Slashdot Mirror
SCO Denied Again In Court
CDWalton writes "Groklaw has the latest in the SCO v. IBM case. Judge Wells denied SCO the opportunity to get depositions from involved parties after the date she had specified as the cutoff for those activities." From the article: "Brent Hatch started out talking about the request to take the depositions of Intel, Oracle, and The Open Group. Judge Wells brought up her October 12, 2005 order and said that depositions MUST be completed by the cutoff date. That any that cannot be taken by that date must be forgone. Brent stated that they properly noticed the depositions before the cutoff date and that they were not taken for reasons outside his, or his client's, control ... Judge Wells asked if the subpeonas were defective in some manner. Hatch: Yes, they were."
Why do cases like SCO vs IBM take too long to resolve? Are inefficiencies in the justice system to take part of the blame?
You know that was your first thought.
that Groklaw cheerfully accepts donations. PJ, we are not worthy.
I have been watching SCO's stock price for over a year. It goes from about $4.25 to $3.80 and goes back and forth every few days. Somebody is probably making big bucks buying and selling every few days.
http://Lenny.com
Without knowing the outcome of this rediculousness, I already know who the winners are going to be--the lawyers. Wow. I kinda wish I was getting billable time out of this trial, because by the time it gets settled, I would have enough to retire!
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Can anyone tell me what the article is talking about? Tried reading it, but I just don't understand...
Although this is not directly related to the SCO case, which is about copyright and licensing rather than patents, it could be argued that the decision of the USPTO to award patents based on software or business processes has created the conditions in which legally based perpetual motion machines are feasible.
Pining for the fjords
As Melanie Hollands pointed out a long time ago, SCOX is closely held and thinly traded. That kind of situation is prone to all kinds of abuse. Most of the stockholders are institutional and seem to wash the shares back and forth just to keep the price up. It isn't the kind of market where the usual supply and demand rules apply.
at the shareholder's expense. When this is over, and if/when SCO loses, there's going to be a shareholder lawsuit. I guaaraannnteee it! Which will mean the death of SCO as we know it. Sure, it'll come back somehow, restructured and all, but it'll be a eunuch.
Saturday is April 1. Slashdot will be shut down. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Am I to understand that the "events beyond the control" of SCO that lead to the delay was that... SCO messed up their paperwork?
The fact that SCO considers inability to do their paperwork correctly an "event beyond their control" is rather telling I think.
She knew darn well they were defective. Intel was so exorcised at the way SCO treated them that they sent a blistering brief to the court in which they basically accused SCO of lying. What amuses me is that Judge Wells made the question sound so innocent. lol
Apparently Darl McBride will be giving a keynote speach at the Moscow Interop show in June. How the hell could anyone consider him for a kenote speach unless it's to throw stuff at him. Article on Yahoo at http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060215/law019.html?.v= 44.
-Aaron
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Judge Wells told Darl to be quiet!! He was there, and he was talking to one of SCO's lawyers. Shortly into the second portion of the hearing, while Darl was busy Googling and talking to Mark James, Judge Wells asked him to be quiet, that she knows he wants to talk (presumedly to Mark James), but to just pay attention.
SLAPPED DOWN!
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Toll Free within North America: (800) 481-7713
Toll call: (719) 457-2730
Passcode to enter call: 7134691
SCO is only pretending to litigate.
They've never been serious about the lawsuit, because they were expecting a settlement, which didn't happen.
The good part about the length of the case is that it gives IBM more time, and perhaps more leverage, to find evidence against Microsoft.
SCO's lawyer fees were capped a while back with a cash/stock deal for Boise, Schiller, Blah Blah.
At this point they're working for free.
Mythbusters busted that myth.
It's in Moscow, so he'll be throwing stuff at them.
SCO hasn't given up already?
Many of us long-time Groklaw followers believe that SCO will be ground to dust and scattered to the winds. IBM's legal team (called "the Nazgul" around Groklaw) hooked them on counter-claims and SCO cannot escape the rest of the trial even if they wish to quit. If IBM manages to somehow slip up and not destroy SCO, there are two other cases (Novell and Red Hat) that SCO attacked that will administer the "coup de grâce."
