decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

This helps SCO against IBM | 108 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
How does this affect IBM litigation?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 21 2013 @ 04:40 PM EST
One suspects that any stuff referring to the IBM litigation is not
"obsolete" and therefore should not be disposed of by fair means or
foul! Please note that they are only disposing of "obsolete!"
records! (I hope) which is why nobody objected!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

How does this affect IBM litigation?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 21 2013 @ 04:46 PM EST
Maybe they can now accuse IBM of spoliation, since IBM failed to object to the
destruction of the documents. Then, on all related matters, the jury will have
to draw all inferrences in a light most favorable to SCO...

(I am not a comedian, though that fails to keep me from lame attempts at humor)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

How does this affect IBM litigation?
Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, February 21 2013 @ 07:13 PM EST
Not only is there a live court case pending against IBM, but
there is another one still live (notwithstanding the BK stay)
wherein Red Hat is the plaintiff, charging SCO Group under
the Lanham Act. Like the IBM case, the Red Hat case was
initially stayed in favor of other SCO Group litigation, then
it was stayed due to BK.

"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

How does this affect IBM litigation?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 22 2013 @ 05:00 AM EST

For most of the cases, discovery is done. Novell and IBM already have all of SCO's records that they's going to get.

Red Hat are the only case that are potentially affected. Red Hat filed their case because SCO was affecting their business, so they wanted an answer faster than the IBM/Novell cases were going to give one. Unfortunately the judge stayed the Red Hat case until IBM & Novell were done; this made the Red Hat case mostly pointless for Red Hat.

Groklaw did a good job of explaining that SCO's allegations are baseless, so the damage to Red Hat's business was minimized. Given the rulings in IBM and Novell, it's likely Red Hat could win the important bit (a declaration of non-infringement) on summary judgement without having to present much evidence at all. The only remaining reasons for Red Hat to keep the case alive were the possibility of damages (unlikely now that SCO have no money to pay damages), and as insurance in case SCO do a zombie act and try to rise from the grave. So Red Hat are unlikely to spend any money on lawyers for that case - they really have nothing to gain at this point. They'll just leave it stayed until SCO disappear.

[Disclaimer: Almost everything I know about US law and these cases I learned from Groklaw]

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This helps SCO against IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 23 2013 @ 09:59 PM EST
SCO has a court order allowing it to "dispose of any obsolete property as
the trustee deems reasonable and appropriate." Presumably, because the
trustee is still open to pursuing the IBM litigation, the trustee will deem it
reasonable and appropriate to destroy any records that don't support his case
against IBM, while preserving those that do. If there were ever a new trial with
a round of discovery, the preponderance of SCO's remaining evidence would be
more favorable to SCO than the first time around.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )