Slashdot Mirror
IBM Subpoenas HP, Baystar, Sun & Microsoft
nicolaiplum writes "CNet is reporting that IBM is sending subpoenas to HP, Baystar, Sun and Microsoft requiring them to disclose most of their dealings with SCO over UNIX licensing and litigation." From the article: "The subpoenas demand that Microsoft, HP, Sun and BayStar hand over a range of information, including details of their dealings with SCO, by March 7. They will also have to appear in court later in March to give depositions." Groklaw also has links to each of the subpoenas.
The reporter got that aspect wrong. Read the original documents and it becomes clear that the recipients are "commanded" to appear in various lawyers' offices.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
the entire supply of Immodium for the state of Utah is missing.
Microsoft bought thousands of SCO licenses in an effort to undermine Linux -- not as a way of giving credibility to any of SCO's claims, but rather as a way to fund SCO's FUD campaign, in what amounts to a cash donation!
If anything should be subpoena'd its Microsoft's internal documents giving a risk/benefit analysis of making a cash donation to SCO in the form of to-Microsoft useless Linux licenses.
Talk about a turd in the punch bowl. Hehe.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
IBM is a bad guy because they don't ship all their servers with Linux on it? I don't get your reasoning here.
Actually, the depositions will occur at law offices near the headquarters of the companies in question. Microsoft's, for instance, will occur in Seattle.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Judging by the number of comments on the story over at Groklaw, this is the biggest news we've had in a long time. We've all suspected that Microsoft had some hand in this. When they answer the subpoena, we'll all finally find out. This is the 'piercing of the corporate veil' that we've been waiting for.
like SCO is in for an even bigger beat down that previously thought. I just can't wait for SCO to GPL their source and restructure their business model to try and stay alive after this folley.
Damn! It has been so long since any new developments or any old discussion has been brought up about it, finally there is some interesting activity in the SCO v. IBM case. Still, I have to wonder why IBM is willing to spend the money for the additional activity? Is "fighting back" worth it? What do they expect to gain on this?
Personally, I can identify with wanting to fight back by exposing the sources of all the scuffle. But if I didn't have money to throw away and no easily identifiable profit motive, I just can't imagine myself doing it. Since corporations generally lack human emotional response, I can only assume there is good strategety and/or profit motivation. Anyone care to speculate?
Microsoft's lawyer... um, I mean Lionel Hutz: 'Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."'
Developers: We can use your help.
IBM scares the crap out of me and i'm just a hacker-in-a-cube. Reminds me of a joke that went something like when we're all standing in line at the gates of heaven God's going to say "ok you can come in" then look over at IBM's legal department for a knod before actually opening the gates.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
Well, less than 1% of all Microsoft sales are linux so they're worse. Take that Redmond AC!
sPh
Gates, McNeally, Schwartz, McBride. Where's Jobs? He belongs in this rouge's gallery.
Assign whatever weights you like.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Why have I not seen a comment yet that said
And in Redmond today, a chair flew out of Ballmer's office and a scream was heard "I'm going to f*$#ing kill IBM!!!!!!"
Oops..I just made it.
= Grow a brain...
Windows 3.x was the best reason to adopt OS2.
OS2 was the best reason to drop OS2.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
So will it end up all being a conspiracy masterminded by Microsoft to kill Linux? But Microsoft always plays fair, who would have thought!
Depositions rarely go on the date set forth in the subpeona. You can expect delays in getting the documents requested which are needed with time for examination before taking the depositions. That's pretty much par for the course in civil litigation; you set an arbitrary date and the parties later agree on the real date. The more interesting question is why IBM waited until now to request this info. If they wanted to assert additional claims against MS or Sun, it's pretty late in the day to be adding parties to this litigation; that would only further delay things. You can be sure there is a definite reason for issuing these subpeonae now. My guess is IBM may have recently come by some new info, probably from some insider and probably in the form of some smoking gun documents. They must now feel justified in pursuing this line of inquiry more aggressively even though there is a potential for delaying the resolution of this case if they attempt to assert new claims against MS or sun in the sco case.
Bill Gates on the stand: "Well, you see, it went like this your honor, App..."
Steve Jobs yelling from the courtroom: "Shutup! Shutup now Bill!!!"
Judge banging gavel: "Order [bang, bang, bang] There'll be order in the court room!"
