decoration decoration
Stories

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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Otis Wilson's 2004 Deposition Transcript
Friday, August 18 2006 @ 10:58 AM EDT

Here's the 2004 deposition of Otis Wilson, in which we get to see IBM's David Marriott and SCO's Scott Gant in action. We've split it up into three PDFs:
Part 1, pages 1-112

Part 2, pages 113-236

Part 3, pages 237-361

If you had any doubts about whether oddly personal questions were asked by SCO's attorney, which IBM complained to Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells about, read from page 117 onward in Part 2. They ask if he was ever arrested, how many times he's been married, if he ever had a lien or judgment against him, ever declared bankruptcy, had any issues regarding paying his taxes, whether he declares all his income on his taxes, if he was ever fired from a job or been the subject of a disciplinary action in an employment setting, and about his military service, none of which seems to me to have a thing to do with AT&T licensing, which is the topic he is there to discuss.

Marriott on page 119 asks if Mr. Wilson's marital history is even relevant when Gant asks for the names of Mr. Wilson's ex-wives, which would seem to be the right question. On page 150, Gant asks him if he has any IBM stock or if they paid him anything to testify, the answer to both questions being a no. I presume this line of questioning is for the purpose of character assassination, if at all possible. But Mr. Wilson is obviously a decent member of society, and SCO goes nowhere with its line of questioning, other than deepening my distaste for SCO's ways.

From pages 127 onward, SCO's attorney asks him about his testimony in previous depositions in earlier litigations, asking him if he was truthful. And you'll enjoy watching David Marriott handle the SCO attorney's attempts to get Mr. Wilson to waive his attorney-client privilege. You'll find it in Part 2, pages 144-148 where SCO's Mr. Gant tries to question Mr. Wilson on what he and his lawyers discussed in preparation for the deposition. Marriott also takes Gant to task later over the same issue, on deposition pages 282 through 285. Note particularly also the exchange on page 165, where Marriott says, "Counselor, are you trying to get beyond the assertion of privilege, because you appear to not have much respect for it. If you're asking him -- if you're asking for the disclosure of privileged information, I think that's improper."

That sums up this entire litigation nicely, I think. It's another reason this case brings out strong emotions -- it is a morality play. Read the transcript for yourself, and you can draw your own conclusions. But if it were an old Hollywood movie, and you were the casting director, I think you'd know which lawyer was the hero Gary Cooper should play.


  


Otis Wilson's 2004 Deposition Transcript | 372 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: MrCharon on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 11:07 AM EDT
Getting a 404 on all three links. Maybe that I got here to fast and they are
still being uploaded. :)

---
MrCharon
~~~~

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Threads here...
Authored by: kbq on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 11:16 AM EDT
Please make links clicky.


Kevin

[ Reply to This | # ]

Strange Questions
Authored by: MrCharon on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 11:21 AM EDT
When I sued another company over a car accident and my lawyer was preparing me,
I was told to expect being asked about my personal life and things which fall
way out side of the court case. Family life, sex life, finances where all on a
list questions given to me by my lawyer to be prepared to answer.

Accourding to my lawyer this tactic is designed to make people unconfertable and
confertational, so they do not give very good answers to the real questions.

---
MrCharon
~~~~

[ Reply to This | # ]

No surprises here
Authored by: WhiteFang on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 11:26 AM EDT
The SCOX legal team only emphasizes their immorality.

Otis Wilson shows himself to be a decent person.

The IBM legal team displays their professionalism and professional acumen.

Same-O, Same-O

OTOH, if Scott Grant were deposing me and started asking me personal questions
like those, I'd have a very, very difficult time not popping him in the nose or
worse. I wouldn't actually do so. But the temptation would definitely be there.

---
DRM - Degrading, Repulsive, Meanspirited
'Nuff Said

[ Reply to This | # ]

Distaste for SCO's ways
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 11:37 AM EDT
"other than deepening my distaste for SCO's ways"

