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
SCO's Reply Memo in Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike
Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 05:58 PM EDT

Here we have SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike, in which SCO makes the extraordinary argument that Sandeep Gupta, John Harrop, and Chris Sontag, while they could be experts, are instead testifying as lay persons. So Mr. Gupta, who has testified that code in Unix and Linux is similar, is just giving the opinion of a layman. And on the other side, we have Randall Davis of MIT, who has testified that it is his expert opinion that there is no similarity.

Is SCO out of its mind? Not trying? Trying to lose elegantly? I have been debating it every which way, and my current hypothesis is that the only thing they fight hard for is delay. I think, therefore, that they don't mind losing, as long as they can preserve their opportunity to go after end users. For that, a loss on some technicality will do. If, say, they ask for the moon (all AIX since the world began and for good measure the right to strip search IBM's software management system), and they are turned down, they could tell the media that there really is code in there that is infringing, but unfortunately the court turned down the only way they had to prove it against IBM. But it's in there. It's just that the courts....well, remember OJ, right? He's still walking around, as that legal scholar Darl McBride pointed out.

Could that be the strategy? I don't know. All I know is, this isn't normal behavior. So you can judge for yourself, here is a section of the memo, on why IBM's motion to strike the declarations of Sontag and Gupta and most of Harrop should be denied:

"Motion to Strike should be denied because:

  • The Declarations are based on the declarants' personal knowledge, including their review of portions of the UNIX and Linux source codes and other documents in this case;

  • To the extent that the declarants' testimony can be construed as opinion, it is admissable lay opinion not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized information.. . .

  • In any event, each of the three declarants could qualify as an expert witness."

If they were trying to win, wouldn't they qualify their witnesses as experts, if they could, the way they did with Broderick? It's just so odd. They are hoping to defeat a motion with non-expert testimony that there is similarity of code.

They go on to carefully say that Gupta isn't testifying that there are any copyright violations. So, they've publicly leveled the charge, but there will be no one to testify to prove it? They say people end up looking like their dogs and husbands and wives look like each other after a long married life. Do you suppose lawyers end up like their clients?


  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 )