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
IBM Responds to SCO's Motion Asking for Reconsideration ~pj
Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:30 AM EDT

IBM has filed its response [PDF] to SCO's motion asking for reconsideration of the Court's order denying SCO's motion to reopen the SCO v. IBM case. I have it as text for you.

IBM tells Judge David Nuffer that it doesn't oppose reopening the case at all -- in fact it says it should happen. IBM has a proposed outline on how to proceed thereafter. Its plan differs from SCO's.

Rather than deciding all the still pending summary judgment motions filed five years ago immediately, IBM suggests a process that goes like this: First, toss out all the claims that the SCO v. Novell final judgment made moot, the ones SCO concedes are foreclosed. That would be almost all of them. I believe all that's left, if it is still viable, which I doubt, is SCO's unfair competition claim regarding Project Monterey and its tortious interference claim alleging that IBM interfered with SCO’s market and business relationships. At least that's what SCO listed the first time it tried to reopen this case.

After that, IBM suggests it file a motion for summary judgment regarding its position on the impact of the Novell judgment, and if the court agrees, "it will be unnecessary for the Court to decide a number of the pending summary judgment motions to resolve these claims." If not, the parties will need to come up with a scheduling order, because there will likely be a need for further briefing, in that the pending summary judgment motions were filed years ago, and "the body of relevant case law has grown."

The Novell judgment, IBM further points out -- and this is the part that reveals why IBM doesn't mind a bit if the case is reopened -- did not resolve all of IBM's counterclaims:

For example, while the Novell Judgment strengthens IBM’s counterclaims concerning SCO’s campaign to create fear, uncertainty and doubt about IBM’s products and services, it does not completely resolve all of those claims. Thus, the Court will need to address certain of the pending motions, which may also require supplemental briefing and argument.
IBM doesn't mention it here, but I recall that there is a counterclaim of copyright infringement related to the GPL. So a scheduling order is going to have to happen in any case. And finally, if SCO elects to pursue other matters it has mentioned before, the Court may need to decide those issues. IBM attaches as Exhibit A its 2011 filing, "IBM’s Memorandum Responding to SCO’s Request to Reopen", filed in response to an earlier attempt by SCO to reopen the case, and it suggests that the court proceed as described in that filing. That's also where SCO's other matters it may or may not elect to pursue are found, in paragraph 12, essentially some pending motions for reconsiderations of earlier judges' decisions that went against SCO.

The filing:

05/24/2013 - 1111 - RESPONSE to Motion re 1110 MOTION for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Motion to Reopen the Case re 1109 Order on Motion to Reopen Case, Order on Motion for Hearing, Memorandum Decision filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation, Counter Claimant International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - IBM's Memorandum Responding to SCO's Request to Reopen)(Sorenson, Amy) (Entered: 05/24/2013)

We, of course, have Exhibit A already, because we covered it when IBM filed it in 2011, and you can read it as text here. SCO's motion that IBM was responding to is here. That was back when SCO wanted to be able to go ahead with its claims, or claims it claims it still has, but keep IBM from pursuing its counterclaims. You know, the very ones IBM appears rather eager to get into with SCO now. The court didn't go for that.

I don't think SCO is going to enjoy this part of its saga. I'm puzzled as to why it even wants to go forward, frankly, but no doubt they have some aces, or what they imagine are aces, up their sleeve. Their trolls showed up on cue here at Groklaw, I noticed, as soon as SCO filed. So the gang's all in place.

Here's the part that IBM highlights, paragraph 12, about SCO's other issues it may elect to raise, and I've inserted links to where you can find each document:

12. Both Judge Kimball (to whom this case was initially assigned) and Magistrate Judge Wells entered a series of orders callng SCO's claims into question and materiaily limiting SCO's case. SCO challenged these rulings in motions/objections that are fully briefed: (1) SCO's Motion for Reconsideration of the November 29, 2006 Order (Doc. # 894); (2) SCO's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order on IBM's Motion to Confine (Doc. # 899); (3) SCO's Motion to Amend its December 2005 Submission (Doc. # 913); (4) SCO's Motion for Reconsideration by the Magistrate Court of the Order Denying SCO's Motion for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence (Doc. # 986); and (5) SCO's Objections to the Magistrate Court's Order Denying SCO's Motion for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence (Doc. # 995).
SCOfolk told the media at the time that its motion for reconsideration, #894, was based on "new evidence". To this day, we don't know for sure what it is, because the motion was sealed, as was the memorandum in support, but the redacted version for the public is here. Perhaps we'll finally find out what is in the redacted parts. I gather SCO hopes it is a Perry Mason moment, but truthfully, I followed the case closely enough that I think I know what the redacted portions say, and I can't see why it would be new. It's rather arguments and evidence in support that SCO thought of after the judge's decision that it could have and should have said before but didn't, kind of like you and I do after an argument, when you think of what you wish you had said instead of what you did say. That's not the legal definition of new evidence. New evidence means you just discovered it, not you just remembered it.

