Shoot the breeze, anything goes.
User avatar
Steven W
VIP
Posts: 2863
Joined: 2013-08-10 22:40

2015-03-06 00:38 »

I see over at Groklaw that a "docket text order" has been issued by the court ordering the parties to enter a joint status report by Noon, Friday, March 13, 2015:

[1133] 02-Mar-2015 DOCKET TEXT ORDER No attached document. Court orders the parties file a joint status report by Noon, Friday, March 13, 2015. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 3/2/2015. (asb) (Entered: 03/02/2015)


It could be interesting to see how far apart the sides are regarding what's left of the case. There hasn't been much to follow the past few years with the case. There's only been the MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER that I mentioned in another post:

http://groklaw.net/pdf4/IBM-1132.pdf

In which the Court granted in part IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment: That Motion can be found here:

http://groklaw.net/pdf4/IBM-1126.pdf

I'm not bothering to link to the Memorandum in Support and Memorandum in Opposition to the original motion, but if you're wanting to see them they can be found here (along with pretty much anything you'd want to see regarding the case):

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/inde ... 6162215566

I was so interested in some of the case at the time, but with so little happening over the past couple of years, I have a hard time even recollecting what even I believed to be left of the case at the time. With the copyrights to the pre-1996 Unix source code concluded to be owned by Novell and Novell having waived any alleged breaches of that code made by IBM, that would leave SCO (or whatever the heck they're calling themselves these days) limited to post-95 copyrights to support any claims they have made. With the case being as far along as it is, SCO essentially has to fight with whatever they've already put forth. I don't imagine any post-96 copyright claims (assuming SCO even made any) amounting to a hill of beans anyway. Given Judge Nuffer's wording in the above-linked MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER one could imagine how SCO attempting to put forth new evidence this late in the game would fly.

I know SCO still has some claims regarding Project Monterrey. Well, that's going to be interesting to say the least. I know that SCO has wanted the Court to believe that they are the Santa Cruz Operation. They are not. Caldera purchased some assets of the Santa Cruz Operation, not the whole thing. It gets better too:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor ... 1002056262

Here's the bombshell. Under the contract, Santa Cruz was supposed to get IBM's written consent to any assignment of the agreement in a change of control. It didn't, and further -- and this is the piece we didn't know -- IBM sent a letter in June of 2001, stating that IBM did *not* consent to the contract being assigned to Caldera:

31. Santa Cruz did not obtain IBM's prior written consent to an assignment of the JDA. Instead, Santa Cruz informed IBM of the saleof its Server Software and Professional Services divisions and its UNIX-related assets to Caldera in a letter dated June 6, 2001.(Ex. 244.)

32. IBM declined to consent to the assignment of Santa Cruz's rights and obligations under the JDA. Pursuant to Section 22.12 of the JDA, IBM's consent was necessary for such assignment to take effect. On the contrary, IBM invoked its right to cancel the JDA under Section 15.2 in a letter dated June 19, 2001. (Ex. 220.)


How do you like them apples, as the expression goes? So much for SCO's Project Monterey whining. And that, IBM points out, is what SCO bases its unfair competition claims on, and so, there you are. Poof again. SCO wasn't a party to the Project Monterey agreement, and it has no legal standing to complain about it.


A superficial inspection of those claims and a glance or two at a couple of contracts and poof goes another large chunk of SCO's case, in my opinion. Speaking of this detail, in the other thread I pointed to an article, upon a reread I note that it gets this quite wrong:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/19 ... ix_lawsuit

Some quick and simplified history: SCO - short for The Santa Cruz Operation - was a software company that offered a version of Unix for x86 chippery. When Linux came along in the late 90s and started turning into a business, SCO more or less sank and it attacked both Novell and IBM for their role in helping to spread Linus Torvalds' brainchild. At stake was whether those who distribute and profit from Linux should share some of their bounty with SCO. If a court had found in SCO's favour, it would have been bad news for Linux.


I guess simplified is newspeak for wrong. I'm going to wait and let the upcoming joint status report serve to further refresh my memory.

User avatar
Steven W
VIP
Posts: 2863
Joined: 2013-08-10 22:40

2015-03-08 05:51 »

I'll point out a few corrections that need to be made to my post above and share another thought or two.

