|
|
| SCO Moves to Amend AutoZone Complaint and IBM Protective Order |
 |
|
Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 04:36 PM EDT
|
SCO has been a busy bee, filing a motion to amend/correct its complaint against AutoZone and a motion to amend/correct the protective order in SCO v. IBM.
What it wants in the IBM motion is to get to use documents it got in discovery in that action in the bankruptcy, to demonstrate "the value of its claims". Heh heh. Not sure how well that will work out for SCO. I think we may safely expect an opposition from IBM.
And in AutoZone, it would like to "expand" its copyright claims to include OpenServer. Surprise. Surprise. That's all it reliably has left to use to be annoying, I think. It also wants to add a claim for breach of agreements. Presumably this is to try to avoid losing outright, now that Novell has been ruled the owner of the copyrights SCO initially sued about. So, even if Novell is upheld by the appeals court, SCO evidently wants to continue somehow, in some way, whatever works. SCO tells the court that the court can allow the amendment, if justice so requires. I am not sure justice is the foundation on which I'd build my house, if I were SCO. People might start to have deep thoughts.
First the motion in SCO v. IBM:
06/30/2009 - 1082 - MOTION to Amend/Correct 38 Protective Order filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Normand, Edward) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
And here's the motion in SCO v. Autozone:
07/01/2009 - 99 - MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint re 1 Complaint. by Plaintiff SCO Group, Inc.. Responses due by 7/19/2009. (Pocker, Richard) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
(Note: The AutoZone motion has the proposed amended complaint attached, in the one PDF, starting on page 8 of the PDF.)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: webster on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 04:39 PM EDT |
| ...here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: oro_meister on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
| Please quote the article's title. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 05:09 PM EDT |
... your honour, the hearing of the motions to convert must be delayed, until we
have an order in Utah to allow us to use these documents as evidence in the
hearing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 05:10 PM EDT |
I think Judge Gross should tell SCO to stop spending money like it has it.
Until SCO is out of the bankruptcy court the only thing the attorneys should be
working on is getting them out of bankruptcy. That doesn't include huge fees to
put together slimey deals to sell proprietary information to go to the middle
east, or to spend money trying to reactivate cases that are suspended while in
bankruptcy.
These attorneys are nuts. They haven't been paid, and yet they are running up
huge bills. They should be telling the client that when they see some money
they will do the sale plan, etc. Otherwise, only work focused on the chapter 7
filing, and minimal at that.
wjarvis[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 05:27 PM EDT |
Your honor, just because we have no case, no evidence, no factual or legal basis
for our suits, no money and just because we have had numerous rulings against us
is no reason to limit our ability to try out ever more innovative ways to game
the system.
To continue on all litigation fronts while under the onerous weight of previous
negative rulings against us would severely prejudice SCO's ability to continue
lavishly spending soneone else's money. Additionally, due to counterclaims
filed by IBM, as well as claims filed by Redhat, certain individuals at SCO may
find themselve restricted in their ability to remain free, unencumbered by
prison cell walls, bars, armed guards, etc.
In order to protect SCO's valuable right to live like kings on someone else's
dime, SCO respectfully requests that the court allow us to yet again alter and
obsfucate our alleged claims in order to delay and prolong our litigation scam.
Additionally, previous disclosure agreements should be discarded, as they limit
SCO's ability to spin believable lies from nothing at all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
How could they spend the estate money on motions to be filed on stayed cases?
Can't that wait until the cases are resumed?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
Here's what Darl has been up to recently
I note
that Stephen Norris & Darl McBride seem to be real cosy
Darllll,
we seeee youuuuu
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
The last canonical thread was still missing. here it is.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ChrisP on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 06:42 PM EDT |
"18. Starting approximately in early 2000, Linux was wrongfully transformed
from an upstart hobbyistâs program into a powerful general enterprise operating
system competitive with UNIX and Windows. According to leaders within the
Linux-development community, Linux is intended to displace UNIX System V."
