One Year Later....

smartin_tn

September 17, 2014

On July 22, 2013, IBM filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the case of SCO v IBM (docket 1126). In it, IBM asked

that the Court enter an order for partial summary judgment against SCO: (1) dismissing SCO’s three remaining claims insofar as they allege infringement of the Copyrights and breaches by IBM of the Licensing Agreements; (2) declaring that SCO cannot sue IBM for infringement of the Copyrights, as requested in IBM’s Ninth and Tenth Counterclaims; and (3) precluding SCO from relitigating, in connection with IBM’s other counterclaims, the issues decided against SCO in the Novell litigation, such as that Novell owns the Copyrights and permissibly waived the alleged breaches by IBM of the Licensing Agreements."

SCO responded on August 29, IBM filed their reply brief on September 16, 2013.

It is now (as of yesterday) one year later, and the Honorable Judge Nuffer has yet to rule.

Remind me again, what a great justice system we have.

9:23:07 AM


Re: One Year Later....

darlmcbride

September 17, 2014

@smartin-tn,

I had a number of people telling me back in 2003 that it didn't matter whether SCO was right or wrong because big blue would stretch the case out over 10 years and SCO would run out of money along the way.

That's a big part of the reason that I recommended that we cut the deal with Boies to give him 30+ million plus contingency fee in return for staying with all cases to full conclusion.

Regardless of which side of the battle we are all on, I think we can all agree on your point. Hard to understand how all this stuff works.

9:47:02 PM


Re: One Year Later....

NonYoubiz

September 18, 2014

For good or for ill, the design concept of our system is that you have 2 highly motivated adversaries, with the court acting a referee. It's not supposed to be the court's job to move the case forward, it's supposed to be the job of the litigants. Unfortunately, when one litigant decides the case is un-winnable, and moves to delaying the inevitable for as long (and as cheaply) as possible, and the other litigant really cannot be bothered to push the case....

It's kind of like Star Trek Next Generation: Peak Performance  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708753/ , in which Data defeats the master strategist by not playing to win, but to delay.

7:21:55 AM


Re: One Year Later....

darlmcbride

September 19, 2014

@NonYoubiz, The weird thing here though is that both sides filed their motions in a timely manner. Then it hits the judge's inbox and nothing happens. Nothing happens for 366 days now and counting. Bueller . . . Bueller . . .

SCO has wanted to get the Project Monterey claim resolved for over 10 years now. 8 nasty emails that even Uncle Dale demanded an explanation from Marriott during the summary judgment hearing. Marriott fumbles around, scratches his head, looks down, shuffles some papers around then says that he can't read the emails. Which was kind of funny since everyone in the back of the court room could clearly see what was on the 8 giant poster boards propped up on easels. After Kimball presses him and has him get closer and read them, Marriott replies "Your honor, would you please go to page 125 (or some such page) in our brief?" Then Marriott rambles on for 5 minutes about something totally unrelated to the dirty emails. Kimball just stared at him with disdain and shook his head.

Those 8 emails represent a huge problem for IBM if they ever end up in front of a jury. For all of the beatings that Dale delivered to SCO over the years, Project Monterey and those 8 nasty emails were clearly in a different bucket.

SC

1:48:11 AM


Re: One Year Later....

smartin_tn

September 19, 2014

8 nasty emails that even Uncle Dale demanded an explanation from Marriott during the summary judgment hearing.

Which hearing was that? What date?

6:22:31 AM


Re: One Year Later....

sk43999

September 19, 2014

In classic SCO fashion, we are give allegations and innuendo with no hard evidence behind them. The hearing was likely March 5, 2007 on IBM's motion for SJ on the Unfair Competition claim, when Ted Normand asked that the courtroom be cleared during his argument since he wanted to show "documents that have been marked confidential" and to "display them on the boards" and "walk the Court through them."

Without a public transcript we have no accurate information about what actually transpired. No point even mentioning it.

5:17:47 PM


Re: One Year Later....

darlmcbride

September 19, 2014

@smartin_lv,

Sk has it right on the date, it was March 5, 2007. I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV so I will let the attorneys battle out the technical issues. What I can tell you is that Marriott got no traction with any of IBM's argument's in front of Kimball. IBM has their legal arguments and SCO has theirs.

