Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IBM Subpoenas HP, Baystar, Sun & Microsoft

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the send-us-your-dirty-laudry dept.

196

nicolaiplum writes "CNet is reporting that IBM is sending subpoenas to HP, Baystar, Sun and Microsoft requiring them to disclose most of their dealings with SCO over UNIX licensing and litigation." From the article: "The subpoenas demand that Microsoft, HP, Sun and BayStar hand over a range of information, including details of their dealings with SCO, by March 7. They will also have to appear in court later in March to give depositions." Groklaw also has links to each of the subpoenas.

cancel ×

196 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Don't have to appear in court (5, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779342)

The reporter got that aspect wrong. Read the original documents and it becomes clear that the recipients are "commanded" to appear in various lawyers' offices.

Re:Don't have to appear in court (3, Interesting)

Phantom100 (216058) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779620)

That's not the only thing they got wrong. The subheading in the article refers to "IBM's version of Linux". Unless, IBM has done something new, there isn't any such thing.

Re:Don't have to appear in court (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779793)

SURE THERE IS!!! EVERYONE knows that Unix is a Linux derivative!! Thats why IBM is sueing SCO over stealing the source code to their closed source proprietary operating system.

Re:Don't have to appear in court (3, Insightful)

hayden (9724) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779948)

... "commanded" to appear in various lawyers' offices.
At which point they will be "commanded" to bend over and grab their ankles for IBM. Suddenly secretely supporting a company to launch a bullshit attack on a competitor doesn't seem so funny. And also picking a legal fight with the company that tied up the Justice Department with so much legal bullshit they gave up on their antitrust suit probably wasn't the best idea either.

Re:Don't have to appear in court (-1, Troll)

menkhaura (103150) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780157)

You nerd.

In other news..... (5, Funny)

Salo2112 (628590) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779351)

the entire supply of Immodium for the state of Utah is missing.

Re:In other news..... (4, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779506)

> In other news...
> the entire supply of Immodium for the state of Utah is missing.

Immodium AD: When you're know you're full of shit, and you desperately, desperately, want to keep it that way.

Re:In other news..... (0)

Eccles (932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779700)

Unless you want to go to brown alert...

Re:In other news..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779812)

> Unless you want to go to brown alert...

You were saying? [yahoo.com]

Re:In other news..... (1)

Lost Penguin (636359) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779908)

It was really Illudium; Used for Explosive Space Modulators, and blacking the sky over Lindon

a well-known fact. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779362)

Microsoft bought thousands of SCO licenses [google.com] in an effort to undermine Linux -- not as a way of giving credibility to any of SCO's claims, but rather as a way to fund SCO's FUD campaign, in what amounts to a cash donation!

If anything should be subpoena'd its Microsoft's internal documents giving a risk/benefit analysis of making a cash donation to SCO in the form of to-Microsoft useless Linux licenses.

Re:a well-known fact. (2, Insightful)

techfury90 (806273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779408)

Maybe they bought them for their System V based product known as Services for Unix (also built into Windows Server 2003 R2)?

Re:a well-known fact. (1)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779487)

They probably need to get some other discovery from Microsoft to document the existence of such analyses and a basis for why they need such information.

Re:a well-known fact. (5, Interesting)

Aim Here (765712) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779640)

Well that's not the only reason IBM is calling Microsoft to the stand.

IBM wants everything Microsoft has on the SCO/Linux battle partly because SCO CEO Darl Mcbride was emailing Microsoft regularly over something that's not quite public yet, immediately prior to the lawsuit, and also IBM needs everything Microsoft has relating to Unix because SCO gave M$ and Sun a clean bill of health as regards Unix. IBM might be trying to compare it's practices relating to the Unix code base against those of Microsoft and Sun in order to show that it was at least as compliant as those two.

Re:a well-known fact. (1)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780223)

How do we know that Darl was emailing MS regularly? I mean, that is kind of hard and I would think they have a good security system. Not to mention, Bill and Darl could be friends or have some other legitimate relationship - like business partners.

Re:a well-known fact. (2, Insightful)

dracocat (554744) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780679)

Perhaps he also e-mailed g$$gle or $ony or kri$py kreme.

I can't wait for the next slashdot version where I can give minus points to comments containing keywords. The first on my list will be M$ and micro$oft.

