|
IBM subpoenas unXis |
|
Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 01:37 AM EDT
|
IBM may have run out of patience with all the mystery about SCO's proposed sale of assets to unXis. . So it has subpoenaed unXis:
07/07/2009 - 829 - Subpoena directed to unXis, Inc.. Filed by IBM Corp.. (Silverstein, Laurie) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
We have it as text for you. There is a deposition set for July 15th, and the topics will be things like who are you and why are you buying a company with SCO's financial history? Well, they phrase it differently. They also want to see all the documents about the proposed sale, and they'd like to know about any valuation of SCO's assets that unXis has done. Hardy har. Here's another topic: "Debtors' efforts toward, and prospects for, rehabilitation." I love IBM's understated sense of humor. I gather they are having some doubts about SCO's ability to sell off all its assets of any value to unXis while retaining all the liabilities associated with SCO's litigation and still pay IBM when IBM crushes them like a bug in Utah. How can SCO stay afloat if all the assets leave the country, so to speak?
Let's put it more like IBM: IBM would like reassurance as to SCO's ability to exit Chapter 11 and remain a viable business thereafter. We've seen the proposed sale, but where is the plan? And what exactly is the role of Mr. Norris? Where does he fit in, not on paper but in real life?
Keep in mind that page 2 of the subpoena is boilerplate. IBM begins to speak in Schedule A. You can see that if you open the PDF and compare, as it's more obvious in the typefaces used in the form.
Obviously, IBM would like some hard facts to present at the next hearing, so that when SCO waxes poetic but vaguely about how wonderful this deal will be, IBM will have evidence to present to rebut. And am I the only one who notices how similar the name unXis is to iNUX and both are to UNIX?
***********************************
B256 (Form 256 – Subpoena in a Case under the Bankruptcy Code) (12/07)
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
District of Delaware
In re The SCO GROUP, INC., et al., Debtor
|
SUBPOENA IN A CASE UNDER
THE BANKRUPTCY CODE |
|
Case No. * 07-11337__________ |
To: unXis, Inc. c/o Corporation Service Company [address in Wilmington] |
Chapter 11________________
|
[ ] YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States Bankruptcy Court at the place, date, and time specified below to testify in the above case.
PLACE OF TESTIMONY
COURTROOM
DATE AND TIME
[X] YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in the above case.
PLACE OF DEPOSITION (See Schedule A hereto)
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, [address in Wilmington]
DATE AND TIME
July 15, 2009 9:00 am
(The deposition will be recorded by stenographic and audiovisual means.)
[X] YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects): (See Schedule B hereto)
PLACE
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, [address in Wilmington] c/o Laurie Selber Silverstein, Esq.
DATE AND TIME
July 13, 2009 9:00 am
[ ] YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.
PREMISES
DATE AND TIME
Any organization not a party to this proceeding that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors,
or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify. Rule 30(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable in bankruptcy cases and proceedings by Rules 1018, 7030, and 9014, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE [Signature]
DATE 7/6/09
ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER
Laurie Selber Silverstein, Esq., Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, [Address in Wilmington and phone] (counsel for International
Business Machines Corporation).
* If the bankruptcy case is pending in a district other than the district in which the subpoena is issued, state the district under the case number.
(1)
B256 (Form 256 – Subpoena in a Case under the Bankruptcy Code) (12/07)
PROOF OF SERVICE
DATE 7-6-09
PLACE
SERVED UNXIS INC
SERVED ON (PRINT NAME) [name]
MANNER OF SERVICE BY HAND AT 4:35 PM
SERVED BY (PRINT NAME) [name]
TITLE
DECLARATION OF SERVER
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Proof of
Service is true and correct.
Executed on 7-6-09
DATE
SIGNATURE OF SERVER
ADDRESS OF SERVER
Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Subdivisions (c), (d), and (e), as amended on December 1, 2007, made applicable in cases under the Bankruptcy Code by Rule 9016, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure:
(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena.
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense
on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an
appropriate sanction - which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party
or attorney who fails to comply.
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents,
electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not
appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a
deposition, hearing, or trial.
