Slashdot Mirror

• SCOvIBM: In the wake of the recent opinion issued by Judge Kimball, fact discovery will continue until 27 Jan 2006, and the parties must disclose with specificity all "allegedly infringing materials" by 22 Dec 2005. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the privilege log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due approximately 28 Sept 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is expected around 17 July 2005.

Pending/Recently decided motions:

• SCOvIBM:
  • SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery - fully briefed, awaiting hearing date.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - sealed]

SCOvNovell:

• Complaint
  • [SCO's complaint] [Novell's answer - expected 14 Jul 2005]
• Novell's Motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
  • [Motion] [Memo] [Novell Declaration of Bruce Lowey] [Novell Declaration of David E. Melaugh] [Opposition] [Reply] [Novell Declaration of Kellie Carlton] [Eyewitness Reports of Hearing] [Order]

RedHatvSCO:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 28 Sept 2005).
  • [Red Hat letter - 30 Jun 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 6 Jul 2005]

SCOvAutoZone:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 17 July 2005).
  • [AutoZone letter - 10 May 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 18 Apr 2005]

Please note that I've started construction of a motio

• SCOvIBM: In the wake of the recent opinion issued by Judge Kimball, fact discovery will continue until 27 Jan 2006, and the parties must disclose with specificity all "allegedly infringing materials" by 22 Dec 2005. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the privilege log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due approximately 28 Sept 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is expected around 17 July 2005.

Pending/Recently decided motions:

• SCOvIBM:
  • SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery - fully briefed, awaiting hearing date.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - sealed]

SCOvNovell:

• Complaint
  • [SCO's complaint] [Novell's answer - expected 14 Jul 2005]
• Novell's Motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
  • [Motion] [Memo] [Novell Declaration of Bruce Lowey] [Novell Declaration of David E. Melaugh] [Opposition] [Reply] [Novell Declaration of Kellie Carlton] [Eyewitness Reports of Hearing] [Order]

RedHatvSCO:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 28 Sept 2005).
  • [Red Hat letter - 30 Jun 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 6 Jul 2005]

SCOvAutoZone:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 17 July 2005).
  • [AutoZone letter - 10 May 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 18 Apr 2005]

Please note that I've started construction of a motio

• SCOvIBM: In the wake of the recent opinion issued by Judge Kimball, fact discovery will continue until 27 Jan 2006, and the parties must disclose with specificity all "allegedly infringing materials" by 22 Dec 2005. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the privilege log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due approximately 28 Sept 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is expected around 17 July 2005.

Pending/Recently decided motions:

• SCOvIBM:
  • SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery - fully briefed, awaiting hearing date.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - sealed]

SCOvNovell:

• Complaint
  • [SCO's complaint] [Novell's answer - expected 14 Jul 2005]
• Novell's Motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
  • [Motion] [Memo] [Novell Declaration of Bruce Lowey] [Novell Declaration of David E. Melaugh] [Opposition] [Reply] [Novell Declaration of Kellie Carlton] [Eyewitness Reports of Hearing] [Order]

RedHatvSCO:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 28 Sept 2005).
  • [Red Hat letter - 30 Jun 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 6 Jul 2005]

SCOvAutoZone:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 17 July 2005).
  • [AutoZone letter - 10 May 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 18 Apr 2005]

Please note that I've started construction of a motio

• SCOvIBM: In the wake of the recent opinion issued by Judge Kimball, fact discovery will continue until 27 Jan 2006, and the parties must disclose with specificity all "allegedly infringing materials" by 22 Dec 2005. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the privilege log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due approximately 28 Sept 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is expected around 17 July 2005.

Pending/Recently decided motions:

• SCOvIBM:
  • SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery - fully briefed, awaiting hearing date.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - sealed]

SCOvNovell:

• Complaint
  • [SCO's complaint] [Novell's answer - expected 14 Jul 2005]
• Novell's Motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
  • [Motion] [Memo] [Novell Declaration of Bruce Lowey] [Novell Declaration of David E. Melaugh] [Opposition] [Reply] [Novell Declaration of Kellie Carlton] [Eyewitness Reports of Hearing] [Order]

RedHatvSCO:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 28 Sept 2005).
  • [Red Hat letter - 30 Jun 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 6 Jul 2005]

SCOvAutoZone:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 17 July 2005).
  • [AutoZone letter - 10 May 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 18 Apr 2005]

Please note that I've started construction of a motio

Question: Isn't it possible that someone was just inspired by work they'd done for other companies? Isn't that reasonable?

