Slashdot Mirror

There is a great brief filed by a Colorado Public Defender addressing this issue (specifically the word Fuck and its history and uses).

The brief can be found at: http://scofacts.org/The-F-Motion.html

--AC

In O'Gara's transcribed testimony she states that after she writes a story she destroys the notes that were used.
That is not what journalists are supposed to do. What it indicates is that the "journalist" wants the story to replace the notes rather than the story be supported by the notes.

Full deposition
http://scofacts.org/Novell-OGara-deposition.pdf
http://scofacts.org/Novell-OGara-deposition.txt

Page 29
  1 O'Gara
  2 Q Do you have the notes of the
  3 short phrases still?
  4 A No.
  5 Q What is your practice of the
  6 short phrases, if you will, in terms of
  7 whether you keep them or not?
  8 A I throw everything out.
  9 Q When do you do that?
10 A If not when the story is
11 written, then every week, and I've been
12 doing that since 1972.

In O'Gara's transcribed testimony she states that after she writes a story she destroys the notes that were used.
That is not what journalists are supposed to do. What it indicates is that the "journalist" wants the story to replace the notes rather than the story be supported by the notes.

Full deposition
http://scofacts.org/Novell-OGara-deposition.pdf
http://scofacts.org/Novell-OGara-deposition.txt

Page 29
  1 O'Gara
  2 Q Do you have the notes of the
  3 short phrases still?
  4 A No.
  5 Q What is your practice of the
  6 short phrases, if you will, in terms of
  7 whether you keep them or not?
  8 A I throw everything out.
  9 Q When do you do that?
10 A If not when the story is
11 written, then every week, and I've been
12 doing that since 1972.

* Merkey explaining to Guy why it's OK for him to be in a separate reality because his astrologer said so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=138290116
* Merkey the Mormon messiah:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=135869262
* The remarkable cosmic events surrounding Merkey's birth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=138290116
* Merkey's "Right to Edit":
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_S/threadview?bn=2942&tid=423118&mid=423118
* Merkey's lawsuit against the internet:
http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/utah.pdf
* Merkey's peyote offer:
http://groups.google.com/group/mlist.linux.kernel/msg/c29b254c15fc5059
* Merkey disavowing his peyote offer YEARS after it was made:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0507.0/0230.html
* Merkey revealing that his Linux kernel buyout offer was part of his native american politicking:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/501519
* Merkey's arthritis cure, developed at Timpanogas:
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0108.1/0587.html
* .. which is also a law firm!:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0010.0/0955.html
* Merkey vouching for SCO's case:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0410.2/2674.html
* Merkey's "Mormon masters" letter showing his hatred:
http://scofacts.org/Novell-TRG-1998-01-30-letter.pdf
* Merkey's _gold_ mine:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cyberpunk/browse_thread/thread/3ca32f485a1ea07e/244b0f713989de6b?lnk=st
* Merkey's double-Y chromosome giving him a third brain and the powers of Einstein and Nostradamus:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.0/1206.html
* MANOS: The fantastic operating system noone ever saw.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2113408/open-source-netware-compatible-unveiled
* Gadugi: More fantastic software noone ever saw:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0410.2/2723.html
* Novell threatens to destroy Merkey's family:
http://lwn.net/2001/0704/a/nwfs.php3
* Merkey gets his ass handed to him by Andre, who not too subtly hints that his NWFS code may be stolen:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0111.2/0450.html
* Merkey's the Toad dealer:

SirFozzie: "[Jeff Merkey is] nuttier then a fruitcake"

Nyet: "According to the WP:Cabal, only anti-Merkey SPAs feel this way :)"

SirFozzie: "Oh, a lot of people feel the same way."

Whatever you want to call the collection of forces that determines Wikipedia content (the "WP:Cabal", the "wisdom of crowds", cosmic background radiation, whatever), the bottom line is that the Wikipedia article on Jeff Merkey, despite being over 1,000 words long, fails to inform the reader of the one fact about Merkey that is most important to know, which is that you shouldn't believe a word he says.

