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
IBM's Recent Addenda -- The Rest Of The Story
Saturday, March 17 2007 @ 06:50 AM EDT

We recently posted some new redacted filings by IBM regarding the recently heard summary judgment motions. What we have not seen until now is some of the addenda that went along with those filings.

Here's a table of the addenda to the recent filings, with the relevant filing indicated along with links to the PDFs and titles of each Addendum.



***************************

FilingAddendumAddendum Title
IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support
of Its Motion for Summary Judgment
on SCO's Copyright Claim
(SCO's Fifth Cause of Action)
(Docket 977)
Addendum AIBM's Undisputed Facts:
SCO's Copyright Infringement Claim
Addendum BIBM's Objections to SCO's Alleged Evidence
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)
(Docket 979)
Addendum AIBM's Undisputed Facts:
SCO's Tortious Interference Claims
Addendum BIBM's Objections to SCO's Alleged Evidence
IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support
of its Motion for Summary Judgment
on its Claim for Copyright Infringement
(IBM's Eighth Counterclaim)
(Docket 980)
Addendum AIBM's Undisputed Facts
Material to its Eighth Counterclaim
for Copyright Infingement
Addendum BIBM's Objections to SCO's Alleged Evidence
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)
(Docket 981)
Addendum A1IBM's Undisputed Facts:
SCO's Breach of Contract Claims
(Part 1)
Addendum A2(Part 2)
Addendum BIBM's Objections to SCO's Alleged Evidence
Addendum CIrrelevance of SCO's Declarants
Addendum DSelected Testimony of Involved Persons
Addendum EAn Illustration of the Absurdity of SCO's Claim
Addendum HAnalysis of SCO's Assertions Regarding UNIX Licensees'
Disclosure of Homegrown Material


  


IBM's Recent Addenda -- The Rest Of The Story | 97 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please
Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, March 17 2007 @ 06:56 AM EDT
If needed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic here please
Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, March 17 2007 @ 07:00 AM EDT
Please do remember to make clickable links where possible.

PJ, please go back to bed and get some more rest. You seem to be getting into bad habits again, working too hard at all times of the day or night, and we don't want to become ill again.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Giving Paul Murphy his due
Authored by: hardmath on Saturday, March 17 2007 @ 08:01 AM EDT
Recent comments on Groklaw have linked to a ZDNet column by Paul Murphy, which I
shall not relink here (Google News is among your friends, keywords: SCO IBM
contracts).

Central to his article is the notion that IBM and SCO have finally made crystal
clear ("clarity as push approaches shove") that the crux of this case
is contract claims.

While it's of course dubious that SCO deserves credit for making anything clear
without being led to that fate in extrema, we should give Paul credit for having
spotted the golden nugget of truth in recent filings.

Where he loses it is by espousing this is somehow a good thing for SCO and, by
inference, for his stated belief in SCO's "strong case". It is not,
as IBM argues.

SCO's plethora of add-on claims, e.g. for tortious interference, are barred by
long legal precedent from independent assertion where required elements are
missing.

What else in this picture is bad for SCO? In a word, poof. IBM points out that
the essential claims of contract breach are untimely, waived, estopped, etc.
SCO doesn't deserve the opportunity to resurrect complaints that really are
contract claims in such various guises as might help to evade the narrow
construction that contract law affords.

So Paul Murphy's basic point is spot on: contracts, contracts, contracts. Why
he thinks this development is beneficial to SCO remains a mystery.


regards, hm

---
"It's time to get it on!" -- Darl McBride (March 1, 2007),
arguing that SCO's investment in litigation means
their stock is undervalued in the market

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Favourite Quote
Authored by: papafox on Saturday, March 17 2007 @ 09:28 AM EDT

Regarding IBM Ex. 560 Exhibits from a book titled AIX Operating System: Programming Tools and Interfaces, published by IBM in 1989:

SCO

Rochkind ¶9
“[IBM] Ex. 560 reproduces pages from an IBM programmer’s manual of the sort which is normally distributed to purchases of an operating system. It contains no indication that it was ever published, or otherwise made available to the public…”

IBM

“IBM Ex. 560 contains a stamp at the top of the second page stating ‘CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY’ which indicates the document is publicly available…”

Hey, BS&F can you spell ‘impeached’? Was this let through because of sloppy work, or maybe BS&F just don't care any more?

[ Reply to This | # ]

E - For Entertainment
Authored by: sproggit on Saturday, March 17 2007 @ 09:34 AM EDT
If you have the time to look at just one of the above attachments, then treat
yourself to Addendum E.

In this 2-page filing IBM does a wonderful job of making two points crystal
clear. The first is to underline that The SCO Group have now stopped short of
accusing IBM of directly copying copyright Unix System V source code into Linux.
Instead they continue to stick to the bizarre "poisoned code" theory.


