesn't appear
to have much of a case. The Judge Wells (the Magistrate Judge) appears to be
getting impatient. Judge Kimbal; appears to not be impressed by TSCOG case.
So Boies Schiller is trying something - this looks like a chess move - the sort
you make when your Queen and both Rooks have been captured, and you are really
short on firepower.
Should be interesting seeing how it plays out.
---
Wayne
http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
Mo' discovery!!! Everyone thought it was over? Hah!!!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 02:32 PM EDT |
the more i think about the willful issue the more i think ibm only needs to
point to rochkind's statement that it isn't necessary to show source code for
methods and concepts. that sounds willful to me. they did it on purpose.
iirc they have argued that kimball's order backs them by changing the
requirements, but they seem to be the only party with that opinion and even
wells seemed taken aback by the claim. in light of wells' previous admonition to
scog about clarity on her orders, i don't think scog have much wiggle room on
why they didn't approach her for clarification when they initially assumed that
the order had become modified. "oh, you mean you still want the code?"
won't cut it this time i hope.
ianal and all that...
sum.zero[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 09:11 PM EDT |
According to SCO's memo this all started with IBM sending a letter on January
13th (page 2 to 3).
SCO then tells a long story of quering this beginning from February, apparently
attaching many communications concerning the subject matter of 13 Jan the
latter.
But they never attach the 13 Jan letter itself.
Why?
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jacks4u on Monday, May 08 2006 @ 12:36 AM EDT |
... to move focus away from the real issue:they haven't provided the necessary
specificity for IBM to fully defend it's self, and SCO wants IBM to be running
in 5 different directions, instead of actually prepairing defenses to speciffic
allegations
---
I'm not a Lawyer, this is my opinion only. I may be wrong, but I don't think so![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 08 2006 @ 04:08 AM EDT |
I thought this was just the sound of SCO
squirming in the Nazgul's iron grip...
maybe that's just wishful thinking though... :|[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BassSinger on Wednesday, May 10 2006 @ 03:37 PM EDT |
********** --- *************
I thought I had been clear in our discussions about the plain distinction
between SCO's request for the limited log on the documents identified in the
mid-January letter versus the much, much larger supplemental log SCO has been
preparing for many weeks (like the much, much larger supplemental log IBM has
been preparing during that time). I had informed you that, pursuant to IBM's own
view of SCO's obligations, SCO wanted the limited log in order to pursue a
motion on re-called documents that I had informed you SCO had already concluded
were not privileged. In contrast, I did not understand IBM to have concluded
that it would move against any SCO documents on the grounds that they were not
privileged -- not that IBM had waived any rights to do so, but that IBM had no
present intent to do so. In addition, as I thought I had said to you during one
of our calls, SCO has long been preparing and will produce its supplemental
privilege log next week, and has never suggested that IBM has waived any rights
to pursue the documents identified in the privilege log. Regards,
********** --- *************
Notice that he states that "I thought I had..." a couple of times.
This way he can imply that he did something, without actually lying by saying
that he did when he didn't.
Oddly, this is an argument style that was taught to liberal arts majors when I
was in engineering school: all arguments couched in "in my opinion" or
"as I understand it" can never be wrong. Your understanding or
opinion may be wrong, but the argument never is. Of course, these same folks
had troubles in logic classes (for some reason taught in the philosophy
department - perhaps because it wasn't needed in the science departments),
because "in my opinion" doesn't cut it in logical circles.
---
In A Chord,
Tom
Proud Member of the Kitsap Chordsmen
Registered Linux User # 154358[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|