Mostly all the SCO motions were about things that the SCO lawyers thought the judges did wrong, but in my view it was more like this: SCO misbehaved, the court ruled, trying to ambush IBM with a legal theory of the case that it hid until discovery was over, and as a punishment, SCO was not allowed to pursue its "methods and concepts" theories of infringement. Then the lawyers started coming up with motion after motion, trying to undo the damage they'd brought on themselves. That's how I saw it, anyway, and all the nitpicking of the judges' decisions to me are just how to cross the river SCO needs to cross. That's why IBM writes that SCO *may* elect to bring up all this old hash again, but then again, it may not.

My money says they will, in that there's no other reason that I can see to want to reopen the case. It's SCO's only hope. I can't see how the Project Monterey claims survive reality, in that SCO wasn't a signatory to that contract, so it doesn't have standing to complain, and even if it did, the statute of limitations is long over. Plus, as IBM pointed out the last time SCO tried to reopen this case, the contract was broken by Santa Cruz, not IBM, when it sold its business to Caldera.

SCO may elect to try again for those still-pending motions to be looked at again by this new judge, who doesn't know SCO as well as we do or the previous judges handling the case did. And anyway, when does SCO not try again? And again? And again? But the part that I don't understand is why those old motions would even matter now that SCO has been ruled not the owner of the Unix copyrights. I guess I'd have to go back and review everything to figure out what might still be on the table related to those motions. But from memory, I don't see anything worth pursuing that wasn't killed off or maimed by the Novell judgment. If you recall, Novell not only was ruled the owner of the copyrights SCO had claimed to own, it was ruled able to cancel any contract complaints SCO might have wanted to raise.

To tell you the truth, I'm kind of looking forward to this case being reopened, I realized as I was doing the IBM filing as text and saw all the old lawyers' names again after all this time and remembered the IBM style of litigation, which I enjoy watching very much. I never saw any better in my life than David Marriott, who is still on the team, I see. I can't imagine SCO wanting to reopen all this unless it has some plan, so it will be interesting to get all loose ends tied off and the story finally reach The End. Do you realize this case has been going on for ten years and two months?

Here is the IBM response, then, as text:

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
[address, phone, fax]

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

________________

IBM’S MEMORANDUM RESPONDING TO
SCO’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Civil No. 2:03-CV-0294-DN

Honorable David Nuffer

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) respectfully submits this memorandum in response to the request of The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”) (n/k/a TSG Group, Inc.) for reconsideration (Docket No. 1110) of the Court’s order denying SCO’s motion to reopen the case (Docket No. 1109).

Argument

1. IBM does not oppose reopening this case, as a final judgment has been entered against SCO in the Novell Litigation (see SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Case No. 2:04-cv-139; The SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 439 Fed. Appx. 688 (10th Cir. 2011) (“the Novell Judgment”)), the bankruptcy stay has been lifted (see Docket No. 1110 at Ex. B), and the Court may now proceed to adjudicate all of the claims in suit.

2. However, IBM takes a different view from SCO as to how the Court should proceed when the case is reopened. Rather than undertake immediately to decide the numerous outstanding motions, we respectfully submit that the Court should proceed as is described in IBM’s Memorandum Responding to SCO’s Request to Reopen, filed November 21, 2011 (Docket No. 1100), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3. Specifically, when the case is reopened, IBM believes the Court should first dismiss the claims that SCO concedes are foreclosed as a result of the Novell Litigation. SCO admits that at least five (and perhaps six) of its claims against IBM, and part of another of its claims, are foreclosed by the Novell Judgment. (See Ex. A ¶¶ 28-29 for a fuller discussion.)

