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
More Redacted Filings from IBM
Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 11:21 PM EDT

More guns blazing from IBM in new filings on PACER. I surely need your help in transcribing all of this. Help if you can. I don't scale.

If you only have a small amount of time, you might want to read 980 first, the GPL one. Here's one paragraph to give you an idea:
A one-time Linux company that sought to "unify UNIX with Linux", SCO repudiated and breached the GNU General Public License ("GPL") (SCO's only license to copy, modify and distribute Linux), turned on its own Linux customers and former partners in the Linux community, and sued IBM without evidence to support its claims. Now, confronted with record evidence on IBM's counterclaim establishing beyond doubt that SCO, when it embarked on its scheme in 2003, infringed copyrights owned by IBM (among many others), SCO presents to the Court an opposition memorandum filled with inapposite facts and irrelevant legal citations that seek to obfuscate its wrongdoing. Caught with its hand in the cookie jar, SCO tries to change the subject.

Fun stuff. Here are all the new filings as PDFs.Here are all the latest filings:

03/12/2007 - 976
Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply reply memorandum to (i) IBMs Memorandum in Opposition to SCOs Objections to the Magistrate Judges Order on IBMs Motion to Confine and (ii) IBMs Memorandum in Opposition to SCOs Motion to Amend its December 2005 Submission filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Normand, Edward) (Entered: 03/12/2007)

03/12/2007 - 977
REDACTION to [942] Sealed Document IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Copyright Claim (SCO's Fifth Cause of Action) by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation, Counter Claimant International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Addendum A # 2 Exhibit Addendum B # 3 Exhibit Addendum C# 4 Exhibit Addendum D# 5 Exhibit Addendum E# 6 Exhibit Addendum F# 7 Exhibit Addendum G# 8 Exhibit Addendum H# 9 Supplement Addendum I# 10 Exhibit Addendum J# 11 Exhibit Addendum K# 12 Exhibit Addendum L# 13 Supplement Addendum M# 14 Exhibit Addendum N# 15 Exhibit Addendum O)(Sorenson, Amy) (Entered: 03/12/2007)

03/13/2007 - 979
REDACTION to [946] Sealed Document IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Interference Claims (SCO's Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Causes of Action) by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation, Counter Claimant International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Addendum A# 2 Exhibit Addendum B# 3 Exhibit Addendum C# 4 Exhibit Addendum D# 5 Exhibit Addendum E)(Sorenson, Amy) (Entered: 03/13/2007)

03/13/2007 - 980
REDACTION to [945] Sealed Document IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on its Claim for Copyright Infringement (IBM's Eighth Counterclaim) by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation, Counter Claimant International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Addendum A# 2 Exhibit Addendum B)(Sorenson, Amy) (Entered: 03/13/2007)

03/13/2007 - 981
REDACTION to [938] Sealed Document IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Contract Claims (SCO's First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action) by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation, Counter Claimant International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Addendum A - Part 1# 2 Exhibit Addendum A - Part 2# 3 Exhibit Addendum B# 4 Exhibit Addendum C# 5 Exhibit Addendum D# 6 Exhibit Addendum E# 7 Exhibit Addendum F# 8 Exhibit Addendum G# 9 Exhibit Addendum H# 10 Exhibit Addenda I through GG (Unpublished Opinions))(Sorenson, Amy) (Entered: 03/13/2007)

  


More Redacted Filings from IBM | 376 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
When will it end
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 11:37 PM EDT
oh man.. This case just drags on. Hopefully soon it will end.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic here:
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 11:42 PM EDT
Keep smiling

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 11:44 PM EDT
That is - corrections for the posted article, not the sort of corrections you'd
like to see certain people serving.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Volunteering to do some OCR
Authored by: MDT on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 12:40 AM EDT
Hey PJ,
I can do some OCR'ing tomorrow on a PDF, but someone else will need to do the
HTML markup. Steve and I did a big one awhile back while you were sick. You
have my e-mail, send me a e-mail letting me know which one (if any) you want me
to OCR and I'll do it tomorrow morning.

If anyone else wants to volunteer, you can reply here to let PJ know, 'kay?



---
MDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Redacted Filings from IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 02:46 AM EDT
IBM better watch out. According to SCO's goofy court concepts, that could be
constructed as defamation of character.

Of course, that assumes there's any character left to defame over there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Potemkin village - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 06:31 AM EDT
    • Potemkin village - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 01:47 PM EDT
More Redacted Filings from IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 03:56 AM EDT
"It's a toaster. Somebody else made it. We have no idea how to fix it, but
if we tell them to make it work differently, they'd just better get on and do
it."

Fools.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cookie jar?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 05:18 AM EDT
Wow, some court documents are more understandable than others :)
This one is definitely not a dry reading.
And i thought there is a standard vocabulary for this stuff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

980: Wallace comes to haunt SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 05:50 AM EDT
IBM nicely uses the case to kink SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM-980 is Superb
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 05:54 AM EDT

I think IBM-980 is what most of us have been waiting to see. Very amusing, too. IBM have done a huge amount of work in their defence, but it would seem their counter-attack will be far easier. If I were SCO, I'd be very nervous right about now.

