Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Caldera IBM Intel News Your Rights Online

IBM Subpoenas Intel Into SCO Fray 248

Posted by timothy from the subpoena-envy dept.
whovian writes "Since IBM was ordered by the courts to show more code, they are now reported by Groklaw to have subpoenaed Intel to show 'all communications between Intel and SCO or Canopy about IBM, Unix or Linux, all meetings with either concerning IBM, Unix or Linux, and all contracts or other business relations, past, present, or future, between Intel and SCO.' The text is available at the website."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Subpoenas Intel Into SCO Fray More

IBM Subpoenas Intel Into SCO Fray

Comments Filter:
  • What are they trying to pull here? That Intel was possibly behind SCO's litigation? I doubt it...

    When will it end?
    • When the truth's out?

    • Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dorothy 86 ( 677356 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @01:01AM (#11537457) Homepage
      It will end when any of several things happen.

      1. SCO doens't have/want to spend the money necessary for the proceedings to continue
      2. SCO actually shows the evidence they claim they have, and it is, indeed, damning
      3. SCO figures out a way to get out of this mess scott free...

      But even then, the counter suits, and residual suits for damages, etc. This may be going on for a looooooooooooong time. When will it end is, indeed, a good question.

    • Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Technician ( 215283 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @01:10AM (#11537515)
      When will it end?

      It will end when either the defense or the offense runs out of money. They will chase anybody and anything that had any contact with Linux in any way do drag out the proceedings until the money runs out.

      From what I see, this was never intended to be a quick case. I just wonder who the heck is funding this new round of SCO legal action and how long can they keep it up.

      Follow the money if you can.

    • Just a technicality? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tord ( 5801 ) <tord.jansson@gUMLAUTmail.com minus punct> on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @02:19AM (#11537830) Homepage
      Isn't anybody here considering that this subpoena might just be a technicality?

      Like Intel, having some proof which might help IBM, but is under NDA and can't release it without being in breach unless the court specificaly orders them to?...

    • Re:*sigh* (Score:3, Informative)

      by canuck57 ( 662392 )

      What are they trying to pull here? That Intel was possibly behind SCO's litigation? I doubt it..

      Lawyers get to make lots of money on this, but historically Intel has wanted to see big UNIX fail so it would help Xeon sales. Intel has never really been xNIX friendly although some of it's technology came from chips like the Alpha that were designed for UNIX.

      This is now hurting Intel in that the most popular, and probably the best processor to run Linux is an AMD Athlon 64. And with competition from other

  • IBM running scared? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @12:55AM (#11537431) Journal
    If IBM really had this "in the bag", why would they need to do such a huge step as issuing a subpoena to Intel for all that information?

    No company wants to give up that much information, especially when much of it is not useful for the case and possibly damaging to Intel's business.

    So far, Intel has been a relative outsider in all of this, and it is hard to understand what IBM is trying to get by bringing in a hardware manufacturer into this software matter. This may be a motion to subpoena, but even IBM's army of lawyers seems to be grasping at any straw now.

    I personally don't think SCO has a very strong case, but watching IBM's actions, it seems that IBM is the one with the lack of firm ground.

    • Re:IBM running scared? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Intel was the third partner in the Monterey project (UnixWare+AIX for Itanium). As to what their actual involvement was...

      However, since then Intel has been a massive backer of Linux, including massive investment into RedHat and driver engineering for Linux.

    • Re:IBM running scared? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by barc0001 ( 173002 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @12:59AM (#11537449)
      No. They're trying to alienate as many potential allies for SCO/Canopy by showing that they're now willing to clusterbomb subpoena just like SCO is.

      On top of that, I'm sure their lawyers are very confident, they're just on a fishing expidition to see what else they can find that may be of use. Being meticulous never hurts.
      • I disagree. I don't think IBM would go off on a fishing expedition against a seemingly uninvolved party. My hunch is that IBM knows Intel has stabbed them in the back wrt SCO and wants to find out just how bad the damage is.

        Remember, IBM turned the table on Intel back in the mid 90's by decided to manufacture several competing x86 products (some of them even branded IBM).. remember the Cyrix processors?