Now SCO nee Caldera wouldn't have had anything to do with that transformation
now would they? Do I hear estoppal? The banging of a footgun?
Any other favorites?
---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 11:32 PM EDT |
Ok, check me on this - make sure I am understanding this correctly.
SCO is asking Judge Kimball to allow SCO to file confidential info from the IBM
case under seal to the bankruptcy case.They fail to mention that they have
already filed those documents, and have done so in violation of the protective
order.
Their rationale is that it will save everyone mucho bucks to not have to
discovery all over again. They fail to mention what it will cost - in time and
money - to totally replicate the entire litigation stack. In a new venue. That
doesn't have the expertise for it. Nor jurisdiction.
Did I miss something?
cpeterson
IANAL. NN,NE.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Check that. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 02:03 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 12:39 AM EDT |
On pages 8, 9, and 10 of the Autozone document, SCO gives details of what
their complaint is about. Or rather, they imply that they are giving some
details. They can be summarised as:
- Points a and b. SCO claims
that Autozone copied several files in COFF format onto a large number of
servers. There is no claim however that SCO had any rights to those particular
COFF files.
- Point c. SCO claims that Autozone copied two programs
"Compx" and "Decompx" onto their Linux servers. These programs were licensed
from a third party, but SCO claims that they contain some SCO code. However,
there is no claim that Autozone was not properly licensed by the copyright owner
to use this third party product in this application. Autozone however deleted
the two programs because they didn't need them.
- Points d, e, f, g, h.
SCO claims that there were copies of programs that were compiled on Openserver
on some of Autozone's development servers. The programs appear to belong to
Autozone, but because they were compiled on OpenServer they contained some SCO
code in the form of staticly linked libraries.
And err, that's
about it. As for the rest of the document, it is long and meandering with few
apparent points. It branches off in various directions which eventually come to
a dead end before it zooms off somewhere else without quite coming to a
conclusion. If this constitutes "high quality" lawyer work, then I'm not very
impressed with lawyers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Autozone Details - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 02:39 AM EDT
- Autozone Details - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 04:02 AM EDT
- Autozone Details - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 12:59 PM EDT
- IIRC - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 01:27 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: johnE on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
Is this another attempt to "out" the e-mail they tried several times
to disclose in the IBM case?
I expect IBM to object
--johnE
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
It reads to me as though they're trying to create a circular dependency, making
all the cases depend upon one another.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- loop - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 12:43 PM EDT
- deadlock - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 02:56 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 05 2009 @ 08:51 AM EDT |
Why did AutoZone sign a reseller agreement?
Are AutoZone stores franchises that buy the POS and other software from AZ?
It seems AZ had at least four separate agreements with Santa Cruz. The
Authorized Industry Reseller Agreement (AIRA), The Runtime Product License
packaged with the software, a Development System License packaged with the
software and a Corporate Software License Agreement. Plus probably a support
agreement.
The Santa Cruz licenses for the Run Time System didn't include static libraries,
headers or a compiler. All of that was in the Development System and covered by
a separate license, which would have been included with the development system.
In early versions it was a separate box of stuff. Later SCO packaged things on
the same CD's.
The Reseller Agreement I had (not the same type as AZ) required me to deliver
all material I sold to the customer unmodified, but didn't limit what I could
sell beyond that, or what I could install (or not install). The customer only
had to get the total package plus whatever else was sold. I gather this was
because some resellers had in the past sold the same license several times on
installed turnkey systems. That makes perfect sense, but does not seem to apply
to use of the software, only deliverables.
It seems SCO is once again taking things out of context in order to make a very
tenuous point.
In time I imagine the full text of the agreements, plus and actual
correspondence with Santa Cruz will be on the record. It also wouldn't surprise
me to find that Santa Cruz had contradicted SCO's version of the meaning of
these agreements.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
