Posted on 02/22/2006 10:03:02 AM PST by Salo
Hold on to your hats! IBM has subpoenaed Microsoft! And Sun! At last, we're getting to the core of the matter. We're going to get to find out the whole story. I'd pay for this. No kidding. Feast your eyes on these and don't skip the topics for deposition:
* Plaintiff IBM's Notice of Service of Subpoenas Duces Tecum - yes, plaintiff for the countercharge...oops, I meant counterclaims * Exhibit A - HP's (deposition set for March 15, 9 AM) * Exhibit B - Baystar's (deposition set for March 16, 9 AM) * Exhibit C - Microsoft's (deposition set for March 14, 9 AM) * Exhibit D - Sun's (deposition set for March 7, 9 AM)
If anyone has time to do a plain text of the topics, I'd appreciate the help. What a day.
I love Sun's. Among other things, IBM would like to have them testify about such matters as "restrictions or prohibitions on Sun employees having access to any UNIX product, including, but not limited to, its source code." And they'd like to hear all about all communications between Sun and SCO since June 28, 2002 (isn't that the date Darl joined SCO as CEO?), including any chats about any software licensing agreements and what Darl said to Scott McNealy in May of 2003 regarding SCO's rights to the UNIX operating system and "discussions of business opportunities between SCO and Sun." Oh, and involvement by Sun in the development of Linux.
IBM would like Baystar to hand over documents about any communication between Baystar and Microsoft regarding SCO, IBM or the SCO v IBM litigation and all documents regarding agreements between Baystar and SCO and all documents regarding Baystar's investment in SCO, and all documents concerning Baystar's knowledge of SCO's business". Say, that should be easy for a "pure financial animal".
Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft. Do tell IBM all about any agreements between Microsoft and SCO, and all communications or agreements relating to SCO or this litigation, including all communications between Microsoft and SCO since June 28, 2002, including Darl's communication in May of 2003 "with Steven Ballmer regarding SCO's rights to the UNIX operating system". Oh, and IBM would like to hear about "Microsoft's business strategy regarding Linux", and they'd like to chat about the Caldera antitrust litigation against Microsoft too. Me, too. Me, too. Now about those shredded documents... And finally, they'd like "all communications or agreements relating to SCO or this litigation, including all communications with Baystar, Royal Bank of Canada, and Everyone's Internet, Ltd."
Yoo hoo. PIPE Fairy. Hope you like sunshine.
As for HP, IBM would like to see their contract licensing them to use UNIX. They'd like to know about any restrictions on employees having access to UNIX source code and all documents concerning "any agreements relating to any Hewlett-Packard software product involving Hewlett-Packard and AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz, Tarantella, or SCO." And any documents regarding any open sourcing of any HP UNIX product and all documejnts concerning the origin of any UNIX source code "publicly disclosed or open sourced by Hewlett-Packard." And they would like to see, or hear about, any agreements between SCO and HP. They'd like to know more about the indemnification plan of HP's also. And this is interesting, number 12:
12. All documents concerning any efforts to ensure or maintain the secrecy or confidentiality of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods, including but not limited to: (a) any rule, policy, practice or procedure relating to the confidentiality or secrecy, or lack of confidentiality or secrecy, of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods; any breach of any such rule, policy, practice or procedure; (c) the use by any person of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques,, or methods; and (d) the disclosure or availability of any UNIX source code, know-how, concepts, techniques, or methods to any person.
I begin to think that every question we've had, we will finally get to know the answer.
I see comments indicating that some of you thought discovery was over. Here, from Groklaw's IBM Timeline page, is the schedule:
22-Dec-05 - Final Deadline for Parties to Identify with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material
27-Jan-06 - Close of All Fact Discovery Except As to Defenses to Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material
17-Mar-06 - Close of All Remaining Discovery (i.e., Fact Discovery As to Defenses to Any Claim Relating to Allegedly Misused Material)
As you can see, we're in the part that I've highlighted in red, which is over on March 17. It's all about defenses now. In other words, SCO filed it's list of ha ha allegedly misused material, and now IBM gets to do discovery to establish its defenses. Don't forget the expert witnesses also:
14-Apr-06 - Initial Expert Reports
19-May-06 - Opposing Expert Reports
16-Jun-06 - Rebuttal Expert Reports
10-July-06 - Final Deadline for Expert Discovery
And then, ta da! Dispositive motions.
Whatever, bird brain, I'm sure anarchists like you would like to see both IBM and Microsoft destroyed one day. Not going to happen, this is simply their version of Polo.
No its the proper time for the defendant to respond to the last of the plantiffs claims.. Are you saying the IBM should not have a final chance to respond to SCO discovery less than a month ago?
It *looks* like what everyone said would happen *is* happening:
You loudly claimed from the beginning that SCO's case had merit.
You have been proven wrong.
Now, you claim IBM's case is *without* merit.
I'm guessing you're batting 1000.
I think IBM is PO'd at the MS treated them over Windows95. Now is the time for a little payback.
If it wasn't for IBM Gates would still be crawling in dumpster looking for code to steal!!
There is a saying in Texas:
Next time you teach a critter a lesson in meanness, he may just repay the favor.
I have no pity for Microsoft!!!
You've got it backwards. IBM is defendant in litigation filed by SCO, which got money from Baystar, who got money from Redmond.
IBM is just defending themselves, like they did when Justice came after them.
That's about the size of it. Visual aid:
Picture SCO trying to break into IBM's house by poking at all the doors an windows. Picture Microsoft standing in the yard, egging SCO on. Now picture IBM dropping the house on Microsoft.
Did you use the FTP install or the disc set?
Hot damn....now we are getting somewhere.
your not the only one that is pissed aboyt what MicroS*** did to IBM over OS2,and despit it all OS2 still lives
Yes it does, but only through the efforts of it's users, not IBM. After I saw Warp dying, I went to Linux.
Jack
SCO Xenix, and later SCO Unix, were exremely stable and bullet-proof, if not exactly "standard" Unix.
Mark
Dot every "i"; Cross every "t": IBM never acts as rashly as the bird-brained anarchists who are roaming the planet. :-)
Correction: In revenue, profits, assets, and ethics, IBM is *still* larger than Microsoft.
Well, you actually remember a different SCO. SCO sold their Unix business to Caldera and then changed their name to Tarantella. Caldera then took the name SCO for name recognition purposes.
The SCO of today is in no way related to the SCO you remember.
Is that good news? :)
, Well it's not dead yet!! I am using it right now, OS was OEM to a company out of Texas called SSI. SSI had to rebrnad it, OS2 is now called Ecomstation,new installer, MM etc. Now being redone is the networking.
I am sure that is a large part of it, still nice to see old Billy is going to take it in the shorts
Which is my point exactly!!
MSDOS wasn't written by Microsoft, it was a ripoff copy of CP/M. Gates bought it from Tim Patterson, he knew what it was and were it came from.
As far as MS's Basic Language tools, Gates stole that from Harvard.
So I will repeat what I said 'If it wasn't for IBM Gates would still be crawling in dumpsters looking for code to steal!!'
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.