|
|
 | | | |
- close
- close
- close
- close
This excerpt taken from the SCOX 10-Q filed Sep 13, 2006. IBM Corporation On February 13, 2006, IBM filed a motion with the court seeking to limit our claims. IBM argues that of the 294 items identified by us in our December 22, 2005 filing, 201 did not meet the level of specificity required by the court. IBM requested that we be limited to 93 items set forth in the December 22, 2005 filing which IBM claims meet the required level of specificity. On June 28, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a ruling striking over 180 of our technology disclosures from the case. Although this ruling is a significant limitation of the number of technology disclosures we challenged in our December 22, 2005 filing, it also means that over 100 of our challenged items remain in the case. On July 13, 2006, we filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order with the district court; those objections challenge the process and the result embodied in the Magistrate Judge’s order and we expect a hearing to be set in the near future. On June 8, 2006, IBM filed a motion to confine our claims to, and strike allegations in excess of, the final disclosures. In this motion, IBM claims that our technology expert reports go beyond the disclosures contained in our December 22, 2005 submission to the court and that those 36 expert reports should be stricken to that extent. No hearing has been set on that motion and no ruling has been made. We believe that the motion lacks merit and have filed an opposition to the motion. Both parties have filed expert reports and expert discovery is under way. This excerpt taken from the SCOX 10-Q filed Jun 13, 2006. IBM Corporation On February 13, 2006, IBM filed a motion with the Court seeking to limit our claims. IBM argues that of the 294 items identified by us in our December 22, 2005 filing, 201 did not meet the level of specificity required by the Court. IBM requested that we be limited to 93 items set forth in the December 22, 2005 filing which IBM claims meet the required level of specificity. We disagree with IBM’s motion and analysis and filed an opposition brief under seal with the Court. The Court heard arguments on the matter on April 14, 2006 and took the matter under advisement. On June 8, 2006, IBM filed a motion to confine our claims to, and strike allegations in excess of, the final disclosures. In this motion, IBM claims that our technology expert reports go beyond the disclosures contained in our December 22, 2005 submission to the court and that those expert reports should be stricken to that extent. This excerpt taken from the SCOX 10-Q filed Mar 17, 2006. IBM Corporation On February 13, 2006, IBM filed a motion with the Court seeking to limit our claims. IBM argues that of the 294 items identified by us in our December 22, 2005 filing, 201 did not meet the level of specificity required by the Court. IBM requested that we be limited to 93 items set forth in the December 22, 2005 filing which IBM claims meet the required level of specificity. We disagree with IBM’s motion and analysis and filed an opposition brief under seal with the Court. This excerpt taken from the SCOX 10-K filed Jan 27, 2006. IBM Corporation
On or about March 6, 2003, the Company filed a civil complaint against IBM in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, under the title The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, Civil No. 2:03CV0294. In this action the Company claims, among other things, that IBM breached its UNIX source code licenses (both the IBM and Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. “Sequent” licenses) by disclosing restricted information concerning the UNIX source code and derivative works and related information in connection with its efforts to promote the Linux operating system. The Company’s complaint includes, among other things, claims for breach of contract, unfair competition, tortious interference and copyright infringement. As a result of IBM’s actions, the Company is requesting damages in an amount to be proven at trial and seeking injunctive relief.
On or about March 6, 2003, the Company notified IBM that they were not in compliance with the Company's UNIX source code license agreement and on or about June 13, 2003, the Company delivered to IBM a notice of termination of IBM’s UNIX source code license agreement, which underlies IBM’s AIX software. On or about August 11, 2003, the Company sent a similar notice terminating the Sequent source code license. IBM disputes the Company’s right to terminate those licenses. In the event the Company’s termination of those licenses is valid, the Company believes IBM is exposed to substantial damages and injunctive relief based on its continued use and distribution of the AIX operating system. On June 9, 2003, Novell sent the Company a notice purporting to waive the Company’s claims against
70
IBM regarding its license breaches. The Company does believe that Novell had the right to take any such action relative to the Company's UNIX source code rights.