Re:a well-known fact. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780812)

SCO CEO Darl Mcbride was emailing Microsoft regularly over something that's not quite public yet

These were probably on the same server as the burst.com e-mails.

Re:a well-known fact. (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779988)

From the third hit on that search, I get the following:

"Microsoft was also one of the first companies to buy into SCO's licensing program, taking two licenses from SCO worth more than $12 million, according to sources close to SCO."

Not exactly thousands, and while it's a lot of money, it's a tiny drop in the ocean for MS. They also do have Unix products (eg Services for Unix), so perhaps they were just covering their arses for that? They're probably getting pretty sick of being sued...

Re:a well-known fact. (1)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780178)

While we all hate SCO, and most of you guys hate MS - I am pretty sure there is no legal precedent restricting one company from making a donation to another legal company. Even if in their internal documents you find "We are giving SCO money so they can sue Linux" the worst you will have is some bad PR towards MS. There is nothing illegal about it - hence nobody is goign to subpoena it.

Well actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14780247)

Normally there would be nothing illegal about it, but remember that Microsoft has been cited for antitrust violations, and that they are under review. Couldn't this kind of behavior get them into trouble?

Re:a well-known fact. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14780279)

There is nothing illegal about it

There is if the company doing the giving is a monopoly, and they're doing it to finance a suit against their competition.

Re:a well-known fact. (3, Informative)

Anonym0us Cow Herd (231084) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780551)

It is illegal to use anti-competitive acts to maintain or extend a monopoly. Microsoft has been found to have a monopoly.

Re:a well-known fact. (3, Informative)

sepluv (641107) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780713)

Yes, but if TSG didn't provide them with anything in return (especially if TSG's only business at the time was lawsuits) then Microsoft (like anyone who donates towards a lawsuit) has to pay the costs and damages awarded to IBM, Redhat et al if^Wwhen TSG loses if^Wwhen TSG goes bankrupt.

Also, depending on the local laws, MS and TSG may be prosecuted for maintenance (the supporting of a litigant by a third party that enables the litigant to carry on a claim when they otherwise would be unable to and/or where the third party does not have a bona fide interest in the suit), barratry (inciting a third party to take out groundless or repeated claims against other third parties), or champerty (maintenance with the hope of profit for yourself). Even in states where these are not unlawful, doing them clandestinely may be.

Oh...and don't forget that MS is probably in contempt of the court's anti-trust ruling in DOJ v. MS...oh...and that the SEC were investigating possible offences of money laundering between MS, the Royal Bank of Canada and TSG.

Turn about is fair play (4, Interesting)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779367)

If you buy in to the theory that MSFT funded the SCO follies in part because they wanted to slow the adoption of Linux in light of the delay in fielding Vista, then it's only sweet that IBM would be dropping on Redmond in time for MSFT's dirty laundry to get a good airing in court before the big roll out this fall.

Talk about a turd in the punch bowl. Hehe.

Re:Turn about is fair play (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779420)

things could get interesting if there ends up being an injunction delaying the release of vista.

Re:Turn about is fair play (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779455)

If you buy in to the theory that MSFT funded the SCO follies in part because they wanted to slow the adoption of Linux in light of the delay in fielding Vista, then it's only sweet that IBM would be dropping on Redmond in time for MSFT's dirty laundry to get a good airing in court before the big roll out this fall.
You know of course that the good folks at Microsoft are busy shredding and deleting incriminating documents right now, while their landsharks are divided into two teams, one in closed door meetings to come up with some pausable execuses and the other laying out plans to stall the legal preceedings.

Re:Turn about is fair play (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780132)

The anti-trust trial in no way hindered the rollout of Windows 98.

Re:Turn about is fair play (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780683)

There is a very real possiblity they are setting up to sue MS. If they get cleared of the SCO case and if they can prove that MS used SCO to impede IBM then they can get huge bucks both from Sun and MS. MS would definately rather settle then go to court.

Re:Turn about is fair play (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14780726)

MS would definitely rather settle than go to court.

SCO and IBM are both the bad guys (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779379)

and despite their hype on linux, less than 1 percent of IBM's servers ship with it.

Re:SCO and IBM are both the bad guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779404)

IBM is a bad guy because they don't ship all their servers with Linux on it? I don't get your reasoning here.

Re:SCO and IBM are both the bad guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779596)

Well, less than 1% of all Microsoft sales are linux so they're worse. Take that Redmond AC!