Probably should've capitalized "court" in the first sentence.

I don't imagine any post-96 copyright claims... ==> I don't imagine any post-95 copyright claims...

I talked about SCO attempting to introduce new evidence. That's not likely to happen. I'm sure that some involved would absolutely love to have the chance, but unfortunately that would cost money. Given all the money (a big chunk from Microsoft) that was blown on the case, keeping the company going as long as it did and after Ocean Park Advisors performed what I'll affectionately dub the Hoover Maneuver, I have to admit that I'm curious if there's a couple of coins left to even make copies if needed.

I guess Boies, Schiller & Flexner are going to still represent SCO, but what about the contingencies, court costs, and various other costs?

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 20867.html

The Company has entered into a letter of intent with Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, its outside legal counsel to enter into a revised fee agreement with respect to pending intellectual property and licensing litigation, to limit overall cash cost of the Company's litigation to $31 million. The terms also stipulate that Boies, Schiller & Flexner will lead SCO's efforts through the duration and completion of the pending litigation in return for increased contingency.


money vacuum.jpg
money vacuum.jpg (1.75 MiB) Viewed 8732 times

User avatar
Steven W
VIP
Posts: 2863
Joined: 2013-08-10 22:40

2015-03-13 23:54 »

I'm reading the Joint Status Report now. One bit stands out:

The parties propose that the Court set the case for mediation on a parallel track, to determine whether the remaining claims can be settled.


Part of me is hoping IBM sees this all the way through. Guess we'll see.

I'm going to attempt to put the report in my next post as text of sorts, guess we'll see how that goes.

User avatar
Steven W
VIP
Posts: 2863
Joined: 2013-08-10 22:40

2015-03-13 23:58 »

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC
10 West Broadway, Suite 400
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Telephone: (801) 363-6363
Facsimile: (801) 363-6666

bhatch@hjdlaw.com
mjames@hjdlaw.com

David Boies (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
Jason Cyrulnik (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, New York 10504
Telephone: (914) 749-8200
Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
dboies@bsfllp.com
enormand@bsfllp.com
jcyrulnik@bsfllp.com

Stuart Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: (954) 356-0011
Facsimile: (954) 356-0022
ssinger@bsfllp.com

Counsel for Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc.

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
15 West South Temple, Suite 1200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1004
Telephone: (801) 257-1900
Facsimile: (801) 257-1800
asullivan@swlaw.com
asorenson@swlaw.com

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, New York 10019
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
echesler@cravath.com
dmarriott@cravath.com

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC., by and through the
Chapter 11 Trustee in Bankruptcy, Edward N. Cahn,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
v.
.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
JOINT STATUS REPORT

Civil No.: 2:03-CV-00294-DN

Honorable David Nuffer

Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), and Defendant, International Business Machines
Corporation ("IBM"), respectfully submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court's March 2,
2015, Order (Dkt # 1133).

INTRODUCTION

The operative pleadings in this case are (1) SCO's Second Amended Complaint
(Dkt # 108), (2) IBM's Answer to Second Amended Complaint (Dkt # 126) and Second Amended
Counterclaim (Dkt # 127), and (3) SCO's Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim (Dkt # 141).
Following the resolution of the separate SCO v. Novell action, the Court reopened this SCO v.
IBM case and ruled on various motions and stipulations that addressed the impact of the Novell
Judgment on the claims that were pending in this case. (Dkt # 1123.) The Court then granted
IBM's request to file a new motion for summary judgment on the basis of the SCO v. Novell
Judgment. On December 15, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part IBM's motion for
partial summary judgment on SCO's remaining claims. (Dkt # 1132.) On March 2, 2015, the
Court directed the parties to file a Joint Status Report outlining for the Court the status of the
unresolved claims. (Dkt. # 1133.) The parties have conferred and outline below the status of the
unresolved claims, along with a proposed schedule for resolution of those claims, which are listed
and briefly described below.

I. THE UNRESOLVED CLAIMS

On the basis of the Court's Orders, including its recent December 15, 2014, Order on
IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment, three of SCO's claims (described by SCO below) remain
pending and are ripe for adjudication:

(1) Unfair Competition (Count VI): This claim concerns the Project Monterey joint
venture between SCO's predecessor, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., and IBM.
SCO alleges that IBM misappropriated into its "AIX for Power" operating
system UnixWare source code that SCO provided to IBM subject to strict
restrictions that IBM ignored, and that IBM engaged in a ruse to gain access to
SCO's source code to effect the misappropriation.