Here's what I wrote about that failure last year on the Talk page for the Merkey article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeff_V._Merkey&oldid=145259751&diff=145526635

Will Beback wrote on WP:ANI that "the subject is clearly litigious and we should note that fact in the article". I agree. I would say that the subject is, just as clearly, someone who makes a prodigious amount of extraordinary and false statements, and that any article about him should note that fact too. There's a good reliable source for that fact: Judge Anthony Schofield's finding that Merkey "deliberately describes his own separate reality." ( Novell v. Timpanogas Research Group, 46 USPQ.2d 1197, 1204 (Utah 1998)). Some people seem to think that that ruling is a primary source, but it is clearly a secondary source: it was written by a neutral party (the judge) after considering extensive writings, evidence, and argument from all sides (which he enumerates at the start of the ruling) and analyzing the credibility of those various sources. Does anyone seriously think that judges are not at least as competent, neutral, and careful in their evaluations as are journalists, who are routinely relied on by Wikipedia as secondary sources?
... Al Petrofsky 21:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

These were the three responses:

Al Petrofsky, this biography will definitely not characterize its living subject as "someone who makes a prodigious amount of extraordinary and false statements." Proabivouac 22:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Will's comment is fair while Proabivouac is correct that we have to take great care of living people who are subject to a bio here, see WP:BLP. This is simple respect for people's privacy, SqueakBox 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. Just glancing at the suggestions posted above, they seem to include violations of BLP, NOR, COI, and UNDUE (and the shorter version currently on the page may also be a violation, depending on how it's sourced). Specifically (1) it would be best if people involved in the case didn't edit the article, per COI; (2) we shouldn't use self-published material as a source, per BLP; (3) we shouldn't use primary-source material, including trial documents, that secondary sources haven't commented on, per BLP and NOR; (4) we shouldn't highlight the case more than reliable, mainstream, secondary sources have highlighted it, per UNDUE. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Perens wrote in Slashdot comment #22722890: "Jeff Merkey filed suit against me, and against PJ, some years ago. His family eventually convinced him to withdraw the suit against me, I don't know how his suit against PJ was resolved."

I (Al Petrofsky) was also a defendant in that case, Merkey v. Perense, et al., No. 2:05-cv-521-DAK, D. Utah, filed June 21, 2005. You can find full details here: http://scofacts.org/merkey

Merkey voluntarily dismissed his case against Pamela Jones. In the written dismissal notice he filed with the Court, he said that he was dropping it in favor of "pursuing criminal prosecution in the various states these offenses occurred". Needless to say, I am not aware of any such criminal prosecutions ever taking place.

The above comment, that Merkey's "family eventually convinced him to wihdraw the suit against" Perens, is the first I've heard of there being any involvement by Merkey's family in Merkey's decision-making in the case. At the time, Merkey wrote an entry on his website, which he later filed with the court, stating that he was dropping the action against Perens in exchange for Perens having allegedly made a written statement about "a large number of written attacks with violent connotations made against [Merkey]":

PLAINTIFF JEFFREY VERNON MERKEY'S EX-PARTE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONDUCT EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

... 11. Bruce Perens approached Plaintiff and negotiated setttlement of his claims in exchange for withdrawing his false and libelous comments, and adminishing Linux and OSS members for posting death threats on the public Internet, and was dismissed from the complaint without prejudice. (Exhibit 4)

... DATED this __20___ day of July, 2005.

... Exhibit 4

Bruce Perens Dismissed without Prejudice from Federal Action 2:05-CV-521-DAK

Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 06:30 PM MDT

Contributed by: Admin

We are pleased to announce settlement has been reached between Mr. Bruce Perens and Mr. Merkey relative all claims and causes of action arising from Federal Lawsuit 2:05-cv-521-DAK filed in US District Court in Utah. All claims and causes of action have been dismissed relative to Mr. Perens as of this date.

On a personal note, Mr. Merkey applauds Mr. Perens courage, candor, and demonstrated leadership in addressing these issues.