I was unaware it was possible for anyone on Groklaw to have their distaste for
SCO's ways deepen.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Otis Wilson's 2004 Deposition Transcript
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 11:40 AM EDT
A brief comment on the article: PJ refers to her deepening "distaste for
SCO's ways." What is the likelyhood that SCO even knows about the
treatment of an individual in a deposition? Is this not much more likely to be
a decision of the Boies firm? As a general matter, I can see that strategy
would be discussed, along with routine updates provided to the client, and a
general issue of how aggressive the client is prepared to be. If the client
agrees that they are willing to be aggressive, the attorneys may take every
issue to the wall, including asking Wilson about his ex-wives. The client would
be setting the tone, so to some extent they are responsible. But I have a hard
time imagining that it was SCO's decision to pursue these questions.
Just a thought.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Strange questions with regard to Legal proceedings
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 12:14 PM EDT

I was in a court case once as a witness when I was being cross-examined. I was informed to answer the questions with yes/no. Then the questioning proceeded. As a quick note, the guilty was representing himself. Everything was going good up till a point when the defense asked a question that could easily be interpreted to be Yes even if you said no. I started to clarify when he insisted the answer be yes or no. I turned to the Judge and said:

Your Honor, that answer can be presumed to give a specific response whether I say yes or no. I refuse to answer unless I can clarify my response
The Judge gave me a nod and told me to proceed. Needless to say the answer provided was entirely unsatisfactory to the defense.

I believe that if I was in Mr. Wilson's position I'd risk paying a fine (or potentially worse trouble) and answer with:

I don't see how my personal finanacial/relations/etc. have anything to do with the topic at hand here today. I refuse to answer until I'm ordered by a Judge to answer that specific line of questioning.
But... that's just me.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

AT&T Capitol
Authored by: l8gravely on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 12:46 PM EDT
I thought this was an interesting tidbit, which hadn't been mentioned before.
On page 26 of the Deposition (pages 101-104) Mr. Marriott asks about AT&T
Capitol and how they had disposed of old equipment, some of which had source
code on it, and that AT&T had not placed any restrictions on the people who
bought those machines.

So even way back when in 1991 (when Otis Wilson left AT&T), there were
inadvertent disclosure of the protected methods and concepts. Whether or not
anyone actually used them may not matter, but just being able to show that this
had happened is probably a key statement.

Still reading, haven't read the rest of the transcript yet...

John

[ Reply to This | # ]

names of ex-wives...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 12:51 PM EDT
Mrs. Wilson; Mrs. Wilson; Mrs. Wilson. There.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Was This Transcript Filed With the Utah Court?
Authored by: RFD on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 02:29 PM EDT
I was under the impression that we normally don't see transcripts of depositions
unless they are filed with the court in connection with a motion. Does anyone
know who filed it, or why.

The blue printing at the top of each page indicates that it has been filed, but
not necessarily where.

I get the impression that MJ Wells may have had a similar reaction to the as
many Groklaw posters.

I note that the deposition began at 7:27m AM and ended at 9:28 PM--a bit more
than four hours!


---
Eschew obfuscation assiduously.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A question about objections
Authored by: wordsofwonder on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 03:07 PM EDT
Having never been deposed in a legal action, something about the transcript
seemed curious to me. It seemed there were a number of places (for example, on
page 123 of the transcript) where an objection was raised to a question but the
witness answered it anyway. Is this normal procedure in a deposition? If so,
what's the purpose of objecting to the question?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gary Cooper?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 04:19 PM EDT
Marriott on page 119 asks if Mr. Wilson's marital history is even relevant...I think you'd know which lawyer was the hero Gary Cooper should play.

Is this a reference to Gary Cooper's colurful social life (numerous affairs including some while married)?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Otis Wilson's 2004 Deposition Transcript
Authored by: EsTurn on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 04:23 PM EDT
I'm still working my way through this thing but I love this part on page 229:

Q[Gant]. Okay. You understand that at the time of these agreements IBM and
Sequent were separate companies; correct?

A. Yes, but every -- any -- any modification or change that we made to the
agreements were available to all of our licensees. And this particular
clarification, this agreement with Sequent, was signed in '85 or April.

And we further clarified that in both the April and August issues of $echo, as
well as in side letters to other licensees. And so our policy was that any --
any language change provided to one licensees was available to all licensees.
And a lot of time it was verbal conversation or --

Mr. Gant: I move to strike the answer as nonresponsive.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I prefer Jimmy Stewart
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 04:48 PM EDT
Anatomy of a Murder is one of my Favorite movies.

Marriott gets testy with the other guy at times. I'd love to see the video.