On February 27, 2004, the Company filed a second amended complaint which alleges nine causes of action that are similar to those set forth above, adds a new claim for copyright infringement and removes the claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. IBM filed an answer and fourteen counterclaims. Among other things, IBM has asserted that the Company does not have the right to terminate IBM’s UNIX license and IBM has claimed that the Company has breached the GNU General Public License and has infringed certain patents held by IBM. IBM’s counterclaims include claims for breach of contract, violation of the Lanham Act, unfair competition, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, unfair and deceptive trade practices, promissory estoppel, patent infringement and a declaratory judgment claim for non-infringement of copyrights. On October 6, 2005, IBM voluntarily dismissed with prejudice its claims for patent infringement.
On February 9, 2005, the Court denied three motions for partial summary judgment that IBM had filed on the Company’s contract claims, on IBM’s eighth counterclaim for copyright infringement, and on IBM’s tenth counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement of the Company's copyrights. The Court denied each of those motions without prejudice to IBM’s renewing or refiling the motions after discovery is complete. The Court also denied the Company’s motion to stay or dismiss IBM’s tenth counterclaim. The Court ordered that no further dispositive motions could be filed until the close of discovery.
On July 1, 2005, the Court issued a revised Scheduling Order establishing, among other things, discovery and motion deadlines over the next 18 months with a five-week jury trial to commence on February 26, 2007.
Pursuant to the Court’s July 1, 2005 Scheduling Order, the Company filed its Interim Disclosure of Material Misused by IBM on October 28, 2005. The Company’s report includes a matrix that identifies 217 separate technology disclosures that it contends IBM improperly made to enhance Linux in violation of one or more contractual prohibitions governing IBM’s use of the Company’s proprietary material. The Company continued to review relevant materials, including evidence IBM has produced in discovery, and filed an updated report on December 22, 2005 detailing IBM’s misuse of the Company’s proprietary material. The Company’s December 22, 2005 report includes 293 total disclosures which the Company claims violate its contractual rights and copyrights. These reports and the disclosures identified are the result of analysis from experienced outside technical consultants. Discovery is ongoing in the case as the parties prepare for trial.
This excerpt taken from the SCOX 10-Q filed Sep 13, 2005. IBM Corporation
On or about March 6, 2003, we filed a complaint against IBM Corporation (“IBM”). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, under the title The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, Civil No. 2:03CV0294. This action includes, among other things, our claim against IBM for breach of contract, copyright infringement, tortious interference, and unfair competition relating to IBM’s alleged use and distribution of information concerning the UNIX source code and derivative works in connection with its efforts to promote the Linux operating system. IBM has responded to our claims and made counterclaims against us.
Following a hearing on October 19, 2004, on January 19, 2005, the United States Magistrate Judge overseeing the discovery in the case issued an order granting in part and denying in part discovery applications that we had made. The Court ordered IBM to produce much of the information, including source code, revision information, and programmer contribution information, that we had previously requested. The court also struck the Amended Scheduling Order and directed the parties to submit a proposed amended scheduling order to the Court, which both parties have done. The District Court heard argument on the proposed schedules on April 21, 2005. On July 1, 2005, the Court issued a revised Scheduling Order establishing, among other things, discovery and motion deadlines over the next 18 months with a five-week jury trial to commence on February 26, 2007.
In response to the Magistrate Court’s Order, IBM filed, on February 11, 2005, a Motion for Reconsideration of the portion of the January 19 Order that required IBM to produce programmer-contribution information for 3,000 people. IBM also filed, on March 9, 2005, a Motion for a 45-day Extension of Time to Comply with the Court’s January 19 Order as it applies to materials that are not the subject of IBM’s above-referenced Motion for Reconsideration. On March 16, 2005, the Court granted the extension and entered an order requiring IBM to produce those materials by May 3, 2005. With respect to the materials covered by IBM’s Motion for Reconsideration, the Court granted IBM’s request to stay its discovery obligations pending the Court’s resolution of its motion.
