decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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
Lots of Activity in SCO v. IBM Land - SCO Says It Did Not Repudiate GPL
Thursday, December 02 2004 @ 10:01 AM EST

Lots of filings in the SCO v. IBM case are up on Pacer this morning. The overview: SCO says to the court: slow down. We need more time to do discovery before you rule on IBM's motion for partial summary judgment on the contract claims counterclaim.

What else did you think they would say? That they didn't repudiate the GPL?

Actually, that is exactly what they say in 342, their Opposition to IBM's Partial Summary Judgment Motion on Copyright Infringement. And they also have filed a sealed Memorandum in opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Breach of Contract Claims.

Oh, and in 342 they also say IBM "hacked" their website to get evidence of GPL violations, by bypassing password protection, and so have "unclean hands". There is nothing too ludicrous or too low for these venal folks to claim. It's all about smearing IBM in the media at this point, I gather. I recall that you did not need to bypass anything to download the Linux kernel from SCO's website. So I think we can assume this is the desperate last struggle of a dying company, caught in a GPL trap entirely of their own making, and trying anything and everything to get its foot out of the snare. Of course, SCO's position from day one seems to have been that if you use Linux, you must be a criminal. So now, IBM, poor thing, has been thrown into that category by SCO, who may now be certifiably insane, I would argue.

They still don't get the GPL, but one thing is for sure. We have come full circle. They are in the hilariously strange position of arguing that the GPL is valid and that is why they are innocent of violating it. So, for all you folks salivating at the thought that the GPL would be challenged in court, you lose. SCO has surrendered.

IBM opposes SCO's attempt to amend its complaint. It's sealed, because this has to do with the confidential material.

And the G2 filings are up now, and there is no complaint.

Here's the Pacer list:

11/30/04 337 SEALED DOCUMENT entitled: IBM's opposition to SCO's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint pursuant to FRCivP 15(a) and 16(b) (blk) [Entry date 12/01/04]

11/30/04 338 Motion by Intl Bus Mach Inc for leave to file overlength memo in opposition re: SCO's motion for leave to file third amd cmp (blk) [Entry date 12/01/04]

12/1/04 339 Motion by SCO Grp for leave to file overlength memo re: IBM's motion for summary jgm on breach of contract claims (blk) [Entry date 12/01/04]

11/30/04 340 Motion to intervene by G2 Computer Intel (blk) [Entry date 12/01/04]

11/30/04 341 Memorandum by G2 Computer Intel in support of [340-1] motion to intervene by G2 Computer Intel (blk) [Entry date 12/01/04]

11/30/04 342 Memorandum by SCO Grp in opposition to [233-1] motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaim for copyright infringement (eighth counterclaim) (blk) [Entry date 12/01/04]

11/30/04 343 Motion by SCO Grp pursuant to Rule 56(f) in further opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Jgm on SCO's Contract Claims (blk) [Entry date 12/01/04]

11/30/04 344 Declaration of Edward Normand filed by SCO (blk) [Entry date 12/01/04]

11/30/04 345 SEALED DOCUMENT entitled: DECLARATION of Todd M. Shaughnessy in support of IBM's opposition to SCO's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (blk) [Entry date 12/01/04]

11/30/04 346 SEALED DOCUMENT entitled: Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Jgm on SCO's Breach of Contract Claims (blk) [Entry date 12/01/04]

Is this not the most fun yet? SCO stands up for the legality of the GPL. I guess you could call that a retreat. As in, with their tail between their legs. This story never, ever gets boring. Well, maybe IBM isn't having as much fun as we are, just watching. It's never enjoyable to have your reputation smeared. I know. It's happened to me, and it really is both painful and infuriating. That SCO would be willing to level a charge of "hacking" tells me what kind of people we are dealing with here.

One thing is now clear -- the validity of the GPL is not going to be tested in this case. SCO's incompetence has shut the door to them being able to do that. Now, they are wrapping themselves in the GPL flag. They may think that will protect them, but that's because they *still* don't understand how it works. I would so love to be in the courtroom the day they finally 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 )