There's lots of good stuff and memorable quotes in there, but I especially liked this bit:

That is, it is not just the copyright itself, but the integrity of the open source collaborative software development model presented and protected by the GPL, that warrants an injunction against SCO.
Goosebumps anyone?

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

980 - and. now, I need counselling.
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 07:56 AM EDT
I have finished reading 980 and I find myself experiencing pleasure at every
paragraph.

I'm sure I would not have, previously, enjoyed watching a mugger taken into a
back alley and being beaten to a bloody pulp. Why, now, this terrifying change?

Nothing of SCO's argument seemed to be left standing as far as I could see. Even
IBM's 'unconscionable' site hacking was shown to be not unconscionable at all.
In fact, it was almost compulsory.

I know that we are seeing a top IBM legal team at work, here, and that making
their argument convincing is what they do, but acting as devil's advocate I
could still not see any wriggle room for SCO.

I loved the Wallace citations. All things come to he who lurks.

---
Regards
Ian Al

[ Reply to This | # ]

981 Addendum A
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 07:56 AM EDT

Remember how we noted that TSG always "responded" to IBM's statements of facts with complete non sequiturs? Well, it looks like IBM is finally calling them on it in doc 981's Addendum A (parts one and two). It's worth a look; basically, IBM takes every one of TSG's long-winded "disputed to the extent" statements and shoots it down simply by saying that it doesn't meet Utah Local Rules and so is "deemed admitted".

Ha!

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

980 - the best description of tSCOg
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 08:51 AM EDT
In 980, page 12, para 2, IBM cites a case wherein the litigant was described by the court as
a con-artist who sought to use the legal system to extort settlements from unsuspecting parties
Sounds like someone we know.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Transcription, Anyone?
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 09:14 AM EDT
If anyone can do an OCR of any of these documents, I'll do the HTML.



---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Redacted Filings from IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 10:08 AM EDT
SCO presents to the Court an opposition memorandum filled with inapposite facts and irrelevant legal citations that seek to obfuscate its wrongdoing. Caught with its hand in the cookie jar, SCO tries to change the subject.

OOOOUCHHHHHH !!!!
That was straight to the jugular.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's use of the Wallace cases
Authored by: freeio on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 10:21 AM EDT
What I find most gratifying is that Wallace, quite unintentionally, provided a
set of decisions which IBM can use to support its position. In section IV, the
cases quite firmly support the fact that the GPL is not anti-competitive, and is
in no way a violation of anti-trust provisions.

I rather doubt that Wallace could forsee this outcome.

---
Tux et bona et fortuna est.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Second foot falling.
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 10:55 AM EDT
IBM in 977, 979 and 981 finally make all the remaining points. In particular, it
points out all of the facts that SCO concede by not disputing them. Devastating
facts. It points out that convoluted disputation which rambles from brief to
brief without specificity is not admissible (that's one I did not know about).
IBM hammers on the clear meaning of the contract within the four corners. Just
in case the judge found some relevant ambiguity, it hammers on the intent of the
true negotiators of the contract.

IBM points out that all of the contrary 'evidence' of AT&T's intent in other
contracts were nothing to do with this contract. I loved how IBM pointed out how
mean SCO were to Mr. Wilson and then commented that Mr. Wilson, was,
nevertheless, the authorised person appointed to act on AT&T's behalf.

The contract does not and cannot mean what SCO maintain it can look as though it
means if you apply the Gupta process and rearrange paragraphs, sentences, words
and facts.

Whose UNIX is it anyway? The Judge has already said 'not yours, SCO'. I suppose
that, for SCO v. Novell, he has to wait to see if the dog disgorges the
copyright writings. He does not have to, here. Discovery is over. The truth is
as plain as the writing in the APA.

Where's the beef?

The SCO argument is razed to the ground, the roots dug up and the ground salted.
That competence takes time. The train wreck will be massive, spectacular and
over in no time at all. I cannot look away. I must not look away. I must not
blink.

---
Regards
Ian Al

[ Reply to This | # ]

A new tone form IBM?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 11:43 AM EDT
It seems to me that this is the first time I noticed the Nazgul's going after
SCO the way Novell's lawyers have been. Is this because it is a counterclaim,
or is it just a matter of timing, IBM waiting until its karma account is
replete?

IANAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

979: Another gem -- competition from Linux
Authored by: long_hair_smelly on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 12:00 PM EDT
"In addition, SCO concedes that IBM's Linux strategy and its technical
contributions to Linux were part of an effort to compete with Sun and Microsoft.
SCO's own expert witness, Dr. Gary Pisano, confirms that IBM adopted its Linux
strategy to compete with Sun and Microsoft and that SCO's declining revenues
were caused by competition from Linux generally -- not from specific conduct IBM
directed at SCO."

