Slashdot Mirror
FSF Subpoenaed by SCO
An anonymous reader writes "Bradley M. Kuhn on the FSF website: Late last year, we were subpoenaed by SCO as part of the ongoing dispute
between SCO and IBM. Today, we made that
subpoena available on our website. This is a broad subpoena that
effectively asks for every single document about the GPL and enforcement
of the GPL since 1999. They also demand every document and email that we
have exchanged with Linus Torvalds, IBM, and other players in the
community. In many cases, they are asking for information that is
confidential communication between us and our lawyers, or between us and
our contributors."
Related docs which could make the subpoena irrelevant: Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintoff IBM's Memorandum In Support of its Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgement on its claim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement (phew).
SCO is making a last grasp for anything.
The subpoena was filed last year. It's not a sudden "Hail Mary".
btw, fp!
At least you don't fail that.
Trolling is a art,
So, when subpoea'ing, you ask for every document the other guys has. Then your lawyer and his lawyer agree on what is confidential, or if they can't agree, the judge decides (I am told judges despise litigants who can't come to agreements on that sort of stuff).
sPh
Now is the time to support the FSF, so they can fight this thing. It'd be awful if they had to give out private emails and other communication.
Become a member of the FSF and support them financially. (I am already a member). You can also send anonymous donations, or buy something from GNU Press.
About the only thing Lawyers actually ever get disbarred for is screwing with their clients money, i.e. escrow accounts and such.
But that wouldn't work. It would be an argument if it was a trademark issue, but it has to do with copyright here. Not that SCO really seems to know what they are really after anymore. Was it breach of contract? Or copyright infringement? Or both?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The documents are just getting posted, but IBM has just filed a "Cross-motion for partial summary judgment on claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement." They are asking for summary judgment on IBM's "Tenth Counterclaim." This is the counterclaim in question:
IBM is entitled to a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U. C. 9 2201 that IBM does not infringe, induce the infringement of, or contribute to the infringement of any SCO copyright through its Linux activities, including its use, reproduction and improvement of Linux, and that some or all of SCO' s purported copyrights in UNIX are invalid and unenforceable.
The docs are just starting to get up but you can follow the discussion on the Yahoo SCOX message board.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Also out is Memorandum in opposition of SCO's delaying tactics.
"Originals" available here. Multi-Page TIFFs. You can install libtiff-tools to get tiff2pdf and tiff2ps.
SCO is screwed by their own admission
Quote
SCO has advised the court that it has provided complete and detailed responses to the Court's orders. If that is true, then summary judgement is appropriate because SCO has no evidence of IBM's alledged infringement (as SCO has adduced none). If it is not true, then summary judgement is appropriate because SCO has not only defied two orders of the Court, but it has also falsely certified that it has provided complete, detailed and thorough answers to IBM's interrogatories and the Court's orders. Either way, the Court should forthwith enter summary judgment in favor of IBM.
Help fight continental drift.
ANAL, but is this legal? Don't they have to somehow prove that the documents they're asking for have some relevance to their argument?
It's pretty common for requests like this to be super-broad. Plaintiff: give us everything. Subpoenee: we give you nothing. Plaintiff: okay, how bout half? Subpoenee: leave us alone and we'll give you 40%.
So to a certain extent, it's standard lawyerly practice. However, it's the kind of thing judges tire of quickly if taken too far: "fishing expedition" is what it's called.
Furthermore, what exactly is their argument? Is it still that Linux contains SCO code? How would documents about "enforcement of the GPL" prove existence of SCO code?
SCO must prove not only that their IP was infringed, but also that the infringement was malicious: i.e. harmful and intentional. What they'd like to get out of these documents is a picture of IBM plotting in dark rooms with dirty GNU hippies to destroy SCO's proprietary Unix business by stealing source code and selectively litigating with the GPL. (but IANAL either)
Google confirms: Ruby is the world's most beloved programm
How is this a 5?
Copyright does not work that way. Only TRADEMARK.
Copyright does not work that way. Only TRADEMARK.
How can there be so much confusion on this? Not copyright. Not patents. Trademark and nothing else.
Sure.
Ignore it, refuse to comply, or not deliver everything that is stated in the document, you can simply go to jail.
Very easy!
But seriously, IANAL, but I've wanted to play one on TV...
You can however get your lawyers to get a judge to redefine the scope of what they are asking for. In this case, it might be possible to refuse sending them emails or letters between their lawyers based on client confidentuality.
Even then it can get sticky.
(lessons learned from a former employer)
-Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
It is being transcribed as I type http://members.cox.net/bsm2003/scovsibm/152-4.png. txt
Check with Groklaw in a while
Help fight continental drift.
Read the document, it's data November 2003
This is online as a historical document, not as a new summons. Complience with it is now a moot point (unless there was something really freaky going on that we're not aware of), given they were due by 21st Nov 2003.
The FSF *HAS* all-star lawyers
Lessig & Moglen
You hope FSF has good lawyers? huh? Will Eben Moglen, Larry Lessig, and Dan Ravicher do?
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Their stock price is just about the same level as when this whole thing got started.
Well, maybe. Depends on how you look at it.
Here's a table of SCOX stock price, sampled once per month. It starts with Caldera (the former company name) going public during the height of the NASDAQ bubble in March 2000.
SCOX: Historical Prices for SCO Group, Inc.
Some key dates and prices:
2002-07 $1.04 Darl McBride joins SCO
2003-01 $1.35 SCO makes anti-Linux noises
2003-03 $2.88 SCO files lawsuit against IBM
2003-10 $22.29 SCOX hits high
2004-05 $4.78 SCOX right now, 2004-05-20
So SCOX is still up a bunch from when McBride started the anti-Linux strategy. I consider the base price to be $1.50, and SCOX is still trading at 300% of that base price.
In my opinion, the products-and-services side of SCO is worthless, and their only viable business is this lawsuit. And the lawsuit is getting less viable every month.
Then neither am I. I had the priviledge of seeing Eben Moglen speak during OSConf at University of Toronto, and after that display, I feel it's safe to say that the FSF does not need any legal advice from the outside, much less IANALs from Slashdot getting the issue hopelessly confused.
Other lawyers who are ignorant of the law, seem to irritate him somewhat. I don't blame him. But given that tidbit of knowledge, just imagine how he feels about the garbage SCO is throwing around.
I am sure that if it has not done so already, the FSF will respond decisively in an ethical and legal manner, and certainly nothing substantial will ever come of SCO's whining.
Random and weird software I've written.
If it makes you feel any better, FSF don't pay RMS and never have - he's a volunteer.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
This is correct, but the standard is very broad. This action is in Federal Court, and is therefore governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). FRCP Rule 26(b)(1) provides:
FRCP Rule 26(b)(1) (emphasis added). The portion of FRCP 26(b)(1) emphasized above is very important. The requested information need not be admissible; it only has to be "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
Further, under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, "relevant evidence" is defined very broadly as follows:
FRE Rule 401 (emphasis added).
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
Regardless of what kind of image SCO tried to paint in their press releases, the lawsuit against AutoZone appeared to be about AutoZone using other software actually belonging to SCO on a Linux host, not about AutoZone using Linux. If so, the outcome in the IBM case will have no effect on the AutoZone case, although SCO may decide to drop also the AutoZone lawsuit for other reasons (such as lack of sustained funding combined with losing the media campaign).