Here's the 2004 deposition of Otis Wilson, in which we get to see IBM's David Marriott and SCO's Scott Gant in action. We've split it up into three PDFs:
Part 1, pages 1-112
Part 2, pages 113-236
Part 3, pages 237-361
If you had any doubts about whether oddly personal questions were asked by SCO's attorney, which IBM complained to Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells about, read from page 117 onward in Part 2. They ask if he was ever arrested, how many times he's been married, if he ever had a lien or judgment against him, ever declared bankruptcy, had any issues regarding paying his taxes, whether he declares all his income on his taxes, if he was ever fired from a job or been the subject of a disciplinary action in an employment setting, and about his military service, none of which seems to me to have a thing to do with AT&T licensing, which is the topic he is there to discuss.
Marriott on page 119 asks if Mr. Wilson's marital history is even relevant when Gant asks for the names of Mr. Wilson's ex-wives, which would seem to be the right question. On page 150, Gant asks him if he has any IBM stock or if they paid him anything to testify, the answer to both questions being a no. I presume this line of questioning is for the purpose of character assassination, if at all possible. But Mr. Wilson is obviously a decent member of society, and SCO goes nowhere with its line of questioning, other than deepening my distaste for SCO's ways.
From pages 127 onward, SCO's attorney asks him about his testimony in previous depositions in earlier litigations, asking him if he was truthful. And you'll enjoy watching David Marriott handle the SCO attorney's attempts to get Mr. Wilson to waive his attorney-client privilege. You'll find it in Part 2, pages 144-148 where SCO's Mr. Gant tries to question Mr. Wilson on what he and his lawyers discussed in preparation for the deposition. Marriott also takes Gant to task later over the same issue, on deposition pages 282 through 285. Note particularly also the exchange on page 165, where Marriott says, "Counselor, are you trying to get beyond the assertion of privilege, because you appear to not have much respect for it. If you're asking him -- if you're asking for the disclosure of privileged information, I think that's improper."
That sums up this entire litigation nicely, I think. It's another reason this case brings out strong emotions -- it is a morality play. Read the transcript for yourself, and you can draw your own conclusions. But if it were an old Hollywood movie, and you were the casting director, I think you'd know which lawyer was the hero Gary Cooper should play.