When you want to know more
but don't know where to look.

IANAL. I am a journalist with a paralegal background,
so if you have a legal problem and want advice,
please hire an attorney.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Amazon Honor  System Click  Here to Pay Learn More Dictionary

Best News Site

2004 TechWeb Network Readers Choice Award
Best Independent Tech Blog

2004 Linux Journal Editors' Choice Award
Best Nontechnical or Community Website

2003 Editor's Choice Winner
Best News Site

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
What's New

5 stories in last 48 hours

COMMENTS last 48 hrs

Dec. 9 Hearing in SCO v. IB... [+31]
DC's Opposition to SCO's Mo... [+144]
Sun's Proposed CDDL License... [+81]
Supplemental Declaration of... [+115]
Declaration of Edward Norma... [+15]
Two Journalists Don't Under... [+2]
Declarations of Jeremy Evan... [+29]
SCO's Memo in Opposition to... [+8]
USL - We Distributed UNIX 3...
Ballmer Cartoon by Howard T... [+7]
Lots of Activity in SCO v. ...
First Reactions to Groklaw'...



hosted by ibiblio

Webmaster: MathFox

Dec. 9 Hearing in SCO v. IBM Off the Schedule
Monday, December 06 2004 @ 05:58 PM EST

Just to let you know that the scheduled hearing in SCO v. IBM set for December 9 is no longer on the calendar for that day and has not yet been rescheduled. I gather the 56(f) Motion that SCO filed at the very last minute has had what I presume was its desired effect, a delay, so that the motion can be fully briefed first.

This is the big hearing, on IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on 8th Counterclaim (Copyright Infringement), the one about the GPL, and IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims. SCO claims it needs to pursue its fantasy about IBM "hacking" its website before it can possibly argue these motions before the judge, don't you know, and do a bunch of other depositions it didn't do right the first time, and things like that.

Here's hoping Judge Kimball and Judge Wells read the fascinating document DaimlerChrysler recently filed in Michigan, in which it alleged SCO was attempting to game the system by seeking, unsuccessfully, a delay in *that* case.

As I recall, SCO filed a last minute motion just before the last SCO v. IBM hearing too. This could get old fast.

Here's the Pacer entry on what was originally scheduled, just so you can keep it all straight:

262-2 Filed: 08/27/04; Entered: 08/27/04

Docket Text: Notice of Hearing filed : Motion hearing set for 2:30 12/9/04 for [233-1] motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaim for copyright infringement (eighth counterclaim), set for 2:30 12/9/04 for [225-1] motion for partial summary judgment on Breach of Contract Claims. (Oral Argument Requested) To be held before Judge Kimball cc:atty ( Ntc generated by: KJ)


Dec. 9 Hearing in SCO v. IBM Off the Schedule | 31 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Go HERE
Authored by: Weeble on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:27 PM EST
You know the drill.

On The Trailing Edge of Technology Since 1987.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-Topic Threads Go HERE
Authored by: Weeble on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:32 PM EST
Suggestion (from me, not the management); please prefix your subject line with
"OT:" so we can keep up with what's supposed to be on topic and what's

Suggestion (from the management-see "Important Stuff"); "Use a
clear subject that describes what your message is about." In other words,
PLEASE change the subject line so we know what YOU are wanting to say. Thanks.

On The Trailing Edge of Technology Since 1987.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Links Go HERE
Authored by: Weeble on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:36 PM EST
Please post your link in an HTML Formatted message, using this format for the

<a href="">Here Be Da Link</a>.

On The Trailing Edge of Technology Since 1987.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Major Disappointment ...
Authored by: AntiFUD on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:38 PM EST
Well I guess this is rather boring, to put it mildly. Although I was really
looking forward to having something to celebrate over the holidays, I guess that
it is hardly surprising - especially since we haven't gotten a ruling on CC10

IANAL - But IAAAMotFSF - Free to Fight FUD

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dec. 9 Hearing in SCO v. IBM Off the Schedule
Authored by: sef on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:55 PM EST

Patience is one thing. This is embarassing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Baseball anyone? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 07:54 PM EST
Dec. 9 Hearing in SCO v. IBM Off the Schedule
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 07:10 PM EST
This has been obvious for quite some time. The new briefing schedule for these motions had SCO answering on Nov 23 (delayed only until Nov 30) and IBM replying on Jan 14 2005 See this PDF on

So, since that stipulation and order on October 13, the Dec 9 hearing has been clearly impossible. The fact that it has been removed from the schedule only now has absolutely nothing to do with SCO's recently 56(f) filing.