Mr. Perens has issued the following public statement regarding the litigation and this statmeent is posted here pursuant to an agreement between the parties.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE PERENS

"You may have noticed that Mr. Jeff Merkey has filed suit against a number of net entities and I. Mr. Merkey subsequently offered to withdraw his claims against me if I would issue a short statement. Of course I was concerned that his request could be an attempt to suppress my right to free speech on the net, but it turns out that the statement that Mr. Merkey asked for contains nothing I would not want to say.

Several people who have my sympathy are still being sued. I feel that my removal from the case will only hasten its demise, and I need to spend my time on important fights rather than this silly one.

I have made some statements regarding Mr. Merkey's relationship to SCO and Canopy Group that he would like me to clarify. He sold certain assets of his company to Canopy Group some time ago, but did not go to work for Canopy or SCO. Mr. Merkey has expressed a very strong disdain for both companies.

I subsequently suggested in public statements that Mr. Merkey work to cultivate his people skills in engaging and interacting with others, which is something he himself has admitted needs improvement. Subsequent to making these public comments, I oberserved

Bruce Perens wrote in Slashdot comment #22722890: "Jeff Merkey filed suit against me, and against PJ, some years ago. His family eventually convinced him to withdraw the suit against me, I don't know how his suit against PJ was resolved."

I (Al Petrofsky) was also a defendant in that case, Merkey v. Perense, et al., No. 2:05-cv-521-DAK, D. Utah, filed June 21, 2005. You can find full details here: http://scofacts.org/merkey

Merkey voluntarily dismissed his case against Pamela Jones. In the written dismissal notice he filed with the Court, he said that he was dropping it in favor of "pursuing criminal prosecution in the various states these offenses occurred". Needless to say, I am not aware of any such criminal prosecutions ever taking place.

The above comment, that Merkey's "family eventually convinced him to wihdraw the suit against" Perens, is the first I've heard of there being any involvement by Merkey's family in Merkey's decision-making in the case. At the time, Merkey wrote an entry on his website, which he later filed with the court, stating that he was dropping the action against Perens in exchange for Perens having allegedly made a written statement about "a large number of written attacks with violent connotations made against [Merkey]":

PLAINTIFF JEFFREY VERNON MERKEY'S EX-PARTE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONDUCT EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

... 11. Bruce Perens approached Plaintiff and negotiated setttlement of his claims in exchange for withdrawing his false and libelous comments, and adminishing Linux and OSS members for posting death threats on the public Internet, and was dismissed from the complaint without prejudice. (Exhibit 4)

... DATED this __20___ day of July, 2005.

... Exhibit 4

Bruce Perens Dismissed without Prejudice from Federal Action 2:05-CV-521-DAK

Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 06:30 PM MDT

Contributed by: Admin

We are pleased to announce settlement has been reached between Mr. Bruce Perens and Mr. Merkey relative all claims and causes of action arising from Federal Lawsuit 2:05-cv-521-DAK filed in US District Court in Utah. All claims and causes of action have been dismissed relative to Mr. Perens as of this date.

On a personal note, Mr. Merkey applauds Mr. Perens courage, candor, and demonstrated leadership in addressing these issues.

Mr. Perens has issued the following public statement regarding the litigation and this statmeent is posted here pursuant to an agreement between the parties.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE PERENS

"You may have noticed that Mr. Jeff Merkey has filed suit against a number of net entities and I. Mr. Merkey subsequently offered to withdraw his claims against me if I would issue a short statement. Of course I was concerned that his request could be an attempt to suppress my right to free speech on the net, but it turns out that the statement that Mr. Merkey asked for contains nothing I would not want to say.

Several people who have my sympathy are still being sued. I feel that my removal from the case will only hasten its demise, and I need to spend my time on important fights rather than this silly one.

I have made some statements regarding Mr. Merkey's relationship to SCO and Canopy Group that he would like me to clarify. He sold certain assets of his company to Canopy Group some time ago, but did not go to work for Canopy or SCO. Mr. Merkey has expressed a very strong disdain for both companies.