Obviously, you've never heard of a Blue Gene . . . (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779862)

Y'know, the fastest supercomputer on earth, invented and manufactured by IBM?

Comes with SuSE. I'm a contractor at IBM's Rochester facility; guess what I get to play with all day?

BTW, since IBM manufactures POWER architecture machines, doesn't it make more sense for IBM to trundle their AIX product with the servers? From a support standpoint, it makes perfect sense. However, we do provide support for LINUX on POWER architecture here. LINUX is freely downloadable, AIX isn't. If we provided LINUX with servers, that's all the choice a customer would have. By providing AIX, we give our customers more choices.

And remember, unlike certain OTHER OS products coming on the market (no names, but the initials are Microsoft Vista), there will be no attempt to lock users into the OS which ships with POWER architecture hardware.

Think twice, enter once.

Re:Obviously, you've never heard of a Blue Gene . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14780486)

it's cool that you like to brag about your job, but i can't figure out how it has anything to do with IBM subpoena'ing Microsoft, or how a computer named Blue Gene makes it any better or worse..

Re:Obviously, you've never heard of a Blue Gene . (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780513)

Read the thread . . .

You're right - little indeed to do with the TLP, just answering another ignorant post made by another anonymous coward.

Not you, was it? ;^D

Re:Obviously, you've never heard of a Blue Gene . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14780638)

Does Blue Gene account for more than 1% of IBM's server sales? Otherwise I don't see how your post relates to the AC's at all.

Re:SCO and IBM are both the bad guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779937)

Nice troll ... here's REAL data from 2004 [itjungle.com]

For all the talk of Linux, only 230,074 machines, or about 14.7 percent of shipments, were servers running Linux. However, all of those Linux machines added up to a smidgen more than $1 billion in sales for the quarter, with IBM and HP getting a little under 30 percent each and Dell getting 18 percent. The Linux server space is white hot, though, with sales up 57.3 percent and shipments up 69.7 percent, according to Gartner.

In troll math that's less than 1% but in registerable IQ math that's closer to 4.4%, also, note that that's a percentage of revenue, not shipments. Since Linux typically ships on lower end hardware, the shipment percentage is probably closer to 8% for IBM. Just factoring the growth rate from 2004, IBMs Linux shipment percentage should now be somewhere above 20% of their total server shipments.

Re:SCO and IBM are both the bad guys (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779969)

"and despite their hype on Linux, less than 1 percent of IBM's servers ship with it."
But I think you are free to choose to order Linux on just about any of them. I thought that was the idea to be free to choose.
I used to HATE IBM back in the good old days. Between Eclipse.org and all the Linux resources they have on line I am an IBM fan.

Good! I feel your anger! (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780326)

Now release your hatred and your journey toward the Dark Side will be complete!

Depositions (2, Informative)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779459)

They will also have to appear in court later in March to give depositions.

Actually, the depositions will occur at law offices near the headquarters of the companies in question. Microsoft's, for instance, will occur in Seattle.

Re:Depositions-- Wrong location (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14780697)

I will be in the lawyers office, but it won't be in Seattle. It will be near Bill Gate's office in Hell, somewhere between the Third Circle, Gluttons and the Fourth Circle the Greedy, at least according to Dante's version of Hell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Comedy#Inferno [wikipedia.org]

This is very big (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779522)

Judging by the number of comments on the story over at Groklaw, this is the biggest news we've had in a long time. We've all suspected that Microsoft had some hand in this. When they answer the subpoena, we'll all finally find out. This is the 'piercing of the corporate veil' that we've been waiting for.

Re:This is very big (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779645)

Riiiiiiiight.
Microsoft deposes and says: WE DID NOT! THEY'RE GODDAM LIARS!!

Seriously, Microsoft is going to have so much "plausible deniability", IBM'll probably have a hard time proving they've ever been to Redmond, Washington.

Re:This is very big (4, Interesting)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779712)

They may not need to win. MS certainly doesn't want to get DoJ investigations restarted again, and using SCO as a sock puppet to beat down on a potential rival sure is risky in terms of monopolistic practices. MS wants to avoid possible DoJ issues and get this whole thing buried? Well, write IBM a fat check, and consider them satisfied.

