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's Objections and Corrections to SCO's "Proposed Partial Judgment" ~pj
Friday, June 28 2013 @ 08:13 PM EDT

IBM has filed on time its objections [PDF] to SCO's Statement in Compliance with the Court's Order Reopening the Case.

The Hon. David Nuffer, now presiding over this farce SCO insists on playing out, ordered SCO to file a list of which of its claims, if any, it believes survived SCO's massive loss to Novell. And it did file, but IBM noticed that SCO attached to its Statement a proposed judgment [PDF] for the judge to sign, trickily titled "Proposed Judgment Dismissing SCO's Claims Mooted by the Final Judgment in SCO v. Novell."

And 'mooted', IBM points out, is hardly the right word.

IBM calmly and cooly presents the court with an alternative version [PDF] of a proposed judgment correcting that and other SCO errors, pointing out SCO isn't named SCO any more, for one thing, and that these claims are not *mooted* -- they were decided on their merits and it would like that wording fixed so SCO doesn't get to sue IBM over them ever again.

I totally missed that sneaky title, but IBM's lawyers at Cravath, Swaine & Moore miss absolutely nothing.

IBM doesn't mind if SCO dismisses Counts I-V, VIII, and SCO's copyright infringement claims, with prejudice, as SCO proposes, IBM tells the court, and it also doesn't object to SCO dismissing certain parts of Count VI with prejudice. But it absolutely does object to dismissing any claims as allegedly moot, because "they are barred under principles of issue preclusion (or collateral estoppel)." The Novell case decided certain elements of these SCO claims on the merits, IBM points out, and "SCO is precluded from relitigating them against IBM." Here's what issue preclusion means. And here's what collateral estoppel means. They both mean that SCO can't hide behind a tree and then leap out and tackle IBM again until the end of time. As in never.

And as for SCO's claim that the Novell judgment "has no bearing" on Count VII, IX and part of the Project Monterey claim, IBM disagrees and will file a summary judgment motion shortly. And that's not all.

The filings:

06/28/2013 - 1120 - RESPONSE re 1119 Notice of Filing,, filed by International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Judgment (Clean), # 2 Exhibit B - Proposed Judgment (Blackline), # 3 Exhibit C - Delaware Dkt. No. 1291, # 4 Exhibit D - Delaware Dkt. No. 1439)(Sorenson, Amy) (Entered: 06/28/2013)

IBM also objects to SCO calling Project Monterey a "joint venture". The agreement [PDF] clearly states that it was not a joint venture. You can see that by reading Section 22.5, which says the parties were independent contractors: "Each party is acting solely as an independent company. This Agreement shall not be construed to establish any form of partnership, agency, franchise or joint venture of any kind between SCO and IBM..." (See page 55 of the PDF, 34 of the agreement.) The agreement was with the Santa Cruz Operation, the original SCO, not this Brand-X-Caldera-retitled-SCO-and-now-TSG, I'll mention for anyone new around here.

And IBM also objects to SCO's proposal that each party should "bear its own fees and costs with regard to the dismissed claims":

As a "prevailing party", IBM is at least entitled to seek fees and costs under the Copyright Act.
"At least." Uh oh, SCO. Uh oh.

In my dreams, IBM asks for sanctions against the SCO and its lawyers.

At least.

IBM has more issues, it says, but it will lay them out in the forthcoming summary judgment motion the judge said it could file. As for SCO's name, SCO changed its name to "TSG Group, Inc." and its bankruptcy is now Chapter 7, not 11. For the court's convenience, it has attached "clean" and "blackline" versions of SCO's proposed partial judgment, amended appropriately, as Exhibits A and B.

SCO wanted to drink IBM's blood, and now here comes IBM with a silver bullet in one hand and a wooden stake in the other, in short. That's what I hear you need to kill vampires. IBM's been waiting a long, long time for justice. Now it's IBM's turn. You know what the Greeks say about vengeance, that it's best eaten cold, and IBM means to bring this foolishness to a clear and definite end. At last.

"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

The new title of the new proposed judgment, Exhibit A, from IBM's legal pen, is "[Proposed] Judgment Dismissing SCO's Claims". That's more like it. Here's the hilariously determined, albeit absolutely accurate, Exhibit A, the clean version, with all SCO's tricky bits removed (you can see the tricky bits in the blackline version, Exhibit B [PDF]):

[list of SCO's lawyers]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

___________

THE SCO GROUP,INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

VS.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

__________

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT DISMISSING
SCO'S CLAIMS

Civil No.: 2:03-CV-00294-DN

Honorable David Nuffer

_________

Whereas plaintiff/counterclaim-defendant, The SCO Group, Inc. (n/k/a TSG Group, Inc.) ("SCO") brought a related action in this District Court, entitled SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., Case No. 2:04-CV-129; and whereas, after the trial of that matter, Chief Judge Ted Stewart entered a final judgment ruling that Novell (1) owns the copyrights to pre-1996 UNIX source code, and (2) has the right to waive SCO's contract claims for breach of the licensing agreements pursuant to which IBM and others licensed pre-l996 UNIX source code (the "Novell judgment"); and whereas SCO agrees that the Novell judgment forecloses certain of its claims in this case as identified below,

