|
|
| IBM Filings - Redacted Declaration of Todd Shaughnessy |
 |
|
Thursday, October 05 2006 @ 02:24 PM EDT
|
Here's the latest in SCO v IBM filings from the Pacer docket: 833 -
Filed & Entered: 10/02/2006
Modification of Docket
Docket Text: Modification of Docket: Error: Did not attach 2nd half of the document pdf. Correction: Added second half of document. re [832] Redacted Document. (blk, )
834 -
Filed & Entered: 10/04/2006
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy With Unsealed or Redacted Exhibits filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation (Sorenson, Amy)
835 -
Filed & Entered: 10/04/2006
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [804] Sealed Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (CLERKS NOTE: The exhibits are too extensive to attach and were submitted on DVD. They will be retained in the clerks office for public access.) (blk, ) We'll need to arrange to obtain the exhibits from the courthouse. They say they have them on DVD, though, so hint to the clerk: that means they are already digital. But we wouldn't need to pick them all up. We have many if not most of them already, as you can see from the list on page 3 of the Declaration. Maybe someone has the time to go over the list and match it up with what we already have? I see a lot of it is under seal, but Linus' declaration isn't. Mmm. I see a declaration by John Terpstra too. And Peter Salus. Say. We do need to get these exhibits, don't you agree? Maybe the court would allow us to make copies of the DVD, minus the sealed materials?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: entre on Thursday, October 05 2006 @ 02:35 PM EDT |
| for pj [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Totosplatz on Thursday, October 05 2006 @ 02:41 PM EDT |
Please make links clicky.
---
All the best to one and all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, October 05 2006 @ 02:43 PM EDT |
(CLERKS NOTE: The exhibits are too extensive to attach and were submitted on
DVD. They will be retained in the clerks office for public access.)
It looks like the exhibits were submitted on DVD. Why were they too extensive to
put on PACER? It can only be about 4GB.
I guess if someone hauled their notebook down to the courthouse they could make
a copy.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 05 2006 @ 02:56 PM EDT |
221 Declaration of Ransom Love, dated September 15, 2006 (Redacted)
Hmmm, testifying for IBM?
401 Document titled "The SCO Group, Inc. Intellectual Property Compliance
License for SCO UNUX [sic] Rights", bearing Bates SCO1304158-65 (Under
Seal)
Hmmm, can't even spell the name of the product that they supposedly own?
461 Caldera, Inc. whitepaper titled "Our Social Contract with the Open
Source Community"
Hmmm, just the title by itself is hilarious
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.
P.S.
The title of exhibit 578 identifies "PCMS Group" as a Linux IP
licensee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 05 2006 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
On page 100 of the first document above IBM notes that SCO continued to
distribute Linux (containing IBM's code) after the law suit was filed. It has
failed to note that Open Linux (SCO distribution) is still available in 2006 -
over three years since the suit started.
I suspect that even IBM missed Planet Mirror.
Aside from that the filing itself is an extremely impressive piece of work. If
this particular filing isnt included in law schools tutorials 'On how to write a
motion' it should be.
--
MadScientist[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, October 05 2006 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
Is Dr. Salus at liberty to discuss his declaration here, or is that prohibited
or "bad form"?
Any IAALs or Dr. Salus himself want to comment?
---
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 Thursday, October 05 2006 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
In [833], on page 83, last sentence of the middle paragraph.
"The restrictions that SCO seeks to impose on IBM's original works are a
figment of SCO's wishful thinking."
From my point of view, that sentence is a great summation of this entire
situation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 05 2006 @ 04:42 PM EDT |
597 exhibits? What does IBM think SCO has 25,000 man years to read all these
documents?
But seriously, does this mean that the court will somehow have to discern and
use all of this information? It was one thing for IBM to dump billions of lines
of source code on SCO when they asked for it, but 597 exhibits on the court?