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to
permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to
inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises - or
to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be
served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served.
If an objection is made, the following rules apply:
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may
move the issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order
must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting
from compliance.
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a
subpoena that:
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to travel
more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in
person - except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to attend a trial
by traveling from any such place within the state where the trial is held;
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no
exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the
issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or
commercial information;
(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not
describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a
party; or
(iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur
substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial
(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule
45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or
production under specified conditions if the serving party:
(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be
otherwise met without undue hardship; and
(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
|
(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures
apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:
(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents
must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and
label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If
a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person
responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a
reasonably usable form or forms.
(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The
person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than
one form.
(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding
need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person
identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel
discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not
reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may
nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause,
considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the
discovery.
(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information
under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:
(i) expressly make the claim; and
(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents,
communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself
privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a
subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the
person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and
the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the
specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the
claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it
before being notified; and may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a
determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the
information until the claim is resolved.
(e) Contempt.
The issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without
adequate excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the
subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a place outside the limits of
Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).
|
(2)
Schedule A
Subject Matters of Testimony
TOPIC NO. 1
The proposed sale to unXis by debtors of their assets.
TOPIC NO. 2
Communications between/among debtors (or anyone representing or
affiliated with debtors) and unXis, Stephen Norris or Stephen Norris Capital Partners (or
anyone representing or affiliated with them).
TOPIC NO. 3
Offers or bids to acquire, or expressions of interest in acquiring, any or all of debtors' assets.
TOPIC NO. 4
Debtors' financial and other performance since 2003.
TOPIC NO. 5
Debtors' efforts toward, and prospects for, rehabilitation.
TOPIC NO. 6
Any valuation of debtors and/or any of their assets.
TOPIC NO. 7
Debtors' litigations with IBM, Novell, Red Hat, and AutoZone.
TOPIC NO. 8
Any document produced to IBM in connection with the subpoena to which this Schedule A is attached.
(3)
Definitions
1. The term "AutoZone" shall mean AutoZone, Inc., and any affiliated entities.
2. 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, telex, facsimile transmissions, telecopies, recordings in any medium of oral
communication, telephone and message logs, notes or memoranda relating to written or oral
communications.
3. The term "concerning" shall mean relating to, referring to, reflecting, describing,
evidencing, referencing, discussing or constituting.
4. The term "debtors" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, The SCO Group,
Inc., and SCO Operations, Inc.
5. The term "document" shall be synonymous in meaning and usage to the broadest scope of the
term used in Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The term "document" shall include
without limitation all written, phonic, graphic or recorded matter, including without limitation,
information stored on computers, disks, tapes (i.e., magnetic or other storage media), World
Wide Web pages, electronic mailing lists or automated fax support systems. The term "document"
specifically includes electronic mail, electronic correspondence, or electronic peer-to-peer
messages ("e-mail") and any attachments and files created and maintained in electronic form in the
normal course of business.
6. The term "IBM" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, International Business Machines Corporation and all its directors, officers,
authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, distributors,
(4)
dealers, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with
IBM, subsidiaries of IBM, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of IBM.
7. The term "include" or "including" shall mean including without limitation.
8. The term "Novell" shall mean Novell, Inc., and any affiliated entities.
9. The term "person" refers to natural persons or all private or public entities.
10. The term "Red Hat" shall mean Red Hat, Inc., and any affiliated entities.
11. The term "rehabilitation" shall have the same meaning as is understood for the word as used in 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1).
12. The term "sale motion" shall mean debtors' motion for authority to sell property outside the ordinary course of business.
13. The term "Stephen Norris Capital Partners" shall mean Stephen Norris & Co. Capital Partners, L.P., and any affiliated entities.
14. The term "unXis" shall mean unXis, Inc., and any affiliated entities.
(5)
Schedule B
Documents to be Produced
REQUEST NO. 1
All documents concerning the proposed sale to unXis by debtors of their
assets.
REQUEST NO. 3
All documents concerning communications between/among debtors (or anyone
representing or affiliated with debtors) and unXis, Stephen Norris or Stephen Norris Capital
Partners (or anyone representing or affiliated with them).