THEREFORE it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the following claims set forth in SCO's Second Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice:

Breach of IBM Software Agreement (Count I)
Breach of IBM Sublicensing Agreement (Count II)
Breach of Sequent Software Agreement (Count III)
Breach of Sequent Sublicensing Agreement (Count IV)
Copyright Infringement (Count V)
Copyright Infringement (see Docket No. 398 at 4-5)
Interference with the 1995 Asset Purchase Agreement at Issue in Novell (Count VIII)
In addition, it is hereby ORDERED , ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that SCO's Unfair Competition claim (Count VI) is dismissed with prejudice insofar as that claim is based on the allegations that Novell does not own the copyrights to pre-1996 UNIX source code and does not

1

have the right to waive breaches of the licensing agreements pursuant to which IBM and others licensed pre-1996 UNIX source code.

DATED this ___ of _______, day 2013.

BY THE COURT

___________
David Nuffer
United States District Court Judge

2

SCO's version [PDF] read:
THEREFORE it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the following claims set forth in SCO’s Second Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice as mooted by the Novell judgment:.."
No. Not mooted. SCO lost on the merits. SCO's version also went on to say:
In addition, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that SCO’s Unfair Competition claim (Count VI) is dismissed with prejudice as mooted by the Novell judgment insofar as that claim is based on the allegations that Novell does not own the copyrights to pre-1996 UNIX source code and does not have the right to waive breaches of the licensing agreements pursuant to which IBM and others licensed pre-1996 UNIX source code.

As the Novell judgment has no bearing on the following SCO claims, they remain ripe for adjudication by the Court: SCO’s Unfair Competition claim (Count VI) concerning the Project Monterey joint venture, SCO’s Interference with Contract claim (Count VII), and SCO’s claim for Interference with Business Relationships (Count IX).

Each Party to bear its own fees and costs with regard to the dismissed claims.

Heh heh. SCO never changes, does it? If IBM's lawyers let their eyelids droop and snooze out for a millisecond, those SCOfolk sneak in something useful to SCO, hoping you won't notice until it's too late. SCO is a sketch, as my beloved granny used to say when she meant a great deal worse than that.

Moot in a legal context means, according to US Legal, that the judge doesn't have to decide anything and no judge has done so so far:

Moot refers to an issue that remains unsettled, open to argument or debatable. It is especially refers to a legal question which has not been determined by any decision of any court.
Decided on the merits means that the plaintiff can't resurrect the claims against the defendant 'til the end of time:
An ultimate determination rendered by a court in an action that concludes the status of legal rights contested in a controversy and precludes a later lawsuit on the same Cause of Action by the parties to the original lawsuit.

A decision on the merits is made by the application of Substantive Law to the essential facts of the case, not solely upon technical or procedural grounds.

I can't believe I missed that title. I need to focus again on SCO harder, however much I don't want to any more. The thing is, proposed orders aren't supposed to sneak in things the party didn't mention anywhere else. The word "moot" doesn't appear once in the SCO Statement [PDF]. So my eyelids drooped. I forgot how SCO acts. Or more accurately, I didn't want to think about SCO at all. I need to pull myself together and get with it. I can't express to you how much I *don't* want to cover this case any more. No matter how many flaws I may have, ten plus years of covering this case seems like too much punishment. Somehow I was over-charged by some overzealous prosecutor in some alternate universe over crimes in a previous life or something. I just know I don't deserve this. More pointedly, neither does IBM. Happily, IBM never gets tired, and I think you can see why this is my favorite law firm.

Of course, that is how SCO got sanctioned earlier in the case, for being sneaky. It's odd that they keep it up, after that, but in the recent astonishing words of Paula Dean, SCO in effect says, "I is what I is, and I'm not changing."

Here's IBM's Objections, as text:

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

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

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 OBJECTIONS TO
THE SCO GROUP, INC.’S PROPOSED
PARTIAL JUDGMENT

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

Honorable David Nuffer

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) respectfully submits these objections to the [Proposed] Judgment Dismissing SCO’s Claims Mooted by the Final Judgment in SCO v. Novell (the “Proposed Partial Judgment”), submitted by Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant The SCO Group, Inc.(n/k/a TSG Group, Inc.) (“SCO”) (Dkt. No. 1119-1).