I subsequently suggested in public statements that Mr. Merkey work to cultivate his people skills in engaging and interacting with others, which is something he himself has admitted needs improvement. Subsequent to making these public comments, I oberserved

Bruce Perens wrote in Slashdot comment #22722890: "Jeff Merkey filed suit against me, and against PJ, some years ago. His family eventually convinced him to withdraw the suit against me, I don't know how his suit against PJ was resolved."

I (Al Petrofsky) was also a defendant in that case, Merkey v. Perense, et al., No. 2:05-cv-521-DAK, D. Utah, filed June 21, 2005. You can find full details here: http://scofacts.org/merkey

Merkey voluntarily dismissed his case against Pamela Jones. In the written dismissal notice he filed with the Court, he said that he was dropping it in favor of "pursuing criminal prosecution in the various states these offenses occurred". Needless to say, I am not aware of any such criminal prosecutions ever taking place.

The above comment, that Merkey's "family eventually convinced him to wihdraw the suit against" Perens, is the first I've heard of there being any involvement by Merkey's family in Merkey's decision-making in the case. At the time, Merkey wrote an entry on his website, which he later filed with the court, stating that he was dropping the action against Perens in exchange for Perens having allegedly made a written statement about "a large number of written attacks with violent connotations made against [Merkey]":

PLAINTIFF JEFFREY VERNON MERKEY'S EX-PARTE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONDUCT EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

... 11. Bruce Perens approached Plaintiff and negotiated setttlement of his claims in exchange for withdrawing his false and libelous comments, and adminishing Linux and OSS members for posting death threats on the public Internet, and was dismissed from the complaint without prejudice. (Exhibit 4)

... DATED this __20___ day of July, 2005.

... Exhibit 4

Bruce Perens Dismissed without Prejudice from Federal Action 2:05-CV-521-DAK

Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 06:30 PM MDT

Contributed by: Admin

We are pleased to announce settlement has been reached between Mr. Bruce Perens and Mr. Merkey relative all claims and causes of action arising from Federal Lawsuit 2:05-cv-521-DAK filed in US District Court in Utah. All claims and causes of action have been dismissed relative to Mr. Perens as of this date.

On a personal note, Mr. Merkey applauds Mr. Perens courage, candor, and demonstrated leadership in addressing these issues.

Mr. Perens has issued the following public statement regarding the litigation and this statmeent is posted here pursuant to an agreement between the parties.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE PERENS

"You may have noticed that Mr. Jeff Merkey has filed suit against a number of net entities and I. Mr. Merkey subsequently offered to withdraw his claims against me if I would issue a short statement. Of course I was concerned that his request could be an attempt to suppress my right to free speech on the net, but it turns out that the statement that Mr. Merkey asked for contains nothing I would not want to say.

Several people who have my sympathy are still being sued. I feel that my removal from the case will only hasten its demise, and I need to spend my time on important fights rather than this silly one.

I have made some statements regarding Mr. Merkey's relationship to SCO and Canopy Group that he would like me to clarify. He sold certain assets of his company to Canopy Group some time ago, but did not go to work for Canopy or SCO. Mr. Merkey has expressed a very strong disdain for both companies.

I subsequently suggested in public statements that Mr. Merkey work to cultivate his people skills in engaging and interacting with others, which is something he himself has admitted needs improvement. Subsequent to making these public comments, I oberserved

In that suit Merkey also named Slashdot as a defendant, along with a number of posters from several SCO-related public forums. One of those was Al Petrofsky, the guy who runs SCOfacts.org and right now, bless his heart, is making himself a pain in the ass for SCO in their bankruptcy case. The Merkey suit is thoroughly documented at SCOfacts, under Jeff Merkey, Litigious Lunatic.

The Encyclopædia Dramatica has an, ahem, interesting entry on this Merkey character.

Merkey is a kook AND an asshat. Being sued by him seems to actually be a voucher for one's credibility. Sad, really.

He's long since lost any semblance of credibility.