Re:This is very big (1)

slashname3 (739398) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780780)

Seriously, Microsoft is going to have so much "plausible deniability", IBM'll probably have a hard time proving they've ever been to Redmond, Washington.

To say nothing of the plausible deniability of Microsoft being in the computer software business.

Well it looks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779539)

like SCO is in for an even bigger beat down that previously thought. I just can't wait for SCO to GPL their source and restructure their business model to try and stay alive after this folley.

I forgot about this! (2, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779561)

Damn! It has been so long since any new developments or any old discussion has been brought up about it, finally there is some interesting activity in the SCO v. IBM case. Still, I have to wonder why IBM is willing to spend the money for the additional activity? Is "fighting back" worth it? What do they expect to gain on this?

Personally, I can identify with wanting to fight back by exposing the sources of all the scuffle. But if I didn't have money to throw away and no easily identifiable profit motive, I just can't imagine myself doing it. Since corporations generally lack human emotional response, I can only assume there is good strategety and/or profit motivation. Anyone care to speculate?

Re:I forgot about this! (1)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779621)

IBM has previously made decisions based on emotion, including revenge and spite.

See the dealins with OS/2. There is some post on usenet from a microsoft programmer somewhere who was working with IBM on OS/2 detailing just how strange the decisions that IBM management was making. IBM doesn't need a reason for this. This might just be revenge for Windows 3.0 destroying OS/2 and ruining IBM's future on desktop machines.

Windows 3.x never hurt OS2 (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779737)

Windows 95, NT3.51, FUD and OS2 killed OS2.

Windows 3.x was the best reason to adopt OS2.

OS2 was the best reason to drop OS2.

Re:I forgot about this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779747)

It wasn't 3.0 that did in OS/2 it was Win95 and NT3.5 which did.

Windows 3.x didn't kill anything (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779846)

Windows had nothing to do with killing OS/2.

#1 problem: MS Office 95.
#2 problem: IBM internal politics

there were no other relevant issues.

Re:I forgot about this! (4, Insightful)

AJWM (19027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780255)

It's not so much Windows "killing" OS/2 -- IBM can live with that in a fair fight. It's that Microsoft was parternered with IBM on OS/2, and saying nice things about it, right up until the eve of the Windows introduction.

Microsoft not only sucker-punched IBM on that, but also all the 3rd-party application vendors who were diligently developing for OS/2, leaving the Windows field wide open for Microsoft's Office apps.

Re:I forgot about this! (1)

sepluv (641107) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780756)

Revenge (particularly of the unemotional, served cold variety) may be in the profit interests of the company for the same reason it may be in the interests of an individual (i.e.: it sends a message to future barraters). In that case, it is OK for the directors to engage in revenge.

Re:I forgot about this! (1)

Bazzalisk (869812) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779649)

Well, IANAL, but if it turns out that other companies were funding SCO to get up to its tricks then they might then have a case for prosecuting them for something. There could be a proffit motive there.

Plus being shown to have been the innocent victim of a massive slur conspiricy would probably be good PR.

Re:I forgot about this! (1)

HairyCanary (688865) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779674)

I'd say IBM wants to slam dunk this case, to show any future SCO-types that they won't lie down for this kind of crap. The profit motive is in clearing the way for smooth sailing for Linux, since IBM has staked a lot on it.

Re:I forgot about this! (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779678)

Well, if they could prove that MS was backing this, that's bad behavior from someone already in Anti-Trust trouble. Maybe they can somehow get punitive damages for it? Or they could be planning on increasing their support of Linux in enterprises, like shipping it with more of their servers? If the R&D is getting to be too much on their OS. It may also be a warning to everyone else in the world: Don't screw with IBM. They mean business (no pun intended)

Why (2, Insightful)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779680)

Since corporations generally lack human emotional response, I can only assume there is good strategety and/or profit motivation. Anyone care to speculate?

  1. It's good to be respected.
  2. Fear is a reasonable substitute for respect.
  3. Most of IBM's business depends on others trusting them with confidential information. SCOX, very publicly, impugned IBM's trustworthiness.
  4. The Nazgul hadn't been fed lately.

Assign whatever weights you like.

