Posted on 03/18/2005 10:21:57 AM PST by ShadowAce
In an appeal that will come as a surprise to no one, IBM has asked the Utah district court hearing the SCO case for more time to comply with the court's January 18 order to turn over most of the discovery SCO's been after for almost two years. IBM asked SCO to agree to the extension but SCO wouldn't, IBM says.
The court told IBM to turn the discovery over by today, March 18. IBM wants 45 more days, or until May 3.
IBM complains that it's too big a job to do in the 60 days it was given.
It was told to cough up all the Configuration Management Version Control system (CMVC) and Revision Control System (RCS) data relating to AIX and Dynix (it's fighting the Linux data SCO says was included in the order). IBM has previously estimated it at two billion line of code.
IBM was also told to identify the 3,000 IBM or Sequent people who made the greatest contributions to the source code, derivative works, modification or methods for AIX, Dynix and Linux, specify what exactly their contributions were and go through their files looking the notes and comments they made. IBM's resisting the search calling it an "extraordinary burden" and an order "to compel the impossible, at enormous expense" and has asked the court to reconsider.
IBM told the court that as soon as it got the order - of course it was a second order - it ignored the first one - it started going through and preparing the CMVC and RCS data, which it now admits includes source code, the change history of that source code and programmers' notes and design documents.
It says it also began identifying the fabled 3,000, the changes they made and compiling their contact information.
It says it's been searching "various repositories" and developer files looking for additional white papers, programmer notes, source code and design documents. It says it has involved "hundreds of employees" to assist.
It described the production as unprecedented in its history by the sheer weigh of what it has to riffle through and review. It says it's "simply unable to produce the materials" by March 18.
It points out that its reconsideration motion probably won't be ruled on by March 18 so it wants the court to stay that part of the order until it does rule and claims that SCO's opposition to the unusual reconsideration motion and SCO's interpretation of the order make the stay necessary. It says if it's required to produce Linux materials too, it's going to take "many months of additional work."
Groklaw, the hate-SCO site, which appears to know IBM's mind better than anyone, thinks IBM "is writing for the appeals court."
Hanging its hat on that bit about "hundreds of employees" being dragged in to help, Groklaw claims that "Discovery isn't supposed to shut down your company or inconvenience it to the point that you have hundreds of employees dropping their normal work just to do discovery for months. Discovery isn't supposed to impoverish a company or be so excessive that it becomes a major financial burden." It thinks the court "may try to work out some compromise" and hopes that, if IBM's appeal fails, SCO is made to pay for IBM's discovery expenses. "Then let's see how much discovery SCO still wants done," it says.
Speaking for itself, SCO told the court that IBM hasn't "met the burden of justifying" an extension and that, if the court grants IBM one, it shouldn't be more than two weeks.
SCO reminded the court that it's been trying to get the discovery for more than a year and claimed an extension will be prejudicial to it. It also tried to deflate IBM's allegations that IBM has sought to avoid delay and hang it around IBM's neck as a strategy. It pointed out that IBM has "enormous resources" and that its Bernie Ebbers-like poor, dumb country boy excuse just doesn't ring true and wonders why IBM has changed its tune - IBM previously told the court it thought it could meet the deadline. It said "IBM makes no effort to explain the alleged change in circumstances."
There's also been a flurry of filings that the court asked for - all under seal - related to the SCO and IBM privilege logs - presumably the stuff they really want kept off-limits from prying eyes, and a reply memorandum in support of SCO's motion to compel IBM CEO Sam Palmisano's deposition. Imaginations can run riot over why IBM would want such a thing sealed.
See http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/ibm_hist.html.
Tech Ping!
Yeah. I couldn't bring myself to even start listing them. Even the tone of her writing shows how biased she is.
I'd have expected a less obviously slanted article from LBW. Is O'Gara just trying to piss people off?
LBW is probably the single worst "Linux" site out there. I believe that it's actually a MS site to spread FUD. No proof, of course--it's just my belief.
(it's fighting the Linux data SCO says was included in the order).
And won. Why? Because it wasn't in the order.
of course it was a second order - it ignored the first one
It did? When was this first order? Oh, you mean the earlier order that SCO wished required IBM to do this, just as it wished the latest order required Linux code?
SCO reminded the court that it's been trying to get the discovery for more than a year
[continued for honesty] ...yet was always denied by the court until the latest January order.
Imaginations can run riot over why IBM would want such a thing sealed.
Ah, I see Maureen O'Gara's little plug for her upcoming hearing to unseal all the stuff IBM's apparently been going crazy sealing for no reason. Forgetting, of course, the fact that SCO has sealed more documents than IBM, and that many of IBM's sealed documents are sealed only because they are replies to SCO's sealed documents.
IBM has got the shredders running as fast as they can possibly go ... /SARCASM
Yeah, you got me Bush. That's why I posted this article. 'Cause I can't stand dissension.
Get a grip.
This is yellow journalism far beyond what you see on MSM. She parrots SCO filings and press releases, even when they are gross misrepresentations or factually wrong.
She even brought up the "we've been trying to get this for over a year and IBM hasn't produced" whining. Uh, they haven't produced for over a year because they were never ordered to do so until recently.
Groklaw, the hate-SCO site, which appears to know IBM's mind better than anyone, thinks IBM "is writing for the appeals court."
I like that line. It's actually a pro OSS site, anything negative about SCO on it is only due to SCO's own actions. And, BTW, PJ does seem to know IBM's mind well, as she was right on the mark about IBM pointing out SCO's cheap attempt to expand the discovery order in its filing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.