Slashdot Mirror
SCO Lawyers Ambush IBM Witness
Mr. E. writes "In a sneaky legal maneuver, SCO's lawyers managed to ambush an IBM witness into having to give a no-holds-barred deposition in front of an unrelated court in another state. After SCO was limited in what they could depose Mr. Otis Wilson about by the Utah court, the company blindsided IBM with last-second subpoenas before a North Carolina court. IBM's lawyer was on vacation at the time, didn't give prior notice to big blue, and now they've won the right to ask him anything they want. They've asked him about whether he has a criminal record, about ex-wives, etc. and they have four hours in which to do so. According to PJ of Groklaw, 'I'd say [Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells] has thrown poor Mr. Wilson to the wolves in North Carolina and told him it's his own fault.' SCO, of course, is fishing for something — anything — they can use to stave off IBM's Motion for Summary Judgement which is fast approaching, and if they can somehow trip up Mr. Wilson, they might be able to do just that. However, there was at least one line of cold comfort in Magistrate Well's order '[T]he court wishes to note that its decision should not be viewed as any type of invitation to reopen the discovery process.'"
Seriously, SCO must be salivating at the prosect of this, its like a one last gasp hope.
One minor point though, how come IBM only have 1 lawyer, didn't they have a breeding program in the 60s and 70s?
liqbase
The poor guy's search history might've been released by AOL.
Sure he COULD get into trouble, in reality he wont.
And since when does IBM have one lawyer ?
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
And neither is the writer on Groklaw who wrote the article: " IANAL. I am a journalist with a paralegal background"
/. readers who actually are lawyers think.
I would love to read what other
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains.
The whole point, while I understand, is that he went to a North Carolina judge versus Judge Wells and the North Carolina judge didn't understand the case and opened the witness up to whatever SCO wanted for 4 hours. While this plays well for SCO, it really is the poor guys fault for finding a lawyer and a judge who shouldn't have stuck their nose in the business.
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
He'd... better... talk... reeeaaaallll... sssllllloooooowwwwww....
SCO pulled a fast one and got away with it - this time. Doesn't mean that they'll win, but it sounds like they just might be able to drag it out a bit longer, unfortunately.
They were the good ol' days when we had something to laugh about on a daily basis -- whether Darl issued another encyclical, DiDio and the Yank-and-Grope guys threw more FUD, or when they outed Linux as the secret love child of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Good times. Even watching SCO stock tank was fun. Did their earnings go down yet? Did their strange math make it seem like they're getting new money coming in? Has the SEC looked into their supposed pump/dump scheme yet? Hella good times.
Now we're down to some lawyers having their way with a guy for 4 hours. That doesn't even make reality TV, guys. Really. So la-dee-da...just let me know to whom I write this check for $699 for my copy of Ubuntu, mmmkay?
That isn't what the victim did in this case, but look at the nature of the maneuvering: "The problem, according to Judge Wells, is that Mr. Wilson submitted himself to the North Carolina court by submitting a motion to quash there." In other words, you can get yourself in trouble by saying "go away" in the same place that someone said "come here!".
If you ever get the idea that law is a logic system and you can handle a court case without an experienced and street-smart lawyer, remember that you might be up against dirty tricks from veterans who are on their home turf. Never fight a wizard in his keep. Always remember how bad it can be just to have your lawyer on vacation.
SCO Attorney: "Let the record show that Mr. Wilson likes chocolate ice cream, baseball and buys his underwear at J.C. Penney. Which I think speaks for itself in regards to the nefarious activities of IBM!!!"
Judge: "I'd say it speaks volumes what a loonie lot you are. I find for IBM"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...just keep repeating "I don't remember" to any question he doesn't want to answer for 4 hours? I mean, ok, so he gives his address, the names of his kids, the type of car he drives... the obvious stuff. The stuff he can't get wrong. But, for things where he could get tripped up on, can't he simply say "I can't remember"?
There is no such thing as bad weather - only inappropriate clothing.
I mean really, all SCO can do is be an ass to an IBM guy. I mean, they wouldn't need to pull something like this to ask remotely relevant questions, and since IBM isn't gonna settle to save this guy some embarassment, all SCO gets to do is what they always do: be petty, retarded dumbasses.
"Lawyers Ambush Witness", "sneaky legal maneuver", "blindsided IBM", "has thrown poor Mr. Wilson to the wolves", "is fishing for something", "trip up Mr. Wilson", "one line of cold comfort" etc....
I love it when a boring legal procedure takes such epic proportions. The narrator really knows his job!..
Why does everyone assume he was stupid? Maybe he was bought off and "threw the game" so to speak for SCO?
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
If they have only 4 hours to depose you, talk v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y. Your name is Otis so no one can hold that against you -- plus you are in North Carolina so no one will notice...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
fighting a wizard in his keep. I just have my rouge hide in the shadows for a critical hit in round 3, my warrior hacks away with his axe, the Ranger with his bow, one wizard heals, one protects and one casts Gotterdamurung every turn. I find the same strategy works aganst lawyers, only they've got more HP.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They haven't asked him anything yet, have they? The article seems to say they COULD ask him about anything. I would hope that ex-wives (if any) would be off the table - trying to personally attack someone for things not related to the issue at hand would strike me as a very poor use of the time SCO has been given. How would that help their case?