(2) Interference with Contract (Count VII)1: This claim concerns SCO's
allegations that IBM interfered with contracts pursuant to which SCO had
licensed its UNIX products to third parties in part as retaliation for SCO's
efforts to protects its rights, and that IBM used the misappropriated Project
Monterey technology and other intellectual property to interfere with SCO's
customers and partners; and

(3) Interference with Business Relationships (Count IX): This claim concerns
SCO's allegations that IBM interfered with SCO's market position and business
relationships, in part as retaliation for SCO's efforts to protects its rights, and
that IBM used the misappropriated Project Monterey technology and other
intellectual property to interfere with SCO's actual and potential customers and
business relationships.

None of these claims concerns the copyrights to pre-1995 UNIX source code.
IBM asserted several counterclaims in its March 29, 2004, Second Amended
Counterclaims against SCO (Docket No. 127), and the following sets of counterclaims (described
by IBM below) remain pending and are ripe for adjudication:

(1) Contract Claim: IBM has asserted a claim against SCO for breach of the same
contracts that IBM was alleged by SCO to have breached, under which IBM has
a perpetual and irrevocable license (Counterclaim I).

(2) Claims Relating to SCO's Copying of IBM Code in Linux: IBM has asserted
three claims against SCO relating to SCO's copying of IBM code in Linux: (1)
copyright infringement (Counterclaim VIII); (2) breach of the General Public
License (the "GPL") (Counterclaim VI); and (3) promissory estoppel
(Counterclaim VII). IBM claims that SCO literally copied and distributed
hundreds of thousands of lines of IBM code, which IBM contributed to Linux
under the GPL, after SCO lost permission to do so by repudiating and breaching
the GPL.

(3) Claims Concerning SCO's Campaign To Create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
About IBM's Products and Services: IBM has asserted four claims against
SCO concerning SCO's campaign to create fear, uncertainty and doubt about
IBM's products and services: (1) violation of the Lanham Act
(Counterclaim II); (2) unfair competition (Counterclaim III); (3) intentional
interference with prospective economic relations (Counterclaim IV); and
(4) violation of the New York State Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(Counterclaim V).

II. PENDING MOTIONS

With respect to the foregoing claims and counterclaims, the parties filed respective
motions for summary judgment in 2006. The summary judgment motions that remain pending
with respect to the unresolved claims are:

(1) SCO's Motion for Summary Judgment on IBM's Second, Third, Fourth, and
Fifth Counterclaims (Dkt #s 775 (SCO Motion for Summary Judgment); 863
(IBM Opposition); 943 (SCO Reply));

(2) SCO's Motion for Summary Judgment on IBM's Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth
Counterclaims (Dkt #s 776 (SCO Motion for Summary Judgment); 865 (IBM's
Opposition); 944 (SCO Reply));

(3) IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Sixth Cause of Action (Unfair
Competition Claims) (Dkt. #s 782 (IBM Motion for Summary Judgment); 861
(SCO Opposition); 947 (IBM Reply); and

(4) IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Seventh and Ninth Causes of
Action (Interference Claims) (Dkt #s 783 (IBM Motion for Summary
Judgment); 868 (SCO Opposition); 946 (IBM Reply)).

In addition, SCO filed a motion alleging that, shortly after SCO filed this lawsuit against
IBM, IBM executives and in-house lawyers directed multiple IBM Linux programmers to destroy
source code on their computers that would have been highly relevant to SCO's claims. (Dkt #
778.) IBM opposed the motion which it believes to be unfounded. The Magistrate Court denied
SCO's motion, and SCO filed objections to the Magistrate Court's Order (Dkt. # 995 (S)) and a
Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Court's Order (Dkt. # 986). Both of those motions
remain unresolved.

III. SCHEDULING

With respect to scheduling, the parties propose the following:

(1) The parties request the opportunity orally to argue the foregoing summary
judgment motions before the Court, given that the motions were argued before a
prior judge more than nine years ago, and that the motions were directed (in
part) to claims that are no longer in play. The parties further request an
opportunity to apprise the Court by letter of relevant case law decided in the
nine years since the pending motions were filed.