On April 19, 2005, the Magistrate Court ruled on IBM’s reconsideration motion. The Court declined to strike its prior requirement that IBM produce documents from the files of the 3,000 individuals who made the most contributions and changes to the development of AIX and Dynix. The Court reiterated its requirement that IBM produce programmer’s notes, design documents, white papers, comments and notes, contact information, specific changes made to code, and all relevant non-privileged documents from the files of the 100 individuals who made the most contributions and changes to the development of AIX and Dynix; ordered IBM to provide a privilege log for any documents withheld from the files of those 100 individuals; and required IBM to comply within 90 days. The Court deferred the remainder of IBM’s required production pending our review of the above-described discovery. The Court also reiterated that IBM is required to produce all non-public Linux contribution information and directed IBM to produce all such information within 75 days.
On February 9, 2005, the United States District Judge ruled on several pending dispositive motions. The Court denied the three motions for partial summary judgment that IBM
53
had filed on our contract claims, on IBM’s eighth counterclaim for copyright infringement, and on IBM’s tenth counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement of our copyrights. The Court denied each of those motions without prejudice to IBM’s renewing or refiling the motions after discovery is complete. The Court also denied our motion to stay or dismiss IBM’s tenth counterclaim. The Court ordered that no further dispositive motions could be filed until the close of discovery, except by stipulation of the parties, and vacated its prior order, dated September 30, 2004, to the extent that order had granted permission to file dispositive motions before the close of discovery.
On January 12, 2005, we filed a Motion to Compel IBM to produce IBM CEO Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition. The Court heard argument on that motion on April 21, 2005. On July 1, 2005, the Court issued an order granting our motion and ordered IBM to produce Mr. Palmisano for a four-hour deposition in New York. The Court found that Mr. Palmisano could have unique personal knowledge related to the claims in the case.
The parties have fully briefed this motion, and the Court heard argument on that motion on April 21, 2005. The Court took the matter under advisement. The parties have also now fully briefed our December 23, 2004 Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery, which seeks to compel IBM’s compliance with prior Court orders relating to IBM’s obligation (1) to produce all documents pertaining to Linux from the files of high-level IBM executives and board members; and (2) to produce witnesses to testify on several topics in two deposition notices that SCO has served on IBM. The Court has not set a hearing date for this motion.
On September 6, 2005, we filed a renewed motion to compel IBM to produce information relating to IBM’s work on the source code that IBM contributed to Linux where such information is in IBM’s hands and not publicly available.
In addition to the materials that have been publicly filed with the Court, certain information has been filed under seal in accordance with the protective order entered in the case. On November 30, 2004, a third party moved to intervene in the case for the purpose of challenging the sealing of certain documents filed with the Court, and additional groups subsequently joined in that motion. Following argument on April 26, 2005, by Order dated April 28, 2005, the Court denied the intervention motion. In its Order, the Court set forth various procedures to minimize the risk that documents would be improperly filed under seal. The parties have since directed the Clerk of the Court to unseal numerous previously unsealed filings.
We have also filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint in order to assert an additional copyright claim against IBM in the case. The Court heard argument on that fully briefed motion on April 21, 2005 and took the matter under advisement. In its July 1 order, the Court denied our motion. The Court first allowed IBM to narrow the scope of its Ninth Counterclaim, and having done so concluded that our proposed new claim would expand the litigation and delay its resolution. The Court also opined that it appears that we or our predecessor-in-interest either knew or should have known about the conduct at issue in the new claim before we filed our original Complaint. We therefore will not pursue additional copyright remedies in this case regarding IBM’s alleged misuse of our code in its AIX product as set forth in the proposed amended complaint. We have explained in briefing and argument before the Court, however, that the predicate facts of the proposed copyright claim are already in the case as part of other claims.
Discovery is continuing in the case and we are reviewing that discovery. We are reviewing that discovery and currently anticipate that we will seek to amend our complaint in the near future in order to assert additional claims against IBM.