So much for the sad story we keep hearing from SCO...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Potemkin Village?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 01:42 PM EDT
Man, someone at IBM was having waaaaay too much fun.

Wikipedia entry for "Potemkin Village".

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Potemkin Village? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 02:58 PM EDT
More Redacted Filings from IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 02:46 PM EDT
While reading through the comments I remembered an old story book that my kids
or bothers had years ago.

In the story the main character was riding in a train. The train couldn't
continue on to the desitination for some reason and had to pull into a town for
a few hours.

The town was a "backwards town" and the train could only back in and
out. Everything in the town was backwards.

I don't remember all of the "backwards" things, but the one I remember
most was the "flashdark". If you wanted to take a nap in the middle of
the day, it would create an area of darkness for you. I've always wanted one of
those!

Could it be that SCO and it's lawyers are from this town?

[ Reply to This | # ]

YES!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 03:24 PM EDT
IBM finally says all the things we've been saying for years and wondering why
IBM wasn't saying them.

Now we know why... they were saving them up to detonate all at once. This is
legal carpet bombing at its best. They not provide countless quotable quotes,
they back them up with evidence, case law and SCO's own rebuttals.

This is some of the best reading I've had in ages!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • YES!!! - Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 03:49 PM EDT
980 and 981 - pure magic
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 04:02 PM EDT
I've read through these two, and am absolutely blown away by how clear, concise
and utterly devastating they are to SCO's case. Cheers to the lawyers who wrote
these up (and I'll bet they don't hear that often) - you rock.

The judge is not going to have to look far to find reasons to grant summary
judgement. The numerous citations are going to make this easy.

I'm so looking forward to the day when large chunks of this case get a bullet to
the head, as it has long deserved.

All the best,
David S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Best summary yet
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 05:34 PM EDT
There are so many quotable parts to these its hard to pick a favorite, but this
line from 981 stands out as probably the best summation yet of this entire
case...

"At bottom, SCO’s opposition amounts to nothing more than an unsupported
assertion that its current management believes it is entitled to make whatever
claims it likes, irrespective of the evidence."

Keywords "current management"...

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's all clear to me now
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 06:34 PM EDT
In 981, IBM comments about SCO's "textual analysis" of a 14-word
clause in the contract.

That phrase rang a bell. It's a postmodern court case, deconstructing the
wording of the contract.

The whole case makes sense now.

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Addenda?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 07:02 PM EDT
I for one would love to see the various addenda to these filings if that's
doable without killing anyone. Interesting to see IBM shoot SCO's denials to
shreds.

My personal favorite, listed in the Index of Addenda to 981:

Addendum E: An Illustration of the Absurdity of SCO's Claims.

Sounds like some fun reading. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO infinges in the future too!!
Authored by: gfim on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 07:02 PM EDT
SCO's continued copying of IBM Copyrighted Works - as recently as August this year
Not only did they copy, but IBM says they're going to do it for another 5 months!!!

---
Graham

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Europe + ODEF + MICROSOFTSPEAK
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 09:33 PM EDT
So, basically these 21 nations are saying...

WE WANT OPEN AS IN OPEN-OPEN, NOT OPEN AS IN MICROSOFT-OPEN.

Microsoftspeak tergiversates the meaning of words just so ideas are framed
within their reality subset, words are stuck to their definition just so you
can't even think of alternatives later.

Orwell was so precise in so many things, it gets scary at times.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Licensing vigilantism"--I love it!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14 2007 @ 11:27 PM EDT
In 980, "Niether IBM nor anyone else made SCO choose that path of licensing
vigilantism."

Truer words were never said... :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Redacted Filings from IBM
Authored by: comms-warrior on Thursday, March 15 2007 @ 06:35 AM EDT
What a GLORIOUS read...

I'm in stitches - And they are all stitched up!

I love the Baystar quote. Paraphrasing, it stated that they pulled out as they
noticed it being badly run. In other words, Darl is a poor CEO. Gotta like
that on your resume.....

Mr. C.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Redacted Filings from IBM
Authored by: Aim Here on Thursday, March 15 2007 @ 06:37 AM EDT
980 is so much fun to read. Almost every paragraph's a belter. IBM even had fun with some of the citations:

"Public policy certainly does not favour all "settlements". See e.g., Cofield v. Ala. Public Service Comm'n, 936 F.2d 512,516 (11th Cir. 1991) (affirming district court dismissal of suit by pro se litigant found to be "a con-artist who sought to use the legal system to extort settlements from unsuspecting parties")

Hee hee. Are you trying to say something here, guys? [

[ Reply to This | # ]

deversion of the first order
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 15 2007 @ 07:41 AM EDT
Please help me understand the comment, (from IBM-981, pg 82, bottom)

"Thus , SCO's claim that IBM's defense depends entirely on a finding of
implied waiver is a diversion of the first order."

Did IBM lawyers say in legalize that SCO lawyers lied to the court?

[ 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