Here it is, right on time, SCO's objections to the recent order by Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells, but it's sealed! Is that not a hoot? So much secrecy in this SCO litigation. They are filing objections under seal, challenging an order that sanctioned them for holding back evidence. Ironic, no?:
I think maybe SCO chose the Cathedral method, because there are too many eyeballs in the Bazaar. Bob Mims has a bit more, but he includes comments from two analysts who have yet to get one thing right about SCO that I can recall. In fairness to SCO, I don't see any way to evaluate their chances on *this* filing until we can read it. Still, the valuable information is that apparently SCOfolk told him the basis of their objections:
The appeal, technically an "objection" seeking Kimball's review, argues that Wells' reasoning confused SCO's contractual allegations over IBM's alleged export of the code with SCO's Unix copyright claims.
SCO attorney Brent Hatch said the appeal, which [it] was filing electronically with the court clerk's office Thursday night, also contends Wells took out of context some of the case law she cited to support her ruling.
So they are claiming mistake of law. Good luck, dudes. Export of the code? Does that mean export out of the US? Or export from AIX or Sequent to Linux? I can't tell from the article.
I view this objection as more of a placeholder anyway, to preserve the issue for appeal at the end of the case, after SCO loses at trial. If it gets that far. If you read this article, you'll understand a bit about preserving issues for appeal. It's in a criminal context, but the concepts are more or less the same.
What else did you expect them to do? If they don't object, they sink like a stone. Even a long shot is better than that. So they have decided to take their shot, their long shot.
It's possible they will file a redacted version later. They are supposed to, if they can. I gather it was nip and tuck to get it filed on time anyhow, so let's not leap to the conclusion that we'll never get to see any part of it. I'm sure you've seen by now that it tends to all come out somehow, whether in replies or in hearings. Meanwhile, yes. It's frustrating, because we can't do analysis or present any rebuttal evidence. Hmm. Perhaps there is a method to their madness, as the expression goes.