54
This excerpt taken from the SCOX 10-Q filed Jun 3, 2005. IBM Corporation On or about March 6, 2003, we filed a complaint against IBM Corporation (“IBM”). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, under the title The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, Civil No. 2:03CV0294. This action includes, among other things, we claim against IBM for breach of contract, copyright infringement, tortious interference, and unfair competition relating to IBM’s alleged use and distribution of information concerning the UNIX source code and derivative works in connection with its efforts to promote the Linux operating system. IBM has responded to our claims and made counterclaims against us. Following a hearing on October 19, 2004, on January 19, 2005, the United States Magistrate Judge overseeing the case issued an order granting in part and denying in part discovery applications that we had made. The Court ordered IBM to produce much of the information, including source code, revision information, and programmer contribution information, that we had previously requested. The court also struck the Amended Scheduling Order and directed the parties to submit a proposed amended scheduling order to the court, which both parties have done. The District Court heard argument on the proposed schedules on April 21, 2005 and took the matter under advisement. It is anticipated that the Court will issue a new scheduling order in the near future. In response to the Magistrate Court’s Order, IBM filed, on February 11, 2005, a Motion for Reconsideration of the portion of the Order that required IBM to produce programmer-contribution information for 3,000 people. IBM also filed, on March 9, 2005, a Motion for a 45-day Extension of Time to Comply with the Court’s January 18 Order as it applies to materials that are not the subject of IBM’s above-referenced Motion for Reconsideration. On March 16, 2005, the Court granted the extension and entered an order requiring IBM to produce those materials by May 3, 2005. With respect to the materials covered by IBM’s Motion for Reconsideration, the Court granted IBM’s request to stay its discovery obligations pending the Court’s resolution of its motion. On April 19, 2005, the Magistrate Court ruled on IBM’s reconsideration motion. The Court declined to strike its prior requirement that IBM produce documents from the files of the 3,000 individuals who made the most contributions and changes to the development of AIX and Dynix. The Court reiterated its requirement that IBM produce programmer’s notes, design documents, white papers, comments and notes, contact information, specific changes made to code, and all relevant non-privileged documents from the files of the 100 individuals who made the most contributions and changes to the development of AIX and Dynix; ordered IBM to provide a privilege log for any documents withheld from the files of those 100 individuals; and required IBM to comply within 90 days. The Court deferred the remainder of IBM’s required production pending our review of the above-described discovery. The Court also reiterated that IBM is required to produce all non-public Linux contribution information and directed IBM to produce all such information within 75 days. On February 9, 2005, the United States District Judge ruled on several pending dispositive motions. The Court denied the three motions for partial summary judgment that IBM had filed on our contract claims, on IBM’s eighth counterclaim for copyright infringement, and on IBM’s tenth counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement of our copyrights. The Court denied each of those motions without prejudice to IBM’s renewing or refiling the motions after discovery is complete. The Court also denied our motion to stay or dismiss IBM’s tenth
52
counterclaim. The Court ordered that no further dispositive motions could be filed until the close of discovery, except by stipulation of the parties, and vacated its prior order, dated September 30, 2004, to the extent that order had granted permission to file dispositive motions before the close of discovery. Additional discovery motions that we have filed are also pending before the Court. On January 12, 2005, we filed its Motion to Compel IBM to produce IBM CEO Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition. The parties have fully briefed this motion, and the Court heard argument on that motion on April 21, 2005. The Court took the matter under advisement. The parties have also now fully briefed our December 23, 2004 Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery, which seeks to compel IBM’s compliance with prior Court orders relating to IBM’s obligation to produce (1) all documents pertaining to Linux from the files of high-level IBM executives and board members; and (2) to compel IBM to produce witnesses to testify on several topics in two deposition notices that SCO has served on IBM. The Court has not set a hearing date for this motion. In addition to the materials that have been publicly filed with the Court, certain information has been filed under seal in accordance with the protective order entered in the case. On