        If Intel was in possession of some priveleged communication from IBM regarding SCO and Linux, and just h

    • Re:IBM running scared? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by skraps ( 650379 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @01:01AM (#11537463)
      Have you considered the possibility that they know something you don't?
    • how is subpeonaing Intel a huge step for IBM. Rather than be bothered by the order to show more code, they basically said, "Oh, hey, we totally already showed you a bunch, but I think those guys over there may have some interesting stuff. I dunno check them out. Leave me alone."

      IOW, it's a chewbacca defense. Flood the court with lots of information which may or may not be entirely relevant. IBM can afford to keep the dog and pony show going longer than SCO can, so they will keep looking for truckloads

      • Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram of Chewie) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! (jury looks shocked)

        Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

        But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have

    • Hog wash! (Score:5, Informative)

      by bstadil ( 7110 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @01:04AM (#11537477) Homepage
      It's just a protection effort by IBM.

      What they most likely want to establish is that SCO new Itanium was delayed and Intel notified them about the changing strategy of the processor.

      SCO is claiming that the Monteray project was cancelled by IBM "out of the blue (Pun somewhat intended)" and due to the advent of Linux. IBM canceled the Monteray project as they were allowed to do since the business reason for continuing was no longer there. They need to have Intel confirm this, information which Intel obviously is reluctant to provide

      • Re:Hog wash! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Heggsy ( 55536 )
        It's also worth considering contractual obligations. If Intel has agreements which they are contractually obliged to keep confidential, I would imagine that they couldn't divulge said information to IBM even if they really wanted to.

        A court order to produce such information (probably under seal) would trump the confidentiality agreement.

        Also, there may be business reasons why Company A doesn't want to appear too eager to acquiesce to the demands of Company B. A subpoena will preserve the fiction that 't
    • Duh. To get valuable information from Intel, their future competitor.

    • I personally don't think SCO has a very strong case, but watching IBM's actions, it seems that IBM is the one with the lack of firm ground.

      I just had a presentation on patent law and practices (not that I pretend to be an expert, I think I just got a bit less clue-less). There seem to be a number of striking similarities here.

      It is surprising to see that a very little number of patent cases are won on the grounds of the cases, most of them on technical details.

      It seemed to me that this started out as a
      • shoot, forgot to quote the first line:

        I personally don't think SCO has a very strong case, but watching IBM's actions, it seems that IBM is the one with the lack of firm ground.

      • Re:IBM running scared? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mcc ( 14761 )
        It seemed to me that this started out as an extortion racket, hoping that IBM would just cough up and pay. They didn't, and now IBM is striking back by bleeding them: they have far more resources to continue this than SCO has.

        This theory would make more sense if it was IBM that has been dragging this whole thing out. It hasn't. IBM's been forthright with what the court has ordered. SCO's missed quite a lot of their deadlines for producing things and seems to be doing absolutely everything they can to dela

  • Enough (Score:4, Funny)

    by X43B ( 577258 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @12:55AM (#11537432) Journal
    Wake me up when it is over.

  • linux on ppc (Score:3, Insightful)

    by datadriven ( 699893 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @12:57AM (#11537443) Homepage
    I'm sure IBM would be happy if linux on ppc hardware got REAL popular
  • only goes to show that nobody goes down alone.
  • Don't ask me what it means, because all it means to me so far is that IBM suspects or knows something we don't yet know but we will, I'm sure, eventually find out. You don't usually have to depose your best friends, though. They tell you whatever you need to know volitionally, because they want you to win, and they'll do a declaration for you. You subpoena folks who are not eager to tell you what you wish to learn, or who wish to appear so.

    No, you usually don't have to depose your best friends. Which is

    • Re:Food for thought (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HFShadow ( 530449 )
      Or, intel hinted to IBM that they had some juicy details, but couldn't reveal them for one legal reason or another unless IBM could get a subpoena.
    • Now that IBM has dumped their Intel PC business, they can afford to take off the gloves, and not have to worry about making nice in the morning.

      And the converse is true, as well. Intel can go full throttle against IBM without risking any business, except maybe those 4 Itanium servers a year that IBM moves for them.
      • From the article:
        IBM wants to be the first vendor to offer Unix on Intel's much touted 64-bit Merced chip. IBM is off to a decent start, having completed a 24 hour dry run at an Intel lab last week.