Darl(21:50): It's reasonable, except when the comment codes are the same, the humor lines in the comment code are the same, and the typos in the comment code are the same, then you start getting beyond... Ya know, it was kind of like, I learned this one day at school ... It becomes more of the... Those, to me, are really the DNA of the code here.

Lots of Slashdot stories about the technical and patent problems associated with SenderID (and also SPF)... Also something from PJ at Groklaw.

this was ORIGINALLY a lawsuit about the derivative works from a company working with a Unix license that IBM bought.

what are you talking about? In their first filing,

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200407041 70212250

their first cause of action was "Linux is full of UNIX, which belongs to us"

First cause of action - (Misappropriation of Trade Secrets--Utah Code Ann. 13-24-1 et seq.)

this is in reference to their placing UNIX code in linux... read the previous 103 statements to see what they are alleging.

in their second (and current) complaint, they keep it up!

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200402070 22922296

3. A variant or clone of UNIX currently exists in the computer marketplace called "Linux." Linux is, in material part, based upon UNIX source code and methods.

4. The UNIX software distribution vendors, such as IBM, are contractually and legally prohibited from giving away or disclosing proprietary UNIX source code and methods for external business purposes, such as contributions to Linux, or from otherwise using UNIX for the benefit of others. This prohibition extends to derivative work products that are modifications of, or derivative works based on, UNIX System V source code or technology. IBM is violating this prohibition, en masse, as though no prohibition or proprietary restrictions exist at all with respect to the UNIX technology. As a result of IBM's wholesale disregard of its contractual and legal obligations to SCO, Linux 2.4.x and 2.6.x and the development Linux kernel, 2.5.x, are replete with protected technology. As such, the Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x and 2.6.x kernels are unauthorized derivatives of UNIX System V.

the are, have, and continue to claim that Linux is full of Unix, and that its a derivative because IBM put UNIX code in Linux.

That's the basics of their case, in a few words... they are hiding that contention behind their contracts with IBM. But how did they breach contract with SCO? - SCO alleges that they put UNIX in Linux.

If there is no illegal UNIX in Linux, then they've not breached any contracts, have they? To have breached contract, they would have had to have infringed on SCO's "UNIX copyrights"

this was ORIGINALLY a lawsuit about the derivative works from a company working with a Unix license that IBM bought.

what are you talking about? In their first filing,

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200407041 70212250

their first cause of action was "Linux is full of UNIX, which belongs to us"

First cause of action - (Misappropriation of Trade Secrets--Utah Code Ann. 13-24-1 et seq.)

this is in reference to their placing UNIX code in linux... read the previous 103 statements to see what they are alleging.

in their second (and current) complaint, they keep it up!

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200402070 22922296

3. A variant or clone of UNIX currently exists in the computer marketplace called "Linux." Linux is, in material part, based upon UNIX source code and methods.

4. The UNIX software distribution vendors, such as IBM, are contractually and legally prohibited from giving away or disclosing proprietary UNIX source code and methods for external business purposes, such as contributions to Linux, or from otherwise using UNIX for the benefit of others. This prohibition extends to derivative work products that are modifications of, or derivative works based on, UNIX System V source code or technology. IBM is violating this prohibition, en masse, as though no prohibition or proprietary restrictions exist at all with respect to the UNIX technology. As a result of IBM's wholesale disregard of its contractual and legal obligations to SCO, Linux 2.4.x and 2.6.x and the development Linux kernel, 2.5.x, are replete with protected technology. As such, the Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x and 2.6.x kernels are unauthorized derivatives of UNIX System V.

the are, have, and continue to claim that Linux is full of Unix, and that its a derivative because IBM put UNIX code in Linux.

That's the basics of their case, in a few words... they are hiding that contention behind their contracts with IBM. But how did they breach contract with SCO? - SCO alleges that they put UNIX in Linux.

