[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.