Well, well. First SCO's Blake Stowell told us that the hearing originally scheduled for the 23rd had been postponed at IBM's request. Now he says it was mutually agreed upon. However, Bob Mims of the Salt Lake Tribune quotes IBM's Mike Darcy, who tells us what happened:
"'SCO failed to comply with the court's order to fully answer IBM's interrogatories and requirements for documents by [the deadline],' Darcy said. 'SCO has now agreed to provide additional responses, so the court has agreed to postpone the hearing to give SCO additional time to comply.'"
Mims seems unable to tell who is being truthful in this picture, but he surely sees that one or the other isn't telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
What Mims and any other puzzleds can do is simply this: wait for the court hearing on February 6 and buy a transcript of the proceeding. I'll bet you'll find out who told the truth today. Or just read Groklaw. We'll have a transcript available hot off the presses, as well as eyewitness accounts.
If you can't wait that long, I suggest you read SCO's Notice of Compliance, which acknowledged SCO had not complied fully, and the Declaration of Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO's attorney, where he explains why did they didn't comply fully (too much Christmas). Which story matches those established facts? PR is one thing; lying is another.
Does it not make logical sense, given those facts, that IBM told the judge that they were not satisfied with what SCO provided, SCO then said it would turn over more rather than have bad things happen, begged for more time, and got a 2-week reprieve? As you recall, Tibbitts said they lost about 10 days because of the Christmas holidays, so giving them 2 weeks should bring them up to speed, no excuses.
I know. But Judge Wells has to get to know SCOfolk as well as we do. And so do some reporters. It's an educational process, and Groklaw is happy to provide the facts to enable others to get their PhD in SCO, just as we already have.