If there is no illegal UNIX in Linux, then they've not breached any contracts, have they? To have breached contract, they would have had to have infringed on SCO's "UNIX copyrights"

See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200507131 42107477

Over at Groklaw, PJ touches on this in an article about Internet Archive being sued article She makes good points such as recommending that site owners utilize subscriptions to protect content that they do not wish to be open to the public domain. The is also a discussion of the robots.txt file that many sites use and search engines honor voluntarily.

Search engines are tremendously effective tools for bringing visitors to web content. Without them, many web sites would go unnoticed. I don't see that attacking the search engines will be effective. I believe that simple solutions such as those PJ has touched on are readily available and easy to implement rather than resorting to such extensive legislation, and I agree that this is what we as citizens need to convey this to our respective governments.

If you went to Groklaw's front page, you'd find an image indicating that you can give to Groklaw via Amazon. Therefore, you're just shilling for PayPal, as you don't like Amazon, or you've never actually visited Groklaw, and seen that you can donate another way.

If you went to Groklaw's front page, you'd find an image indicating that you can give to Groklaw via Amazon. Therefore, you're just shilling for PayPal, as you don't like Amazon, or you've never actually visited Groklaw, and seen that you can donate another way.

And perhaps this comment on the lawsuit on Groklaw.

You don't read groklaw, do you? That's the lawsuit which PJ used to start her article. Your example can't be dumber than PJ's challenge, because it is PJ's challenge.

There's a good article on Groklaw about Anti-Linux Strategy for Microsoft.

This isn't related to the article, but I noticed primidi has the same banner background as Groklaw.

Ashkenazi Jews are more susceptible to a particular kind of breast cancer. There is a test for it. The test has patent protections and these people have to fork out royaltie$.

I hope the Amish and Mennonites negotiate as a group so none of them have to pay anything more than token royalties on tests that come out of using them as test subjects. It would be a shame to tell them "thanks for letting us use you, here's your $100, now when each of your friends get tested for this killer gene $200 goes back into our pockets."

For more info, click here , here , and here

You can read both the state and the federal complaints against Microsoft on Groklaw here, along with one exhibit, with more to come. It was at last year's class action against Microsoft in Minnesota that certain facts came to light -- letters, email and memos -- and that provides the basis for the suit now.

Isn't that what Daniel Wallace is alleging in his antitrust suit against IBM, Novell, Red Hat, and the FSF?

I think he only mentioned the bit about wanting to write an OS when his standing in the suit was questioned....

You can read more about this at Groklaw

1) Lawyers don't review and compare code. Computer experts do. SCO's employee Sandeep Gupta declared that he found identical or similar code in IBM's code versus Unix System V. IBM hired Randall Davis and Brian Kernighan to review and refute SCO's claims. Kernighan wrote the first C programming book with Dennis Ritchie and Randall Davis helped establish the abstract, filtration, and comparison standard of copyrights and computer programs in Gates v. Bando.

2) BitKeeper was used to keep and track code changes for historical and maintenance purposes in the Linux kernel. It is not the best tool to compare code, and the Linux kernel is not locked in to it. You don't need BitKeeper to see the code; the source code is public as simple text. Davis stated: "There are a number of tools that are publicly available (in both executable and source code form) to compare large, complex programs for the purpose of determining substantial similarity."

3) IBM's main point is that SCO has whined how it needs 26,000 man years to compare code between Linux and Unix, yet somehow it has been able to compare AIX (which is larger than Linux) and Unix since IBM started turning over source code last year.

1) Lawyers don't review and compare code. Computer experts do. SCO's employee Sandeep Gupta declared that he found identical or similar code in IBM's code versus Unix System V. IBM hired Randall Davis and Brian Kernighan to review and refute SCO's claims. Kernighan wrote the first C programming book with Dennis Ritchie and Randall Davis helped establish the abstract, filtration, and comparison standard of copyrights and computer programs in Gates v. Bando.

2) BitKeeper was used to keep and track code changes for historical and maintenance purposes in the Linux kernel. It is not the best tool to compare code, and the Linux kernel is not locked in to it. You don't need BitKeeper to see the code; the source code is public as simple text. Davis stated: "There are a number of tools that are publicly available (in both executable and source code form) to compare large, complex programs for the purpose of determining substantial similarity."