Objections

1. In an order dated June 14, 2013, this Court directed SCO to file “a brief statement identifying its claims which it agrees are foreclosed by the Novell judgment and the form of a judgment dismissing those claims”. (Dkt. No. 1115 at ¶ 1.) The Court then provided that “[o]n or before June 28, 2013, IBM may file any objection to the form of that order”. (Dkt. No. 1115 at ¶ 2.) SCO timely filed its statement and its Proposed Partial Judgment.

2. IBM has no objection to SCO’s Proposed Partial Judgment insofar as it seeks to dismiss Counts I-V, Count VIII and SCO’s copyright-infringement claim pertaining to Linux with prejudice. IBM also has no objection to SCO’s Proposed Partial Judgment insofar as it seeks to dismiss certain branches of Count VI with prejudice.

3. IBM has the following objections to SCO’s Proposed Partial Judgment:

a. IBM objects to SCO’s Proposed Partial Judgment insofar as it states that the claims to be dismissed are moot. The claims are not moot; they are barred under principles of issue preclusion (or collateral estoppel). The Novell Judgment decided essential elements of these claims against SCO on the merits, and SCO is precluded from relitigating them against IBM.

b. IBM objects to SCO’s Proposed Partial Judgment insofar as it provides

that the Novell Judgment “has no bearing” on Count VII, Count IX and the part of Count VI concerning Project Monterey. (Proposed Partial Judgment at 2.) IBM disagrees, and IBM will address these issues in its forthcoming summary judgment motion.

c. IBM objects to SCO’s Proposed Partial Judgment insofar as it uses the phrase “joint venture” to describe Project Monterey. The Project Monterey agreement expressly provides that it did not establish a joint venture.

d. IBM objects to SCO’s Proposed Partial Judgment insofar as it provides that each party is “to bear its own fees and costs with regard to the dismissed claims”. (Proposed Partial Judgment at 2.) As a “prevailing party”, IBM is at least entitled to seek fees and costs under the Copyright Act. IBM proposes to defer the issue of fees and costs until after the entry of final judgment on all claims and issues in this case.

4. While IBM believes the Novell Judgment forecloses more claims than does SCO (and more claims than are covered by SCO’s Proposed Partial Judgment), IBM will address the impact of the Novell Judgment on all of SCO’s remaining claims and IBM’s counterclaims in its forthcoming summary judgment motion, as directed by the Court in its order of June 14, 2013. (Dkt. No. 1115 at ¶ 3.)

5. Finally, we note that SCO has changed its name to “TSG Group, Inc.”, and that its bankruptcy has been converted to Chapter 7. (See In re TSG Group, Inc., No.1:07-bk-11337, Dkt. Nos. 1291, 1439 (Del. Bankr. May 19, 2011, Aug. 24, 2012) (Exs. C, D).) IBM suggests the Proposed Partial Judgment reflect SCO’s name change, but that the caption need not be amended.

6. For the Court’s convenience, we attach “clean” and “blackline” versions of the

2

Proposed Partial Judgment, as amended, as Exhibits A and B, respectively.

DATED this 28th day of June, 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's Objections and Corrections to SCO's "Proposed Partial Judgment" ~pj | 310 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
s/SCO's blood/IBM's blood/
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 28 2013 @ 10:36 PM EDT
"SCO wanted to drink SCO's blood" should probably be
"SCO wanted to drink IBM's blood"

Not starting corrections since I'm anonymous.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Mythology Nit-pick
Authored by: darksepulcher on Friday, June 28 2013 @ 11:05 PM EDT
"...and now here comes IBM with a silver bullet, in short. That's what I
hear you need to kill Dracula, a silver bullet."

Not quite. Vampires like Dracula can be dispatched by a wooden stake through
the heart (and preferably followed by decapitation). Werewolves and other
lycanthropes, on the other hand, are only greatly harmed by silver weapons. And
while I'm sure that the Nazgul have ample supplies of both, you really don't
want to be bringing silver bullets to a vampire-staking. :P

---
Had I but time--As this fell Sergeant, Death
Is strict in his arrest--O, I could tell you--
But let it be.
(Hamlet, Act V Scene 2)

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's someone named Ahab in Utah
Authored by: kawabago on Friday, June 28 2013 @ 11:23 PM EDT
he'll stop chasing the IBM Whale when it kills him.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, June 28 2013 @ 11:25 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, June 28 2013 @ 11:28 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, June 28 2013 @ 11:33 PM EDT
Please include a link.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, June 28 2013 @ 11:35 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Keeping in line with pj's movie metaphors...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 01:53 AM EDT
...I would tSCO rather classify as belonging into the Zombie genre, not the
Vampire one. When you are looking at Hollywood productions over the past years,
that classification is perfectly in line with these. After years of Vampire
movies and TV series, we now hav all those undead Zombies popping up here and
then. And tSCO perfectly fits this meme, me thinks.