REQUEST NO. 4
All documents concerning offers or bids to acquire, or expressions of interest
in acquiring, any or all of debtors' assets.
REQUEST NO. 5
All documents concerning debtors' financial and other performance since
2003.
REQUEST NO. 6
All documents concerning debtors' efforts toward, and prospects for,
rehabilitation.
REQUEST NO. 7
Any valuation of debtors and/or any of their assets.
REQUEST NO. 8
All documents concerning
debtors' litigation with IBM, Novell, Red Hat, and AutoZone.
(6)
Definitions and Instructions
A. Definitions
1. The term "AutoZone" shall mean AutoZone, Inc., and any affiliated entities.
2. 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, telex, facsimile transmissions, telecopies, recordings in any medium of oral
communication, telephone and message logs, notes or memoranda relating to written or oral
communications.
3. The term "concerning" shall mean relating to, referring to, reflecting, describing,
evidencing, referencing, discussing or constituting.
4. The term "debtors" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, The SCO Group,
Inc., and SCO Operations, Inc.
5. The term "document" shall be synonymous in meaning and usage to the broadest scope of the
term used in Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The term "document" shall include
without limitation all written, phonic, graphic or recorded matter, including without limitation,
information stored on computers, disks, tapes (i.e., magnetic or other storage media), World
Wide Web pages, electronic mailing lists or automated fax support systems. The term "document"
specifically includes electronic mail, electronic correspondence, or electronic peer-to-peer
messages ("e-mail") and any attachments and files created and maintained in electronic form in the
normal course of business.
6. The term "IBM" shall mean and include, collectively and/or individually, International Business Machines Corporation and all its directors,
officers,
(7)
authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives, distributors,
dealers, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were acquired by or merged with
IBM, subsidiaries of IBM, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of IBM.
7. The term "include" or "including" shall mean including without limitation.
8. The term "Novell" shall mean Novell, Inc., and any affiliated entities.
9. The term "person" refers to natural persons or all private or public entities.
10. The term "Red Hat" shall mean Red Hat, Inc., and any affiliated entities.
11. The term "rehabilitation" shall have the same meaning as is understood for the word as used in 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1).
12. The term "sale motion" shall mean debtors' motion for authority to sell property outside the ordinary course of business.
13. The term "Stephen Norris Capital Partners" shall mean Stephen Norris & Co. Capital Partners, L.P., and any affiliated entities.
14. The term "unXis" shall mean unXis, Inc., and any affiliated entities.
B. Instructions
1. Each paragraph should herein be construed independently and, unless otherwise
directed, without reference to any other paragraph for the purpose of limitation.
(8)
2. The use of any definition for the purposes of this request shall not be deemed to constitute an agreement or acknowledgment on the part of IBM that such definition is accurate, meaningful or appropriate for any other purpose in this action.
3. Unless otherwise specified, the documents requested are the responsive documents in the possession, control or custody of the producing party that were prepared, written, sent, dated, received, applicable or in effect at any time up to the date of the producing party's compliance with this demand.
4. Each requested document shall be produced in its entirety. If a document responsive to any request cannot be produced in full, it shall be produced to the extent possible with an explanation stating why production of the remainder is not possible.
5. Each page or sheet produced by the producing party is to be marked with a consecutive document control number.
6. All documents produced in response to these requests shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained in the ordinary course of business and, where multiple pages or documents are assembled, collated, grouped, or otherwise attached, shall not be separated or disassembled.
7. With respect to any document responsive to this request that is withheld from production based upon a claim of privilege, please provide the information required pursuant to Rule 26(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
8. If, for reasons other than a claim of privilege, you refuse to produce any document requested herein, state the grounds upon which the refusal is based with sufficient specificity to permit a determination of the propriety of such refusal.
(9)
9. If there are no documents responsive to any paragraph or subparagraph set forth in the requests, please provide a written response so stating.
10. This request is a continuing one and, pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires further and supplemental production by the producing party as and whenever that producing party acquires, makes or locates additional documents between the time of the initial production hereunder and the time of the trial in this action.