3) IBM's main point is that SCO has whined how it needs 26,000 man years to compare code between Linux and Unix, yet somehow it has been able to compare AIX (which is larger than Linux) and Unix since IBM started turning over source code last year.

Basically when Santa Cruz and IBM worked on the project known as Monterey in the late 90s, it was understood that both companies would use code developed from the joint venture in their products. SCO claims that IBM used the jointly developed code on Power based machines when the original agreement only specified that IBM could use it on Intel machines. They filed in October 2004 to change the claim to add this to the current suit. They wanted more discovery and time to pursue this new claim.

In the current lawsuit, the deadline for changing the claim was February 2004. Under certain circumstances, a party can go beyond deadlines but only for "compelling reasons." SCO's compelling reason was (1) they "just discovered" this fact and (2) IBM filed a counterclaim (9th) that requires them to research it.

IBM's answer to the court was convincing and many fold. They produce documents, emails, presentations, public announcements from Santa Cruz as far back as 1998 that describe how IBM was to use code from the joint project in Power. They also produce IBM public presentations, software documentation, and public announcements about the same thing. Finally they presented industry reports and discussions from tech magazines both online and offline from 2000 that discusses IBM's use of the code. IBM ironically points out that SCO provided some of this source material to IBM in the lawsuit filings.

IBM's message is simple: (1) Santa Cruz knew. If SCO is the legal and corporate successor to Santa Cruz, then it is SCO's duty to know everything that Santa Cruz did. (2) Since SCO provided some of the material, SCO had to know since 2003 when they filed the lawsuit. (3) Even if SCO was totally clueless about Santa Cruz's materials and it's own filings, a simple search online up to 4 years ago would have uncovered the fact that IBM was going to use the code in Power.

As far IBM's 9th Counterclaim, IBM chose to reduce/clarify the scope so that it was not as broad and SCO's new claim would have no relevance.

On a side note, one of IBM's statements is interesting:

Tellingly, in support of its contention that the addition of this new copyright infringement claim would not require extensive additional discovery, SCO purports in its current motion (and in its proposed complaint) to have already analyzed its own UnixWare/SVR4 code and IBM's AIX code and identified 245,026 specific lines of "copied and derived code" from UnixWare/SVR4 in IBM's AIX for Power Version 5.1.0 and 260,785 specific lines of "copied and derived code" from UnixWare/SVR4 in IBM's AIX for Power Version 5.2.0. At the same time, of course, SCO continues to maintain -- both in opposition to IBM's pending motion for summary judgment on IBM's Tenth Counterclaim and in support of SCO's discovery motions pending before Magistrate Judge Wells -- that SCO is unable, without significant additional discovery from IBM and potentially thousands of additional man-years of expert work, to identify the specific lines of "copied and derived code" from UNIX that it claims is present in Linux. Indeed, SCO argued before this Court and Judge Wells that it could not capably perform any code comparisons between UNIX and Linux in a reasonable time frame without access to more discovery from IBM (concerning AIX no less).

SCO wanted to convince the judge that no more discovery would be necessary to add this new claim saying that they had already done a lot of work. But IBM asks the question: If they have compared our closed source AIX with their Unix, why do they claim they couldn't compare open source Linux with their Unix without our AIX source code?

are available over at Groklaw.

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

In summary:

• SCOvIBM:
  • Proposed Scheduling Order - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [IBM Proposal] [SCO Proposal and opposition] [IBM Reply] [Transcript] [Order]
• IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - redacted] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition - fully briefed, awaiting ruling.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed, Exhbits] [Opposition - redacted] [Reply - sealed] [Transcript] [Order]
• SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint - fully briefed, awaiting rul

Groklaw has some more on that story, as well as occasional updates.

That being said, the fact that noone so far has actually challenged the GPL in court does not mean that the GPL is weak; quite the opposite. It means that nobody so far has seen even so much as a remote chance to actually succeed in challenging it.

Technical precision requirement on programming language and human language is very different, for I am (and maybe many others are) extremely lazy and just want to get things done with as little effort as possible.

