SCO Group vs. IBM…The Battle Continues!

By at 28 August, 2006, 4:44 pm

For those of you who have an interest in the open source movement of Linux , the ongoing litigation between SCO  and IBM  regarding SCO’s allegations that IBM used information owned by SCO in creating its own operating systems as well as in the creation of Linux.  This litigation has been going on for over 3 years and has been replete with comments from high profile members of the various companies involved as well as such Internet icons as Tim Berners-Lee the acknowledged "father" of the World Wide Web . 

 

During the pendency of this lawsuit, SCO officers went on the attack through the media making allegations against IBM and others regarding its claims including statements that the specifics of these claims would come out during the court proceedings.  Many believe that the reality of the statements made to the press apparently have not been borne out by SCO' s response to discovery requests and orders of the court which have gone against it. Much of the history and the ongoing court battle can be followed on the Groklaw website .

 

According to available information, Groklaw was started by Pamela Jones who describes herself as “…a journalist with a paralegal background.”  Her site is a cornucopia of information regarding this litigation and has earned her the ire of SCO including claims that the company's slow sales of its Unixware operating system are a direct result of information posted on the Groklaw website.

 

The latest information posted on the Groklaw website includes IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Objections to the Magistrate Judge Wells' Order of June 28, 2006. The June 28, 2006 Order is arguably a major blow to SCO's case against IBM.  At over 80 pages, the memorandum is not a short document.  However, it does provide an interesting window into this ongoing litigation and details how attempts to litigate a matter in the press may not be of benefit in the actual court proceedings. 

To this attorney, the memorandum is interesting from the way counsel for IBM details its objections, often times in very plain, simple and straightforward language.  One rather humorous example of this language found on page 2 of the memorandum is the statement "…  an error is clearly erroneous where it strikes the reviewing Court as wrong ‘with the force of a 5 – week – old, unrefrigerated dead fish’."(emphasis added)

 
For those of us who have "been there, done that" the memorandum lays out IBM's objections in a straightforward and detailed manner.  What the ultimate resolution of this case will be no one knows; however, I think that all attorneys can find something of interest in these proceedings.

Categories : Blogging | Hmmm! | Non-Legal Software


No comments yet.

Leave a comment