(2) The parties propose that the Court set the case for mediation on a parallel track,
to determine whether the remaining claims can be settled.

(3) SCO proposes that the Court set a trial date for the remaining claims now.
IBM proposes that the Court set a trial date, if necessary, after it has resolved
the pending motions for summary judgment.

DATED this 13th day of March, 2015.
By: /s/ Brent O. Hatch
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
David Boies
Stuart H. Singer
Edward Normand
Jason Cyrulnik

Counsel for Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc.

/s/ Amy F. Sorenson
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan
Amy F. Sorenson

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott

Attorneys for Defendant, International
Business Machines Corporation

User avatar
Steven W
VIP
Posts: 2863
Joined: 2013-08-10 22:40

2015-03-13 23:59 »

Forgot the one footnote:

1 SCO's Interference Claims originally concerned both pre- and post-1995 source code. As
noted, SCO stipulated to the dismissal of its claims concerning pre-1995 source code based on the
Novell Judgment.

User avatar
Steven W
VIP
Posts: 2863
Joined: 2013-08-10 22:40

2015-03-14 22:03 »

I'll share some very preliminary thoughts. Under the heading Unresolved Claims, we see 3 claims made by SCO. Note that all 3 bring up Project Monterey. In addition to the "bombshell" mentioned in the link to Groklaw above, IBM also claims to have broad rights under other contracts. In fact, IBM specifically mentions Counterclaim I later in the Joint Status Report. Let's take a look:

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040331043539340

FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

Breach of Contract
113. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 112, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

114. SCO is licensor and IBM licensee of the right to use and sublicense UNIX System V software, as specified in the AT&T Agreements, Amendment X, the Sequent Agreements and other similar agreements, all of which are valid contracts.

115. IBM has performed all its duties and obligations under the AT&T Agreements, Amendment X, the Sequent Agreements and other similar agreements.

116. SCO has breached its express duties and obligations under the AT&T Agreements, Amendment X, the Sequent Agreements and other similar agreements by, among other things, purporting to terminate IBM's irrevocable and perpetual UNIX rights and/or refusing to provide IBM adequate notice and opportunity to cure its alleged misconduct.

117. SCO has also breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the AT&T Agreements, Amendment X, the Sequent Agreements and other similar agreements by affirmatively seeking to deprive IBM of the benefits to which it is entitled under those contracts through numerous acts of bad faith, including, among other things, making false and misleading statements to the public about SCO's and IBM's rights under the same.

118. IBM has suffered damages from SCO's breaches of contract in an amount to be determined at trial.


Think about this. If IBM's termination letter to Santa Cruz doesn't kill off all of this, they've laid the groundwork to open another can of worms:

SCO has breached its express duties and obligations under the AT&T Agreements, Amendment X, the Sequent Agreements and other similar agreements by, among other things, purporting to terminate IBM's irrevocable and perpetual UNIX rights and/or refusing to provide IBM adequate notice and opportunity to cure its alleged misconduct.


Under those contracts they were supposed to be given notice and opportunity to cure any alleged wrongdoing. You gotta give credit to IBM's attorneys. They truly have left no stone unturned.

Obviously the IBM guys don't need help from me, but I do hope to see a fervent effort to point out the difference between the Santa Cruz Organization and SCO. I know I'd need help keeping that straight. Hopefully every time one of them is referenced, IBM will make sure that the right one is clearly defined. Knowing SCO like anyone who followed Groklaw does, I'd keep an eye out for them trying to sneak in any pre-96 copyright claims too.