(10)
|
|
Authored by: Erwan on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 01:42 AM EDT |
If any.
Please, check transcription errors against the original
PDF. --- Erwan [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Erwan on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 01:50 AM EDT |
Please, quote the article's title.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Erwan on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 01:51 AM EDT |
As usual...
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Announcing Google Chrome OS and other musings - Authored by: ByteJuggler on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 04:47 AM EDT
- M$ will sick their DOJ buddies onto Google about this n/t - Authored by: Gringo on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 07:06 AM EDT
- Announcing Google Chrome OS and other musings - Authored by: JimDiGriz on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 07:50 AM EDT
- BBC View - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 08:21 AM EDT
- two things - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 09:45 AM EDT
- The Elephant in the Room - Authored by: joef on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 10:32 AM EDT
- We've been there before: Netscape - Authored by: Peter Baker on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 11:46 AM EDT
- Not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 12:58 PM EDT
- You Provide The Bubble, I Provide The Pin - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 12:09 PM EDT
- OS in ROM? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 01:15 PM EDT
- That was Netscape's vision, for which Microsoft had to crush them - Authored by: billyskank on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 02:32 PM EDT
- Announcing Google Chrome OS and other musings - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 05:08 PM EDT
- The Register cries Sour Grapes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 07:27 PM EDT
- Neelie Kroes and Big Pharma - Authored by: joef on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 10:38 AM EDT
- Ubuntu is A Microsoft Product Now! - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 11:48 AM EDT
- Spain - Judge Rules P2P Legal, Sites To Be Presumed Innocent - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 12:51 PM EDT
- Federal Court: IP Addresses Are Not 'Personally Identifiable' Information - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 01:41 PM EDT
- Jack Thompson News... - Authored by: Lazarus on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 02:16 PM EDT
- Where are those MORs? - Authored by: roboteye on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- Cryptographic batteries - Authored by: lgrant on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 04:33 PM EDT
- Shuttleworth - Koala will be 'a definitive shift' for Ubuntu Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 05:38 PM EDT
- Hot of the presses..... Appeals Court Rules on SCOG's appeal.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 06:45 PM EDT
- Netscape Navigator is not dead - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 09:49 PM EDT
- Mono now safe? - Authored by: ilde on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 10:26 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Erwan on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 02:05 AM EDT |
In Blepp's lost briefcase. The MIT deep divers are trying to locate it with
spectral analysis.
Tired old joke, I know ;-) --- Erwan [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 02:08 AM EDT |
<sco>Such an inquiry by IBM shows the worth of the transaction and proves
it is not a scam.</sco>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM subpoenas unXis - Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 02:38 AM EDT
- "no way"? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 05:43 AM EDT
- "no way"? - Authored by: kenryan on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 06:30 AM EDT
- "no way"? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 12:04 PM EDT
- "no way"? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 09:34 AM EDT
- "no way"? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 09:57 AM EDT
- "no way"? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- "no way"? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 05:13 PM EDT
- IBM subpoenas unXis - Authored by: glimes on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 11:28 AM EDT
- Come on guys and gals - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 07:11 PM EDT
- Whoosh! - Authored by: xtifr on Thursday, July 09 2009 @ 07:44 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 02:10 AM EDT |
Will they or will they not provide documents:
Will they or will they not appear for deposition:
Will he (Hon. K. Gross) or will he not cite for contempt:[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- How much sleaze? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 02:21 AM EDT
- My guess is they will appear - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 02:50 AM EDT
- My bet - Authored by: s65_sean on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 06:47 AM EDT
- Days even..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 12:50 PM EDT
- Agitation - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 07:39 AM EDT
- Another possibility - Authored by: s65_sean on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 08:51 AM EDT
- Won't appear... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 10:05 AM EDT
- Won't appear... - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 10:24 AM EDT
- Won't appear... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 11:35 AM EDT
- Won't appear... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 01:54 PM EDT
- No one expected... - Authored by: darthaggie on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 12:56 PM EDT
- The safe bet - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 01:18 PM EDT
- Place bets Here; Or pick your odds - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 01:37 PM EDT
- Simple answer... - Authored by: gjleger on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 03:01 PM EDT
|
Authored by: paladin on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 02:49 AM EDT |
I wonder what Request No. 2 was ? (in the Documents to
be produced)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 04:10 AM EDT |
A foretaste of the music to be faced should Buyer buy and Seller sell -- and
better than writing it into the contract.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 04:14 AM EDT |
Where is the background on how you subpoena a broom closet?