4. Because the parties disagree as to the effect of the Novell Litigation on other claims, IBM proposes to make a motion for summary judgment addressing the impact of the Novell Judgment on all remaining claims (including IBM’s counterclaims). If we are correct

1

about the impact of the Novell Judgment, it will be unnecessary for the Court to decide a number of the pending summary judgment motions to resolve these claims.

5. Once the Court has determined the effect of the Novell Judgment, we propose the Court require the parties to submit a scheduling order to govern the balance of this action. If the Court were to deny the summary judgment motion that IBM proposes to make concerning the impact of the Novell Judgment, then it would be necessary for the Court to wade into the pending summary judgment motions concerning those claims. But before doing so, it will likely be advisable (depending in part on the nature of the Court’s ruling as to the scope of the Novell Judgment) for the parties to supplement the existing briefing, and the Court may want to hear additional argument. Not only does the Novell Judgment affect these claims in important respects, but also the pending motions were made nearly five years ago and the body of relevant case law has grown.

6. Even if the Court were to grant IBM’s proposed summary judgment motion (as to the impact of the Novell Judgment) in its entirety, we believe it will make sense for the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order based upon that decision. While the Novell Judgment had a significant impact on the claims and counterclaims in this case, it did not resolve all of IBM’s counterclaims. For example, while the Novell Judgment strengthens IBM’s counterclaims concerning SCO’s campaign to create fear, uncertainty and doubt about IBM’s products and services, it does not completely resolve all of those claims. Thus, the Court will need to address certain of the pending motions, which may also require supplemental briefing and argument.

2

7. Depending on what remains in the case following the Court’s ruling concerning the impact of the Novell Judgment, and the pending summary judgment motions, the Court may also need to decide certain other motions/objections (see Ex. A ¶ 12) in the event SCO elects to pursue them.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, IBM respectfully submits that the Court should re-open the case and proceed as outlined above.

DATED this 24th of May 2013.

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

/s/ Amy F. Sorenson
Alan L. Sullivan
Amy F. Sorenson

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

Of Counsel:

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Alec S. Berman
[address, phone]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

3


  


IBM Responds to SCO's Motion Asking for Reconsideration ~pj | 401 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:34 AM EDT
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:35 AM EDT
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:35 AM EDT
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:36 AM EDT
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Decade And A Ghost -- Wow!
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:54 AM EDT
Ten years now for this case, and SCO is just a ghost of its former self -- in
fact it's difficult to see what is there that is worth messing with, though it's
always been difficult to see how they ever really thought they had a case.

Well, it would be nice if the old "ghost" is quickly extinguished, but
it seems to have more lives than two cats.

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

a possible explanation for SCO's motion
Authored by: IANALitj on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 04:53 AM EDT
Looking at SCO's motion, the formalities suggest a possible explanation for this
effort.

The motion is brought by "THE SCO GROUP, INC., by and through the Chapter
11 Trustee in Bankruptcy, Edward N. Cahn"

There are quite a group of lawyers identified as representing the movant: two
from HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C. (one being Brent O. Hatch) and no fewer than
six from BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP (including David Boies, Robert
Silver, Stuart H. Singer, and Edward Normand).

These last four are not cheap to hire.

It seems to me that Cahn might be well aware that this whole exercise is likely
to fail, but he is going ahead anyway.

About the only asset available to the estate of which Cahn is the trustee is the
obligation of retained counsel to represent him through thick and thin -- mostly
thin, by now.

By demanding that his counsel proceed in all possible directions, Cahn is going
to be costing them a pretty penny. They might be willing to come up with real
cash to get off the hook.

As a pleasant by-product, Cahn is also costing IBM some money. (I doubt,
however, that he would bother to suggest that IBM also contribute to bring this
matter to an end.)

Just my cynical opinion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I get the impression.....
Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 05:00 AM EDT
.... that IBM know that there is no hope of recovering anything except maggots and a very bad smell from the rotting corpse of SCO, but are going to make BSF suffer for their part in the fiaSCO by making them do yet more unpaid work, their costs already having passed the capped limit in their deal with the SCOundrels.

