Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
The SCO Group last week sought to stop a summary judgment filed by IBM by submitting written arguments that claim IBM has mischaracterized the lawsuit and failed to provide relevant information to the company. If IBM is successful in gaining a summary judgment, the case would essentially see a quick end. SCO is seeking to keep the court from such a ruling by claiming that it has acted in good faith and deserves the chance to present its case. IBM also has asked the court for a declaratory judgment on whether the company violated SCO's copyright.
IBM's compliance, SCOG's compliance
Posted by: ThomasFrayne 2004-07-13 09:33:24 In reply to: Elizabeth Millard
At the same time as SCOG was complaining about IBM's failure to produce discovery documents and bragging about SCOG's good faith in complying with two court orders to answer IBM's discovery questions, SCOG was filing other court documents that imply that SCOG, in bad faith, failed to comply with those same court orders.
..
In SCOG's motion to compel IBM to submit addition discovery documents, SCOG misquoted the March 3 court order, claiming that the judge had ordered IBM to "fully" answer SCOG's discovery request when the order contained no such language. The judge has said that no further discovery will be ordered until the current order has been complied with, and facts discovered by the current discovery justify looking further. I think that IBM will be able to show that it fully complied with the court order, and that SCOG did not.
..
In SCO's court document 193, MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS TENTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, SCOG's item 13 of Disputed Facts states: "Moreover, SCO has identified evidence of literal and non-literal copying of material from UNIX into Linux." It refers to Harrup Decl. ¶ 72; Gupta Decl. ¶ 3.
..
If SCOG shows where this evidence is found at the required level of detail in its April 19 response, it would go a long way toward showing that SCOG complied with the court orders in good faith. Conversely, if SCOG knew about this evidence before April 19 and cannot point to where it provided an adequate response to the court order for the identified evidence, that will go a long way toward showing that SCOG acted in bad faith.
IBM claims that SCOG has yet to provide the court-ordered information for the first case of code in Linux that SCOG claims was copied from SCOG's UNIX (SysV). If IBM is right, that implies that SCOG has not complied with the court orders with respect to the evidence it cited. If SCOG cannot supply a valid reason for this non-compliance, it acted in bad faith.
..
Meanwhile, while dismissing the Novell case and giving SCOG until July 9 to re-file, the judge commented that it was not clear that SCOG owned the copyrights that are the subject of both cases. SCOG did refile by July 9, so Novell will have an opportunity to move for the summary judgment that the judge hinted at.
..
In SCOG's motion to compel IBM to submit addition discovery documents, SCOG misquoted the March 3 court order, claiming that the judge had ordered IBM to "fully" answer SCOG's discovery request when the order contained no such language. The judge has said that no further discovery will be ordered until the current order has been complied with, and facts discovered by the current discovery justify looking further. I think that IBM will be able to show that it fully complied with the court order, and that SCOG did not.
..
In SCO's court document 193, MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS TENTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, SCOG's item 13 of Disputed Facts states: "Moreover, SCO has identified evidence of literal and non-literal copying of material from UNIX into Linux." It refers to Harrup Decl. ¶ 72; Gupta Decl. ¶ 3.
..
If SCOG shows where this evidence is found at the required level of detail in its April 19 response, it would go a long way toward showing that SCOG complied with the court orders in good faith. Conversely, if SCOG knew about this evidence before April 19 and cannot point to where it provided an adequate response to the court order for the identified evidence, that will go a long way toward showing that SCOG acted in bad faith.
IBM claims that SCOG has yet to provide the court-ordered information for the first case of code in Linux that SCOG claims was copied from SCOG's UNIX (SysV). If IBM is right, that implies that SCOG has not complied with the court orders with respect to the evidence it cited. If SCOG cannot supply a valid reason for this non-compliance, it acted in bad faith.
..
Meanwhile, while dismissing the Novell case and giving SCOG until July 9 to re-file, the judge commented that it was not clear that SCOG owned the copyrights that are the subject of both cases. SCOG did refile by July 9, so Novell will have an opportunity to move for the summary judgment that the judge hinted at.
Re: SCO Seeks To Stop Summary Judgment
Posted by: redwoodmantom 2004-07-12 16:33:51 In reply to: Elizabeth Millard
This site is really amazing. You mention nothing of the fact that as of right this moment IBM has fulfilled every obligation of discovery levied on it by the court. SCO the party which still hasn't done so and even used an excuse equivalent to "Christmas ate my homework". If this is the tone of this site, and objectivity is not to be used when facts and actual court documents and transcripts are readily available, then I will remove myself from this site and let others know just how it is operated.
Thomas F. Williams
President
StrongTower Solutions, Inc.
Thomas F. Williams
President
StrongTower Solutions, Inc.
