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.


To read comments to this article, go here
BayStar Fallout & SCO and IBM Each Get More Time to Answer Each Other
Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 03:44 PM EDT

Here is a Stipulation and Order signed by Judge Kimball on the 15th. IBM gets a bit more time to answer SCO's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order and SCO gets more time to answer IBM's Amended Counterclaims. A lot happened on the 15th, huh?

I am aware that you can't focus on that at all today. Me too. So what about BayStar?

As far as SCO being "stunned" by the letter of that same date from BayStar asking for their money back, as the Salt Lake Tribune reports, I seriously doubt that there was no buildup to the letter. Obviously there had to be an initial request from BayStar to redeem, and then discussions, one would think, and then discussions breaking down, and then threats and counters and then kaboom, the letter. What a surprise. The grounds might be, but I doubt the desire to redeem was any shock.

Anyway, the Salt Lake Tribune reports on SCO being "stunned" and all. Blake Stowell says they are surprised. So there you are. They are surprised and seeking information from BayStar, the article says.

If I were the headline writer for the SLT, my headline would have been:

SCO Proves You Really DO Reap What You Sow.


They are being publicly accused, they assert falsely, are obviously in danger of being sued, and are frantically seeking specifics as to what they are accused of doing wrong so they can defend themselves. Sound familiar?

Of course, BayStar in a perfect world would tell them they'd be happy to tell them but only if they sign an NDA first in which they swear they won't talk publicly about what they find out.

Laura DiDio shows up too, with her usual jaw-dropping insight. However would we know what it all means without her? She sounds a bit flustered though:

"Laura DiDio, an analyst with the Yankee Group, called the BayStar development 'distressing to SCO, its customers and other investors. If SCO is forced to comply, it could have an adverse impact on the company's financials and its ability to continue to wage the myriad high-profile legal battles,' she said.

"DiDio also noted that BayStar's allegations that, essentially, SCO had not lived up to the terms of its deal could 'make other SCO investors extremely nervous.'"

I knew you'd be panting to know what she'd make of it, since she makes a living analyzing and all, so now you know What It All Means. She may have other reasons for being flustered. How do you like this headline? "Yankee Linux Findings Rigged Too"?

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols got an interview with Blake Stowell, and Stowell explains one by one what all the clauses SCO is accused of violating mean. According to eWeek, SCO is rocked. Stowell says they got no hint, but he provides this overview of what the clauses add up to:

"Specifically, BayStar is accusing SCO of violating four sections of the agreement: sections 2(b)(v), 2(b)(vii), 2(b)(viii) and 3(g). Stowell characterized these as 'having to do with disclosure issues and that BayStar wanted to be kept informed every step of the way of SCO's business.'"

All they had to do for that is read Groklaw. It seems our analysis was correct. The issue is did they tell BayStar the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and keep BayStar informed?

Anyway, for those who can focus on the mundane, here is the Stipulation and Order.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

____________________________

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION, a New York corporation,

Defendant.

__________________________

STIPULATION AND ORDER

Case No. 03-CV-0294 DAK

Hon: Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Wells

________________________

Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") and Defendant International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") jointly stipulate to enlarge the time for SCO to respond to IBM's Amended Counterclaims to April 23, 2004, and to enlarge the time for IBM to respond to SCO's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order to April 30, 2004. Dated this 12th day of April, 2004. By: ____[signature]_______
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch, Esq.

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, L.L.P.
Stephen N. Zack, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: ___[signature]_________
SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan, Esq.
Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
Nathan E. Wheatley, Esq.

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

Attorneys for Defendant

This matter having come before this Court upon the stipulation of the parties and for other good cause being found therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. SCO shall have until April 23, 2004, to respond to IBM's Amended Counterclaims.

2. IBM shall have until April 30, 2004, to respond to SCO's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order.

ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2004.

BY THE COURT:

_______[signature]_________
Honorable Dale A. Kimball


United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
April 16, 2004

* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK * *

Re: 2:03-cv-00294

True and correct copies of the attached were either mailed, faxed or e-mailed by the clerk to the following:

Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]

Stephen Neal Zack, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

David K. Markarian, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

Mark J. Heise, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

Scott E. Gant, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]

Thomas G. Rafferty, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]

David R. Marriott, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]


  View Printable Version


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 )