The reason (4, Informative)

jgoemat (565882) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780067)

Microsoft and Sun paid tens of millions of dollars to SCO in early 2003. Caldera (who is now SCO) had run their Linux business into the ground and after purchasing the UnixWARE from Santa Cruz in 2001 (to purportedly make Linux and Unix play better together), they ran it into the ground as well. Without that influx of cash, SCO would not have had the money to pursue the lawsuit against IBM. It just happens that SUN (IBM's largest Unix competitor) and Microsoft (who has a lot to gain from the discrediting of Linux) paid tens of millions of dollars to SCO and the only substantial thing they got in return was the lawsuit against IBM. IBM is also seeking information from SUN and HP because SCO gave them a clean bill of health, and they have distributed and made public much of the information that forms the basis of the lawsuit against IBM.

Ay-yup (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780403)

Thanks for explaining to the lurkers.

FWIW, my GrokLaw handle is the same as my /. one.

Re:I forgot about this! (4, Informative)

yo_tuco (795102) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779725)

Still, I have to wonder why IBM is willing to spend the money for the additional activity?

Because the drama, oops I mean SCO vs IBM case, is not over. It is still in the descovery process.

From http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200602212 20214214 [groklaw.net]

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 [bold], 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


Re:I forgot about this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14780738)

"Because the drama, oops I mean SCO vs IBM case, is not over. It is still in the descovery process."

You spelled fishing wrong.

Re:I forgot about this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779741)

Two reasons come to mind...

One is that linux is now an integral part of the IBM business strategy. The SCO lawsuit leaves a cloud hanging over it that can only be cleared away by a complete victory.

The other is that IBM has to show that *nobody* brings frivolous lawsuits against IBM and gets away with it. What gets me is that SCO is willing to completely destroy their company to keep this circus going.

Re:I forgot about this! (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779887)

SCO isn't willing to destroy their company. The CEO and all those in "decision-making power" are willing to destroy it, however, for whatever they were (in my opinion) offered by other parties in order to damage the progress of Linux in the business marketplace.

Now that said, I have to wonder how they are able to do this without concern over the mythical "shareholders' backlash!" How many times have we heard it said that the primary motivation for these corporations is to maximize profit for the shareholders? They are still public right? How can they justify running the company into the ground as they have?

Re:I forgot about this! (2, Funny)

Spackler (223562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779817)

Since corporations generally lack human emotional response, I can only assume there is good strategety and/or profit motivation. Anyone care to speculate?

Now Sam Palmisano gets to sit in court, stare over at Darl, put his arm out with his fingers forming a pinch while looking at Darl through the arc, and squeeze while saying "I'm CRUSHING YOUR HEAD, I'm CRUSHING YOUR HEAD"!

Re:I forgot about this! (1)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780021)

The story I hear about IBM is that if you file a pattent lawsuit against them for any amount under $10K, they generally just write you a check.

However, every so often instead of rolling over, they will fight the pattent full force, attempting to completely destroy you. The idea is to supress completely frivilous pattent lawsuits.

I see SCO as a simalar case. IBM may wish to fight SCO to prove a point: "do not fuck with us."

Re:I forgot about this! (1)

sirwired (27582) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780647)

IBM has fought back becasuse IBM believes in Linux. (Or at least it's profit-making potential.) If IBM had settled out of court or simply bought SCO outright, that would have lent an aire of legitimacy to SCO's original claims of copyrighted code contamination in Linux. That would have cost IBM far more than the settlement, or the legal defense of the suit.

SirWired

Oblig. Simpsons (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779563)

Microsoft's lawyer... um, I mean Lionel Hutz: 'Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."'

IBM doesn't play (1)

trybywrench (584843) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779567)

IBM scares the crap out of me and i'm just a hacker-in-a-cube. Reminds me of a joke that went something like when we're all standing in line at the gates of heaven God's going to say "ok you can come in" then look over at IBM's legal department for a knod before actually opening the gates.

Re:IBM doesn't play (2, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779702)

i'm just a hacker-in-a-cube
Is that the geeky version of the ship-in-a-bottle?

Re:IBM doesn't play (3, Insightful)

steve_l (109732) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780791)

Yeah, when all this is over and the books are written, SCO's choice of targets for lawsuits is going to go down there as sensible as invading russia proved to various european nation states over the centuries.

First they pick IBM, who probably have more lawyers than R&D engineers. Then, for collateral damage, they pick on a car company, what was it, Daimer-Chrystler. I mean, car companies. They have legal departments on 24-hour call waiting to dismiss the classic "I ran over a bus queue of 8 people while drunk, it was the fault of your ABS system" lawsuits coming in every day. Having someone sue you over linux violations is just a spare time activity.