        I first read this as a "24 hour dry heave". Man, that's gotta hurt. SCO didn't stink that much at the time though. :-)
    • Have you ever thought that this might be done as a favour for intel as opposed to intel being on the other side? Intel might just be saying "I don't want to appear to get involved, so just depose the required evidence".

    • Re:Food for thought (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @02:12AM (#11537813)
      > No, you usually don't have to depose your best friends.

      How did this get +4 Insightful? Obviously you've never dealt with a court case more complicated than a traffic ticket.

      When two companies discuss business it is done under Non-disclosure Agreements. Now I'm sure SCO and Intel had meetings about ia64 (since SCO was working on an OS for it and all) If IBM just went to Intel and said "hey tell us what SCO said back then" and Intel complied then SCO could sue Intel for NDA breach. Unlike their current suits they'd actually win that one, too.

      In a previous job we were in a similar position -- one of our customers was being (quite justifiably) sued and the other party needed information relevant to the case from us.

      We compiled the information but we couldn't just give it directly to them because that would breach our agreements with our (now former) customer. Instead we made a list of everything we had and had OUR LAWYERS write up a subpoena based on that.
      Then we handed it to them and said "please have this served on us". As soon as it had a judge's signature on it we faxed them the stuff they wanted within minutes.

      Basically in civil litegation ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that you find out from third-party corporations goes through the subpoena process whether they're friend or foe. Don't assume just because Intel got one from IBM that they must be on SCO's side or anything.

  • Hmm, interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PaulBu ( 473180 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @01:02AM (#11537466) Homepage
    So far the consensus here was that it is Microsoft behind the whole SCO debacle -- but what if IBM knows better (and I guess I'd bet my $10 on THEM knowing better ;-) ).

    Is it a purely defensive move? Or is the the "beginning of the end" of the PC industry as we knew it?

    Linux + PPC (+ IBM) might beat BSD + PPC (+ Apple) -- espcially since IBM makes the PPC part! -- and definitely beats Windows + i86, but why the hell NOW??? What do they know that I do not?

    Maybe I should actually go RTFA, but I doubt it will clear things for me.

    Paul B.
    • Is it a purely defensive move? Or is the the "beginning of the end" of the PC industry as we knew it?

      I don't know. But the whole thing is starting to remind me of the end of a theatrical production when all the actors come out on stage. Who's next, Charles Babbage?
      • The term "communication" shall mean any transmittal of information, whether oral or written, including correspondence, electronic mail and other internet transmissions, web pages, Internet Relay Chat logs, instant messages [...]

        I can just imagine Intel's Craig Barrett and our beloved Darl frigging chatting on IRC (!) how to shut the whole Leenux thngy down... ;-)

        Or is it IBM just playing cute for the Groklaw / /. crowd?

        Paul B.
    • It is still hard to believe that IBM would be able to make a big dent in Wintel market. At least not quickly. For some reason, I think IBM and Intel are on the same side here.
      • Does IBM taking the Xbox II away from Intel count as making a big dent? I believe IBM sees it's Power archtecture (possibly accompanied by Sony's Cell as in the PS3) as the natural successor to the x86 line, and is therefore at war with Intel.
      • if they made a PPC/x86 hybrid chip and board, they'd beable to syphon off the market - if they convinced via that via want to make chipsets for them, they'd have a large market base to draw from.

    • Re:Hmm, interesting... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @02:29AM (#11537876) Homepage Journal
      So far the consensus here was that it is Microsoft behind the whole SCO debacle -- but what if IBM knows better (and I guess I'd bet my $10 on THEM knowing better ;-) ). ... What do they know that I do not?

      IBM knows that Intel knows all about Itanium, its roadmaps, schedules, and delays. IBM knows that Intel has a good idea of what they told SCO about Itanium schedules and delays. Given that SCO is now down to claiming that any funny business about purloining code went on during Project Monteray, on which IBM and SCO cooperated, and that that was largely about AIX on Itanium, details about Itanium and what SCO knew about it are important.

