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
SCO's Memo Opposing IBM's Motion for Decl. Judgment of Noninfringement
Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 04:14 AM EST

Here's SCO's Redacted Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on its Claim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement (IBM's 10th Counterclaim [PDF] and Part 2. Yes. Loooong. And a four-part Appendix, as well, sideways on the page, which I hate, and they filed it so we need to OCR it, if anyone has the time. Here are the four parts of the Appendix:

This should be fun to read, though. So, let's have at it. I see in a quick read, and I'm only up to page 11, that they are becoming truly reckless. For example, SCO states this:

Because Santa Cruz, the owner of UNIX copyrights at the time IBM decided to embark on its Linux strategy, had no involvement with Linux, IBM could not have reasonably relied on third-party Linux activities as a basis for entering the market.

Isn't that breathtaking? SCO's Second Amended Complaint places IBM's involvement in Linux as beginning in 2000. The Caldera-Santa Cruz deal was in August of 2000. Groklaw has documented already Tigran Aivazian's contributions at least as early as 1999, while he was at Santa Cruz, and it was, he says, with his boss's knowledge and approval. And here's the 1999 CNET article Groklaw showed you earlier, about Santa Cruz adding the ability to run Linux applications on UnixWare and saying Linux was helping their business. And we know SCO's lawyers read Groklaw. So how do they dare to make such a statement? I am simply dumbfounded.

As you see statements that you can rebut, by all means do so in your comments, with urls to proof. Evidently, reminders are required.


  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 )