The use of two illustrations is very telling, but perhaps for several reasons.
Firstly, it is going to cement in Judge Kimball's mind exactly what is going on
here, and exactly what Smoke-And-Mirrors game BSF/TSG are trying to pull.

But at the same time, I think IBM are telegraphing something else to Judge
Kimball. They are saying, "If you really feel you have to put us in front
of a jury for this nonsense, here's just one snipped of the way that we're going
to fight our case. Are you really sure that you want to?"


A while back, AllParadox [come back, we miss you] wrote an article in which he
gave his analysis of the Court's decisions up to that point in time, and wrote
of the way that a Judge can help to move a case along through the judicial
system. At the time AllParadox was convinced that Judge Kimball was sceptical of
TSGs claims [and AP has been proven 100% right on that score...].

I get the impression that we're seeing something very similar in play at the
moment. Judge Kimball has been very careful to permit both sides to set out
their arguments in full. The Court has been lenient with extensions and giving
parties more than enough time to make their case.

But in the transcript from these recent filings, two tiny points stand out by a
country mile. The first comes when he admonishes Counsel for TSG with
"Don't ever interrupt me when..." Though we can never infer tone from
typed words, I don't suppose this was said in anger, but it does speak volumes.
Compare BSF's approach to the Court with the careful and polite deference shown
by CSM's Team.

The second comes during exchanges between [I think] Mr Marriott and the Court,
where Marriott is in the middle of an explanation and Judge Kimball interrupts
him with little, clarifying questions. He makes the distinction between Santa
Cruz and SCO, or shows that he understands how the position dictates the nature
of the claims that can be made.

It's not merely the fact that the Court's question reveal that Judge Kimball
understands *_exactly_* what is going on here, but also the way in which the
exchanges happen. I think congenial might be a good description in this case.


It is - clearly - too early to say whether or not Judge Kimball agrees with IBM
that these points can be ruled as Summary Judgements or PSJs, but what is clear
is that he has been doing his homework and is right on top of all the facts at
dispute.

AllParadox, if you're still out there, is there any chance you'd consider
another "interpretation" of the present state of play for us please?
I'm pretty sure that it would be very widely appreciated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Illustration of the Absurdity of SCO's Claim -- Addendum E -- Watch Out, IBM!
Authored by: fudnutz on Saturday, March 17 2007 @ 12:09 PM EDT
The original is on a 5' by 7' card.

SCO will convert this exhibit to their purposes. It explains their position
better than they could for the past four years. It is IBM who has delayed in
preparing and then disclosing this.

It will become Exhibit A for SCO. With it SCO can now finally be compensated
for the losses and injustice they have suffered at the be-juiced hands of IBM
and the Blackberry folk. Add to that the VOIP exploitations if they use TCP/IP,
too. The Internet itself.....

What is so absurd? It is a contract entered in by both sides. If the fruits of
the contract ripen into unforeseen and profitable areas, aren't the parties
still allowed to benefit from the contract?

Consider the man who invented the first wheel for a wheelbarrow --{or was it a
unicycle?}. Just because someone thinks of using it with another wheel and an
axle and putting it on a Lotus doesn't mean he shouldn't get credit --and be
duly compensated for, the wheel.

Be reasonable. Give SCO their due. They are perfectly willing to settle.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Illustration of the Absurdity of SCO's Claim
Authored by: mossc on Saturday, March 17 2007 @ 12:15 PM EDT
An interesting point, if TSGs claims re: contract were correct the statement
about having paid $130 million for UNIX having to include copyrights would
dispute the claim that they have rights on everything ever having touched SYS V.
That would be worth a lot more than $130 million.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Register ...
Authored by: alisonken1 on Saturday, March 17 2007 @ 01:05 PM EDT
... has an article posted which puts Groklaw promiently in the spotlight.

Title of the article is "Only 326 lines of code said to be at issue in SCO-IBM flap."

It's prominently posted as one of the top 3 stories (as of 17Mar) at the top of the page.

The blurb on the homepage is a good one:

"'Mountain' turns out to be flat"

---
- Ken -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com
http://www.mutagenix.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who is working on which addenda?
Authored by: grouch on Saturday, March 17 2007 @ 09:59 PM EDT
I've downloaded all of the "Addendum" PDFs, but don't know who is working on transcribing nor which ones have been sent or are being worked on.

---
-- grouch

http://edge-op.org/links1.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parol evidence rule
Authored by: dwandre on Sunday, March 18 2007 @ 03:42 AM EDT
I looked it up (probably been done before but here it is): 
a rule of document interpretation: parol evidence offered to contradict or modify a writing (as a contract or will) is not admissible when the writing is unambiguous or was intended to be a final expression of the author's wishes
from "parol evidence rule." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 18 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parol evidence rule>. So it all boils down to those 14 words in paragraph 2.01 of SOFTWARE LICENSE that IBM mentions in its PSJ motion on contract claims, which is a pretty tenuous argument for SCO to hang it's case on. I can't see how SCO can win this one.

[ 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 )