SCO denied motion to change IBM case again

Computer Business Review Online ^ | 5 July 2005 | Matthew Aslett

[ShadowAce]

[flashbunny]

how many more times can sco be slapped down and still be taken seriously?

[antiRepublicrat]

before the close of fact discovery on January 27, 2006, and any other discovery matters on March 17, 2006.

One of these dates is going to be when IBM re-files its motions for summary judgement, likely to have them granted. The judge previously recognized their merit, and definitely was inclined to grant them, but told IBM to refile after discovery.

[ShadowAce]

Still? Were they ever? :) Perhaps by some, but never by me.

[flashbunny]

well, some on this board did. I wonder if they still do...

Btw, where is bush200 and GoldenEagle???

[ShadowAce]

They've been pinged. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to admit they were wrong, though.

[N3WBI3]

Theyll hop on and try to change the subject..

[TWohlford]

"before the close of fact discovery on January 27, 2006, and any other discovery matters on March 17, 2006."

[sarcasm = on]

This is a victory for SCO.

IBM's plans all along were to run SCO's legal team ragged in a prolonged court case. SCO's pockets aren't nearly as deep as IBM's, plus SCO is also in legal battles with Novell ($1.2 billion in cash reserves), Chrysler and AutoZone.

The reason it's a victory for SCO is that they've "only" got 9 more months of discovery before the trial begins. Who knows, this thing might be decided by the time Longhorn really does come out?

[sarcasm=off]

[antiRepublicrat]

They'll harp on the one tiny victory given to SCO in the order, which is allowing them a short (much shorter than SCO desired) deposition of IBM's CEO.

[Bush2000]

Who was wrong? IBM never denied adding code from non-Intel SysV-4 to Linux. Rather, they sought to narrow the scope of SCO's complaints on a *technicality*:

SCO had claimed the terms of the Monterey agreement only gave IBM access to Unix System V Release 4 code for Intel-based processors, but Judge Kimball was unmoved by its argument. "It appears that SCO - or its predecessor - either knew or should have known about the conduct at issue before it filed its original complaint," he wrote.

You guys don't give a rat's ass about the truth -- and whether IBM screwed SCO. Weasels, pure and simple.

[N3WBI3]

Actually I am of the opinion that IBM did not screw sco, if they did, which has not been demonstrated I would be all for a punch in the gut to IBM. If you have it **PLEASE PROVIDE OBJECTIVE PROOF (lord knows sco could use it)** let us know what proof you have of IBM's violation.

I find it more than funny that you'll give MS a pass when they have been convicted of crap because in your opinion is was ten years ago so whats the big deal. At the same time you'll ride IBM when SCO is getting smacked around in court by almost everyone they have sued of late.

SCO is the one who has constantly sought to broaden the scope of this case, because they have yet to prove the initial claim (that IBM put SCO IP into Linux).

[ShadowAce]

IBM never denied adding code from non-Intel SysV-4 to Linux.

They've never needed to. The charge is ludicrous on its face. Linux code is wide open for all to see. The ONLY thing SCO needs to do is show some of that code to Judge Kimball, and it's a slam dunk case.

Yet here we are--2 years later and what is happening? SCO is getting its butt handed to it in court.

You still refuse to see (or admit to) that simple truth. Who's the weasel?

[Bush2000]

Actually I am of the opinion that IBM did not screw sco, if they did, which has not been demonstrated I would be all for a punch in the gut to IBM. If you have it **PLEASE PROVIDE OBJECTIVE PROOF (lord knows sco could use it)** let us know what proof you have of IBM's violation.

We're not going to see proof because Kimball denied SCO's motion to expand its complaint to cover code from non-x86 re SysV-Ver4.

[Bush2000]

The ONLY thing SCO needs to do is show some of that code to Judge Kimball, and it's a slam dunk case.

Clue phone: Kimball didn't permit SCO to amend its complaint to include the infringing code.

[kpp_kpp]

you're joking right?

how long have they had now since they opened this "go fish" case?

the "evidence" should have been available when the case was filed... or worst case, after the first discovery.

[Bush2000]

you're joking right? how long have they had now since they opened this "go fish" case? the "evidence" should have been available when the case was filed... or worst case, after the first discovery.

SCO wasn't fully aware of IBM's use of non-x86 SysV-r4 code until well into discovery. Now, the judge wants to penalize SCO for not filing this with its original complaint. It will be overturned on appeal.

[Golden Eagle]

Wrong about what? I don't think IBM has a contract granting rights to use SCO code on Power processors, whether the judge allows it into this case or not.

http://www.forbes.com/enterprisetech/2004/08/04/cz_dl_0804sco.html

[N3WBI3]

So in otherwords youre jumping all over IBM with no objective proof..

We're not going to see proof because Kimball denied SCO's motion to expand its complaint to cover code from non-x86 re SysV-Ver4.

THe origional claim had nothing to do with non-x86. it was all about IBM moving sco IP to Linux. If SCO wants to go fishing they should get a permit and find a lake like everyone else..

[N3WBI3]

SCO wasn't fully aware of IBM's use of non-x86 SysV-r4 code until well into discovery. Now, the judge wants to penalize SCO for not filing this with its original complaint. It will be overturned on appeal.

So what IBMS executive may be keying cars in the SCO parking lot as we speak, he could have robbed darls house and ran over his dog... should we just lump that into another discovery as well.

SCO claimed they had rock solid proof that IBM moved their IP into linux in violation of a contract... it turns out (two discoveries later) that they need to look at more stuff to prove what they said they already had proof of..