Let's wait for the outcome of this. I rather doubt we need to make too much of the "they can ask ANYTHING" part of this - if we do let's wait for the actual event. Certainly SCO has done enough to anger the geek community without us needing to throw any more fuel on the fire. Only pursue them for the poor behavior they have actually demonstrated - I can't imagine why we would need anything else.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
I bet they already arranged his flight to North Caroilina, too!
Don't expect a real lawyer to give you a real opinion without getting hit in the pocket.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.
Because there are lots of easier ways to "throw the game" than submitting yourself to hours of interrogation about your arrest history, prior relationships, etc. He could, for example, have done it just be being a little too rabidly pro-IBM in the deposition as originally outlined (responding with things like "While I wouldn't claim that IBM invented electricity, they were certainly the first to make good use of it!").
Besides, no one is saying that he's stupid (by all accounts, he's not), just that he was perhaps a little too trusting. It is, after all, a little difficult to get your mind around just how underhanded SCO really is. He can be forgiven for assuming that they really aren't as underhanded as laywers in the movies, when (as it turns out) they're worse.
--MarkusQ
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
This is a civil case, not criminal. The way depositions work is that you answer all the questions asked and note objections at the time -- the judge will review objections after the fact and decide which portions of the deposition are admissible. But you can't refuse to answer questions wihtout risking contempt of court. Because of this, depositions are a favorite method of attorneys to harrass innocent people.
It seems like a sucky way to do things, but the alternative would be to perform all depositions with a judge there, which would probably require a hundred thousand new judges and every case would take even longer, or depositions would each take years to finish because every objection would have to stop the interview and then you'd wait for a ruling and then schedule another deposition to continue.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
SCO seem to be irritating the judge in Utah. IBM could try playing this card and get the North Carolina court (and judge) found in contempt of the Utah court for trying to alter the proceedings of the original case with this new nonsense of a case
You can do that, right?
Alternatively, he could just alternate between "I can't hear you", "I don't understand you", "I don't understand the question", "do you mean this or that?", answering something other than 'yes' or 'no' to a yes/no question, "sorry, pardon? I was distracted by that fly/laybird/pigeon", "I don't remember" and having his own lawyer shout 'objection' a lot.
Mix that up with a good dose of verbal acrobatics, a unscheduled power cut, dozens of toilet breaks, a quick dose of flu/chicken pox/bubonic plague, myriad bomb/fire alarms, the whole case getting lost due to a mysterious computer error, the electrical frequency in the building being increasing - making the clocks go 50% faster, a convenient paper cut and the SCO lawyers going down with food poisoning. The four hours will fly by!
IANAL, can you tell?
FGD 135
Obviously you didn't look through the initial deposition. They DID ask him about his arrest record, military service, marital history, income sources, etc. Given that this man was the AT&T UNIX contracts manager, signed off on both the IBM & Sequent SysV deals, and said in the first deposition that AT&T had clearly stated in 1985 they had no interest in any licensee's code as long as it didn't incorporate SysV source within , SCOX HAS to discredit him somehow or have their case torpedoed. So they're going to grill him again and hope he trips up somewhere in the four hours. Given his utter composure and clear recollections the first time around, they're probably wishing a stroke on him as we speak.
SCOX DELENDA EST!!
He knows something. He is THE guy who signed off on the original IBM/AT&T/Sequent licenses.
I don't see how they can get away with this. One federal judge made a ruling, no more depositions, so they went to another court and asked for something they shouldn't have asked for. Because the Courts can't/won't communicate about cases, the judge allowed the deposition "to be fair". This is just like being a little kid running to daddy when mommy says no to a cookie.. I can't believe that a federal judge would allow this.
IANAL, but I know of a person (an actual friend of an actual relative, someone I know) who knew that while the questions can be wide ranging in scope, so can the answers. They can't limit you to yes or no answers only. You can be as verbose and detailed and wide ranging as you want in your answers, like explaining in great detail how that day in 5th grade math led you, in a very round about way including your college years, to the decision you made on what line of code to write in that program. The person I know "answered" just a handful of questions for over two months before the lawyers finally just gave up.
This was some time ago, and I can't remember if it was a deposition or an actual trial.
You can refuse to answer questions that seem to be way out of line. For example, if at a deposition in an intellectual property case like this you are asked if you every had any affairs and with whom and when and all the details of what you did, you could refuse and insist that it go before the judge before you answer.
Personally, I'm a pain in the ass and would just refuse certain questions and if I had to go to jail on contempt charges, so be it, but you can be most assured it would not be in vain for there would be significant press coverage. Perhaps stupid in some people's view, but that is about the only chance I would have to create public awareness of a major problem in the legal system.