November 30, 2004, a third party moved to intervene in the case for the purpose of challenging the sealing of certain documents filed with the Court, and additional groups subsequently joined in that motion. Following argument on April 26, 2005, by Order dated April 28, 2005, the Court denied the intervention motion. In its Order, the Court set forth various procedures to minimize the risk that documents would be improperly filed under seal. We have also filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint in order to assert an additional copyright claim against IBM in the case. The Court heard argument on that fully briefed motion on April 21, 2005 and took the matter under advisement. In support of its pending motion to amend, we argued that IBM would not be prejudiced by the proposed amendment because, among other things, our new claim pertained to issues already covered by IBM’s own Ninth Counterclaim, which seeks a broad declaratory judgment of non-infringement relating to AIX. On February 18, 2005, IBM filed a Motion for Entry of Order Limiting the Scope of Its Ninth Counterclaim. That motion has also been briefed, but no argument date has been set. Discovery is continuing in the case. We are reviewing that discovery and currently anticipate that we will seek to amend our complaint in the near future in order to assert additional claims against IBM. This excerpt taken from the SCOX 10-Q filed Apr 14, 2005. IBM Corporation
On or about March 6, 2003, we filed a complaint against IBM Corporation (“IBM”). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, under the title The
46
SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, Civil No. 2:03CV0294. This action includes, among other things, our claim against IBM for breach of contract, copyright infringement, tortious interference, and unfair competition relating to IBM’s alleged use and distribution of information concerning the UNIX source code and derivative works in connection with its efforts to promote the Linux operating system. IBM has responded to our claims and made counterclaims against us.
Following a hearing on October 19, 2004, on January 19, 2005, the United States Magistrate Judge overseeing the case issued an order granting in part and denying in part discovery applications that we had made. The Court ordered IBM to produce much of the information, including source code, revision information, and programmer contribution information, that we had previously requested. The court also struck the Amended Scheduling Order and directed the parties to submit a proposed amended scheduling order to the court, which both parties have done.
In response to the Magistrate Court’s Order, IBM filed, on February 11, 2005, a Motion for Reconsideration of the portion of the Order that required IBM to produce programmer-contribution information for 3,000 people. The parties have fully briefed this motion, but no date has been set for oral arguments.
IBM also filed, on March 9, 2005, a Motion for a 45-day Extension of Time to Comply with the Court’s January 18 Order as it applies to materials that are not the subject of IBM’s above-referenced Motion for Reconsideration. On March 16, 2005, the Court granted the extension and entered an order requiring IBM to produce those materials by May 3, 2005. With respect to the materials that are the subject of IBM’s Motion for Reconsideration, the Court granted IBM’s request to stay its discovery obligations until the Court rules on that motion.
On February 9, 2005, the United States District Judge ruled on several pending dispositive motions. The Court denied the three motions for partial summary judgment that IBM had filed on our contract claims, on IBM’s eighth counterclaim for copyright infringement, and on IBM’s tenth counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement of our copyrights. The Court denied each of those motions without prejudice to IBM’s renewing or refiling the motions after discovery is complete. The Court also denied our motion to stay or dismiss IBM’s tenth counterclaim. The Court ordered that no further dispositive motions could be filed until the close of discovery, except by stipulation of the parties, and vacated its prior order, dated September 30, 2004, to the extent that order had granted permission to file dispositive motions before the close of discovery.
Additional discovery motions that we have filed are also pending before the Court. On January 12, 2005, we filed our Motion to Compel IBM to produce IBM CEO Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition. The parties have fully briefed this motion, and the Court has scheduled oral arguments for April 21, 2005. The parties have also now fully briefed our December 23, 2004 Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery, which seeks to compel IBM’s compliance with prior Court orders relating to IBM’s obligation to produce (1) all documents pertaining to Linux from the files of high-level IBM executives and board members; and (2) to compel IBM to produce witnesses to testify on several topics in two deposition notices that we have served on IBM. The Court has not set a hearing date for this motion.