And, how exactly do you depose a brass name plate? Does it have the same rights
as a citizen?
Worst article, ever!
---
Regards
Ian Al
Linux: Viri can't hear you in free space.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 04:40 AM EDT |
This looks like a smart move by IBM: do an end run around the end runners
themselves. About time. I'm only surprised they can do this with the force of
law. The subpoena amounts to 11th-hour discovery. Hope it works out.
They define their terms twice over. They don't want unXis to say, "oh, we
thought you meant..."
Did I miss where IBM said how long the deposition would be? Seems like it could
be a long day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 05:36 AM EDT |
I gather they are having some doubts about SCO's ability to sell off all
its assets of any value to unXis while retaining all the liabilities associated
with SCO's litigation and still pay IBM when IBM crushes them like a bug
in Utah.
The people who called you "an IBM shill" will no doubt use
this as evidence when challenged (if they stay around in any blog long enough to
be challenged, that is).
On the other hand, I can't think of any more
precise way to describe what will likely happen at the appeal...Myself, I'd have
been tempted to write "like the slimy, repulsive bug that they are", but your
words are better. More objective. Less judgmental. A neutral description of the
expected events. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: s65_sean on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 06:17 AM EDT |
10. This request is a continuing one and, pursuant to Rule 26(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires further and supplemental
production by the producing party as and whenever that producing party acquires,
makes or locates additional documents between the time of the initial production
hereunder and the time of the trial in this action.
I wish that
IBM, or Novell, or anyone involved, had done the same to York and Stephen Norris
when their plans were first announced by SCO. Maybe we would know a lot more
than we do now about the secret meetings about the plans that never came to
fruition.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Slimbo on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 06:25 AM EDT |
How is unXis pronounced? Looks like it would sound very similar to un-exist. A
little ironic for a company that only exist to suck off assets of a dieing
company. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 07:21 AM EDT |
Hey, everybody!
Is this a new wrinkle? I mean, I don't recall any other proposed sale getting
this kind of treatment. Have I just not been paying attention, or is there
something here that made IBM send the Nazgul after them?
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nola on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 07:36 AM EDT |
I'm glad IBM is back. I've missed them since the bk started [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- You said it. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 07:46 AM EDT
- You said it. - Authored by: crazy canuck on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 11:04 AM EDT
- You said it. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 12:11 PM EDT
- Er? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 12:40 PM EDT
- Er? - Authored by: crazy canuck on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 12:49 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 03:15 PM EDT
- Er? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 07:19 PM EDT
- Er? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 09 2009 @ 05:22 PM EDT
- You forgot - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 01:35 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 08:26 AM EDT |
I see IBM is defining who these companies are, so they must be interested in the
purchasers evaluation of the litigation.
Or perhaps it's just a way for IBM to get them looking over their shoulders.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: caecer on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 09:25 AM EDT |
It is requesting "Any valuation..." just as in Schedule A. Shouldn't
it be requesting "Any documents concerned with any valuation..."?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
Debtors' litigations with IBM, Novell, Red Hat, and
AutoZone.
I wonder if SCOG has been naughty and showed documents to
possible perspective buyers they were required to keep private from their IBM
discovery.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
The deposition is supposed to take place on July 15. With the hearing on the
sale scheduled for July 16, that only gives IBM one day to
consume/interpret/disprove the new information.
Guess they'll be working late that night.