RMS standing and asking for calm: "Judge. Notice that I did not call you 'Your Honor' as I do not honor the authority that you claim to hold. I will not place my hand on a Bible and swear to tell the truth. The Bible is a book of fairy tales and fables for which I hold no respect..."
Steve Ballmer jumps to his feet and grabs a chair: "Jesus H. Christ [Throws a chair at RMS] This guy is a fuckin' loon... how the fuck did he get in here?"
What did Steve Jobs have to do with SCO? As I recall, he would have been at NeXT and Apple, working on NeXTStep/OS X when all of this went down. He'd have had his hands full and no time to worry about Linux when he's trying to save Apple. Not to mention why attack Linux when it's going mostly after MS and not Apple? OS X is part-Unix, not necessarily part-Linux, right?
Windows had nothing to do with killing OS/2.
#1 problem: MS Office 95.
#2 problem: IBM internal politics
there were no other relevant issues.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Comes with SuSE. I'm a contractor at IBM's Rochester facility; guess what I get to play with all day?
BTW, since IBM manufactures POWER architecture machines, doesn't it make more sense for IBM to trundle their AIX product with the servers? From a support standpoint, it makes perfect sense. However, we do provide support for LINUX on POWER architecture here. LINUX is freely downloadable, AIX isn't. If we provided LINUX with servers, that's all the choice a customer would have. By providing AIX, we give our customers more choices.
And remember, unlike certain OTHER OS products coming on the market (no names, but the initials are Microsoft Vista), there will be no attempt to lock users into the OS which ships with POWER architecture hardware.
Think twice, enter once.
Godwin's Law now in effect. Thanks for playing.. now go sit down. :-P
Two reasons:
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
In theory onces this goes to court, that means we can read the deposistions right? All the material and evidence (depositions) would then be a part of the public record right?
It would be great to read what they are actually talking about and see how both sides see this issue, not just what the online press conjectures about everything.
---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
Nice troll ... here's REAL data from 2004
For all the talk of Linux, only 230,074 machines, or about 14.7 percent of shipments, were servers running Linux. However, all of those Linux machines added up to a smidgen more than $1 billion in sales for the quarter, with IBM and HP getting a little under 30 percent each and Dell getting 18 percent. The Linux server space is white hot, though, with sales up 57.3 percent and shipments up 69.7 percent, according to Gartner.
In troll math that's less than 1% but in registerable IQ math that's closer to 4.4%, also, note that that's a percentage of revenue, not shipments. Since Linux typically ships on lower end hardware, the shipment percentage is probably closer to 8% for IBM. Just factoring the growth rate from 2004, IBMs Linux shipment percentage should now be somewhere above 20% of their total server shipments.
In some ways the scenario is worse than that. They will be taking depositions in private, and there will not be a judge present. Can you imagine being the poor nerd being asked questions with both the MS lawyers and IBM lawyers leering at you from all sides of the table. I wouldn't go in that room without the protection of being in a steel cage hanging from the ceiling.
I'd love to be in the room when they cover that.
"and despite their hype on Linux, less than 1 percent of IBM's servers ship with it."
But I think you are free to choose to order Linux on just about any of them. I thought that was the idea to be free to choose.
I used to HATE IBM back in the good old days. Between Eclipse.org and all the Linux resources they have on line I am an IBM fan.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Yeah. Apple basically has no involvement in this. Their stuff isn't SysVish, it's BSDish. They're not exactly "for" or "against" IBM or Microsoft, and have basically had no dealings with USL, Novell, OldSCO, Caldera or NewSCO.
:) Even now, I bet there are few Apple users rooting for SCO.
Kinda weird to think of Apple as being "neutral" on something, since their followers so rarely are.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Microsoft and Sun paid tens of millions of dollars to SCO in early 2003. Caldera (who is now SCO) had run their Linux business into the ground and after purchasing the UnixWARE from Santa Cruz in 2001 (to purportedly make Linux and Unix play better together), they ran it into the ground as well. Without that influx of cash, SCO would not have had the money to pursue the lawsuit against IBM. It just happens that SUN (IBM's largest Unix competitor) and Microsoft (who has a lot to gain from the discrediting of Linux) paid tens of millions of dollars to SCO and the only substantial thing they got in return was the lawsuit against IBM. IBM is also seeking information from SUN and HP because SCO gave them a clean bill of health, and they have distributed and made public much of the information that forms the basis of the lawsuit against IBM.