On the other hand, from the lawyers perspective, going up against well funded legal departments guarantees large amounts of cash coming your way...

Good comments at Yahoo Finance board too (4, Informative)

sphealey (2855) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779625)

The SCOX Yahoo Finance Board [yahoo.com] is actually a good source of information and comments as well. Contrary to the usual stock board the regulars there are quite knowledgable and try to keep the spam cleaned up. Which is not to say there are no trolls, but any rating above a 4 is usually good.

sPh

Re:Good comments at Yahoo Finance board too (2, Insightful)

The Pim (140414) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779855)

If only that were true. The majority of highly-rated posts dwell on off-topic political commentaries, ridicule of the board's blacklist, and various distracting but irrelevant side-shows. (Thankfully, meta-discussions of Groklaw have subsided.) There is a lot of good information, but I would use Yahoeuvre [warmcat.com] and start with posts having at least 20 recs.

Conspiracy. The where is Steve Jobs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14779651)

Gates, McNeally, Schwartz, McBride. Where's Jobs? He belongs in this rouge's gallery.

Re:Conspiracy. The where is Steve Jobs? (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779808)

What did Steve Jobs have to do with SCO? As I recall, he would have been at NeXT and Apple, working on NeXTStep/OS X when all of this went down. He'd have had his hands full and no time to worry about Linux when he's trying to save Apple. Not to mention why attack Linux when it's going mostly after MS and not Apple? OS X is part-Unix, not necessarily part-Linux, right?

Re:Conspiracy. The where is Steve Jobs? (1)

Shag (3737) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780009)

Yeah. Apple basically has no involvement in this. Their stuff isn't SysVish, it's BSDish. They're not exactly "for" or "against" IBM or Microsoft, and have basically had no dealings with USL, Novell, OldSCO, Caldera or NewSCO.

Kinda weird to think of Apple as being "neutral" on something, since their followers so rarely are. :) Even now, I bet there are few Apple users rooting for SCO.

Re:Conspiracy. The where is Steve Jobs? (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780202)

You realize that SCO has claimed that they own all UNIX, right? You know that they have also claimed to own BSD, right? And you know that IBM might know something you don't know right? Are you positive Apple didn't give SCO some money to help create FUD about Linux?

Re:Conspiracy. The where is Steve Jobs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14780430)

And are you positive that RMS isn't behind this all, seeking to undermine Linux and insure the supremacy of the HURD?

Seriously. There are possibilities and then there's pseudoparanoid lunacy.

I'm going to have to cheer on IBM here (-1, Troll)

DigDuality (918867) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779691)

even if they are nazi supporters.

Re:I'm going to have to cheer on IBM here (3, Funny)

dustwun (662589) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779871)

Godwin's Law now in effect. Thanks for playing.. now go sit down. :-P

Not yet?? (4, Funny)

robpoe (578975) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779732)

Why have I not seen a comment yet that said

And in Redmond today, a chair flew out of Ballmer's office and a scream was heard "I'm going to f*$#ing kill IBM!!!!!!"

Oops..I just made it.

Re:Not yet?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14780383)

So thats why i woke up in a hospitial with stiches...

Re:Not yet?? (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780473)

Because that's just way too original. Most people don't have the creative juices to come up with that kind of stuff.

Conspiracy? (3, Insightful)

whitespiral (941984) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779752)

So will it end up all being a conspiracy masterminded by Microsoft to kill Linux? But Microsoft always plays fair, who would have thought!

Expect More Delays (1)

kilgortrout (674919) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779768)

Depositions rarely go on the date set forth in the subpeona. You can expect delays in getting the documents requested which are needed with time for examination before taking the depositions. That's pretty much par for the course in civil litigation; you set an arbitrary date and the parties later agree on the real date. The more interesting question is why IBM waited until now to request this info. If they wanted to assert additional claims against MS or Sun, it's pretty late in the day to be adding parties to this litigation; that would only further delay things. You can be sure there is a definite reason for issuing these subpeonae now. My guess is IBM may have recently come by some new info, probably from some insider and probably in the form of some smoking gun documents. They must now feel justified in pursuing this line of inquiry more aggressively even though there is a potential for delaying the resolution of this case if they attempt to assert new claims against MS or sun in the sco case.