Good for the occasional internet soap opera though.

The site I'm thinking of was Zen's Den, which announced the documents at 10:30pm, ET on the 27th of April. Groklaw's article on the same documents were at 07:57 PM EDT on April 28th. There's at most a 1 hour difference between ET and EDT, so that's a considerable time difference. I actually thought the difference was much less meself, but there you go.

Tuxrocks and Scofacts often beat Groklaw to the punch too. Groklaw isn't usually the first site to carry the SCO documents; it does, however, have the most comprehensive archive and usually the best analysis.

from your link...

http://ipw.scofacts.org/ipw-2004-11-4-193122-475.h tml

"I find this ironic given Groklaw is an Anti-SCO FUD propaganda site but I understand the need for those that are deeply political or religious to misrepresent their opponents so that their own positions appear well founded. I also believe the practice to be stupid, primarily because eventually the truth does come out, but I still understand it."

oooooooooooh - and when that TRUTH has been laid plain and shows it was the author of the above words that misrepresented his opponents in an attempt to make his own false position seem well founded... ...the author should consider himself beat up and down the face with the karma stick.

the gigantic karma stick, not the little one.

This man is both a professional troll and shill. His 2004 SCO Forum keynote speech is infamous:

http://ipw.scofacts.org/ipw-2004-11-4-193122-475.h tml

He thrives on attention and absolutely delights in "proving" Linux users are raving fanatics, though that speech shows just who the raving fanatic is. Please don't give this guy any more web stats or attention.

(replying to myself here) Read this and weep: http://ipw.scofacts.org/ipw-2004-11-4-193122-475.h tml

=== What I think is sorely missing is a page where interested persons can go to see what the next deadline in the case is and what various known future deadlines are. ===

Lot of other good stuff on his site as well.

sPh

If IBM or Novell (or some trust composed of several heavy hitters) completely bought SCO out, all of this legal crap would go away. It's not too far-fetched, either. We could even see SCO's copyrighted UNIX code released under the GPL ... in the event that we actually wanted it ;-)

Maybe my suggestion is a year or two early; at the rate SCO is shrinking, its value will soon drop below the cost of defending its claims in court.

And even if nothing happens to hiim, at least we now know where another litigious lunatic gets his inspiration from.

Jeff Merkey's going to sue you if you say anything bad about SCO.

Judge Kimball followed up that Monday SCO v. Novell ruling with a SCO v. IBM ruling today. Here are text and pdf versions.

He granted SCO a four-hour deposition of Sam Palmisano, IBM's CEO and former VP of all things Linux. He denied SCO's motion to belatedly amend its complaint to include a claim for Project Monterey-related copyright infringement.

The order includes a new schedule. The old one had been tossed out in January.

The new schedule roughly matches IBM's proposal (as amended at the hearing; see pages 90-91 of the transcript where IBM says to add two months to everything in the proposal), but with another two months added for most pre-trial dates, pushing the end of discovery to July 10, 2006. He added another couple months for deciding dispositive motions before the trial, making for a trial date of February 26, 2007. He included the interim deadlines IBM wanted for parties to "Identify with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material", setting December 22, 2005 as the final date for all source code at issue to be identified by version, file, and line of code.

Per Kimball's order back in February there will be no summary judgment motions before the end of discovery, and the new schedule calls for the last brief on post-discovery summary judgment motions not to be due until September 26, 2006, so I think November 2006 is the earliest we could see a summary judgment motion heard and decided.

Judge Kimball followed up that Monday SCO v. Novell ruling with a SCO v. IBM ruling today. Here are text and pdf versions.

He granted SCO a four-hour deposition of Sam Palmisano, IBM's CEO and former VP of all things Linux. He denied SCO's motion to belatedly amend its complaint to include a claim for Project Monterey-related copyright infringement.

The order includes a new schedule. The old one had been tossed out in January.