User avatar
!
30%
Posts: 3259
Joined: 2013-02-25 18:36

2015-03-18 23:03 »

On Slashdot today:

Not quite dead: SCO Linux suit against IBM stirs in Utah. :think:

An anonymous reader points to a story in the Salt Lake Tribune which says that The nearly defunct Utah company SCO Group Inc. and IBM filed a joint report to the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City saying that legal issues remain in the case, which was initiated in 2003 with SCO claiming damages of $5 billion against the technology giant, based in Armonk, N.Y. That likely means that U.S. District Judge David Nuffer, who now presides over the dispute, will start moving the lawsuit - largely dormant for about four years while a related suit against Novell Inc. was adjudicated - ahead. What kind of issues? In addition to its claims of IBM misappropriation of code, SCO alleges that IBM executives and lawyers directed the company's Linux programmers to destroy source code on their computers after SCO made its allegations. The company's other remaining claims are that IBM's actions amounted to unfair competition and interference with its contracts and business relations with other companies. IBM has remaining claims against SCO that allege the Utah company violated contracts, copied and distributed IBM code that had been placed in Linux and that SCO created a campaign of "fear, uncertainty and doubt" about IBM's products and services because of the dispute over Unix code.

User avatar
Steven W
VIP
Posts: 2863
Joined: 2013-08-10 22:40

2015-03-20 01:58 »

I realize that most (maybe all?) of SCO's claims to Linux are dead and that I'm kinda stating the obvious here, but one aspects of all of this that makes the whole thing so ridiculous is that Caldera established its business model around Linux. Don't take my word for it, look at IBM's Exhibit 221, the declaration of Ransom Love, one of Caldera's co-founders and its former CEO :

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php ... 4213326242

III. Caldera Begins to Develop Linux For Business.

16. After Ray Noorda's departure from Novell in 1994, Bryan Sparks and I left Novell to found Caldera, Inc. Contributing to the development of Linux was a vital part of our business plan as a seller of Linux-based products. It gave us credibility with both customers and partner companies.

17. Caldera, Inc. was formed to develop and market software based on the Linux operating system and to provide related services enabling the development, deployment and management of Linux-specialized servers.

18. Caldera, Inc. was the first company to invest heavily in the establishment of Linux as an acceptable business solution.

19. Continuing the work done by Novell on Project Corsair, Caldera, Inc. developed a Linux desktop operating system, which it called "Caldera Network Desktop" and delivered it to market in 1995.

20. Caldera Network Desktop was based on the Linux 1.2.13 kernel and distributed under the GPL.

21. Like other Linux companies, Caldera, Inc. distributed the Linux kernel and many of the other components of its Linux products under the GPL.


Further, I recall SCO running around boo-hooing about all the enterprise features being put in to Linux. Well, look at what the former CEO has to say about some of that. In that declaration under Standardization:

To encourage commercial acceptance of Linux, Caldera, Inc. championed the standardization of Linux. We believed that the biggest deterrent to commercial acceptance of Linux was the resource expenditure by independent software vendors associated with porting their software products to multiple versions of Linux.


To facilitate the porting of Linux to applications written primarily for UNIX-based operating systems, Caldera, Inc. worked to make its Linux products compliant with various UNIX standards, including the X/Open brand for UNIX 95, and the POSIX.1 specification.


In fact, Caldera, Inc. marketed its Linux products as "an inexpensive alternative to UNIX-based systems", and "a complete networking solution" for "small- to medium-sized businesses and enterprises."


Those are just a few salient quotes. It wasn't only Caldera doing this things, at the time they had help from some others:

52. The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. ("Santa Cruz") also supported the standardization movement with regard to Linux. Santa Cruz encouraged adoption of the LSB and saw compliance with standards as vital to the future success and adoption of Linux.

53. In addition to its own support of the LSB, Caldera exhorted all members of the Linux community to support the LSB and Linux standardization in a whitepaper it distributed:

"Linux is at a crossroads, and the path seems clear. All Linux providers must give up some immediate and transitory gains today so that the Linux Standard Base can be allowed to establish unifying software porting standards. A long-term vision of the Linux opportunity should encourage all providers to move toward LSB."

54. In addition to participating in the LSB project, Caldera, Inc. and/or Santa Cruz also participated in the following other community projects directed as creating uniform standards forLinux:

the Linux Professional Institute, an independent organization dedicated to the establishment of professional certification standards for Linux professionals;

the Linux Internationalization Group (a voluntary Linux community working group, which Caldera helped to found, dedicated to addressing interoperability, internationalization and localization of Linux applications in the international context;

the IA64 Linux Project, an Intel-sponsored initiative to port the Linux kernel to the Intel Itanium processor; and

the Open-source Development Lab (the goal of which was to "foster and support the development of additional open-source and Linux enhancements").