For you lawyerly types, is this typical? Or is it WAY out of the ordinary?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 05 2006 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
| Of all of the exhibits listed the one that stands out most for me is #230 -
"Declaration of M. Douglas McIlroy".
In case anyone doesn't know who Doug
McIlroy is, check out his home
page at Dartmouth and, in particular, this Advice From Doug
McIlroy on Dennis Ritchie's home page.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 06 2006 @ 01:08 AM EDT |
| Here are the first five pages of the table as text, hyperlinked to what I could
find:
- SCO's orginal
Complaint, dated March 6, 2003
- SCO's Amended
Complaint, dated July 22, 2003
- SCO's Second
Amended Complaint, dated February 27, 2004
- IBM's Second Amended Counterclaims, dated March 29,
2004
- SCO's Answer to IBM's Second Amended
Counterclaims, dated April 23, 2004
- IBM's
Answer to the Amended Complaint and Counterclaim-Plaintiff IBM's Counterclaims
Against SCO, dated August 6, 2003
- SCO's
Amended Answer to IBM's Amended Counterclaims, dated March 11, 2004
- Complaint in Red Hat, Inc.
v. The SCO Group, Inc., Civ. A. No. 03-772 (D. Del.), dated March 3,
2004
- Complaint in
The SCO Group, Inc. v. AutoZone, Inc., Case no. CV-S-04-0237 (D. Nev.),
dated March 2, 2004
- SCO's Proposed Third Amended Complaint
- IBM's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request
for the Production of Documents, dated June 13, 2003
- IBM's Second Set of Interrogatories and Second
Request for the Production of Documents, dated September 16, 2003
- IBM's
Third Set of Interrogatories and Third Request for Production of Documents,
dated October 29, 2003
- IBM's Forth Set of Interrogatories and Fourth Request
for Production of Documents, dated March 29, 2004
- IBM's Fifth Request for
Production of Documents, dated May 14, 2004
- IBM's Fifth Set of
Interrogatories, dated July 30, 2004
- IBM's Sixth Set of Interrogatories and
Sixth Request for Productìon of Documents, dated January 11, 2005
- IBM's
Seventh Request for the Production of Documents, dated September 2,
2005
- IBM's Seventh Set of Interrogatories, dated February 14,
2006
- Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff IBM's Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition,
dated September 2, 2005
- Document titled "IBM Linux Update", dated September
23, 1999 and bearing Bates numbers 1710091325-37
- Article by Stephen
Shakland, titled "Itanium: A cautionary ta1e", from CNET News.com, dated
December 8, 20O5
Document titled "IBM-SCO Family Unix Technical
Proposal", dated September 2, 1998 and bearing Bates numbers SCO1310620-37
(Under Seal)
Document titled "Optìons for Distributìon and
Royalty Flow-Draft 1", bearing Bates numbers 1710141628-29 (Under
Seal)
- Document titled "genus: An IBM/SCO UNIX Project Marketing
Development P1an", bearing Bates numbers SCO1233395-407
- Artic1e by Brian
Pereira, titled "McKinley is one to watch" from Network Magazine India,
dated March 2002
- Article by Paul Barker, titled "New HP-Intel pact could hìt
PC clones hard", from Computing Canada, dated July 6, 1994
- Article by
Michael Kanellos, titled "Is Merced doomed?", from CNET News.com, dated January
2, 2002
- Article titled "Intel moves to shore up Itanium support", from
itworld.com, dated February 22, 2001
- Article titled "What's Wrong with
Merced", from Microprocessor Report, dated August 3, 1998
- SCO's Responses to IBM's First Set of Interrogatories
and First Request for the Production of Documents, dated August 4,
2003
- SCO's Supplemental Response to
Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, dated October 23, 2003
- SCO's Revised Supplemental Response to IBM's First and
Second Set of Interrogatories, dated January 15, 2004
- SCO's Supplemental Response to IBM's Second Set of
Interrogatories and Second Request for the Production of Documents, dated
