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
Leon Brooks Powerfully Answers SCO's O'Shaughnessy
Friday, August 27 2004 @ 09:57 AM EDT

You don't want to miss this: Leon Brooks, vice president of the Perth (AU) Linux User Group, has written a wonderful rebuttal to SCO's Kieran O'Shaughnessy's remarks about SCO's case, IBM and the nonexistence of Linux. Brooks didn't find it funny one bit.

Here's a taste:

"The article also states: 'Early this year, O'Shaughnessy warned that SCO had prepared a hit list and would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence.'

"This is illegal, and since SCO-ANZ hasn't followed up on it, I guess Kieran knows that. So why is he raising that empty threat again? Every time he does so he opens himself to a fresh count of fraud. . . .

"I don't need to defend IBM, they have their own lawyers and PR section for that, but Kieran and his company are essentially accusing all of the contributors to and deployers of Linux of stealing. Since those claims are baseless, continuing to make them amounts to slander and in some cases fraud against the Linux community, including me.

"The only reason Kieran hasn't had a court order tossed at his feet is because as an individual developer, I can't afford to do that and defend myself against the inevitable legal consequences."

I feel I should just mention that what isn't possible as an individual is sometimes very doable as a class. Not that I'd encourage anybody getting in the way of IBM's steamroller at the moment in the US.

There is also an odd report on the SCO-BayStar agreement to go their separate ways:

"Relations between SCO and BayStar had soured by April 2004, however, when the investment firm stated that it wanted a refund from SCO or a change of management to better focus the company on its intellectual property claims, rather than growing its Unix operating system business.

"SCO refused to change its ways, and looked set for a major battle with the investment firm after Royal Bank of Canada washed its hands of SCO in May, converting 10,000 Series A-1 shares into common stock and selling the remaining 20,000 to BayStar. However, instead of launching a battle for control of SCO, BayStar agreed in June to sever its ties with the Unix vendor in return for cash and stock."

June? If it were June, why didn't they tell us until August? Here are the dates the way I recall them. They did argue in public in April about the direction of the company. Then, the purchase agreement was signed in May. The press release went out on June 1. In July, when SCO said the deal was done, Baystar said on the 23rd, they had not agreed and would seek a declaratory judgment against SCO.

More documents on PACER. Everybody gets to talk long. First, #257, IBM's [sealed] Reply to response to [152] cross motion for partial summary judgment on claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement [Entry date 08/24/04]. This one we won't get to read. I gather it speaks of somebody's most holy proprietary code.

Then an Order granting IBM's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File an Overlength Memorandum and another Order granting IBM's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File an Overlength Reply Memorandum

And then SCO gets to be wordy too. Here's an Order granting SCO's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File an Overlength Memorandum.

But IBM has filed to block SCO from filing a supplemental memorandum:

#261 - Memorandum by Intl Bus Mach Inc in opposition to [245-1] ex parte motion for leave to file a supplemental memo re: discovery (blk) [Entry date 08/26/04]

SCO's ex parte motion #245 is another sealed document:

"245 - SCO's [sealed] Ex parte motion by SCO Grp for leave to file a supplemental memo re: discovery [sealed] [Entry date 08/22/04] (also, Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans, and Declaration of Barbara L. Howe)"

I gather IBM has had it with the discovery nonsense. A reader noticed that this cartoon today seems to get the whole IP silliness.


  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 )