Notice the Santa Cruz Operation? If you go back to certain points in time and looking through various Kernel mailing list, you can easily find all sorts of entries/contributions not only from Caldera, but also SCO (which at the time would have been the Santa Cruz Operation).

And all that whining about ELF and a few other things:

XI. SCO Claims About Linux.

110. I understand that SCO alleges infringement with regard to certain header files required by the Open Group's Single Unix Specification ("SUS Material"), header iles associated with the Linux Streams module ("Streams Material"), and files implementing the ELF binary format ("ELF Material") (all collectively, the "Allegedly Infringing Material").

111. The Allegedly Infringing Material has been in Linux since before SCO commenced this lawsuit. All of the SUS Material has all been in Linux since 2000 and some of it has even been in Linux since its inception in 1991. The ELF Material has been in Linux for more than a decade, since version 1.0. And the Streams Material, though never included in the Linux kernel, has been available since at least 1997.

112. We knew the SUS Material and ELF Material was in Linux from the beginning because we advocated the standardization of Linux, and the LSB required compliance with the SUS standard and the ELF format. Caldera's familiarity with the Streams Material dates back to its support of the LiS project, the success of which was vital for our Netware for Linux product.

113. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, all of the files cited by SCO were distributed by SCO in its Linux products or on its website in conjunction with its Linux business. SUS Material, Streams Material, and ELF Material was all included

27
in Caldera's Linux products. The LiS Streams module was available from Caldera's website from the time of its initial announcement in 1997.

114. OpenLinux 3.1.1 itself included SUS Material, Streams Material, and ELF material.

115. Caldera encouraged the inclusion of much of that material. Caldera, even after acquiring Santa Cruz's UNIX assets, was always first and foremost a Linux company dedicated to the promotion and development of Linux. We promoted and marketed Linux because, as a Linux company, our fate rested upon the success or failure of the product upon which we had staked our future.

116. Caldera's activity concerning Linux was purposeful and intended to be taken seriously by others. In my view, our Linux activities at Caldera demonstrate that we intended that they be relied upon...


What were they thinking? That all the activities they participating in and all the pronouncements they made in the past were simply going to disappear?:

http://web.archive.org/web/199902192041 ... rg/86open/

SCO, in that link, again refers to the Santa Cruz Operation. If you pull a later page, you'll see the end result of all the effort put in to that was the ELF format. How stupid did they think everyone else in the world was? Thank God for Groklaw and PJ! Much, much more could be written, but I'll stop here. After all the stuff they tried to pull, I really want to see IBM squash them like a bug.

User avatar
Steven W
VIP
Posts: 2863
Joined: 2013-08-10 22:40

2015-03-20 02:10 »

I said I was gonna stop, but forgot to include one thought. Note that in the Joint Status Report SCO says:

...IBM engaged in a ruse to gain access to
SCO's source code to effect the misappropriation.


Well, some might say that Caldera engaged in a ruse by changing its name to SCO and purporting be the successor in interest to the Santa Cruz Operation and make claims to a contract regarding a joint venture that they were never a part of.

User avatar
Steven W
VIP
Posts: 2863
Joined: 2013-08-10 22:40

2015-04-25 22:43 »

Looking at PACER, the Court's provided IBM and SCO (or whatever the heck they're calling themselves now) with an opportunity to 'apprise the court of relevant case law decided since the pending motions were filed' and to respond to other party's motions. A hearing has been set for June 11.

04/13/2015 1135 NOTICE OF HEARING:

Status Conference set for Thursday, 6/11/2015 at 02:30 PM in Rm 3.100 before Judge David Nuffer. (asb) (Entered: 04/13/2015)

04/15/2015 1136 DOCKET TEXT ORDER No attached document
In their 1134 joint status report, the parties requested the opportunity to apprise the court of relevant case law decided since the pending motions were filed. The movant may file no more than five pages of additional authority on each of its pending motions on or before May 22, 2015, and the non-movant may respond (in no more than five pages as to each motion) on or before June 5, 2015.
According to 1134 , SCO is the movant in 782 , 783 , and 986 , and IBM is the movant in 775 and 776 .
Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 4/15/2015. (mec) (Entered: 04/15/2015)


The odd spacing with the commas and such comes directly out of PACER.

Post Reply