The new schedule roughly matches IBM's proposal (as amended at the hearing; see pages 90-91 of the transcript where IBM says to add two months to everything in the proposal), but with another two months added for most pre-trial dates, pushing the end of discovery to July 10, 2006. He added another couple months for deciding dispositive motions before the trial, making for a trial date of February 26, 2007. He included the interim deadlines IBM wanted for parties to "Identify with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material", setting December 22, 2005 as the final date for all source code at issue to be identified by version, file, and line of code.

Per Kimball's order back in February there will be no summary judgment motions before the end of discovery, and the new schedule calls for the last brief on post-discovery summary judgment motions not to be due until September 26, 2006, so I think November 2006 is the earliest we could see a summary judgment motion heard and decided.

Judge Kimball followed up that Monday SCO v. Novell ruling with a SCO v. IBM ruling today. Here are text and pdf versions.

He granted SCO a four-hour deposition of Sam Palmisano, IBM's CEO and former VP of all things Linux. He denied SCO's motion to belatedly amend its complaint to include a claim for Project Monterey-related copyright infringement.

The order includes a new schedule. The old one had been tossed out in January.

The new schedule roughly matches IBM's proposal (as amended at the hearing; see pages 90-91 of the transcript where IBM says to add two months to everything in the proposal), but with another two months added for most pre-trial dates, pushing the end of discovery to July 10, 2006. He added another couple months for deciding dispositive motions before the trial, making for a trial date of February 26, 2007. He included the interim deadlines IBM wanted for parties to "Identify with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material", setting December 22, 2005 as the final date for all source code at issue to be identified by version, file, and line of code.

Per Kimball's order back in February there will be no summary judgment motions before the end of discovery, and the new schedule calls for the last brief on post-discovery summary judgment motions not to be due until September 26, 2006, so I think November 2006 is the earliest we could see a summary judgment motion heard and decided.

Judge Kimball followed up that Monday SCO v. Novell ruling with a SCO v. IBM ruling today. Here are text and pdf versions.

He granted SCO a four-hour deposition of Sam Palmisano, IBM's CEO and former VP of all things Linux. He denied SCO's motion to belatedly amend its complaint to include a claim for Project Monterey-related copyright infringement.

The order includes a new schedule. The old one had been tossed out in January.

The new schedule roughly matches IBM's proposal (as amended at the hearing; see pages 90-91 of the transcript where IBM says to add two months to everything in the proposal), but with another two months added for most pre-trial dates, pushing the end of discovery to July 10, 2006. He added another couple months for deciding dispositive motions before the trial, making for a trial date of February 26, 2007. He included the interim deadlines IBM wanted for parties to "Identify with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material", setting December 22, 2005 as the final date for all source code at issue to be identified by version, file, and line of code.

Per Kimball's order back in February there will be no summary judgment motions before the end of discovery, and the new schedule calls for the last brief on post-discovery summary judgment motions not to be due until September 26, 2006, so I think November 2006 is the earliest we could see a summary judgment motion heard and decided.

Judge Kimball followed up that Monday SCO v. Novell ruling with a SCO v. IBM ruling today. Here are text and pdf versions.

He granted SCO a four-hour deposition of Sam Palmisano, IBM's CEO and former VP of all things Linux. He denied SCO's motion to belatedly amend its complaint to include a claim for Project Monterey-related copyright infringement.

The order includes a new schedule. The old one had been tossed out in January.

The new schedule roughly matches IBM's proposal (as amended at the hearing; see pages 90-91 of the transcript where IBM says to add two months to everything in the proposal), but with another two months added for most pre-trial dates, pushing the end of discovery to July 10, 2006. He added another couple months for deciding dispositive motions before the trial, making for a trial date of February 26, 2007. He included the interim deadlines IBM wanted for parties to "Identify with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material", setting December 22, 2005 as the final date for all source code at issue to be identified by version, file, and line of code.

Per Kimball's order back in February there will be no summary judgment motions before the end of discovery, and the new schedule calls for the last brief on post-discovery summary judgment motions not to be due until September 26, 2006, so I think November 2006 is the earliest we could see a summary judgment motion heard and decided.

