Wells allows Otis mugging

walterbyrd

August 22, 2006

No surprise here. Anything that might help her favorite little "good faith" company.

How come only the scox-scum is allowed to have adequate notice? And only scox is allowed to break the rules? Would IBM be allowed to mug Darl in this manner?

6:45:43 AM

Re: Wells allows Otis mugging

ruidh

August 22, 2006

Why is it when people want to elicit an emotional reaction to an issue, they use metaphors involving physical violence? Here are a few others you can use to manipulate people's emotions. "Wells throws Otis under a bus." "Wells aloows Otis flogging in NC."

>> No surprise here. Anything that might help her favorite little "good faith" company. <<

These accusations are sounding a little thin in light of Wells' eviceration (good emo word there, too) of SCOX's Final Disclosure.

>> How come only the scox-scum is allowed to have adequate notice? <<

I don't know what you mean by this.


>> And only scox is allowed to break the rules? Would IBM be allowed to mug Darl in this manner? <<

First of all, we only saw one side of the argument. IBM filed its cases. I don;t know where SCOX's list of cases is. Perhaps they listed them at the teleconference for Wells and IBM needed to file rebuttal cases. Without seeing both arguments, we can't tell

Wells made a big deal that Wilson chose to litigate in the NC forum. They could have procedurally briought it back to Utah.

In any event, this isn;t SCOX unilaterally deciding to ignore Wells order. This is a Federal judge using his authority to modify the order. I'll admit I was surprised at the ruling, but I find assume surprise illuminates an area I don't undrstand well, rather than Wells decided to ignore the law for her "pet" litigant.

10:46:06 AM

AllParadox? Re: Wells allows Otis mugging

Kelledin

August 22, 2006

My impression is pretty much in line with yours: in this case, Otis slipped up and gave SCOX an opening by moving to quash in NC. That apparently took the issue out of the Utah court's purview, and a technicality apparently left Judge Wells' hands tied in the matter. If anything, the NC court should be faulted for allowing this slip to happen, and Otis Wilson should chalk it up to painful (but endurable) learning experience.

That doesn't explain why SCOX isn't sanctioned for such flagrant misconduct though. If I were Judge Wells, I would be furious, and I'd think there would at least be room for some contempt-of-court sanctions. SCOX's actions amount to playing the federal courts off each other for its own benefit.

Perhaps AllParadox can enlighten us as to the technical details here?

12:00:42

 Re: AllParadox? Re: Wells allows Otis mugging

erp_expert

August 22, 2006

> Otis slipped up and gave SCOX an opening by
> moving to quash in NC. That apparently took
> the issue out of the Utah court's purview,

Except that in previous discovery motions (e.g. Oracle) the legal eagles have told us that the deponent's home district is the correct place to lodge an initial objection.

ERP Expert

12:10:39 PM

Re: Wells allows Otis mugging

smartin_tn

August 22, 2006

> These accusations are sounding a little thin in light of Wells' eviceration (good emo word there, too) of SCOX's Final Disclosure. <

Slight difference --- Wells' ruling over the Final Disclosures will not result in an old man being raked over the coals yet again.

12:23:39 PM

New Wilson deposition doesn't matter

monsieur_bobo

August 22, 2006

First of all, Wilson is only 66 so he isn't all that old, and I doubt he is all that befuddled. But that hardly matters anyway. Wilson spent a good chunk of his life administering Unix contracts, and he knows exactly what AT&T intended. They might as well try to rattle him about which direction the sun rises, he isn't going to say anything which even remotely supports SCOX's interpretation of those contracts, because NO commercial entity ever thought signing a Unix contract gave AT&T control over their code. If Wilson somehow contracts Alzheimers overnight, IBM can probably find about 100 other witnesses that will contradict SCOX. Maybe even a 1000. Those contracts, by their plain language, just don't say what SCOX wants them to say, and nobody that signed one at the time interpreted it the way SCOX does today.

