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
David Frasure's 1992 BSDi Deposition
Friday, October 22 2004 @ 04:13 PM EDT

Here's David Frasure's deposition in the BSDi case, from 1992. SCO presents it to the court and the media as an example of one of two IBM declarants contradicting himself. However, their argument, in my opinion, suffers from the same fatal flaw as it does with the 1992 Otis Wilson deposition. In both cases, the '92 depositions are talking about educational licenses, not commercial ones, so it looks to me like an apples to oranges comparison, not a contradiction.

I haven't finished reading this deposition yet -- it's about 226 pages long -- so I thought we could read it together. If you wish to compare, you can read David Frasure's declaration [ PDF] in the SCO v. IBM case and his deposition [PDF]. Needless to say, we have a lot of transcribing to do.


  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 )