Judge Kimball followed up that Monday SCO v. Novell ruling with a SCO v. IBM ruling today. Here are text and pdf versions.

He granted SCO a four-hour deposition of Sam Palmisano, IBM's CEO and former VP of all things Linux. He denied SCO's motion to belatedly amend its complaint to include a claim for Project Monterey-related copyright infringement.

The order includes a new schedule. The old one had been tossed out in January.

The new schedule roughly matches IBM's proposal (as amended at the hearing; see pages 90-91 of the transcript where IBM says to add two months to everything in the proposal), but with another two months added for most pre-trial dates, pushing the end of discovery to July 10, 2006. He added another couple months for deciding dispositive motions before the trial, making for a trial date of February 26, 2007. He included the interim deadlines IBM wanted for parties to "Identify with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material", setting December 22, 2005 as the final date for all source code at issue to be identified by version, file, and line of code.

Per Kimball's order back in February there will be no summary judgment motions before the end of discovery, and the new schedule calls for the last brief on post-discovery summary judgment motions not to be due until September 26, 2006, so I think November 2006 is the earliest we could see a summary judgment motion heard and decided.

Eirik Chambe-Eng:

We have asked Canopy to divest since SCO turned against Linux. ... Canopy/SCO owns a very small share of Trolltech and has no control or influence whatsoever on the strategy and operations of Trolltech. Trolltech is controlled by it's employees.

Thank you for publicly stating this.

It is good to know, as is disclosed on your website, that SCO and Canopy control less than 6% of Trolltech's stock.

It would be nice to also have the information I requested last July about SCO's ongoing retention of SCO Chairman Ralph Yarro as a director:

• what percentage of the board of directors is controlled by Ralph Yarro;
• when the owners last elected him to that position and what percentage of the owners' vote he received;
• when his current term expires;
• what percentage of the owners would be required to dismiss Yarro from the board before the expiration of his term;
• and why, despite the owners' apparent powerlessness to make this change, we should still have confidence in the owners' power to steer the corporation in a direction other than the one taken by Caldera (which, not that long ago, was every bit as Linux-friendly as Trolltech).

Almost closed.

I'm not a lawyer, but Judge Chabot is, and she's the one who signed her name below the sentence "THIS ORDER DISPOSES OF THE LAST PENDING CLAIM AND CLOSES THIS CASE", so I think we can take her word for it that the case is "closed".

The judge dismissed the case, but without prejudice, meaning that SCO does have the option to try again on the same matter.

She only dismissed the last remaining claim in the case without prejudice. The bulk of SCO's complaint was dismissed with prejudice back in August.

However, the judge ordered that if they DO try to file another suit over the matter they will have to pay all of DC's legal costs for the previous litigation.

That provision only pertains to legal costs incurred after August 9, and only to costs pertaining to the last remaining claim (the "timeliness" issue). It does not apply to the next likely step in the litigation, which is an appeal by SCO of the August order that dismissed the other issues.

This is all covered on the page I linked to.

As others have pointed out, the Peter Williams article linked to in the article was actually written in January and it's just a vnunet.com fuckup that it's now showing with a December date.

If you want some fresh SCO info, here's the December 21 order that dismissed the remaining claim in SCO's complaint against DaimlerChrysler and thereby closed the case. Here's a write-up that includes information about some rules of Michigan's appeals court.

As others have pointed out, the Peter Williams article linked to in the article was actually written in January and it's just a vnunet.com fuckup that it's now showing with a December date.

If you want some fresh SCO info, here's the December 21 order that dismissed the remaining claim in SCO's complaint against DaimlerChrysler and thereby closed the case. Here's a write-up that includes information about some rules of Michigan's appeals court.

He admits on the front page that he has several thousand shares and that he hopes to mitigate the low value perception of SCOs business.

I am the registered owner of one hundred shares of The SCO Group's common stock (SCOX), and enjoy all the rights and privileges thereto pertaining (here's the certificate). I am not the direct or beneficial owner of any other shares of SCOX.