I had a really insightful comment, but I'm still hung up on the giant beavers story from earlier.
The judge is getting annoyed that she made a court order in October that all discovery must be done by febuary, but SCO is asking for an extension because they (probablly intentionally) screwed up.
But in Soviet Russia the keynote speaker throws things at YOU!
Maybe Balmer studied there?
equitable and correct rather than efficient. In some cases, BOTH parties come to court with the sincere belief that they are being wronged. Many losing parties still refuse to admit they were in the wrong, and often want to appeal, even when they know better. That's partly why lawyers charge so much on an hourly basis, to discourage (it doesn't always, obviously) frivolous or ill-conceived actions. Otherwise, I might sue for every affront I encounter, in hopes of striking it rich. Some people do, but more would, if efficient disposition were the main objective. Having said that, SCO is trying to put a pretty and intelligent looking face on dishonesty, and the longer they delay the outcome, the more people they can persuade.
Jesus jiminy cricket on a rocket-powered pogo stick!
Why aren't these SCO assholes and their coconspirators behind bars already?
This is ridiculous! - Since this SCO thing started, Martha Stewart traded stocks, got indicted, lied to investigators, got tried, found guilty, sentanced, finished her sentence, and returned to public life, and they can't even get this worthless SCO thing through depositions so they can decide it needs to be tossed out of court?
And they wonder why people think the court system is broken in this country.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Ha-ha!
Thanks Nelson. I, for one, welcome our humor-bearing SCO lawyers.
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
Mythbusters obviously didn't go to a cold enough place. Try it at -50C. Or rather, don't, or the "pist" won't be the only thing "frost". I've had this happen (north-eastern BC, just south of the Yukon)
SCO has so far not been asked to make a specific accusation yet for gods sake.
You are incorrect. SCOX has been not only been "asked", but they have beeb ORDERED to specify what their allegations are, on *THREE* separate occasions. They've failed to do so (while claiming they have) each and every time.
The last time they did it, they filed everything under seal, so that nobody besides IBM can point out that they've failed again (and yes, IBM has pointed it out to the court - out of the 294 items that SCOX filed, IBM has said that only one (yes, *ONE*) is "specific" enough for the court, but that one doesn't actually identify anything that IBM did.
Why hasn't anybody asked SCO what bits of unix they own, what pieces SCO alleges Ibm stole.
Again, they did (and not just "asked", but *ordered*, by a federal judge.)
They still haven't said what IBM stole form them.
This bit is correct, but that doesn't mean that nobody has "asked".
Actually, SCO's counsel have agreed to a cap on legal fees. They're already at that cap.
Maybe Darl and the incoherent President of Iran can spend some quality time together comparing symptoms?
From the article:
1. "...the January 12th subpoena was defective in both substance and service." The subpoena is a document compelling the other side to show up at a deposition with certain documents, ready to talk about certain topics. Its substance was basically its content, what it was intended to communicate. The service is the procedure by which the document creator gives it to the target person (organization) in a legally effective way. The judge says the subpoena was defective in both characteristics, so it's not legally binding.
2. "...That even had it not been defective it provided inadequate notice and time.
Judges like to give 2nd reasons, when available, for their decisions, out of meticulousness (which is a good thing in a judge) or desire to forestall appeals (not a bad thing). Here, the judge is saying that even if she was wrong about point #1, the subpoena is no good because it didn't fulfill legal requirements as to the amount of time before the deposition that the subpoena has to be delivered, and warning (notice) about the content of the deposition. Ideally, depositions are not supposed to be occasions for surprising witnesses with weird questions, but a Search For The Truth, so witnesses are supposed to be given fair notice & time to prepare.
3. "[the judge's] October 12th orders were clear, not subject to unilateral decisions to violate."
TRANSLATED: the judge is really, really pissed. SCO's lawyers are giving totally bogus arguments, in her evaluation, which not only needlessly delays this particular case, but also strikes at the integrity of the entire judicial process.
It appears from this article that SCO believes its only hope would seem to be to bait the judge into saying or doing something stupid, like Judge Jackson in the Microsoft case a few years back.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
When the conference call starts, they will denounce IBM's obstructionism at the Feb. 24 hearing and proclaim themselves certain victors in their case based on the dirty tactics they say IBM has had to scoop to.