I would love to see our beloved Sky Cowboy taking on a major role in the tSCO
movie "Judging the Undead"...

[ Reply to This | # ]

When is a sanction not a sanction?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 02:15 AM EDT
So just who has been sanctions for it's shenanigans in court? SCO or it's
lawyers or both? And what's the point of any sanction if it doesn't result in a
change in behavior?

I'm sure as a layperson, if i behaved inappropriately (by filling deceptive or
'tricky' documents) in a court, i would be in contempt and possibly jailed until
i apologized to the court and convinced them i will change my ways. And this can
happen without me knowing the court rules and procedures! So why is it that
those who know the rules and procedures intimately seem to behave so poorly,
seemingly without integrity and ultimately without consequence (if the previous
10 years are indicative of what happens)?

It just seems the courts have become a farce where justice is concerned!

Maybe we need to have yellow and red cards (as is the case in soccer) where
getting three yellow cards or a red card sends you of the legal playing field
for a while...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mooted -> Decided?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 05:03 AM EDT
I wonder why IBM removed the whole phrase including the reference to the
Novell case rather than replacing the word "mooted" with something
like
"decided" or "determined" or "resolved". Isn't
there an appropriate term?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some people have to cheat
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 09:02 AM EDT

It's like a sickness. Like alcoholism. No matter what, they cheat.

Then there's TSG, which cheats no matter what.

Sigh.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sanctions?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 11:04 AM EDT
So SCO (via their Lawyers) say one thing and IBM (via their Lawyers) dissect it
and expose the SCO claims in glorious (sic) detail. I guess that IBM have been
keeping their powder dry fo so long that they found it difficult keeping their
desire to 'nuke' SCO in check.
Asking for scanctions on SCO's officers and Legal representatives really shows
that they are playing hardball and going for the jugular.
I can't help wondering if asking for sanctions at this point might be jumping
the gun so to speak.

We will have to wait to see what this Judge thinks of IBM's almost total
demolition of SCO's claims.

What I really don't want is another judge sitting on the fence or being
'favourable' to SCO (all in the name of fairness). We saw this before and look
how long this saga has played out. But hey, the lawyers don't lose now do they
so there really isn't any incentive to get things decided in anything less than
the longest time possible.

complex_number not logged in

[ Reply to This | # ]

Way to Impress The New Judge
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 12:59 PM EDT
This early in proceedings with a new judge it seems less than good strategy to
file a motion so thoroughly wrong. PJ mentioned that losing the goodwill of the
judge is a really bad thing, even if you are in the right. In that light, SCO's
motion seems downright foolish.

-- Alma

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who pays IBM costs...
Authored by: GriffMG on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 01:23 PM EDT
Are they covered by SCO's agreement with their lawyers?

Be nice if they were.

---
Keep B-) ing

[ Reply to This | # ]

So IBM is the initials of Inigo B Montoya?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 06:39 PM EDT
What does the B stand for? Blooddrinker, perhaps?

[ Reply to This | # ]

rsteinmetz70112 called it right
Authored by: jbb on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 07:22 PM EDT
In a post under a previous article, rsteinmetz70112 predicted:
That IBM apparently has only 4 days to respond to what will likely be a very convoluted brief from SCO seems to be an open invitation for the games to begin (again).

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | # ]

Us and Them
Authored by: BJ on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 07:52 PM EDT
I can't express to you how much I *don't* want to cover this case any more. No matter how many flaws I may have, ten plus years of covering this case seems like too much punishment. Somehow I was over-charged by some overzealous prosecutor in some alternate universe over crimes in a previous life or something. I just know I don't deserve this.
And yet -- you're at you very best, your very wittiest, your very
snappiest (hi grandma Jones!) dealing with SCO.
Can we say they, SCO, bring out the be(a)st in you?

Anyway, your remarks prove: when dealing with SCO, don't go with
the flow; instead get out the fine filter and parse parse parse.


bjd


[ Reply to This | # ]

Joint Venture vs agreement
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 09:32 PM EDT
While it's proper to get terminology right, I wonder if there is more to IBM
objecting to calling Project Monterrey a joint venture. I'm sure there are cases
related to joint ventures and non-joint ventures, the question is whether case
law favors IBM more if Project Monterrey is not considered a joint venture.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Objections and Corrections to SCO's "Proposed Partial Judgment" ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 11:07 PM EDT
I did enjoy the princess bride reference. Where is the dread pirate Roberts
when you need him?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO isn't named SCO any more
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 30 2013 @ 03:54 AM EDT
SCO isn't named SCO any more? Well, about time
we start calling them TSG rather than continue contributing to the eternal
confusion between Santa Cruz Operation, Caldera, The SCO Group.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I say nuke 'em from orbit ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 30 2013 @ 11:40 AM EDT
... it's the only way to be sure.

[ 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 )