I also owe 14,400 shares of SCOX to various broker/dealers. My total interest in SCOX is a net shortage of 14,300 shares: when the share price increases by $1/share, the net value of my portfolio (assets minus liabilities) decreases by $14,300. Vice-versa for a decrease in the share price.

Thus, I benefit from any exarcerbation, not mitigation, of any "low value perception" of SCO.

As it says right at the top of scofacts.org:

Disclosure: I have a net short position in SCO's common stock (14,300 shares as of 2004-11-15). Thus, I have a direct financial interest in decreasing the public perception of SCO's value, and the prudent reader will scrutinize any information I provide that is unflattering to SCO. To facilitate this, I attempt to provide, wherever possible, convenient links to more persuasive documents, e.g., links to images of signed court filings, or to SEC filings directly from sec.gov.

eldapo:

Requesting attorneys fees and costs from your opponent on a motion is pretty much standard practice.

Of the three contested motions in this case (and the 17 in the IBM case, the 5 in the Red Hat case, the 3 in the Novell case, and the 3 in the AutoZone case), this is the first one for which the opposing party has sought reimbursement for the cost of opposing it.

In all five cases, no one has yet been ordered to pay a dime to anyone else for anything (although SCO was ordered to pay a fine of 100,000 eurodimes by a german court in August 2003).

sPh

Being considered a troll on GrokLaw hardly diminishes the contribution Al and http://scofacts.org/ have made to the fight against SCO.

I suspect if this story had shown up on GrokLaw you would have been praising it. Time to take those PJ blinders off.

PJ 'blogs' the facts, albeit sometimes with a fierce preserve for open source, but nevertheless, the FACTS.

Well, no, she blogs her opinion. Sometimes she intermixes facts with her opinion. Sometimes she doesn't. Really, it's just a blog. It's not the fount of all wisdom.

Honestly, if you want a site that gives the facts you'd be better off with scofacts.org, especially something like the SCO Score Card. There is also Frank Sorenson's pages. He has all the court documents, not just the ones that PJ can spin into a story. Frank has been responsible for obtaining the majority of court documents hosted on Groklaw.

The other news sites 'report' what they decide is 'news', and that 'news' can be swayed by whatever/whoever is paying them to say it.

Groklaw is no different. You are just biased because Groklaw says what you want to hear.

I heard an eloquent analogy recently. Science starts with the facts and draws a supported conclusion. Creationism starts with a conclusion and tries to find the supporting facts. I think Groklaw is much more like creationism than science. Now before you jump all over me, that's not to say they're wrong. I think they're right. But they're not approaching the problem in a scientific way. They're using a very religious methodology to "prove" their point.

PJ has done the world of 'IANAL' geeks proud - and I would even say without a doubt without PJ and her blog, the SCO FUD would have worked and we would all be in the shit.

Are you trying to claim that without Groklaw, IBM would have just rolled over and said "SCO is right". I don't think so. None of the companies being sued by SCO would have rolled over. Groklaw provides information to a very niche crowd; the overly interested Linux geeks. It has kept us informed of the goings on. I don't think it has had significant influence outside that tiny niche. I don't think it's existence or lack thereof would alter the conclusion of this SCO debacle either way. SCO doesn't have a case. We all know that. Reality would triumph over SCO with or without somebody's written opinion on a blog.

The internetnews article says "Originally scheduled for Tuesday, the hearing was pushed back to Oct. 19", but that was just the discovery hearing before the Magistrate Judge.

The important hearing, on IBM's motion for summary judgment on its tenth counterclaim, is still on for tomorrow, which you can verify at the court's website, both Judge Kimball's schedule and the case history (item 268).

If IBM's motion is granted, Judge Kimball will issue a declaratory judgment that IBM's copying of Linux does not infringe any SCO copyright. That would imply that anyone else copying any of the Linux versions IBM uses is not infringing any SCO copyrights, either.

The SCO-IBM disputes over contracts would remain, but the rest of the world needn't concern itself about those.

You can find the briefing papers on the motion here