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
Declaration of Geoffrey D. Green
Saturday, October 30 2004 @ 11:20 PM EDT

Here is the Declaration of Geoffrey D. Green, transcribed for us by the indefatigable thpr. It is one of the group of declarations IBM submitted in support of its motion for partial summary judgment on breach of contract claims. Mr. Green was an AT&T employee, an attorney. He did not participate in the negotiations for any of the IBM license agreements, but says it is possible he offered legal services to AT&T regarding the agreements with IBM or Sequent. He says he has no specific recollection but even if he did, it would be covered by the attorney-client privilege. He does confirm, like all the other IBM declarants, that "AT&T did not intend to assert ownership or control over modifications and derivative works prepared by licensees, except to the extent of the original UNIX System V source code included in such modifications and derivative works."

Keep in mind that AT&T is supposed to be SCO's predecessor in interest, not IBM's friend, in this battle. Yet here is an AT&T attorney testifying that SCO's interpretation of the license agreements is incorrect. To me, that trumps the one declarant SCO found, a marketing guy who wasn't there, from all we can see, for the entire negotiations process. When it comes to contracts, who would understand what they mean, and what AT&T wanted them to mean, better than an AT&T attorney? Truly, if anyone was going to stand up and support SCO's version, this would have been the guy. And he doesn't.

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

SNELL & WILMER LLP
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
[address, phone, fax]

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

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,

-against-

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

_______________________________

Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

______________________________________

DECLARATION OF GEOFFREY D. GREEN

I, Geoffrey D. Green, declare as follows:

1. From approximately 1956 through 1996, I was employed by various AT&T-related companies, including AT&T Technologies, Inc. ("AT&T").

2. This declaration is submitted in connection with the lawsuit entitled The SCO Group, Inc. V. International Business Machines Corporation, Civil Action 2:03CV-0294 DAK (D. Utah 2003), and is based upon personal knowledge.

3. During the period from 1983 to 1986, while I was employed at AT&T, the company entered into a number of license agreements relating to UNIX System V software and related materials. I was involved, to varying degrees, with some of these agreements.

4. It was not my job, as a general matter, to negotiate our license agreements or to participate in discussions with our licensees. To the best of my recollection, I did not negotiate any of our license agreements with International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") or Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. ("Sequent").

5. It is possible that I offered legal services to representatives of AT&T concerning our agreements with IBM or Sequent. However, I do not have any specific recollection of doing any work regarding these agreements, and even if I did, I believe that any advice I might have given regarding any UNIX System V agreement would be protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and I would be unwilling to disclose it absent AT&T's consent.

6. Without disclosing any legal advice that I may have rendered while employed at AT&T (or any requests I may have received for legal advice), I can say that, as I understood AT&T's UNIX System V licensing agreements, AT&T did not intend to assert ownership or control over modifications and derivative works prepared by licensees, except to the extent of the original UNIX System V source code included in such modifications and derivative works. Accordingly, a licensee was free to do with as it wished (e.g., use, copy, distribute or disclose) code developed by or for the licensee in its modifications and derivative works, provided that the licensee did not use, copy, distribute or disclose any portions of the original UNIX System V source code provided by AT&T (except as otherwise permitted by the license agreements).

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed: June 17, 2004.

Rocky Hill, New Jersey

____[signature]____
Geoffrey D. Green


  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 )