Smitty wrote:
>SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
>
>Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 04:25 AM EDT
>
> There has been quite a lot of activity in the Red Hat case.
>
>SCO filed a Motion to Dismiss the action in its entirety, as you know, and Red
>Hat filed its answering brief. But since we last reported on this case, Red
>Hat initiated discovery. They asked SCO for documents and for answers to some
>pointed questions. IBM is forcing SCO into a corner in Utah, and Red Hat is
>forcefully and aggressively trying to do the same in Delaware. You'll see, I
>think, that we haven't been wasting our time telling the world the details of
>this story. The big picture is that Red Hat is telling SCO to prove their
>allegations with specificity. They also want all their source code, and I'm
>sure you can figure out what they want to do with it, when I tell you that
>they asked for the complete Linux Kernel Personality source code, among the
>other products for which they have requested source code.
>
>
>They also want to hear some details about the relationship between Canopy and
>SCO, including any stock or intellectual property transfers. They want SCO to
>"identify by title, version, module(s) and line(s)" what they think is
>misappropriated in any way or in violation of any of its rights. They ask for
>the details of Microsoft and Sun's licensing arrangement with SCO. They want
>to know who those 1500 companies were that got the letter, and what happened
>next. They want to know exactly what SCO has filed a copyright on. They want
>all the details of SCOsource, including all the folks who have seen the code
>SCO has been showing under the NDA and what they saw, and any other contact
>with any Linux users about supposed liability. They want to know how they
>compared the UNIX and Linux code to determine infringement. They want to know
>if they've done any comparisons of the two and what the results were. They
>want to know all the stock or industry analysts SCO has met with or talked to
>and what was said. In short, it's like the kind of fantasy a guy might have
>about a bully getting his at last, because they asked them everything we
>wanted somebody to finally ask SCO and make them answer.
>
>
>SCO responded to Red Hat's discovery requests by filing a new motion, and it
>has told the judge, in a Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of
>Motion to Dismiss, it would like a delay until after the first motion, the
>Motion to Dismiss, is ruled on. They surely don't seem in any hurry to get
>this matter resolved. They argue that because they are simultaneously
>providing discovery to IBM (of course IBM says they aren't seeing anything,
>as I recall), they can't possibly do both, and anyway, if they win their
>motion, it'd be moot. In short, they would very much like not to have to do
>this, presumably so that if they win the Motion to Dismiss they can continue
>to refuse to give any particulars about their case. If the judge doesn't
>grant their Motion to Dismiss, they'd like the judge to give them 30 days to
>provide all the discovery items.
>
>
>
>
It is about time that somebody turned up the heat on SCO. Now they
need to take up a little more, from "simmer" to "charbroil". :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:36:25 EDT