If so, that may teach Boies a lesson about the need to check that their clients really have a case before taking their money. The actions of BSF, from the beginning, were highly unethical and resulted ultimately in the bankrupcy of SCO. Ethical and responsible lawyers should have turned down the case, in the interests of the client, who from the beginning could not win, perhaps some did before BSF came along?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl Mcbride back in the news
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 05:37 AM EDT

He's a class act.

Salt Lake Tribune

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do you realize this case has been going on for ten years and two months?
Authored by: tyche on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 07:19 AM EDT
I can only say one thing to PJ's statement (above) - Jarndyce v Jarndyce.

The difference between this actual English Court of Chancery case - the basis
for Charles Dickens 'Bleak House' novel - is that IBM actually has a case, and
TSCOG doesn't.

Popcorn, anyone?

Craig
Tyche

---
"The Truth shall Make Ye Fret"
"TRUTH", Terry Pratchett

[ Reply to This | # ]

Coyote vs the Roadrunner
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 08:36 AM EDT

This reminds me of the Warner Brothers cartoons of my childhood. Wile E.
Coyote was going to try and get the Roadrunner. You knew he was going
to fail from the start of the cartoon. The we question was how inventive he
would be, and how he would fail.

Good entertainment!

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

Counterclaim 10
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 09:57 AM EDT
Are the issues, that IBM tried to quash with counterclaim 10, really settled or
could they ever rise again like the undead? In other words, could whoever owns
the Unix copyrights ever raise the issue that IBM copied their code into
Linux?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Responds to SCO's Motion Asking for Reconsideration ~pj
Authored by: eggplant37 on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 10:30 AM EDT
I'm simply speechless that I'm sitting here, 10 years after I
first started reading about this case, and the zombie wants
to resurrect. Hilarious. Get the popcorn, mates. I predict
shenanigans are going to get ribald.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Be careful what you wish for, SCOXQ...
Authored by: red floyd on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 01:59 PM EDT
You might just get it.

---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO at it again... (sw goes to look up def of "swivel eyed loon")
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 02:06 PM EDT
The UK version of the species is easy to spot...

How to spot a swivel-eyed loon: A beginner's guide to this increasingly vocal species

I wonder if this is the US version?

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Responds to SCO's Motion Asking for Reconsideration ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 02:28 PM EDT
>>>
I believe all that's left ... is SCO's unfair competition claim regarding
Project Monterey and its tortious interference claim alleging that IBM
interfered with SCO's market and business relationships.
>>>

Before Chapt. 11 in September 2007, the prevailing opinion on
Groklaw was that the real case was contractual and the copyrights
laments were just fud.

Indeed, IBM released large code modules (e.g. file sytems) as GPL to
Linux and SCO couldn't stop whining about it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Responds to SCO's Motion Asking for Reconsideration ~pj
Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:49 PM EDT
{
To tell you the truth, I'm kind of looking forward to this case being reopened
}

Pass the popcorn. ;-)


---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Responds to SCO's Motion Asking for Reconsideration ~pj
Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 05:36 PM EDT
To think how quaint and simple times were a decade ago, when
all we had were copyrights to worry about. Things that we
could prove the provenance of, if over time.

Now with the awful patent trolling that is going on now by the
likes of Apple, Microsoft, Nokia, Lodsys and uncountable
others. Makes me almost wish for the good old days :-D

---
Scott
-------------------------
LINUX - VISIBLY superior!
--------------------------------------

[ Reply to This | # ]

As an IBM Employee...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 26 2013 @ 03:00 AM EDT
This is very heart warming. It sends a very clear message to
anyone who wants to file frivolous allegations against IBM in
the future. And what better way than to yank the rotting SCO
carcass from the vultures, suck out their bone marrow and then
crush their bones.

The fact that David Boies will endure more financial misery is
satisfying to say the least. This case will haunt him until
the day he dies. SCO and David Boies are forever linked.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell is Attachmate
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 11:39 AM EDT
Would Attachmate still be willing to waive SCO's claims against IBM?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Responds to SCO's Motion Asking for Reconsideration ~pj
Authored by: AH1 on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 05:39 PM EDT
Agreed. I am willing to bet there are a number of litigation happy trolls who
are unwilling to tempt fate. The precedent is there. Sue us ONLY if you are
ready to fight to the death. Then be prepared at the end to watch us grind the
your dead corpse of your company into dust.

Then again SCO was warned of their folly every day for the last 10 years......

[ 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 )