Lawyers shouldn't be allowed to make a career of abusing our Justice system with actions they know are meritless, but which might exploit an error by the court. After three rulings by a judge that they have done so, they should be barred from practicing law until after completing the qualifying requirements again: lawschool and licensing exam.
The people pay for the machine they're abusing, but they get paid to abuse it. I'd also like to see a state directory of lawyers, with their "batting average", their previous client list, the penalties assigned to them. Nothing fancy: a simple database search by name and address (with address history) and a simple report of details by category. If another person wants to package it fancy, and offer search personnel, that's a good way to recover some revenue, as a fee for bulk usage or resale. But consumers should be able to get the data collected by our government.
--
make install -not war
Law firms will now invest large sums in Linux companies, in the hope that they'll get more business.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There may also be aspects to the case that she believes SCO guilty as all hell, but feels that there may be technicalities which would limit the punishment she can give, or prevent one being given at all. Those parts of the trial are likely to drag on the longest, as bankrupting the bloodsuckers would be preferable to letting them go.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Also, Judge Kimble is also making sure that he is dotting all of his i's and crossing his t's so make sure there are no problems when this case is appealled by SCO. The judge has given SCO several warnings that the case is not looking favorable toward them.
The most notable warning to SCO was when the judge denied IBMs request for Partial Summary Judgements (PSJ). The denied them because discovery was not complete and wanted to make sure that he had the whole picture. In the denial he stated that he was surprised at the lack of evidence that SCO had provided (even to fight off a PSJ).
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
I'm kinda serious about it: How realistic is it for us to buy SCO?
... the usual thing. That would be neat, wouldn't it?. Giving Darl McBride the boot and gratiously handing out any evidence to prove his wrongdoing to former shareholders. Ahhh, I'm feeling great allready...
Imagine this farce finally coming to an end with no options left for SCO. There will be a shareholder lawsuit. Stock will plummet somewhere around then and SCO be dirt cheap. We should be able to get 51 percent together if SCO cost something like 20 cents per share or something. No?
How many SCO shares are there? How does this stock market thing work in detail in the US?
Imagine buying SCO and turning it into some neat community run open source portal or something. We could keep the cool logo and name and add some of the old dignity to it again. Do some fun stuff too: Hand out fancy offical titles to everybody with shares, print some cool T-Shirts with witty wisecrack onliners and Darl Jokes to fund backoffice and bandwidth
Is this a pointless pipe dream our could we (slashdotters and OSS community) pull this off? After all, the Blender community managed to round up 100 000 Euros in seven weeks - albeight under slightly different circumstances.
Cue educated opinions please.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
IBM can afford it more than SCO can. And in the long term, Linux has become more visible. In the longer term, IBM willing the case may do a lot for the legitimacy of linux and/or its licenses, particular if IBM and various linux license holders decide to fire back. Having a big company like IBM outright support Linux is hardly a bad thing, reputation-wise.
I'm pretty sure (based on earlier Groklaw coverage of these attempted depositions) that the things SCO was asking for included information on dealings between the other parties and... the companies to which they claim to be successors in interest - the old SCO, Caldera, etc.
Information which, as the successor in interest to those companies, they really ought to have filed somewhere.
Oops.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
End Quotation
I think that speaks for itself.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
Read the article again, more carefully this time.
My post was about the first motion, the motion to depose, which was reportedly denied outright. Barring a successful appeal, SCOX will indeed have to do without the depositions they sought.
The passage you cite refers to the second motion, the motion to compel, which was denied without prejudice. SCOX has thirty days to refile a corrected motion to compel. This motion is separate from the motion to depose, and not particularly related to it.
IBM only settles when the suit is not over part of their primary business strategy. They look at it and say: Is this suit going to endanger our core business at any time in the future? If yes-don't settle. If No-Get out of here kid, you bother me (take this settlement and leave).
Look at their lawsuit with the US Gov. That lasted decades. If their was going to be a settlement: it would have been years ago.