This will cost IBM countless of millions of dollars over the next few years. Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend a few grand and pay Bruce Willis to kill Gates and Ballmer? Or why not build a terminator? Oh yeah, it would have Lenovo parts and turn on the americans in a blink. Darn chinese are too smart.
We should all remember, Subpoenas are a commonly utilized legal term which is needed to get another party to comply. Most large companies are not even allowed to give any of their documents (which have other legal bindings on them, probably for non-disclosure) without a subpoena. People just tend to think "subpoena omg"
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
You realize that SCO has claimed that they own all UNIX, right? You know that they have also claimed to own BSD, right? And you know that IBM might know something you don't know right? Are you positive Apple didn't give SCO some money to help create FUD about Linux?
I created a mirror for the subpoenas, including easy to read html versions.
200GB/2TB $7.95 Coupon: SAVE90DOLLAR
Normally there would be nothing illegal about it, but remember that Microsoft has been cited for antitrust violations, and that they are under review. Couldn't this kind of behavior get them into trouble?
Now release your hatred and your journey toward the Dark Side will be complete!
FWIW, my GrokLaw handle is the same as my /. one.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I want to know what Rob Enderle has to say. I haven't heard much from him lately and I need his "forward looking emerging technology advisory firm" and the insight only they, ok - he, can give.
Mr. Enderle, are you there? Should I be concerned that IBM is stealing all the thunder while SCO continually gets bitch slapped out of the headlines (and court)? SCO is still going to school the technology world, right? You predicted they have a solid case and not to rule them out. Are they still a sure bet? After all IBM is the unethical company in all of this because you told me so...and that's stronger than Bible in my book anyday.
And are you positive that RMS isn't behind this all, seeking to undermine Linux and insure the supremacy of the HURD?
Seriously. There are possibilities and then there's pseudoparanoid lunacy.
it's cool that you like to brag about your job, but i can't figure out how it has anything to do with IBM subpoena'ing Microsoft, or how a computer named Blue Gene makes it any better or worse..
You're right - little indeed to do with the TLP, just answering another ignorant post made by another anonymous coward.
Not you, was it? ;^D
Does Blue Gene account for more than 1% of IBM's server sales? Otherwise I don't see how your post relates to the AC's at all.
I will be in the lawyers office, but it won't be in Seattle. It will be near Bill Gate's office in Hell, somewhere between the Third Circle, Gluttons and the Fourth Circle the Greedy, at least according to Dante's version of Hell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Comedy#Inferno
I don't think IBM is looking for settlements, they are a lioness on the hunt. IBM is looking for blood, following the money trail.
"Non quatro" is playing. If I were MS, I would be concerned about IBM's blood lust revealing some anti-trust evidence and turning it into Kolar-Kotelly. The terms of the settlement with DoJ are NOT friendly to officers if they are caught with their hands in to cookie jar.
This is going to be fun...I'm sure there is some piggy type squealing going on in Redmond right now.
FPO
Does this mean if IBM loses (please don't die laughing until you read the whole reply), that Microsoft will have to rewrite NT because of all those methods and concepts used by the former Unix programmers who wrote NT that are part of SCO's precious IP?
Sadly, having been involved in a number of dealings with judges and American law, this could actually still turn out bad. Judges are lacking in basic skills and make rulings that are completely OTT and wrong. IBM, could still lose. Although, they have a great team of lawyers and a great presentation, and the judge seems to have gotten a clue as to the shenanigans of SCO. It ain't over till it's over. On the flip-side, SCO may have damaged what little of a case they had by being so OTT. SCO has no case and never did, but all you have to do is fool the judge into believing your BS over the other team's BS.
"I'm a contractor at IBM's Rochester facility; guess what I get to play with all day?"
There's an image I could do without.
"Judging by the number of comments on the story over at Groklaw, this is the biggest news we've had in a long time." ...is it? Anything "insightful" spotted over there? Thought not.
He's right.
Maybe its no surprise that MSFT and SCO stock has been very flat for the last year, there are even a lot of commonality
m &q=l&c=msft
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=1y&l=on&z=
I work as a contractor at large federal agency that IBM is fairly involved with (that narrows down the field, doesn't it? ;p) The client (agency) complains bitterly and often about the cost of their data center and the IBM sales staff has been suggesting, praying, begging for them to migrate to IBM blade systems running Linux and the agency *won't* do it because Linux "untested", "unproven", "unreliable"... etc... an opinion largely shaped by a report pulled together by another group that just happened to provide the current infrastructure.