      There are perfectly straightforward, perfectly innocent explanations for why IBM would want information from Intel, and oddly enough they fit the current major issues of the case far better than any wild and extravagant theories about Intel conspiring to bring IBM down.

      So what does IBM know that you don't? IBM know what they're talking about.

      Jedidiah.

    • Lots of posters here seem to think that once the judge finds out who's "behind" SCO that something will happen. But why would there? Suppose they find a document where an Intel executive advises SCO to sue IBM? That's not against the law at all.

      It's interesting for us to find out who's behind all of this, but not to the judge. These documents are only going to be needed because IBM thinks there's something there about licensing etc. deals. Not about helping out SCO or whatever.

    • Not called "Wintel" for nothing ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quarkscat ( 697644 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @03:07AM (#11537990)
      so you can bet that both Intel and Microsoft
      would like to see SCO Group succeed in court.
      Sun is pushing Sparc and AMD processors, IBM
      is pushing (hard) with PPC processors, and even
      HP is courting AMD processors -- all three
      with their UNIX and GNU/linux.

      Microsoft courted, and then dumped support
      for microcomputers based upon the Alpha, MIPS,
      and PPC processor. Intel's many mis-steps
      with the Itanium (ia64) processor may well be
      an issue that IBM would like to raise with
      the court, especially as regards IBM's short
      lived alliance with SCO.

      IANAL, but no matter how much code IBM reveals
      in court against SCO Group, SCO's main attacks
      center on (1) ownership of derivative works,
      and (2) legality of the GPL. Either could
      seriously damage F/OSS if the case goes to SCO.

      I do not have very much faith in the USA's
      system of justice these days, particularly
      since the DoJ let MSFT off the monopoly hook
      so readily (after regime change).

  • How much longer until... (Score:4, Funny)

    by RyuuzakiTetsuya ( 195424 ) <.taiki. .at. .cox.net.> on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @01:04AM (#11537475)
    Bumblebee Man from the Simpsons gets involved?
  • OK, So SCO starts a frivolous lawsuit to try and become a household name before it goes belly up. Now, in the crosshairs, and with far more power and finances at their disposal, IBM calls in some other top-dogs to drag this out into a dirty courtroom scrap that promises to last even longer. Stalling tactics hoping SCO runs out of money? Maybe, but more likely, like most of these software-based lawsuits, it's just to add enough confusion to the mediation to keep anyone who wasn't actually there from ever s
    • To paraphrase another post. It is in IBM's interest to crush SCO and even better to let all other potential SCO copycats watch the leagal tourture and eventual slaughter of SCO.

      Another common assumption seems to be that because IBM went through the courts to get info from Intel therfore it follows that Intel must be pissed off because IBM is attacking them. The fact is even if Intel knew something and desperately wanted to give IBM the info they would have to ask IBM to get it via the court. Any dealings

  • Intel UniX (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @01:12AM (#11537526) Journal
    In the before time, from the long long ago Intel ported and sold a Unix of its own.

    Perhaps info regarding thost contracts is what IBM is after.
  • With very few exceptions, no one who will post in this thread has any authoritative knowledge of business analysis or high-level computing industry politics. I can also predict that not a single soul who posts in this thread will have a good understanding of the legal nuances of IBM's most recent actions in the SCO case.

    So please, don't waste our time with useless conjecture, predictions, and "what-if" scenarios. Because really, what's going on here is just mental masturbation. Move along.

  • Intel should subpoena AMD! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mustang Matt ( 133426 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @01:23AM (#11537578)
    You know if enough companies subpoena each other maybe we'll end up with "open source" hardware (not necessarily GPL) but force all the companies to give up their trade secrets and consumers reap all the benefits! MWUahahahaha!
    • Yeah, except everything that is remotely a "trade secret" will get subpoenaed and discovered under a protective order, which means only the judge and the lawyers will see the really interesting stuff...

    • Re:Intel should subpoena AMD! (Score:5, Informative)

      by atcurtis ( 191512 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:25AM (#11538264) Homepage Journal
      We already did have "open-source" hardware ... 20 years ago!