IBM is playing this lawsuit by the book and very cleanly. They are out to make an example out of SCO for trying to smack IBM up with a nuisance suit that threatened their core business. To to do that they are making sure that their side is cleaner then the preacher's sheets.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
All that says is that IBM says it has no formal "agreements or arrangements" with Groklaw. Of course Microsoft has no formal "agreements or arrangements" with SCO either.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
"PJ, we are not worthy."
My faith is expressed through Nihilism. Do you understand?
PJ has said, many times, so as to be legaly liable for the accuracy of her statements, that she gets no support from any of the litigants in this mess. IBM flatly said it in a court document, very much legaly resposible for the accuracy of their statement. PJ is not getting any money from IBM.
She does, however, every once in a while, get a PayPal donation from me. She gets my support becuase she is so classy, honest, open, and well documented in her handling of... well, your sort...
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
n/t
second page of the article, FIRST LINE
"The model requirement has been discontinued, but the agency has remained skeptical of such applications. "
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The case is basically SCO's business plan right now. As long as it is in contention, SCO employees continue to receive salary. As long as it seems possible they might win, they can raise money to pay those salaries, either by direct investment or by shadow investment via Linux license purchases.
It seems more and more likely they will lose the case, and when they do it's all over. So naturally they will seek every possible way to extend the trial. If they were confident in their ability to win they would be seeking ways to speed things up.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
So, what has China got against Groklaw? Why would they want to block that site? Perhaps there's some other problem ... http://www.wiebetech.com/ also is unreachable, for no reason I can think of.
From groklaw notes: I got a good laugh out of that.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
"Keynote" speech is at lunchtime on the last day of the conference. Some have projected that for this reason alone there'll be plenty of room in the audience.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Scox claims that IBM mis-used code that scox owns.
- Scox can not prove they even own the code to begin with, in fact it's very obvious that scox does not even own the code.
- Scox has refused to specify the code even when ordered to do so by the court on three seperate occasions.
- Scox also refuses to specify exactly how IBM misused the code.
Scox keeps asking the court for delay, and discovery, and scox keeps getting it.
By the way, Senator Hatch sit on the judicial commitee, and Hatch's kid works for scox.
Microsoft has arranged funding for the entire thing. When ever scox starts running low on funds, magic investors appear out of nowhere to buy $10M worth of newly printed scox shares.
About 90% of scox's shares are owned by about six "investors" About 40% of scox is owned by Chairman Yarro. Scox is not really traded on the open market.
If scox really need that stuff, they should have requested it a *long* time ago.
Scox requested, and got, complete code to every revision of AIX, released in the last 20 years.
The request makes no sense. Scox doesn't own AIX, in fact scox doesn't own sysV. And even if scox did, the AIX code has nothing to do with scox's accusations. These accusations are nothing but assertions on scox's part, after three years, and three court orders, scox has not provided a shread of evidence.
When scox first requested the AIX revisions, Wells only gave scox five years worth. Scox whined and whined; and finally after a 5 month "under advisement" period, scox was granted all the discovery they requested. Billions of lines of code. Of course, scox also had to be given time to sort though all the discovery.
Scox is still requested more irrelevant discovery, even though the discovery period is over.
Becasue the the judge did not fully grant scox's request, the cheerleaders on groklaw are having a party about scox got their asses handed to them.
Go figure.
(Side note: for those not following the case, "SCO" is "The SCO Group", a company previously known as Caldera. They bought the SCO Unix name and business from the Santa Cruz Operation, which renamed itself Tarantella. In the court filings, the latter is generally referred to as "Santa Cruz" to dostinguish it from the new SCO. The SCO Group is, however, attempting to explot the confusion in various ways.)
Now that the end of discovery is in sight, everyone's looking forward to some interesting motions from IBM.
A losing party should not be allowed to drag out the proceedings hoping to force the opposition to spend money.
You are assuming that SCO is the losing party, but the case has not yet been tried. The jury trial isn't scheduled to begin until next February.
The system is deliberately set up to allow both SCO and IBM to file crossclaims, bring in parties that are necessary for full resolution of all the issues, and conduct thorough discovery. It emphasizes thoroughness over speed.