---
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 | # ]

Just reading the 140s so far
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 05:50 PM EDT

I'll get to the rest of it over the weekend, but I just had to comment. Poor Mr. Wilson must have felt like he stepped into the twilight zone. Like was SCO thinking he'd say Yeah, I think I'll disregard my laywers advice and instead take the advice of opposing councel and blab what Mr. Marriot and I talked about?

And while I haven't read the first 140 pages yet, I can't imagine the Mr. Wilson hasn't already figured out what kind of people he's dealing with.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My favorite part so far was this bit:
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 05:58 PM EDT
Part 2, the bottom of page 139:

[BY MR. GANT:]
Q. Okay. I -- I don't mean to cut you off, but I'm not asking --

MR. MARRIOTT: Then just don't. So we -- if you're not -- if you're finished
with your answer, then go ahead. If you're not, then go ahead and finish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MY Greatest Fears
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 06:37 PM EDT
After glancing through this I remembered that astonishing fact that people
feared public speaking more then death ("Hughes (1999) showed that the fear
of speaking in public is considered the number one fear of all fears; with death
ranking only number seven"
--http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/226.asp .)


After reading this here's my ordering of fears, in order less to more


Root canal
colonscopy
being deposed by a lawyer like the one representing SCO
open heart surgery
jail


I wonder what other people feel about the matter.


-LSMFT (not signed in)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can the deponent object?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 07:39 PM EDT
If it were me, I would've been tempted to object to the lot of those, asked what
possible relevance they had, and forced them to get a court order for each an
every one of the personal questions they wanted answered. Or does your lawyer
have to object for you?

And it's too bad he doesn't know how this is just a dirty trick SCO is pulling.
I'd have loved to see him slip into his answers something about how this entire
deposition was only happening because a judge in another state had ruled that
they were NOT entitled to ask him such things.

Of course, that might've required him to waive some priviledge, and he's surely
very wise not to do any such thing.

But just how much tolerance do these judges have, anyhow? I keep waiting for
them to smack someone down for pulling all these dirty tricks, but it seems like
it takes huge piles of paperwork establishing that there's absolutely no way
that such and such a thing could've been legal or at least done in good faith
before they even entertain sanctions :/

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO trying to provoke a dismissal, to avoid merits?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 18 2006 @ 08:00 PM EDT

If SCO can provoke Kimball to throw out the lawsuit based on lawyer misconduct,
would it mean that the merits never get decided, and everything stays in limbo?

This case needs to be decided on the merits, not some sideshow.






[ Reply to This | # ]

Otis Wilson's 2004 Deposition Transcript
Authored by: iraskygazer on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 12:20 AM EDT
PJ,

SCO is using the same tactics that politicians use against each other.
Discredit a witness by attacking them personally and disregard the facts. There
is nothing new about SCO's tactics. It is a shame that so many will be
victimized by SCO before the whole lawsuit/fiasco has ended.
The more I think about this lawsuit the more I wish large
companies/corporations would be held to a higher legal standard than has been
observed in this case. And when the entity with virtually unlimited funds abuses
the standards of behaviour/laws they'd be not only sanctioned but have something
done inside the court that would force them to financially support the defendant
in the case. Basically, make the abuse of the system a double edged sword. Maybe
the legal gaming would have fewer victims at the end of the case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I refuse to read it. I'm going to sleep.
Authored by: webster on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 01:41 AM EDT
1. But I'll comment anyway. After reading the article and skimming the
contents a second time, I started to download. Fortunately discipline won out
and I cancelled it. I'll just have to rely on these reports.

2. We have been over this ground in years past, but it comes up again late in
discovery. Wilson is a crucial witness. SCO has no one to match him. "He
was there." He knows what happened, he knows what the intentions were. He
was in charge. None of what he says helps SCO. They can't controvert him very
well with like witnesses or documents. He can carry a PSJ for IBM. They have to
shake him or die trying.

3. You can use depositions to find out about the other side's case, find
something you can use in your case, see if you can shake the opposition, probe
credibility, set up the witness for trial, try and blow the case away at a
deposition. There are all manner of goals and strategies under the
circumstances. Often lawyers can't restrain themselves when they have the floor
and try and do all of the above leading to conflict with their goals and the
other side. Some feel it is their role to make the other side miserable and
eager to get out with a more favorable settlement. Wouldn't you pay to get out
of torture by deposition. They can be a key piece of evidence that affects
settlement negotiations and preparation for trial.

