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
SCO Filed, but it's Under Seal
Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 01:26 AM EST

Well, they dood it. SCO filed on Friday, according to Stephen Shankland, who must have gotten the info from SCO itself, because it isn't on Pacer yet.

What? A party to a lawsuit is sending legal documents to a journalist? Oooh, perfidy. Call Dan Lyons right away. Does that mean Shankland works for SCO? Get a detective on that right away.

: )

Friday was the interim deadline for the parties to "disclose with specificity all allegedly misused material identified to date and to update interrogatory responses accordingly."

Here's what Shankland tells us:

In a five-page document filed Friday, SCO attorneys say they identify 217 areas in which it believes IBM or Sequent, a Unix server company IBM acquired, violated contracts under which SCO and its predecessors licensed the Unix operating system. However, the curious won't be able to see for themselves the details of SCO's claims: The full list of alleged abuses were filed in a separate document under court seal.

The Lindon, Utah-based company did provide some information about what it believes IBM moved improperly to Linux, though.

"Some of these wrongful disclosures include areas such as an entire file management system; others are communications by IBM personnel working on Linux that resulted in enhancing Linux functionality by disclosing a method or concept from Unix technology," SCO said. "The numerosity and substantiality of the disclosures reflects the pervasive extent and sustained degree as to which IBM disclosed methods, concepts, and in many places, literal code, from Unix-derived technologies in order to enhance the ability of Linux to be used as a scalable and reliable operating system for business and as an alternative to proprietary Unix systems such as those licensed by SCO and others."

Yeah? We'll see. Or maybe only the parties and the judge will, but if they had found infringing literal code, there is absolutely no reason not to show it without seal, because if it's literal, it's out there in the public already. All Linux code is freely viewable by anyone on Planet Earth. The astronauts can look at it too. SCO may be afraid the Linux community will pull the rug out from under them before they can get to trial, if they tell us publicly what they think they have. Every time they tell us what they think is infringing, somebody proves they are mistaken. At best.

I'm from Missouri, personally. Not literally, so don't bother sending detectives to harrass me, or to dig up dirt to discredit me, as per a recent suggested list of corporate dirty tricks. But seriously, remember the ominous-sounding words about AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler and their alleged breaches? You saw how far SCO got with that nonsense. DC hadn't even used SCO's software -- if it is even theirs -- for almost a decade. Remember all the hot air about IBM's horrendous "copyright infringement" that also disappeared in a puff of smoke when Judge Kimball said he saw no there there? So while I can't know for sure that they have nothing this time unless or until we get to see it for ourselves, one thing is for sure -- their track record is mighty poor so far.

Robin Bloor has a theory to warm SCO's heart. He figures that if SCO's stock goes up, it will mean someone leaked whatever it is they filed and it's solid. Mwahahahaha. He hasn't been watching this stock the way we have, methinks. Doesn't he remember how the stock shot up to the $20 on news of IBM's alleged copyright infringement? And did those claims prove to be solid? I'm no stock guru, but I can extrapolate from that.

By the way, here's what *is* on Pacer: the hearing on IBM's Motion to Compel Production of Documents on SCO's Privilege Log and SCO's "Renewed" Motion to Compel Discovery will be on December 20 at 10:00 AM in Room 220 before Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells.

  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 )