12:44:54 PM

Re: AllParadox? Re: Wells allows Otis mugging

wallybass

August 22, 2006

>That doesn't explain why SCOX isn't sanctioned for such flagrant misconduct though. If I were Judge Wells, I would be furious, and I'd think there would at least be room for some contempt-of-court sanctions.<

It could very well be that Wells is furious. But in the larger scheme of things, particularly in terms of being sure that the bench (Wells/Kimball) doesn't come across as being biased and hence that being the basis for an appeal, it may very well be that the wisest course of action here on the part of Wells is to be as unemotional about it as possible, particularly if there were no really *effective* remedies available.

I'll remind you that the US v. Microsoft case was, for all practical purpose, lost *completely* because Judge Jackson failed to maintain the "proper" appearance of neutrality.

Wally Bass

PS: this NC thing makes me sick also.

1:50:58 PM

Re: AllParadox? Re: Wells allows Otis mugging

AllParadox

August 22, 2006

Mr. Wilson, and his attorney, have tried to play by the rules: depositions in North Carolina must be pursuant to subpoenas issued by a Federal Judge in North Carolina.  "The SCO Group" has filed to take his deposition in N.C., as they were required to do.  The N.C. Judge has no power to re-write Wells' orders.  He has no power at all to do that.  A too-quick filing in N.C., which I strongly suspect was carefully timed by attorneys for "The SCO Group" to fall during Shaunessey's vacation, left Wilson and IBM without time to prepare.   The conduct of the attorneys for "The SCO Group", and the Judge in North Carolina, is despicable.

I am quite disappointed with Judge Wells' wishy-washy failure to address out-of-control attorneys here.

"The SCO Group" and their attorneys are still subject to her jurisdiction and her orders.  There are several effects of an order limiting discovery.  One is that it gives both parties a clear idea of limits, for one, how far they can go, and for the other, when to push back, and how hard.  Another, and closely related, effect is procedural consequences: which objections and refusals to answer will be worth taking up with the Judge, by motion, and which would be a waste of paper and time? 

A powerful effect of an order is the contempt limits on the attorneys.  Judge Wells, IMHO, has hurt Mr. Wilson by her lackadasical refusal to address the issue.  She cannot call up the North Carolina Judge and direct him to follow her orders.  She can, however, punish the attorneys for "The SCO Group" in several ways if they go outside her limits.  Direct Contempt of Court, with up to a year in jail, is the most harsh remedy, but there are lesser penalties that would catch the attention of Plaintiff's attorneys, and the Plaintiff, if applied.

Her failure here means that law and procedures really need not be followed in her courtroom.  IMHO, it is incompetence that punishes everyone who appears before her.

Yes, this is the harshest public criticism I have ever made of a judge.
_________________________________________________
AllParadox - Retired Attorney, no legal opinions, just my opinion.

2:38:27 PM

Re: New Wilson deposition doesn't matter

jailbait

August 22, 2006

I have read the transcripts of Otis Wilson's previous testimony and I would guess that his attitude toward the interpretation of the AT&T contracts is rather complex. I think that originally AT&T interpreted the contracts similar to the way that SCO wants to interpret them.

Then came the BSD v USL case over those same contracts. BSD won the case and the court interpreted the contracts similar to the way that IBM wants to interpret them. Obviously this interpretation is the one that will carry in SCO v IBM.

Otis Wilson gives a rational explanation of either interpretation and correctly pinpoints which interpretation is currently valid. However I suspect that like any loser in a lawsuit he feels "We was robbed!". Emotionally he probably supports the earlier, losing AT&T interpretation.

It is conceivable that BSF could get Otis Wilson riled up enough to testify that the original AT&T interpretation is still correct. That would not be a winning argument in SCO v IBM but IBM would have to still go through the work of disproving it.