In addition to the materials that have been publicly filed with the Court, certain information has been filed under seal in accordance with the protective order entered in the case. On November 30, 2004, a third party moved to intervene in the case for the purpose of challenging the sealing of certain documents filed with the Court. Additional groups have joined in that motion, which has been scheduled for a hearing on April 26, 2005.
47
We have also filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint in order to assert an additional copyright claim against IBM in the case. Argument on that motion has been scheduled for April 21, 2005, but we have requested that the Court adjourn that argument date to permit the Company to amend its complaint further by potentially adding additional claims against IBM. IBM has filed an opposition to our motion to adjourn the April 21 hearing. We currently anticipate we will assert those new claims in the near future.
In support of its pending motion to amend, we argued that IBM would not be prejudiced by the proposed amendment because, among other things, our new claim pertained to issues already covered by IBM’s own Ninth Counterclaim, which seeks a broad declaratory judgment of non-infringement relating to AIX. On February 18, 2005, IBM filed a Motion for Entry of Order Limiting the Scope of Its Ninth Counterclaim. That motion has also been briefed, but no argument date has been set.
Discovery is continuing in the case.
This excerpt taken from the SCOX 10-K filed Apr 1, 2005. IBM Corporation
On or about March 6, 2003, the Company filed a complaint against IBM Corporation (“IBM”). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, under the title The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, Civil No. 2:03CV0294. The initial complaint included claims for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and unfair competition. The initial complaint also alleged that IBM had used and distributed information concerning the UNIX source code and derivative works in connection with its efforts to promote the Linux operating system. As a result of IBM’s actions, the Company is requesting damages in an amount to be proven at trial, together with additional damages through and after the time of trial. On or about June 13, 2003, the Company delivered to IBM a notice of termination of IBM’s UNIX license agreement with the Company, which license underlies IBM’s AIX software.
On or about June 16, 2003, the Company filed an amended complaint in the IBM case. The amended complaint essentially restated and re-alleged the allegations of the initial complaint and expanded on those claims. Among other things, the amended complaint raised new allegations regarding IBM’s breaches (in ways similar to those set forth above) of a UNIX license agreement involving Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. (“Sequent”), which IBM had acquired. The Company has sought damages for breaches of the Sequent license agreement. The Company is also seeking injunctive relief on several claims.
IBM has filed a response and counterclaims to the complaint, including a demand for a jury trial. The Company has filed an answer to the IBM counterclaims denying the claims and asserting affirmative defenses. On February 4, 2004, the Company filed a motion for leave to file amended pleadings in the case proposing to amend its complaint against IBM and to modify its affirmative defenses to IBM’s counterclaims. On February 25, 2004, the court granted the Company’s motion for leave to amend.
The second amended complaint, which was filed on February 27, 2004, alleges nine causes of action that are similar to those set forth above, adds a new claim for copyright infringement and removes the claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. IBM filed an answer and fourteen counterclaims. Among other things, IBM has asserted that the Company does not have the right to terminate IBM’s UNIX license and IBM has claimed that the Company has breached the GNU General Public License and has infringed certain patents held by IBM. IBM’s counterclaims include claims for breach of contract, violation of the Lanham Act, unfair competition, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, unfair and deceptive trade practices, promissory estoppel, patent infringement for a declaratory judgment claim for non-infringement of copyrights.
This excerpt taken from the SCOX 10-Q filed Apr 1, 2005. IBM Corporation
On or about March 6, 2003, we filed a complaint against IBM. This action is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, under the title This excerpt taken from the SCOX 10-Q filed Apr 1, 2005. IBM Corporation
On or about March 6, 2003, we filed a complaint against IBM. This action is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, under the title This excerpt taken from the SCOX 10-Q filed Apr 1, 2005. IBM Corporation
On or about March 6, 2003, we filed a complaint against IBM. This action is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, under the title | EXCERPTS ON THIS PAGE:
RELATED TOPICS for SCOX:
|
| |||||||
