Exhibit 2 - IBM'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 05:41 AM EST

Contributed by: PJ

Here are IBM's Objections and Responses to Requests for Admissions. SCO asked IBM to admit up front that AIX and Dynix are derivative works of System V. Given SCO's unique definition of "derivative work", IBM naturally said no. Prove your theory.

Note the new attorneys listed at the end (Leonard K. Samuels, Esq. and Fred O. Goldberg, Esq. of Berger, Singerman, which are names I don't recall) and Amy Sorenson is now listed at the beginning with Snell & Wilmer.

The PDF is here: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Doc-101-2.pdf

********************************************************************

SNELL & WILMER LLP
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
[address, phone, fax]

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Couterclaim-Plaintiff.

DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM-
PLAINTIFF IBM'S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO SCO'S
FIRST REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS

Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM"),
by its undersigned attorneys, hereby responds and objects to Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant
SCO's First Request for Admissions as follows:


OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
---------------------------------------------------

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: AIX is a derivative work of Unix System V.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: IBM objects to this request
for admission on the grounds that it fails to define the terms "AIX", "derivative work" or "Unix
System V". There is more than one potential meaning of these terms, at least in the context of
this case, and IBM's response to this request may differ based upon the applicable definition.
There is, for example, more than one version and/or release of both AIX and Unix System V. To
the extent a response is required pending SCO's definition of these terms, IBM denies this
request for admission.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Dynix is a derivative work of Unix System V.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: IBM objects to this request
for admission on the grounds that it fails to define the terms "Dynix", "derivative work" or
"Unix System V". There is more than one potential meaning of these terms, at least in the
context of this case, and IBM's response to this request may differ based upon the applicable
definition. There is, for example, more than one version and/or release of both Dynix and Unix
System V. To the extent a response is required pending SCO's definition of these terms, IBM
denies this request for admission.

DATED this 3rd day of November, 2003.

SNELL & WILMER LLP

________________________________ [signature here]
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy
Amy F. Sorenson

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott

Counsel for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation




Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
[address, phone, fax]

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Couterclaim-Plaintiff.

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Couterclaim-Plaintiff.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF
DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM-
PLAINTIFF IBM'S RESPONSES AND
OBJECTIONS TO SCO'S FIRST
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

Civil No. 2:03cv0294

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of November, 2003, a true and correct copy of
DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF IBM'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
SCO'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS was hand delivered to the following:

11-3-03 [hand-written on bottom of page 3]

Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]

and sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following:

David Boies
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
Stephen N. Zack

Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

Leonard K. Samuels, Esq.
Fred O. Goldberg, Esq.
BERGER SINGERMAN
[address]


SNELL & WILMER LLP

________________________________ [signature here]
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy
Amy F. Sorenson

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott

Counsel for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International
Business Machines Corporation

96 comments



http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040207054109338