SCO Asks Court to Add a Copyright Claim Against IBM

Friday, February 06 2004 @ 01:22 AM EST

Contributed by: PJ

According to Stephen Shankland, SCO's motion tells the court they want to add a copyright infringement claim against IBM, in addition to adding affirmative defenses mentioned in the motion. Actually, he reports that they have already added it, but the motion has to be ruled on by the judge before they can add this new claim, if you wish to be accurate, which is hard to do when you've just been talking to SCO, I imagine.

Still, the title of the motion is a big hint. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleadings. "Leave to file" means "pretty please, Your Honor", not "like it or not, here's what we're doing next".

Those of us with a memory recall that SCO told the judge on December 5, at the last hearing, that they would be adding a copyright infringement claim within a week. Instead they waited until the eve of the February 6th hearing, on February 4th -- the last possible day to do so -- to file their motion requesting leave to file the additional claim.

What does that tell you? It tells me that they can't count. Or that maybe they were afraid the judge would sentence them to the electric chair if they didn't come up with something new by the hearing.

Joke, joke.

It tells me they would like to delay.

It is conceivable that they worried that their case might get thrown out today, or at least enough of it to look bad. This way they can say that their case is still alive, no matter what happens at the hearing. By strategically throwing in a motion at the last minute, they at least get a delay, in all likelihood, since it's obvious IBM will have had insufficient time to respond to this motion, let alone the judge. We'll see what happens later today, but it looks like a delay. Another SCO-caused delay. It would surprise me if they are not allowed to add this claim.

Oh, no, wait. I forgot. Didn't they say in the new motion they've been hampered by IBM not having to turn over discovery until SCO finished first? "Moreover, the recent stay of IBM's discovery obligations have [sic] limited SCO's ability to assess the case and fashion and plead defenses to IBM's Counterclaim." If you look at it that way, I guess you could say the delay is the judge's fault. No doubt the judge will enjoy that argument.

Shankland also reports that SCO will be holding a press conference after the hearing tomorrow, which I'm sure surprises you greatly. A press conference? Those shy violets?

Actually, if the judge ever imposed a gag order on SCO, I believe Darl might just explode.

Hmm. . . .

Psst. IBM. Are you sure you've thought of absolutely, positively *everything*?

336 comments



http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040206002205120