It is expensive and time-consuming, which is why most businesses would prefer not to bring lawsuits. SCO obviously brought suit because they realized they couldn't survive without a successful lawsuit. It was a desperate gamble, but before discovery, nobody actually *knew* that IBM would prevail, which is why it survived a motion for summary judgment. The facts were very much in dispute. Everyone talks about it as if at the moment the original complaint was filed, we all had the facts at our disposal to disprove the SCO case. But what if during discovery, SCO had come up with a "smoking gun" of some kind?
My point is that the judge's role is to be an impartial referee in the fight between SCO and IBM. A judge who decided the case before trial would have his decision reversed in a heartbeat.
If we operated under the so-called "English Rule", which is used throughout most of the world, the loser would pay costs. This would cut down on frivolous lawsuits, but it could also potentially stifle legitimate use of the courts by parties. There is serious and ongoing debate as to whether the English Rule system actually reduces the cost of litigation or leads to a more "just" outcome.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
SCO asked for the hearing to compel IBM to produce something. All the while IBM had asked SCO what it was that they were missing. SCO didn't tell them until the night before and the morning of the hearing. So IBM pointed this out. Later, SCO accidently responds to another question that they haven't had time to review all the 340,000 documents IBM sent them and expect some of the motion to compel to be moot. The Judge asks how can she be expected to compel IBM to give SCO documents it may already have.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
When has such a thing happened in the past when they lost? My guess is that they will only let certain people talk and restrict questions to their UnixWARE business. If they say anything it will be about how "Discovery has ended and IBM has delivered many more documents, SCO has already found over 290 violations in Linux..."
I'm not saying Microsoft would take, ummm, direct action - although very rich organizations and organized crime undoubtedly have done so in the past, so the precedent exists. However, I do not believe anyone can be quite sure WHAT Microsoft will do at this point. The CEO is a loose cannon and there's no shortage of extremists out there. My suspicion is that the Koreans and the Europeans trying to stir up enough anti-trust action that the shareholders will take action before they have to.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Did this post get a (5, Funny) because of the remark about throwing stuff at Darl? Or because he misspelled "speech" three times?
uhh 'he' is probably a 'she' now..
How or why it happened, nobody knows, but SCO's lawyers have agreed to cap the fees, so no, they're not really piling up at this point.
:)
On the other hand, I still wouldn't be surprised to see a shareholders' lawsuit at some point. The major problems I see are: one, most of the shareholders at this point are active members of the conspiracy, and two, anyone stupid enough to still be holding SCO stock at this point deserves what they get. The second point probably won't hold much weight in court (though it should, IMO), but the first one is going to be a big problem. Are Ralph Yarro and Darl McBride really going to sue themselves?
It appears that SCO is trying to pull "Stupid brainless lawyer" stunts, right at the very edge of the law, just like Microsoft. When the judge finally got really tired of the stupid (idiotic) parlour tricks, he spoke out to the media (in exasperation). Microsoft was (extremely) quick to call a mistrial. In order to prevent stupid parlour tricks like that here (or again by Microsoft), it would be great for the judge to temporarily dis-bar the lawyer for the duration of the trial (and as a penalty, for an additional 5 years after the trial). It would put an end to the stupid tricks right quick.
SCO is taking their time, but it's not much different than the AT&T vs. University of California Berkeley (BSD-Unix) case. AT&T claimed that Berkeley stole their software. 10,000 seperate violations were cited. The judge examined each in turn. The Berkeley folk had people who wrote (published) papers after doing study, and the people who wrote software cited in programmer comments the source for the code (the algorithms). The AT&T code didn't have any such comments, no sources, and no one could explain where the code came from. 10,000 seperate incidents. None of them good for AT&T. AT&T sold their software (such as it was) to Novell, who then sold some of it to SCO. Linux has some BSD code in it (as the BSD licence allows). SCO thought it could pin something on Linux. It found some of the code they bought from Novell had code that looked like theirs (their lawyers are not that bright apparently, and failed to take notice of the AT&T vs. Berkeley Case (which AT&T lost with prejudice --no chance for an appeal), and so went after the Linux folk, stating that the Linux people had stolen some of their code. Silly SCO.