SCO asks for at least another three months to meet court order

PC Pro ^ | 1/15/04 | Mattt Whipp

[PAR35]

'Like showing up on the day of the final exam and saying you didn't have time to read the book yet'

In SCO's response to a court order that it provide evidence to IBM on which it can build its defence, it asked for a further 90 days to fully comply - a request that may meet with a cool reception when the two parties meet in court later this month.

The order to compel discovery granted to IBM 12 December last year meant SCO had to provide the documentation IBM requested within 30 days and to the court's satisfaction.

While SCO claims to have produced 'all non-privileged responsive documents' and responded 'fully and in detail' to IBM's Interrogatories in the response filed yesterday, it attached a declaration in which SCO's General Counsel, Ryan E. Tibbitts, asked for at least further three months to produce the outstanding documentation.

He writes: 'It is expected that SCO and its engineers and consultants will be able to provide further answers to IBM's interrogatories within 90 days after the delivery of the missing versions of software and accompanying documentation and programmer notes related to the requested source code.'

The reason he gave is that many of the directors and officers were away over the Christmas period, making it difficult to collate all the material.

[PAR35]

For those following the ongoing litigation.

[dighton]

"Away over the Christmas period" alert.

[stylin_geek]

Unbelievable. SCO is going to fold, their bluff has been called. SCO should have been ready for this a while ago.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ROFL!!!!

[Question_Assumptions]

Either they can point to illegal copyright infringement or they can't. If they can't, then what are they in court about?

[KarlInOhio]

Either they can point to illegal copyright infringement or they can't. If they can't, then what are they in court about?

I think they were hoping that IBM would just buy SCO to make the problem go away. Oops.

[blowfish]

>The reason he gave is that many of the directors and officers were away over the Christmas period, making it difficult to collate all the material.

Yeah, and his dog ate the evidence. No wait, he lost on the way to the courthouse. No wait, his sister stole it.

What a bunch of morons...

[Some hope remaining.]

Clearly, whenever someone takes a week or two off for Christmas it takes 3 months to do the work you might have done during that time. For the sake of American productivity we've got to cancel Christmas.

[Cicero]

Could be that they hoped to get paid off for making a deal, but they were too greedy and held out for too much.

[freedomcrusader]

I think they were hoping that IBM would just buy SCO to make the problem go away.

If so, it's a funny way to go about it. When I am seeking favorable treatment from someone, the thought of suing them rarely if ever enters my mind.

[PAR35]

Either they can point to illegal copyright infringement or they can't.

My understanding of their strategy is that they want to see everything that IBM has, and they hope that if they go through it closely enough, they can find some combination of words that they can argue constitute copyright infringement.

Note to SCO's lawyers - when you read this, if you do not agree with what I have written, please post any corrections or clarifications so I can have a clearer understanding.

[Boundless]

Official fan site for the saga:
http://www.groklaw.net/
(appears to be swamped at the moment).

'It is expected that SCO and its engineers and consultants will be able to provide further answers to IBM's interrogatories within 90 days after the delivery of the missing versions of software and accompanying documentation and programmer notes related to the requested source code.'

Except that this is precisely what SCO was told they couldn't have until they backed up their original claims with specificity.

And IBM's motion was granted on the 5th, but SCO evidently did nothing until it was signed on the 12th. And the General Counsel couldn't reach Directors over Christmas? Right. Sure.

[etcetera]

"For those following the ongoing litigation."

Thanks for posting! We just got a new Dell server at work that runs Red Hat. It was my decision to go with Linux so I'm real interested in this litigation.

[ColdSteelTalon]

Sniff sniff snifff..... Smells like.... like.... SCO has no case.

[Montfort]

If they come up with really weak evidence, it would serve them, right for the judge to order them to pay IBM's legal fees. Frivoulous suit.

[agarrett]

bump

[PAR35]

Except that this is precisely what SCO was told they couldn't have until they backed up their original claims with specificity.

That's the way I read this article at first, but upon reflection, I couldn't really tell if they were saying that, or if they were saying that they needed to get missing versions of their own software and documentation from their directors.

[PAR35]

We just got a new Dell server at work that runs Red Hat.

SCO will be happy to sell you a license so you can use it.

If you don't want to pay them, then I'll sell you a license so you won't have to ever worry about me filing an infringment claim.

Of course, I've never had anything to do with writing computer programs (except a few things I wrote in BASIC when I was young and you put them on punch cards), so my license will be a lot cheaper.

[taxcontrol]

If I were the judge, I would ORDER IBM to not supply any further information until I said so.

I would then grant a 30 day extension to SCO with the statement that the trial would proceed based upon the information provided at that time and no further updates from SCO would be permitted.

I would further tell SCO that if no meaningful information was provided during the 30 day extension, the case would be dismissed - with extream prejudice.

[cc2k]

From the article:

---

Additionally, SCO wants IBM to hand over code and other source material that would enable it to confirm its beliefs 'that parts of Linux have almost certainly been copied or derived from AIX or Dynix/ptx,' and that the engineers involved had 'experience and knowledge of the methods, sequence and structures' of AIX or Dynix/ptx when 'programming the actual Linux modules in question'.

---

Didn't the judge already tell them that IBM doesn't have to do that until they answer, with specificity, exactly which code they think IBM "misappropriated"?

Once they make their claim, I'm sure the judge will see to it that IBM delivers the appropriate code from AIX and/or Dynix to compare. I doubt SCO will get all of the code IBM developed for AIX. SCO doesn't own or have any claims on a lot of the AIX code that IBM wrote. Same for Sequent's (now IBM) Dynix.