IBM has a whole host of applications and environments that run on Linux and that is where the bulk of their sales come from. There is a major release of AIX how often? Where as WebSphere product line seems to be upgraded as often as I change my shorts, and that's where they make their money. There is more opportunity for consulting services with the WebSphere line as well.
So you can't/shouldn't judge IBM's commitment to Linux by the clients adoption rates, the two are not directly correlated.
Even now, I bet there are few Apple users rooting for SCO.
I fail to see your logic. The enemy of Apple, Microsoft, supports SCO. So why would Apple users root for SCO? All of the Mac users I know, myself included, support Linux over Microsoft hands down.
I've said many times that if I had to choose a corporate mortal enemy, I'd pick IBM. They just aren't so good at "smiting their enemies".
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Given Apple's reliance on IBM for its chips up until recently, I highly doubt they would even consider giving money to SCO for any reason.
How could linux FUD POSSIBLY benefit Apple anyway? Increase sales on Xserves?
I think the intention was to counter the original AC's assertion that IBM is just using Linux for hype by pointing out that Blue Gene, a very high-profile and important project for IBM, is tied to Linux. (The implication being that for a projet that is clearly important to IBM, they're not just talking the talk, so to speak.) I'm actually more curious about where the "less than 1%" figure comes from...
. . . but wouldn't it be great if our buddy RICO made an appearance as a result?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Maybe It's only bussinese trick.
All you'll get from that subpoena is a squadron of Cylon Raiders!
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
It's my understanding that those laws were origionally written for government granted monoplies, such as Phone, Electric, Garbage, Water, Sewer, and Gravity providers.
The idea being that you can't have 12 different electric lines, 8 different water pipes, and a half dozen fleets of garbage trucks servicing the same neighborhood, so the local government decides which single company will provide each service. You used to only be allowed to use phone company phones on phone company lines, at an outragous markup.
In a true Monopoly, there is only, and literally one provider.
In Microsoft's case, I have never heard of a government agency requiring ordinary citizens (not contractors/vendors to the agency) to use Windows.
While MS's methods of gaining dominance in the market may not have always been nice; but as a public, for-profit corporation, they are obligated to make as much money as they reasonably and legally can, without violating their corporate charter; or they could be sued by their shareholders.
I'd rather get in trouble for doing my job too well, than not well enough.
But, in the end, whatever the highest judge says, is effectivly the law, even if they are wrong as to a strict interpretion of the law, Microsoft was getting too powerful.
I already know who's going to come out ahead from this whole thing.
The Lawyers.
I used to HATE IBM back in the good old days... [now] I am an IBM fan.
Imagine 10, 15 years, finding yourself saying that about Microsoft?
I just can't figure out if I'm fantasizing a nightmare or a wet dream.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It seems to me, though, that IBM wants to give a boatload of STFU to all the shill writers in the mainstream computing press who wrote up SCOs claims verbatim, and spread a massive amount of corporate FUD.
If they can find, and expose the activities of certain other companies in this, all the better.
Most damage from an additional long delay would actually be taken by the most blindly pro-MS ISVs which might have bet their shop on whatever £onghorn/vi$ta-only code. Sometimes MS is even able to take advantage of their own delays, like when they bribed and bullied the once pro-Linux Corel into giving up all direct competition and committing into a disastrous bet into dotNyet before couple of years later manipulating their 25% investment in Corel by having a band of ex-microserfs hijack the company into private hands at rock-bottom price using MS co-founder Paul Allen's money.
In fact the Corel kneecapping story has various similarities to the SCO/Baystar/MS manipulation. MS has "industry sycophants" (an old boys' network) in all parts of the industry doing lucrative insider favors under the table. Investment banks in particular are infested by these types, and they just luuuv to handle microsoft's business.
In short, any further delay to £onghorn/vi$ta would not noticeably affect microsoft's government-granted permission to print money, but if IBM is able to put microsoft's shady financial dealings aimed at maintaining their monopolies under serious investigation, that would potentially strike some serious fear into the MS old boys' network which really runs the machinations behind the scenes.
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
(puts cotton wool into cheeks) ... The horror ...
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Or, "Office Furniture Transport Protocol."
