|
|
| SCO Opposes 2 IBM Motions for SJ: re Interference and Unfair Competition |
 |
|
Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 06:32 PM EST
|
SCO has filed two redacted memoranda in opposition to two of IBM's summary judgment motions. Here is the Pacer information:
907 -
Filed & Entered:
12/27/2006
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [861] Sealed Document Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Unfair Competition Claim by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Hatch, Brent)
908 -
Filed & Entered:
12/27/2006
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [868] Sealed Document, Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Interference Claims by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Hatch, Brent)
So you can compare, here is IBM's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Unfair Competition Claim, which is what #908 is responding to. And here's IBM's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Interference Claims (SCO's Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action), the one #907 is opposing. That's the claim that kept morphing, with IBM doing everything it could to try to figure out what SCO was talking about, after every entity SCO claimed IBM had caused to stop having a positive relationship with SCO denied any such interference. Also, Red Hat has filed another letter [PDF] with the judge in Delaware, as required quarterly. It's just a low-key accounting of events in the SCO litigation.
Update: SCO has done it again -- they filed a "redacted" document improperly redacted. So I've removed it until we can put up one that is properly redacted. Update 2: I've got 908 done as text. See the next article. Enjoy, while I work on 907. Update 3: 907 is done now as text as well.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: josmith42 on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 06:48 PM EST |
For PJ...
---
This comment was typed using the Dvorak keyboard layout. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: josmith42 on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 06:49 PM EST |
Clickable links are really cool.
---
This comment was typed using the Dvorak keyboard layout. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: joef on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 06:54 PM EST |
I note that RH did not make any reference to the fact that the judge asked to be
informed if there is any delay in the IBM-SCO case. I infer that RH is happy to
let sleeping dogs lie, and allow IBM and Novell counsel to carry the load.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 07:06 PM EST |
Lots and lots of emotionally loaded language. Looks like it's playing to the
press and public rather than to the judge.
They make much of the fact that IBM didn't ship a compiler with AIX for IA-64.
IIRC, IBM just said, "Use Intel's compiler." In my opinion, this was
a reasonable position, given how hard it was to write compilers for Itanium.
But SCO says this is evidence that IBM was acting in bad faith, that what they
produced was a sham rather than a real product.
In SCO's statement of facts, item 68 says that they were shocked that IBM
wouldn't let Monterrey transfer to them, since it was critical to their plans.
I'm sure that IBM is going to have lots of evidence to introduce to the
contrary. And at first glance, despite all SCO's language of outrage, I don't
know that they've introduced any evidence to support their position.
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 07:10 PM EST |
| So do these need to be linked into the table at http://www.gro
klaw.net/article.php?story=20061222202105876? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sk43 on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 07:14 PM EST |
In [908] (Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on
SCO's
Interference Claims ), SCO states:
19. Contrary to IBM assertions
at paragraph 50 of the Motion, and
elsewhere, SCO did not encourage its partners
or its customers to use or
support Linux instead of Unix.
Oh
really? Then why did
techweb.com,
in
an interview with Ransom Love,
CEO of Caldera, on Feb 8, 2001,
report:
Caldera is confident it can move SCO customers to Linux.
"We
have brick-and-mortar businesses using Unix applications today," said
Ransom
Love, Caldera president and CEO. "We can move them to Linux and the
Internet
using Caldera technologies."
Gee, isn't Linux too low-end
compared to Unix? Not for long!
Caldera also plans to migrate
clustering technology from UnixWare to Linux to make Linux more
powerful.
Thank you, Ransom. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sk43 on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 07:29 PM EST |
In [908] (Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on
SCO's
Interference Claims ), SCO states:
59. In 1995, Novell sold its
entire UNIX-related business to SCO's
predecessor-in-interest The Santa Cruz
Operation, Inc. ...
which is why Judge Wells,
on Dec 20, 2005 [587] stated:
I'm prepared to rule on this matter
at this time. First, I
find that the Novell to Santa Cruz transaction did not
transfer the
entirety of the business, nor
did the Santa Cruz to Caldera
transaction.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 07:34 PM EST |
Hey, did anyone know that these folks do not know how to properly redact a
document? If you select the redacted sections of the document, copy them to the
clipboard and paste them into OpenOffice you can read most of what has been
redacted. They did not delete the text they just whited it out.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 07:45 PM EST |
I've just started reading SCO 908, the Interference memo.
If you look thru for SCO's contentions about what evidence they claim
contradicts IBM's argument, much of it is McBride's deposition, Hunsaker's
deposition (these reference IBM exhibits), and an affidavit that McBride appears
to have executed (SCO exhibit 165).
Among the things that are quite interesting, is that Hunsaker's deposition tells
about what SCO (meaning Santa Cruz) did way back in 1979-1989. Was Hunsaker
even there? Can he testify on these matters from personal knowledge?
McBride's declaration makes a claim about what Goldfarb told him IBM said.