Thad Beier

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reasonable inference?
Authored by: hardcode57 on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 07:49 PM EST
The Judge seems to be bending over backwards not to rule against SCO on the
procedural stuff. Can we infer from that that that he expects SCO to be the ones
who feel the need to appeal his judgement on the substantive issues?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did you ACTUALLY expect the liars to do otherwise?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 07:57 PM EST
The unmitigated gall of these thieves is amazing.

Here's hoping Judge Kimball looks at the DCC filing, sees how his court was
misrepresented at that hearing, and slams the window on SCO and their fishing
expeditions, lying trips, and contemptuous behaviour in general.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An interesting conjecture?
Authored by: tgf on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 08:29 PM EST
Well, I think all these shenanigans by The SCO Group in Utah and Michigan inter alia, are just nothing but delay, delay and more delay. It is now becoming rather obvious that the SCOundrels just appear to be spinning things out for no other reason than to prolong the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt over using Linux. Moreover, it is also rather transparent that they are merely spreading this FUD on behalf of their FUDmeisters in chief.

Jim Reiter wrote this interesting comment over the weekend, in which he says:

IMHO this whole matter was a set up from the start. The intent was for Caldera to pirate Unix/Linux. This is what I do not think anyone has ever seen before. Caldera's acquisition of the Santa Cruz operations, Inc. had no other purpose then to steal Unix/Linux.

He was referring to the Agreement and Plan of Reorganization between Caldera and Santa Cruz Operation 2000 which we discussed here on GrokLaw in February and which I know I only read some of the comments at the time and probably only skimmed the main article. From what I can see, the points in favour of this supposition would be:

  • We know that Microsoft were already very nervous about Linux from the Halloween Documents.
  • They needed an "independent" company to do the dirty work for them, due to the anti-trust investigations.
  • Their past connections with The Santa Cruz Operation (think Xenix) would have ruled them out as a candidate.
  • Caldera's unusual tendency towards "per-seat" licensing la Microsoft.
  • The aforementioned Agreement may have been deliberately constructed to obfuscate a weird transaction.
Taking off my tin-foil hat, however, I am rather sceptical of this theory, because:
  • The contemporary press releases indicate that Caldera genuinely wished to integrate Unix and Linux, rather than subvert them.
  • The IT world was rather different four years ago; it may be easy to misread things in hindsight that were normal at the time.
  • It took some two years [delay] before we begin to see any change in direction, with the appointment of Darl in August 2002.
  • There is little evidence of any connection between Microsoft and Caldera [The SCO Group] during those two years.

At this point, I have to admit that most of my knowledge in this area is as a result of investigations over the last year and a half. I had been working for many years on ICL VME mainframes, and we had Novell Netware, Perfect Office and my colleagues were writing Delphi fat clients or otherwise avoiding Microsoft solutions. I was already sceptical about the quality of Microsoft products due to frequency of BSODs on my NT4 workstation, as well as reports from others at work (perhaps I should have paid more attention to the DoJ vs Microsoft case at the time). With the ICL mainframe due to go out of the door (eventually replaced by a SUN E10k), I decided to reorient my career into a Linux / Unix environment. Then suddenly, after about a year, I found that Linux was threatened by this phoney litigation, so I set about investigating.

I do believe that The SCO Group is now Microsoft's poster child, and has been for a couple of years or so, but I find it a little hard to believe that they were so back in August 2000. Perhaps others, who were more familiar with Linux and Unix at the time may, be in a better position to comment.


Oxymoron of the day:
Microsoft innovation

[ Reply to This | # ]