--Joe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: emacsuser on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
Is there any information as to where the unXis 'investors' finance is coming
from. I see mention of Gulf Cap Partners and Merchant Bridge. I would be most
interested in the upstream 'investors' in these companies, if you know what I
mean.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: uw_dwarf on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 05:53 PM EDT |
So, how long before Novell issues one of their own for similar stuff? SCO will
say
it's duplicative, but Novell and IBM each have their own interests to attend to
...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 07:29 PM EDT |
I think SCO has tremendous trademark possibilities for it's executive's images;
(I will try to keep it clean here, for PJ)
1) SCO executive dart boards.
2) Baby diapers and wipes.
3) Document shredders.
It's really hard keeping this thread clean.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Words of wisdom - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 08 2009 @ 08:01 PM EDT
|
Authored by: webster on Thursday, July 09 2009 @ 12:00 AM EDT |
Some interesting developments today, nothing definitive, but we can
speculate.
- Google Chrome: If this gets anywhere, it
will inspire interesting developments from the Monopoly. As PJ notes it will
inspire scrutiny of their netbook manufacturers lock-down. The Monopoly would
also be challenged to compete, --something like Windoze 7 + x, aka "Castle
Windoze" so as to inspire an impression of security. It may even derive from
Debian with some propietary desktops to justfy fees and lock-in. The Monopoly
is simply going to have to ban interoperability or reincarnate as a
cloud.
- High unXiety: Time to see if Norris et al are
serious. Do they want to do all this work? Do they want to hire their own
lawyers? Are the SCO lawyers going to do it for them? This subpoena is a nice
cross-check of what Darl declared in the last hearing. Those documents and
testimony better back him up. Would Norris go that far for him? They better
have real documents that justify real business interaction --things like due
diligence and reasonable valuations. If not, it will look like some conniving
manipulators. Certainly anyone investing in SCO's litigation lottery would want
to know the negotiating offers heretofore so as to gauge their investment. If
they really want to hide, they will just have to withdraw the offer or pay and
buy up front with the simple "cash" plan.
- Chapter
7...: ...is unacceptible. They will lose control of the litigation
which would be resolved promptly with no mind to FUD. The trustee wouldn't
protect any scalps either. SCO was picked for a reason --they have nothing to
lose. Chapter 7 will be put off as long as possible less the next step, if any,
begins. What does IBM have in mind? Better never than now; better later than
now. Delay is its own reward. SCO may be bankrupt, but SCO and the PIPE Fairy
are not.
- sQuashing sombeenas by the stone wall: They
should try to quash in the hopes of gaining time. The Judge seems to want time
so give him an opportunity. That slow-poke Circuit Court could act sooner and
save him further embarrassment. What if the produce of the subpoena shows that
on at least one occasion the Judge was snookered by SCO? If they really want
this plan, they should comply.
It's
late.
~webster~
[Above composed in Drivel.] [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 09 2009 @ 06:01 AM EDT |
Every license *ever* issued for UNIX in 24.5M.
That even includes those issued by AT&T to it's own self,
or it's various departments.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: golding on Thursday, July 09 2009 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
PJ asks "And am I the only one who notices how similar the name unXis is to
iNUX and both are to UNIX?"
No PJ, you aren't! If you remember (it was in the comments in the last week or
so), the 'UNIX' trademark had lapsed and when The Open Group went to re-register
it , an objection was raised by unXis to the fact of how similar it is to their
name.
I don't think they will succeed, but you never know in that crazy environment at
the copyrights and trademarks office.
---
Regards, Robert
..... Some people can tell what time it is by looking at the sun, but I have
never been able to make out the numbers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 09 2009 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
Some of the questions including the following seem that they should be answered
by SCO not Norris
"REQUEST NO. 5
All documents concerning debtors' financial and other performance since 2003.
REQUEST NO. 6
All documents concerning debtors' efforts toward, and prospects for,
rehabilitation."
Why should Norris know the answers to these. He's just buying the company?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: moz1959 on Friday, July 10 2009 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
The Nazgul bites!.. (more)
You have been subpoenaed.
(Fond memories of playing Nethack on AT&T Unix back in the 80's.)
Regards,
Moz1959.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: YetAnotherSteve on Friday, July 10 2009 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
Does request no. 8 include asking unXis if they read Groklaw?
(I assume "document" includes files in a webcache)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|