IBM knew what they were doing when they demanded a protective order on documents at the beginning of the case. Keeping these kind of emails out of the public spotlight enabled them to wear the white hat throughout all of the years of litigation. Fair enough that you that are skeptical since you weren't in the courtroom at the time. My hope is that sooner than later this final claim will get justice that it deserves.

SC

9:30:54 PM


Re: One Year Later....

smartin_tn

September 19, 2014

Without a public transcript we have no accurate information about what actually transpired.

There is a public transcript. It's on Groklaw (remember them, Darl?) in two parts. It of course doesn't contain the part where the courtroom was cleared.

http://groklaw.net/pdf/SCOIBM20070305a-redacted.pdf
http://groklaw.net/pdf/SCOIBM20070305b.pdf

10:43:59 PM


Re: One Year Later....

darlmcbride

September 20, 2014

I understand your pov sss. Don't expect you to believe me without seeing the documents yourself. smartin, that's why it would be good to get some sunlight on these redacted and hidden documents and transcripts. Having them all hidden under a protective order is only protecting IBM's reputation, which isn't what protective orders were designed for.

12:11:22 AM


Nasty Emails

sk43999

September 26, 2014

For anyone who cares (which possibly is the null set), those nasty emails can be found in SCO's Redacted Opposition to IBM's SJ motion on the Monterey claim [IBM-907]. In classic SCO fashion (or was it deliberate?), the redaction was botched, and the hidden text can be extracted easily. GL pulled the pdf file, but a copy can be found at a well-known loathsome website.

Oh yes, just because you have a pile of "nasty emails" doesn't mean you will win at trial. Rambus had its own trove of "nasty emails" when it went to trial against Micron and Hynix for antitrust violations:

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2006-05-31/rambus-we-were-price-fixing-target

but, like SCO in Utah, the jury decision went against it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/us-rambus-micron-verdict-idUSTRE7AF1XL20111116

5:41:00 PM


Re: Nasty Emails

mikep

September 28, 2014

If, as TSG claims, Caldera were shocked and dismayed by the canning of Monterey following their purchase of part of the SCO business, they deserved everything they got. By May 2001, Itanium was around 5 years late and with the publishing of AMD's 64-bit extensions the previous year, the direction of general-purpose 64-bit computing was clear to see.

Sure, IBM were spinning around for a couple of years up to then. What would you do under the circumstances ?? What if, against all the odds, Intel actually sorted the bugger out ?? It's Corporate SOP to keep claiming everything is fine until the moment you pull the plug (and, arguably, necessary to avoid shareholder action).

Compilers were next-to-impossible to write for Itanium (as we see from reading IBM-907). VLIW proved to be a bitch.

Come November 2001, things still weren't right with the hardware, either.

http://news.cnet.com/Itanium-flunking-Compaq-server-tests/2100-1001_3-275850.html

All we see here is a lack of due diligence on Caldera's part.

Edit: made the link clickable. Provided some possible non-conspiratorial explanation of IBM's spinning up to the moment they pulled the plug.

1:01:59 PM


Re: Nasty Emails

darlmcbride

September 30, 2014

The big issue in the Project Monterey case came down to what IBM did with the SCO Unix code and interfaces after they had access to it. Problem is IBM only had rights to the SCO code if they executed a legitimate General Availability (GA) release which they later admit that they never did. The resulting impact was felt far wider than just the limited Itanium shipments that went out. It ended up in every version of Linux from that point on. The problem I had was not with the Linux community or individual Linux contributers (even though we all got into some pretty impressive food fights along the way.) Rather, it was how IBM ran a "Gone in 60 Seconds" chop shop with SCO's code and 15 years later still has not had to answer for it.

It became relevant to Caldera aka The SCO Group when IBM promised Ransom Love that they were in fact going to GA Monterey and go forward with it before the old SCO acquisition closed. Caldera became reliant on IBM continuing with their contractual commitment as promised. Behind the walls of Sam's office in Armonk though, it was already a done deal. They pulled out a Glock and put a bullet in Project Monterey and then lied through their teeth telling customers and new SCO that the Monterey gig was still on. Just ask Bryan Harrold, Bill Bulko, Tony Befi, a bunch of AIX programmers and some contract administrators down in Austin, they will tell you all about it.

sc

3:49:48 AM


Source: Investor Village SCO Board [ http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911 ]

Copyright 2014