For nearly three years I've been rolling my eyes after reading these comments like: "oh yeah, scox is gonna get their ass handed to them now." Scox will likely lose the case, but that is immaterial. People still continue to adopt Linux at about the same rate, but that is also immaterial.
Msft is sending a message to those companies who might dare to contribute to Linux. The message is: "if you contribute to Linux, expect to be tied up in court for the next five years. And expect to spend $100M in legal fees, and expect to have some sleezy Utah penny-stock scam company digging through all of records, expect endless and pointless "discovery." Expect depositions, and expect to bashed in the tech-pop-media, and expect other endless hassles." From now on, contributing to Linux is not something that you just casually do. Clearly, this will slow Linux development.
The entire scam is costing msft less than $100M, hardly more than a few of their idiotic, and ineffective, commercials. Even if IBM sues msft, it will have been worth it for msft. Forget the DoJ, the USA government works for msft.
The scam is also working out well for scox. Who else would pay darl $1M a year? When darl took over, just before the scam, scox's market cap was under $6M, now it's over $80M.
So, while the groklaw cheerleaders gloat about scox's great defeats; the execs and msft and scox are laughing up their sleeves.
You seem to think that a monoploy can only be granted by the government. See: Standard Oil, IBM in the 50's thru 70's. Entire books have been written on this subject. (See: Big Blue: IBM's use and abuse of power)
Monopoly is not defined as something the government grants.
The government can grant a monopoly on certain things. This does not mean that all monopolies are government granted.
You can legally or illegally end up having a monopoly without the government's help.
If you did nothing illegal to acquire your monopoly, it is not illegal to merely have a monopoly. (I'll skip the debate about how Microsoft illegally built their monopoly.)
You cannot use anti-competitive acts to maintain or extend your monopoly.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
And none doesn't count as few? The GP said "there are few", not "there are a few".
"Imagine 10, 15 years, finding yourself saying that about Microsoft?"
Hey if they change enough it could happen.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
He belongs in this rouge's gallery.
You want Steve Jobs in the makeup aisle? I don't get it.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Wrong. Dead wrong. Godwin's Law does not apply to a factual reference.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Eh, it's a little late to continue this but sure... The original poster listed them in the present-tense as supporting nazis. That is not a factual reference.
Original: even if they are nazi supporters.
It was a troll, and was modded as such. I do not dispute that IBM supported nazis, but I will take pot shots at trollings when the opportunity presents itself.
Point taken.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Well, Microsoft, technically does have a government granted monopoly, along with most other companies and artists; in the form of government granted patents and copyrights, so I suppose a strict interpretation of the term can apply.
GL reports that IBM have now subpoenas Houlihan Valuation Advisers which did an evaluation of Caldera before Darl took over and started the lawsuits.
The evaluation concludes (in contradiction to what TSG told the judge) that "the recent overall financial performance of [Caldera/TSG] was inferior to that of the average company in the industry in many respects. Its income statement was weaker in terms of gross sales, operating margin and net margins; its asset composition was less liquid; fixed asset and total asset turnover ratios were lower indicating less efficiency in operations; and its profitability was considerably lower." You get the idea.
It also concludes that GNU/Linux is going to drive Unix systems out of the market based on it being a better product.
One has to ask the question why the hell did they start the lawsuit?
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
In Microsoft's case, I have never heard of a government agency requiring ordinary citizens (not contractors/vendors to the agency) to use Windows.
Uh, hello? Didn't you get the memo about FEMA's disaster-assistance web application form? You know, the one that requires you to use Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 (a Windows-only browser) in order to fill out the paperwork?
Except that it isn't about copyright (right?). Now it's about "methods and concepts" that IBM improperly "disclosed" in violation of their AT&T contract. SCO says it's all about the source code, not copying of the source code but the disclosure of how UNIX does things to the LINUX community. By open-sourcing Solaris, SUN is doing much worse than IBM. All IBM ever did was release ITS OWN CODE under the GPL. It didn't even release code in UNIX that it didn't write. SUN will be releasing all of Solaris, including code that Sun didn't write.
Not valid as "requires". There are other ways to get assistance through FEMA (phone, in person, mail, etc.) Remember, not everyone has a computer, and in the case of Katrina many people who HAD computers before the hurricane did not have them afterwards. Also, MS didn't force the web designers to make an IE only website. In other words, if I make a website that will ONLY work on FireFox, does that mean the DOJ has to sue Mozilla Org for anticompetative acts?
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.