4. Credibility covers a broad area. When the lawyers start asking about
personal details and finances, they are looking for weaknesses or seeming
weaknesses, such as the implication that one lied to, or cheated on their former
wives. The witness never knows what the other party might know about some deep
dark personal secret from a former wife for example. This can be most upsetting
to a witness.

5. Protect Your Witness! I have seen trials won due to the simple fact that
the lawyer did not protect his witness, often young prosecutors. Lawyers do
what they are permitted to do. If it is appropriate that you object and disrupt
some improper tactic, by all means do so. I've seen lawyers provoke attitudes
out of a witness that destroyed their credibility while the lawyer that
presented the witness sat on his tongue. It is fun to protect your witness and
throw off his cross-examiner if you can. For example, a lawyer is making hay
with a rapid fire string of mostly leading questions in a delicate area for your
client. Try and say this slowly a couple times before the jury: "I
object, your honor. Counsel has just cut off my client's answer to HIS
question. We all want the whole truth. Let's hear the witness complete
answer." This will cause some pauses. From what little I have read,
Marriott did as well as he could considering it was a deposition. Without a
judge things can get wild and wide open.

6. No highly reputable lawyer indulges in the nasty tactics you see illustrated
here. It is unthinkable. They may be tough, but they are grounded in reality
are always nice guys doing their jobs. It is a challenge and a pleasure having
to deal with them. They show why they have the reputation and you try and be
just as gracious but effective.

7. In general, tell your witness to listen carefully and answer the question.
It is more important how you testify rather than what you say. Answer the other
side the same way you would answer me. You can't make a mistake. We're just
trying to find out what happened. Trust me to ask follow up questions for
clarifications and explanations. Ask your questions from behind or beside the
jury. Always save a good point for a closer.

8. Unfortunately in Civil cases no one has a right to Silence. That is the best
protection of all.



---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

the objection game
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 04:38 AM EDT
I've read another transcript about a year ago.
It was quite similar, the SCO attorney objected everything, even repeated or
procedural questions. Then agreed to not be a jerk, and still continued to be
one.
This one is similar.
My question is, ALL SCO transcripts are the same?
Or even ALL deposal transcripts???

[ Reply to This | # ]

I can see a reason for some of these questions...
Authored by: brian on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 07:41 AM EDT
"If you had any doubts about whether oddly personal
questions were asked by SCO's attorney, which IBM
complained to Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells about, read
from page 117 onward in Part 2."

The questions about his past are relevant to SCO because
if they can show that Wilson left AT&T with a grudge
(disgruntled employee type grudge) that would go to show a
bias. For example, if he was fired from a job because of
his relation to AT&T and his wife divorced him over it, he
could very well be out to pay SCOX (AT&T's alledged
predecessor in interest) back. Of course that is pure
speculation but if it could be couched in that light that
would throw the whole deposition into question. Everyone
has skeletons in their closet. If you wanted to discredit
someone all you have to do is shine a high enough light in
their closet.

In short, this is one of those "look at the Wookie"
moments. This deposition is devastating to SCOX's case as
PJ noted. If you can't kill the message, then the next
best thing is to try to kill the messenger.

B.

---
#ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's case is destroyed here
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 09:18 AM EDT

I'm not a lawyer, but the language used in the deposition is very plain, and simply rules out SCO's theory of IBM-developed code being subject to AT&T's control. SCO's lawyer asks the same question again and again, presumably hoping to get the witness to contradict himself, until Marriott finally says (p239-240): "And to that question I object on the grounds that I think it's harassing, because he's already answered the question three times. You may not like the answer, but he's answered it."

I assume that SCO's lawyers, being honest people, went to SCO after this and advised them to throw in the towel, because with this deposition on the record, SCO cannot prevail.

SCO management must have told the lawyers to continue. They must have had some objective other than winning.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Company characteristics
Authored by: mtew on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 11:39 AM EDT

I think this says a lot about the companies involved.  AT&T and USL are or were utilities with an awareness if no great resspect for their customers; they intended to stay in business and make money over the long haul.  Novel and oldSCO also intend to be around a while and their officers and employees act in ways to perpetuate the businesses.

tSCOg post DMcB seems to be something else entierly.  It appears to be run just to make a quick buck with no intension of being afound in five years.  That is the officers and other executive level employees are only interested in turning as much of the corporate assets into personal assets as possible.  This is reminicant of the 'Robber Barrons' from the mid to late 1800's.