SCO has a lot more to lose in taking this to the public court than SCO's nothing. If claims like this are false, then AMD is opening themselves up to some nasty libel suits, so I'm guessing that they lawyers are pretty sure of their case to be OKing something like this. The only other explanation would be that AMD was on it's last legs and grasping at straws -- and nothing that I see points to that. If anything, it appears that AMD is gaining ground, and I can easily see that AMD's customer quotas are getting seriously in the way.

I don't have the URL on hand, but this sounds soo much like the stuff was reading on Groklaw that came out of the Microsoft/DR-DOS anti-competition suit. Microsoft would set quotas for each distributor such that if they didn't produce (near) 100% MS-DOS boxes, they'd be fscked because the bulk of their business was still with them, and DR-DOS was something of a (large) niche market.

Given a choice of "Give up that niche market or we'll double your price and make your developers' lives hell," most OEM's are going to drop the niche. Back in 1992 it was DR-DOS on the business end of the monopoly club. Today it appears to be AMD.

Think about it for a second: It's all over slashdot. AMD's chips are (for the most part) faster, cheaper, lower power and better designed. Intel had to eat crow and follow AMD's lead in the 64-bit CPU field. So why aren't OEMs jumping ship like ants to a jam-spill for AMD parts? Anti-competetive pressure on the part of Intel is one of the few things that fit into this equation.

Reuters is reporting that AMD is claiming damages against Intel K.K. in Japan, over the Japan Fair Trade Commission's recommendation that Intel has violated Japan's Antimonopoloy Act.

This litigation follows a recent ruling from the Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC), which found that Intel abused its monopoly power to exclude fair and open competition, violating Section 3 of Japan's Antimonopoly Act. These findings reveal that Intel deliberately engaged in illegal business practices to stop AMD's increasing market share by imposing limitations on Japanese PC manufacturers. Intel did not contest these charges.

PJ does a much better job running a website.

I'm replying here because it's a good spot on the first page. :)

If you have any doubts about the definition of theft and piracy, just look to recent court actions.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200402050 05057966

I like the judge's rebuke:

"Let me say what I think your problem is. You can use these harsh terms, but you are dealing with something new, and the question is, does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that something new. And that's a very debatable question. You don't solve it by calling it 'theft.' You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That's your problem. Address that if you would. And curtail the use of abusive language."

The judges here clearly viewed the use of 'theft' or 'piracy' to be an abuse of the terms, and I do as well. To equate making an unauthorized copy of a 3 minute song with actual theft or piracy is a slap in the face of everyone who's ever been robbed or an actual victim of piracy.

In their Sixth Affirmative Defense, they say:

"The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

The Seventh Affirmative Defense adds:

"The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped[sic] or otherwise barred as a matter of equity."

The Eighth adds:

"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

If it were that simple, the EFF wouldn't have bothered getting involved. The DMCA has exceptions specifically allowing reverse engineering! So I think your last statement ("Whether bnetd folks agreed to the EULA or not they would still be liable under the DMCA") is highly debatable, and apparently so does the EFF.

The EFF's page on this case can be found here. The important part is this: "As it stands, the lower court's decision makes it unlawful in most cases to reverse engineer any commercial software program, thus making it impossible to create new programs that interoperate with older ones. This squeezes consumer choice out of the marketplace by essentially allowing companies to outlaw competitors' products that interact with their own."

The problem I see (and here I'm relying entirely on my own feeble analytic skills) is that they might win on the DMCA point and still lose on the EULA point. In fact, I think they should win on the DMCA point, and might still lose on the EULA point, which would be unfortunate and stupid for reasons I pointed out earlier.

As PJ wrote in the Groklaw coverage, "I hear you cynics saying that the courts let the DMCA trump everything, and in this case you may prove correct, but don't forget that the issue of the DMCA and the aftermarket was also at issue in the Lexmark and Skylink cases, and those cases worked out fine."

So...we'll see.

p.s. I should throw in a reminder at this point to donate to the EFF, and help keep one of the few groups that's on our side going.

"Dan Lyons" is where I stopped reading. He's proven himself to be somewhat lacking in journalistic ethics before, and I won't give him the satisfaction of me reading his articles.