Re:Expect More Delays (1)

stevesliva (648202) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779831)

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)

This would be fact discovery relating to the material which IBM allegedly misused. They're looking for evidence that their use is no different from the companies that threw SCO a bone.

Why now (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779896)

My guess is IBM may have recently come by some new info, probably from some insider and probably in the form of some smoking gun documents.

Two reasons:

  1. In late December, the Court ordered SCOX to turn over a few thousand documents that they had been claiming were priveleged. The privelege claims were pretty thin, but they fought hard for them. "Smoking guns" isn't too bold a conclusion.
  2. The "what are we accusing you of" phase of discovery is now over, it's defense time. By waiting until it was too late to tip SCOX off on defensive strategies, IBM gains some (small?) tactical advantage.

Order in the Court (5, Funny)

mslinux (570958) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779798)

Bill Gates on the stand: "Well, you see, it went like this your honor, App..."

Steve Jobs yelling from the courtroom: "Shutup! Shutup now Bill!!!"

Judge banging gavel: "Order [bang, bang, bang] There'll be order in the court room!"

RMS standing and asking for calm: "Judge. Notice that I did not call you 'Your Honor' as I do not honor the authority that you claim to hold. I will not place my hand on a Bible and swear to tell the truth. The Bible is a book of fairy tales and fables for which I hold no respect..."

Steve Ballmer jumps to his feet and grabs a chair: "Jesus H. Christ [Throws a chair at RMS] This guy is a fuckin' loon... how the fuck did he get in here?"

It's worse! (2, Insightful)

capt.Hij (318203) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779938)

In some ways the scenario is worse than that. They will be taking depositions in private, and there will not be a judge present. Can you imagine being the poor nerd being asked questions with both the MS lawyers and IBM lawyers leering at you from all sides of the table. I wouldn't go in that room without the protection of being in a steel cage hanging from the ceiling.

Re:It's worse! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14780424)

I wouldn't go in that room without the protection of being in a steel cage hanging from the ceiling.

Isn't that what they call an Iron Maden?

Re:It's worse! (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780789)

hmm Iron Maiden or Iron Madden, I wonder which is more scary !

So this means we can read the depo? (1)

Foo2rama (755806) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779914)

In theory onces this goes to court, that means we can read the deposistions right? All the material and evidence (depositions) would then be a part of the public record right?

It would be great to read what they are actually talking about and see how both sides see this issue, not just what the online press conjectures about everything.

Re:So this means we can read the depo? (1)

mcappel (776700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780155)

A deposition [wikipedia.org] is one tool in the discovery process. The transcript from a deposition is not part of the public record automatically. Quotes from a deposition may be read in court or used as a part of a motion. However, depositions are usually not released.

Nice (1)

interlingua.ro (654566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14779950)

Point #12 on the subpoena to Microsoft:
Microsoft's business strategy regarding Linux.

I'd love to be in the room when they cover that.

Litigation, at what cost? (3, Funny)

whitespiral (941984) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780096)

This will cost IBM countless of millions of dollars over the next few years. Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend a few grand and pay Bruce Willis to kill Gates and Ballmer? Or why not build a terminator? Oh yeah, it would have Lenovo parts and turn on the americans in a blink. Darn chinese are too smart.

Subpoenas (4, Informative)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780154)

We should all remember, Subpoenas are a commonly utilized legal term which is needed to get another party to comply. Most large companies are not even allowed to give any of their documents (which have other legal bindings on them, probably for non-disclosure) without a subpoena. People just tend to think "subpoena omg"

mirror (2, Informative)

mtenhagen (450608) | more than 8 years ago | (#14780220)

I created a mirror [klaproos.net] for the subpoenas, including easy to read html versions.

To hell with /.'s coverage (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14780406)

I want to know what Rob Enderle has to say. I haven't heard much from him lately and I need his "forward looking emerging technology advisory firm" and the insight only they, ok - he, can give.

Mr. Enderle, are you there? Should I be concerned that IBM is stealing all the thunder while SCO continually gets bitch slapped out of the headlines (and court)? SCO is still going to school the technology world, right? You predicted they have a solid case and not to rule them out. Are they still a sure bet? After all IBM is the unethical company in all of this because you told me so...and that's stronger than Bible in my book anyday.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>