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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Tuesdays filings in SCO-IBM
Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 02:26 AM EST

There has been some docket action in the SCO-IBM case, but the filings that are interesting are not available electronically. (Who doesn't want to read sealed documents?) Kimball signed the motion that allowed IBM to file an oversized reply.

The Pacer docket entries:

963 ADDENDUM K to 961 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (Clerks Note: Full document not scanned and attached due to size. Complete document will be retained in the clerks office for viewing.) (blk) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
[We only have the table of contents, listing the unpublished cases IBM referred.]
964 **SEALED DOCUMENT** ADDENDUM J - re 961 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (blk) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
965 **SEALED DOCUMENT** ADDENDUM I - re 961 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (blk) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
966 ORDER granting 962 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 2/20/07. (blk) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
-- MathFox


  


Tuesdays filings in SCO-IBM | 246 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: kh on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 02:55 AM EST
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic here
Authored by: kh on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 02:58 AM EST
Try and make a clicky link

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not to exceed 22 pages of argument
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 06:59 AM EST
IBM doesn't get carte blanche to produce a 200-page monster.

I suspect the Court has had enough of wading through SCO's randomised,
distorted, waffly meanderings and has finally decided to confine this insanity,
starting - to be fair to both players - with IBM. Next time SCO enters a motion
to permit SCO to produce another tome of drivel, expect to see it limited
likewise. Also, expect SCO to produce their tome of drivel anyway, by
continuing their inherently self-refuting argument in the
conclusion/attachments/appendices/exhibits or wherever else they can sneak it
in.

---
I would rather stand corrected than sit confused.
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

WOW @ the attacks on PJ
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 08:05 AM EST
Haven't checked for news in a couple days, looked in this AM, and Google News'ed
for related stories.

Saw a hit piece by some female 'journalist' (I've never heard of her, don't know
what her quals are...) over at CRN. She sounds like she is an O'Gara fan and a
gloater.

Saw the phony 'Where's PJ' blog that looks like something Darl is doing late at
night when he is lucid enough to (barely) use a keyboard.

I am *amazed* at the vitriol pouring out of these people towards PJ!

But it made me realize: These people are the ones who like DRM, MS OS'es,
frivilous lawsuits, etc etc - everything I *don't* like.

The poor little buggers have themselves all whipped up in a frenzy, hoping
beyond hope that they can use PJ as a strawman to say "Since she isn't
real, there must be No Truth in what Groklaw does!".

Sorry folks, your emperor ain't got no clothes, regardless of the existence of
PJ.

Yes, the Truth hurts you, and it is obvious that you are feeling the pain. Your
shrill cries make that point.

I sure would hate to be you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Something just clicked re APA Amendment 2
Authored by: toads_for_all on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 10:03 AM EST
I have always wondered about APA Amendment 2, like, what happened to cause Novell and Santa Cruz to amend the APA a second time, and add to the "Excluded Assets":
All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies.
Reading BIFF's blatherings over on Y!, it occurred to me that it might have been the beginnings of Project Monterey. (I wonder if BIFF will ever realize that he usually ends up making the opposite point of what he is trying to make)

And what is the signifigance of it? Glad you asked. It could mean that Santa Cruz knew that Novell retained all of the copyrights, and that they believed in order to enter into "joint venture" agreements, like Project Monterey with IBM, they needed some additional rights, those "required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX [technologies] and UnixWare technologies" not already granted by the APA and Amendment 1.

As I see it, The SCO Group can not claim rights The Santa Cruz Operation didn't have, and knew they didn't have.

[ Reply to This | # ]

TSG and Microsoft
Authored by: gbl on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 01:24 PM EST
Now that Ballmer is regularly making the same accusations as TSG but, like TSG, not actually producing any evidence, we have to concider what the next move from MS will be.

It seems to me that MS will attempt to buy off another major supplier of Linux. There are rumours about feelers being made towards Redhat. Hopefully RH will not be tempted by the smell of money. But there is always Oracle, a company that seems to be perfectly happy to hurt RH even though Oracle is not an OS company.

I also believe that there will be a major attack on Samba. Because Samba is "bug compatible" with the Microsoft SMB servers I think that they might be in very dangerous waters because of the DRM and the reverse-engineering restrictions (and it doesn't matter if it is all FUD, Samba would still need a White Knight and we can't expect IBM to step up again - they might, but it cannot be presumed.)

Groklaw has to start following Microsoft statements in the same detail as it has followed TSG. No half-truths or spin should go unchallenged. The witterings of Ballmer must be refuted every single time else the FUD takes hold.

Microsoft can't beat Linux via technology or product quality. They can beat Linux and all open/free software using FUD and abusing the US legal system.

---
If you love some code, set it free.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wishes for PJ to feel better soon
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 03:07 PM EST
Here's a thread so that people can post their hopes for PJ to get better soon
under it :)

Hope you're better soon, PJ! And I also hope that those nasty SCO stalkers go
away.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tuesdays filings in SCO-IBM
Authored by: DustDevil on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 12:57 PM EST
Good to see you're still around!

---
All comments are my own, not that of my employer

[ 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 )