October 23, 2003
- SCO's Response to IBM's Third Set of Interrogatories
and Third Request for the Production of Documents, dated October 28,
2003
- SCO's Response to IBM's Third Set of Interrogatories, dated April 19,
2004
SCO's Responses to IBM's Fourth Set of Interrogatories, dated
May 28, 2004 (Under Seal)
SCO's Amended Responses to IBM's
Fourth Set of Interrogatories, dated June 25, 2004 (Under
Seal)
- SCO's Responses to IBM's Firth Set of Interrogatories, dated
September 8, 2004
- SCO's Response to IBM's Fifth Request for Production of
Documents, dated June 14, 2004
- SCO's Response to IBM's Sixth Set of
Interrogatories and Request for the Production of Documents, dated March 2,
2005
- SCO's Response to IBM's Seventh Request for the Production of
Documents, dated October 11, 2005
SCO's Second Revised Supplemental
Response to IBM's Sixth Set of Interrogatories, dated December 22, 20O5 (Under
Seal)
- SCO's Response to IBM's Seventh Set of Interrogatories, dated
April 7, 2006
- SCO's Objections and Responses to Part of IBM's Second Set of
Requests for Admission, dated February 28, 2006
- SCO's Supplemental Response
to Interrogatory No. 8, dated January 13, 2006
- Letter from Edward Normand to
Amy Sorenson, dated September 26, 2005
- Web page tìtled "Support
Services", available at
http://www.sco.com/support/download.html
Document tìtled
"Revenue Information for Select Customers for the Period of FY 1999-FY 2005",
marked as Exhibit No. I023 to the December 2, 2005 Depositíon of Darl McBride
(Under Seal)
Invoice for the period of 1996-1998, marked as
Exhibít No. 1024 to the December 2, 2005 Deposition of Darl McBride (Under
Seal)
- Document titled "Persons or Entities Whose Re1atíonship with
SCO IBM Is Alleged to Have Interfered with, Such that SCO Was Damaged, that Are
the Subject of SCO's Claims against IBM - Identified by Mr. McBride at
Deposition", marked as Exhibit No. 1035 to the December 2, 2005 Deposition of
Darl McBride
- Letter from Todd M. Shaughnessy to Edward Normand, dated
December 5, 2005
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Friday, October 06 2006 @ 02:32 AM EDT |
I am browsing through the IBM exhibits. It would be wonderful to have the
redacted disk. It would be better to have the unredacted disk.
All these exhibits are meant to show that there is no disputable question of
fact and that these facts show that SCO is wrong. Rule now, Judge.
There is no better way to show that you and your opponent do not disagree on a
fact than to use your opponents own words and rendition of the facts to support
your argument. You therefore see exhibits like "No. 146 Letter from Jack
B. Blumenfeld to Hon. Sue L Robinson, dated June 17, 2004." Blumenfeld is
reporting for SCO. IBM can use something from that letter with the assurance
that there can be no dispute about it. SCO says it. Later there are listed
numerous SCO Product Announcements. It is hard to testify when you are trying
to swallow your own words. SCO conference calls! Excerpts from Flaxa's book!
O'Gara articles quoting SCOfolk! Patents, transcripts and books. They may even
have more stuff than PJ has found!
The really good stuff like No. 209 the transcript of the November 9, 2004
Deposition of Michael Eugene Anderer remains under seal. This would be a key M$
link unless Anderer admits he was just puffing for a fee.
SCO should try to at least match them in style if not in substance. We can have
a trial by DVD. Someday we can just stream it to jurors at home.
---
webster
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL on Friday, October 06 2006 @ 08:58 AM EDT |
The Houlihan evaluation has been
discussed a lot at Groklaw and seems to be important for the trial in many
respects. IBM has even subpoenad them earlier. Yet, I can't find that mentioned
among the 597 documents. I guess it is easy to miss or is it not
there?
---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