      My original IBM PC/XT came with a technical reference manual which contains the complete BIOS assembler source code and complete circuit diagrams for every board in the computer. Since it was constructed using OTS ICs, someone single-minded enough could construct a whole PC based upon those specifications - and I am sure that the whole PC industry owes it to IBM for making available those specifications and hence giving rise to all the clones... The tricky part for the cloners is to 'clean-room' design a clone without infringing on IBM's copyright - an issue which IBM did take to court on more than one occasion.

      That PC is long gone but I still have the original IBM technical reference manual. Its a nice hardcover ring-bound book. They don't make manuals like they used to!

    • Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but I'm not sure that Intel can subpoena AMD, here. I'm pretty sure that non-parties to a suit can't just go around subpoenaing documents and depositions from other non-parties. Now, if Intel were to intervene in the suit or be impled as a party, that would change things.

  • Its about intellectual property claims that... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @01:27AM (#11537600) Homepage Journal
    ... well that aren't valid in the first placed.

    It like a bunch of people have pursued some man made rules or laws that rely on the earth being flat. But now that the earth really isn't flat, these rules, these laws are having a problem holding up. A lack of integrity of the rules/laws of which so many have beeing following.

    So yeah, its really not supprising the exposure of the web of distortion that has spread thru out the industry.

    Imagine what it would be like to see from the POV of one having clairity of the issue. Imagine how those following and supporting such distortion would be preceived by such a POV.

    Perhaps this is such a view!? [ffii.org]

  • the only thing that scares me... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pavera ( 320634 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @01:36AM (#11537654) Homepage Journal
    Is that SCO/Caldera is Canopy group, and Canopy group has made almost all of its money by suing huge and successful companies. I'm not sure on their exact record, but I know they've done this sort of thing at least 2 or 3 times already. They are pretty good at doing this, so I don't like to see anything "going their way" at all... hopefully IBM can keep it on course, and kill them dead soon.
  • Ooh! Busted!

  • Power of IBM (Score:3, Insightful)

    by a3217055 ( 768293 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @01:46AM (#11537700)
    IBM is a very big big company, they have a lot of leverage power with lawyers and with other companies. I am not following this as much as I should but it looks like IBM is pushing SCO into a corner and will use every arsenal to make a win. If IBM was going not going to win this court case they will settle. IBM will win it and it will be the end of SCO, we will then see slashdot posts about people buying SCO office furniture for $50.00 at there parking lots. IBM is a east coast company and they can leverage all the big wig lawyers to fight for them there is no way SCO can win. take care -A End result lawyers go home rich, SCO sells furniture and IBM's laptops go in to suspend using ACPI under Linux.
    • Synopsis: IBM is big. SCO isn't so big. IBM will therefore win.

      • Sadly yes. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Polarism ( 736984 )
        Not that I like SCO of course, but instead this just displays how meaningless our judicial system has become.

        Our laws are meaningless today, because we've been disenfranchised by corporations.
  • .... and all contracts or other business relations, past, present, or future, between Intel and SCO....

    Notice the "future" .... does this include the document that they are going to send through Intel in June of 2005 that will admit that the purpose of this entire project was to pump up the stock price and that Intel doesn't have to worry.

    Or perhaps is SCO going to claim that since their code ran on Intel chips that means that the chips are tainted and therefore all of Intels IP belongs to SCO.

  • Jun U Nakajima, SCO and Trillian project (Score:5, Informative)

    by NZheretic ( 23872 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @02:52AM (#11537944) Homepage Journal
    From Jun 2003 [iwethey.org]
    So, how did Linux become so capable of scaling beyond the heights of the old UNIXs. More importantly, who helped put what where?

    As with the marketing of cars and TVs, it is the vendor's high end leading edge models which sells the standard models, from which most of the sales and profit is made. For the enterprise server market today, that high end is multi-headed 64-bit SMP systems, never mind the fact that single 32-bit processors provide more than enough power to do most jobs. For all intents and purposes, it is the ability of the core OS to scale on 64-bit SMP systems that defines "enterprise scalability". Other enterprise feature are effectively just add-ons, which in the case of Linux, have been freely contributed from many vendors and developers.

