IBM: docket entries galore
August 21, 2006
Credits also go to Al's bot:
743 ORDER granting  Motion for Extension of Time, to and including 10/13/06, within which to respond to all outstanding Requests for Admissions. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 8/21/06.(kla, )
744 DECLARATION of Todd M. Shaughnessy with Unsealed Exhibits filed by International Business Machines Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibits 19 to 25)(kla, )
745 NOTICE of Errata by International Business Machines Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation re  Declaration. (kla, )
746 DECLARATION of Todd M. Shaughnessy with Unsealed Exhibits filed by International Business Machines Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 4 through 8# (2) Exhibit 9 through 13# (3) Exhibit 14 through 19# (4) Exhibit 20 through 25)(kla, )
747 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - the court orders that the deposition of Mr. Wilson should go forward in the time and manner as ordered by the North Carolina court. Signed by Judge Brooke C. Wells on 8/21/06. (kla, )
748 REDACTION to  Memorandum in Opposition to Objection to Magistrate Wells Order of 6/28/06 by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # (1) Addendum# (2) Addendum# (3) Addendum# (4) Addendum# (5) Addendum)(blk, )
#746 and #748 are what we've been waiting for, together OVER 600 F'ING PAGES.
Re: IBM: docket entries galore
August 21, 2006
"#746 and #748 are what we've been waiting for, together OVER 600 F'ING PAGES."
Al has graciously posted 748 at the following URL:
#748 is on SCOfacts
August 22, 2006
Lots of juicy quotes
Crux of IBM's argument
August 22, 2006
Nothing in the whole case so far conveys the flavor of SCO's tactics better than
The most remarkable thing about SCO's argument concerning its alleged inability to identify methods and concepts by version, file, and line is the point in time at which it chose to raise the issue. SCO asserts that its claims have been based on "methods and concepts from the inception of the case" and that methods and concepts "cannot be identified by source code." Knowing this, SCO chose to say nothing to Judge Wells following entry of her orders in December 2003 and March 2004 requiring version, file, and line information, and chose to say nothing to this Court following entry of the July 2005 Order requiring SCO to identify the misused material with specificity. Indeed, SCO said nothing to IBM. To the contrary, after receipt of SCO's interim disclosures, IBM sent SCO a letter making crystal clear that SCO was required to do so in its final disclosures. SCO did not even respond to that letter, let alone advise IBM (or the Court) that it was unable to do so because methods and concepts "cannot be identified in source code," as it now contends. Instead, SCO waited until after IBM filed its motion (and shortly before the cutoff of fact discovery, and on the eve of expert discovery) to raise this issue. Thus, timing alone strongly suggests that SCO's "methods and concepts" argument was created after-the-fact, and SCO seized upon it solely to try and avoid IBM's motion.
IBM's Redacted Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Objections  at 51 (internal citations omitted.)
Source: Investor Village SCO Board [ http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911 ]