Isn't that hearsay and inadmissable?
And both of the two, tell us about Oracle did in certifying SCO platforms in
2000-2001 (was McBride even at SCO then?), and Oracle's motivations for doing
so. Again how can that be from personal knowledge - neither of them worked for
Oracle?
Well I can't help but think that a lot of SCO facts here may be inadmissable?
But if, the case reaches a jury, it will be interesting because we'll have
McBride and Hunsaker on stand telling the court about what and why Oracle did
what it did in 2000, and what SCO did before they even joined, etc.... And the
actual witnesses who were there telling a totally different story.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.
P.S.
In 908, they just love to mix up Santa Cruz and Caldera under SCO[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: peterhenry on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 07:50 PM EST |
The old OLD SCO/New SCO shuffle in 907, footnote 2 on page 3. The term
"SCO" is herein used to mean whatever we feel like it means as long as
it is to our advantage. Therefore we own all of everything OLD SCO did because
we have the same initials!!
Good legal reasoning, no ?
---
--We have met the enemy and he is us......Pogo
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 07:54 PM EST |
PJ,
The redaction of the PDF files was not done properly.
Both xpdf, and pdftotext can read the redacted sections
of the PDF's. You'd better pull them, I guess.
---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 08:33 PM EST |
I've been reading 907. I'm trying to not hurt myself by laughing too hard.
As others have noted SCO (the term they admittedly morph into whatever SCO they
want it to be without telling anyone) are whining loudly about Monterey, and
that they (new) SCO (Caldera) acquired all rights to UNIX from (old) SCO, Santa
Cruz, except they could only acquire what Santa Cruz had to offer. Since
everything we've seen here and in SCO v Novell leans towards Novell actually
retaining the copyrights to SVRx, SCO has no standing to sue over that code.
On top of it with Novell overriding (new) SCO's action re: SVRx with IBM and
Sequent, SCO has no standing to sue (assuming that contractural provision
stands, and I think we've seen nothing to refute that).
And then, of course, there's that little business of IBM not continuing
Monterey, which again means (new) SCO has no standing to bring suit. Especially
since Tarantella old(SCO) still exists... as the business successor in interest
to (old) SCO.
I'm glad I'm not one of the judges on this case. I find reading through SCO's
filings to be rather painful, given all that we know.
...D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 08:46 PM EST |
Will we hear SCO whine to the judge that we "hacked" their redacted
memoranda, and therefore IBM's motions must be denied?
I know it sounds crazy, but with SCO I wouldn't bet that it won't happen. :-)
---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 09:15 PM EST |
"Redacted document improperly redacted"?
Again? Feels like a setup to me. SCO wants to complain to the judge that PJ
hacked the document and improperly disclosed it, so they can trick the judge to
force her to show up in Utah to explain her actions.
Nothing else SCO has tried has gotten them direct access to PJ. So, maybe they
can get the judge to do it for them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 10:01 PM EST |
In 907, SCO argues:
1. Although the Monterey contract was not assigned from Santa Cruz to Caldera,
the unfair competition claim was assigned in mid 2001.
And, by implication, although they carefully avoid saying it: they are entitled
to unfair competition damages up to mid 2001.
Elsewhere in the memo: 2. IBM's unfair competition didn't start until later in
2001.
Let's see, if we accept both their arguments, they were assigned damages claims
for a period when there were no damages.... and which preceded the allegedly
improper conduct.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 11:00 PM EST |
Can any body tell me what happens now. We have to wait till untill a proper
redavted version is put up in Pacer.
Didn't something like this happen before, a word document that had undelete
functions retrieve edits. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What now - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 28 2006 @ 01:24 AM EST
- What now - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 28 2006 @ 09:07 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 11:37 PM EST |
Is it just me or has SCO been reduced to playing the "you can't disprove a
negative" card for every claim/motion/memo?
They talk about what the contract doesn't say, what IBM didn't tell them, what
Santa Cruz couldn't know, what the depositions didn't present, etc...
Every statement they make that isn't a negative goes straight back to the source
code they failed to produce or to the expert reports that are disallowed.
Doesn't say much for whatever evidence they *may* have.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mwexler on Thursday, December 28 2006 @ 01:44 AM EST |
Because of
REDACTED
and
REDACTED
all of SCO's arguments are moot.
Also,
REDACTED
QED[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 28 2006 @ 12:57 PM EST |
"Similarly, I know there are many people who are quite taken in by the
clarity of HD content, but I'm perfectly happy with my standard television.
DVD-quality is good enough for me."
I spent the Christmas weekend at my son's home. He has a very nice 32"
Samsung HDTV and DirectTV set up, with home theater audio. So my wife and I
decided to take a close look at the difference between TV and HDTV. After three
days, we decided we couldn't see any! There was no visible difference between a
standard signal and an HD version of the same show. There might be on a 52"
screen, but his living room is not big enough for that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