---
MTEW

[ Reply to This | # ]

Otis Wilson's 2004 Deposition Transcript
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 12:18 PM EDT
How old is mr Wilson?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Relevance
Authored by: sproggit on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 12:23 PM EDT
With the joy of ignorance that stems from not being a lawyer, I read a good
portion of these documents with growing disbelief.

In particular, the questions related to Mr Wilson's previous wives struck me as
being totally out of order. If Mr Wilson had taken the Witness Stand and was
under Oath in a Courtroom, I could well imagine the presiding Judge would - at
the objection of opposing Counsel - ask this lawyer to demonstrate the point of
asking these questions or to cease immediately.

It's clear that this kind of "witness protection" is not available to
witnesses during deposition.

Apart from finding this behaviour quite abhorrent, it causes me to question the
validity of the legal system that permits it to take place. Should questioning
of this nature become common practice, it would have the effect of peverting the
course of justice, since numerous potential witnesses would back away for fear
of having to subject themselves to this kind of abuse. And make no mistake,
abuse is the word to use here.

One wonders - and I'd be interested if Marbux or any other experienced legal
practitioner has knowledge of this - if BSF now intend to track down any or all
of Mr Wilson's ex-wives or previous friends, neighbours or business partners in
a further attempt to discredit him?

As PJ noted several tmes before, this witness is pivotal to The SCO Group's
case, since he can utterly destroy any hope they have of constructing a ladder
theory of ownership. The lengths BSF seem to be willing to go in order to
achieve that goal are quite frightening.

Another thought occurs to me here... We know that BSF have effectively taken
payment - at least in part - from TSG that includes shares or stock in TSG's
company. One could argue that this gives BSF the incentive to "win"
the case. Is it the case, here, though, that we're seeing that incentive to win
"at any cost" take the company to new depths?

I can imagine that David Marriott was mighty uncomfortable with the entire
process. One wonders how his strategy will be for preparing these witnesses for
an eventual court appearance?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I would like to thank Mr Wilson's Attorney
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 01:19 PM EDT
I would like to thank Mr Wilson's Attorney for filing the transcript so we could
find it.

Certainly it is filed in boxes at IBM and SCO but for the move of SCO to push in
NJ we might not have seen this.

More steps in the dance of lawyers.

Force my client to be deposed again, ok I will file all this damning evidence in
public.

In redeposing Mr Wilson SCO was attempting to discredit his testimony, instead
SCO have caused this deposition to become public so we can all see how much
deeper a whole SCO is in.

More Keystone Cop action from the SCO side. (and yes I like to rub it in).

Also this bites into SCO's claims "we have always been in control". If
SCO was not aware of the terms of the previous contracts (AT&T, BSD, USL
etc), any claims on their part to "have always been in control" are
obviously wrong.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Otis Wilson's 2004 Deposition Transcript
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 03:57 PM EDT
PJ,
Given the fact this deposition did not occur within the 30 days stipulated by
Judge Wells and it occured under another magistrate judges order, what are the
odds Judge Wells or Judge Kimball would order the deposition inadmissable
especially in light of IBM's recent filings?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Intrusive questions Wilson + Frasure
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 04:10 PM EDT
There are a lot of comments about SCO's intrusive questioning of Wilson about personal matters.

Well, they didn't find anything...

But when they found something irrelevant about Wilson's deputy (Frasure), they weren't afraid to sling the mud...

Remember this:

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20040913175047538 < BR>
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SCO’S EXPEDITED MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER DATED JUNE 10, 2004

The Wilson and Frasure declarations on which IBM relies were signed within the past six months. Mr. Wilson was a former AT&T and USL employee; Mr. Frasure was his underling and is a recent felony insurance fraud convict. Frasure Dep. (12/8/92) at 116-19 (Exh. 9). Mr. Wilson is represented by IBM’s corporate counsel in this case, Wilson Dep. (12/10/92) at 7 (Exh. 15); and Mr. Frasure, whose legal bills are being paid by IBM, Frasure Dep. (12/8/92) at 114 (Exh. 9), is represented by an attorney closely associated with IBM. 21


Of course, Maureen O'Gara managed to add her own additional mudslinging which wasn't even mentioned in SCO's memo - I've bolded it, to mark it as Maureen's addition (I wonder where she got her information, if true, from?):

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/46349.htm

S CO also claims that one of those witnesses, an ex-AT&T Unix System Labs employee by the name of David Frasure is a felon, recently convicted of insurance fraud. His rap sheet also says he kited a check.


Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Everything's Different Now
Authored by: enigma_foundry on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 05:03 PM EDT
Well, SCO has given me a reason to want to see them
prosecuted after this trial is over for all the misconduct
I see here, and I see quite a lot. I certainly hope the
Boies law firm does not get of scott-free. Not after
pulling a stunt like this.

Possibly those questions about his previous employment,
and why he left ATT were within bounds, but the questions
about his wives were way, way off base, out of line and
extremely unethical.

Boies should be ashamed, deeply ashamed of this behavior.

Of course, realize that before a website like Groklaw
existed, this kind of stuff probably just happened. Big
Corporations and their legions of lawyers would just go a
ruin somebodies life, embarrass them as much as possible
if anyone stood up to whatever corporate-dictated truths
of the day were being pushed.

The difference is: Groklaw exists, in part to publicize
these strong-arm tactics.

"By their own words, they shall be condemned."

---
enigma_foundry

Ask the right questions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Protecting "IP"
Authored by: GLJason on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 05:36 PM EDT
SCO's lawyers keep hammering Mr. Wilson on what the purpose of the licenses were. They want to make it seem that the whole purpose was to protect AT&T's rights. That is NOT the purpose of a license, that is the OPPOSITE of a license. A license ALLOWS someone to use your "IP".
Q. Well, let's focus ont he development of this so-called boilerplate for a moment. Am I correct that when that was developed by AT&T it was done with the purpose of trying to get a license agreement that was favorable to AT&T; correct?
...
Q. Would AT&T have entered into license agreements related to its UNIX intellectual property that put it in a worse position than it would have been in if there had been no agreement at all?
This is a red herring, and Mr. Wilson answers incorrectly. ANY license agreement would put it in a worse position with regard to "protecting" it's "IP", since it would give another party access to that "IP". The actual purpose of the license agreement was to generate revenue by allowing another party access to the "IP". Sure resrictions are in there only allowing the licensee to do certain things with the "IP", but it doesn't give the licensor access to the licensee's "IP" by any means. I think Mr. Wilson makes that clear.

I've established that the purpose of the license it to make money by actually giving access to IP, not taking it away. SCO's lawyers try to make it seem like AT&T would want to be as harsh in its licensing as it could possibly be. That is incorrect. Mr. Wilson points out in his deposition and here that he didn't believe many companies would have licensed UNIX if AT&T owned or controlled the code that they wrote. SCO's lawyers hammer him on this too asking if he knew their thoughts, and he correctly replies that he only knows what they told him and that many told him that. That was the whole reason behind the side letters and $echo newsletter, to clarify that point to certain licensees who weren't sure from reading the clear wording of the contract. Think about it. The best possible license they could come up with if all they were interested in was protecting their IP would be a "license" that completely disallowed access to said IP. I doubt anyone would be interested in buying that.

SCO's lawyers hammer Mr. Wilson on paragraph 2.01 of the contract which is their entire basis for claiming rights over "derivative works". I think Mr. Wilson does a good job of saying what I've been saying all along, that the contract only protected AT&T's IP. That is defined by the term "SOFTWARE PRODUCT" that is used in that paragraph which has the items listed on a schedule (manuals, disks, software). The term "derivative works" must mean the same as the term used in copyright law, which requires a portion of the preexisting work to be present to call it a derivative work. That blows SCO's "ladder" theory away and the majority of their claims I would guess.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Otis Wilson's 2004 Deposition Transcript
Authored by: fredex on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 04:41 PM EDT
Wow!

I've finally finished reading all 3 PDF documents, and I got a real loud guffaw
out of some of the interplay between Mr. Marriott and Mr. Gant.

It seemed clear that Mr. Gant was trying to pin down Mr. Wilson and to also
force him to admit inconsistency, based on some of the nitpicky questions, some
of which he repeated multiple times with only minor re-phrasing. I was happy to
note that Mr. Marriott quite faithfully called him on those occasions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Otis Wilson's 2004 Deposition Transcript
Authored by: Saturn on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 05:09 PM EDT
Q; "And your children, can I refer to them as 'derivative works'. What were
their names?"


---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My own opinion, and very humble one too.
Which is probably why I'm not a lawyer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.06 seconds