    Since version 2.0, Linux was more than just a 32-bit x86 operating system. With the insistence and assistance of Jon "Maddog" Hall, Linux was already ported to the 64-bit Alpha processor, which delivered great performance and stability. Just like the traditional AT&T UNIX source base, the ownership of the Alpha chipset passed though many hands, suffering the same fate of a thousand cutbacks. Even Alpha's "native" OS, VMS, has been ported to Itanium by HP/Compaq.

    Since 1997, Intel has been promoting the Itanium line as the inevitable successor for every other server processor on the market. Despite the early vaporware status, Intel has been very successful, at least in terms of marketing. With the exception of its mainframe systems, even IBM ships Itanium systems that directly compete with their own Power processors.

    For what The SCO Group has to offer with SCO Unixware 7,the Itanium line is the only 64-bit option. The problem for The SCO Group is that modern Linux can compete so well in that same market that the value of Unixware is rapid deteriorating to a historical curiosity. I suspect that The SCO Group (at that time called Caldera) executives were well aware of this before they acquired the server part of Old SCO in August 2000, or they would have known, if they spoken to the right executives and technical staff.

    So how did Linux get scale on Itanium? The SCO Group would have you believe it was all IBM's doing, which isn't as interesting as the real story. The web of history weaves to encircle and entangle a much more diverse group of conspirators, including many of The SCO Group, Caldera, and old SCO's own former executives and other employees.

    In October 1998, IBM, Old SCO and Sequent teamed up to collectively develop parts of Unixware and AIX into scalable 64-bit-ready ports for IBM's Power processors and Intel's AI64, or Itanium, under the banner of Project Monterey. But by then, it was already too late.

    In February 1998, well before even the first prototype IA-64 chips were available, a skunkworks team at HP, with some assistance from Intel, began the work toward porting Linux to IA-64. By October 1998, around the same time that IBM, Old SCO and Sequent had finished negotiations, HP had completed the build toolchain. By January 1999, the Linux kernel was booting on an IA-64 processor simulator, months before the actual Itanium processor was available. In March 1999, at Intel, Linux was booting on the actual Intel Itanium processor. In April 1999, CERN joined the project for the port of the GNU C library and VA Linux Systems joined the project and rapidly improved the stability and performance.

    In May 1999, the Trillian Project was founded and HP, VA Linux and Intel collectively provided their source patches to the Linux kernel for the Itanium port under the GNU general public license.

    A bootable kernel alone however does not make an OS make. HP supplied the patches for the toolchain (initial GCC C/C++ compiler, gas assembler, ld linker). Intel supplied the test platforms, apache, EFI, FPSWA, SCSI, SMP, libm (the old Linux C libraries). VA Linux ported E, E-Term, XFree86, utilities

  • All communications, contracts or other business relations, past, present, or future, containing the letter "e".

    Oops! That didn't catch Gadsby! [spinelessbooks.com]

    -
  • I think its not long before SCO self implodes anyway if the latest news from the salt lake city tribune is to go by, Apparently noorda's daughter is being sued for a boardroom coup..

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/31/canopy_s ue d/

  • Discovery laws.... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Kentsusai ( 837912 )
    Many these discovery laws are powerful!

    People can go to jail if they fail to disclose!

    I work in litigation and subpoenaing someone with something as ridiculous as this is a great way to keep the other party busy and give yourself some extra time. In addition to that, it adds costs to the other party's litigation.

    Sometimes, you can just keep subpoenaing and they won't be able to keep up. And generally when that happens, they will want to settle.

    Wonder if Intel is going to have one of its attorneys claim
  • This has the makings of a good soap opera. All they need to do is sprinkle in a little sex and murder and we've got an award winning mini series on our hands. I think they should write this thing before it finishes though. It would be more interesting to see someone's interpretation of all this crap and how they think it will turn out rather than to watch a dramatic reenaction.

  • Timeline is a little wrong. (Score:5, Informative)

    by lauterm ( 655930 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @08:08AM (#11539019)
    IBM filed this motion on Jan 19. The actual subpoena was signed by IBM's attorney on Jan 13. SCO's motion for more discovery was granted Jan 18.

    The blurb for this story is a little misleading. IBM planned to do this and may have even already had the subpoena executed by the time SCO's motion was granted. The timing was coincidental not causal.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your password is pitifully obvious.

Close