---------------------
Steve Stites

3:16:41 PM

Re: New Wilson deposition doesn't matter

northsun99

August 22, 2006

"I think that originally AT&T interpreted the contracts similar to the way that SCO wants to interpret them. Then came the BSD v USL case over those same contracts. BSD won the case and the court interpreted the contracts similar to the way that IBM wants to interpret them."

You may want to check your history there - your beliefs display a shocking lack of knowledge of the facts.

Besides the fact that BSD didn't win the suit (the parties settled before a decision was reached) and the judge (to the best of my knowledge) never made a decision about the interpretation of the "derivative works" part of the contract, AT&T issued the $echo contract clarification in 1985 - SEVEN years before the AT&T/BSDi lawsuit.

If AT&T's interpretation of the contracts changed because of the BSDi suit, why did they issue a clarification seven years earlier?

4:02:36 PM

Re: New Wilson deposition doesn't matter

jailbait

August 22, 2006

"Besides the fact that BSD didn't win the suit (the parties settled before a decision was reached) and the judge (to the best of my knowledge) never made a decision about the interpretation of the "derivative works" part of the contract,"

The judge made an intermediate ruling that the code written by BSD belonged to BSD and the code written by AT&T belonged to AT&T. This ruling knocked the props out from under AT&T's claims to derivative works. BSD and AT&T then fairly easily came to an agreement as to who had written what. BSD said that AT&T could continue to use BSD code provided AT&T put BSD copyright notices on that code. AT&T did not allow BSD to use AT&T code so BSD pulled all AT&T code out of BSD and wrote their own version of that code.

"If AT&T's interpretation of the contracts changed because of the BSDi suit, why did they issue a clarification seven years earlier?"

AT&T were probably asking themselves the same question during the trial.

----------------------
Steve Stites

4:35:43 PM

Re: New Wilson deposition doesn't matter

walterbyrd

August 22 2006

To me, these judges constantly turning a blind eye to scox/bsf juducial misconduct "matters." This is hardly the first time that these judges have done this.

It will be difficult for IBM to win against substantial judicial bias.

7:59:55 PM

Can the deposed object to being asked a question, that was already asked?

walterbyrd

August 22 2006

If scox repeats questions from the last deposition, would it proper for Otis not to answer on the grounds that the question was already asked?

Also, would it be proper for the deposed to ask the relevance of a particular question?

What if the deposed refused to answer any questions?

8:14:59 PM 

BS&F should replace Wells

walterbyrd

August 23 2006

It would save the taxpayers money, and expedite the proceedings. BSF seems to get everything they want, and never gets sanctioned, anyway.

For example, from the time scox first demanded all that onerous, and irrelevant, discovery, until the time bsf finally got it, was an 18 month delay. If BSF was in charge, it would have happened right away.

As BSF’s servant, and a make-believe judge, Well is nothing but an un-needed “middle-woman.”

7:40:28 AM

Re: New Wilson deposition doesn't matter

paulshirley2006

August 23 2006

"The judge made an intermediate ruling that the code written by BSD belonged to BSD and the code written by AT&T belonged to AT&T. This ruling knocked the props out from under AT&T's claims to derivative works. BSD and AT&T then fairly easily came to an agreement as to who had written what."

Back in the universe we live in (instead of the strange parallel universe you seem to inhabit) AT&T rushed into a settlement because the court made it known that neither AT&T or BSD owned the majority of the code. The BSD licence pretty much nullifies any attempt to stop AT&T using BSD owned source, AT&T established ownership of a pitifully few source files, they're the ones BSD had to rewrite.

The likely outcome of proceding to a result in court was so devastating to AT&T they chose a secret settlement to maintain the pretence they actually had substantial ownership of UNIX. We've all now seen that document and know its almost all public domain.

8:57:39 AM

Re: New Wilson deposition doesn't matter

MathFox

August 23 2006

"Back in the universe we live in (instead of the strange parallel universe you seem to inhabit) AT&T rushed into a settlement because the court made it known that neither AT&T or BSD owned the majority of the code. The BSD licence pretty much nullifies any attempt to stop AT&T using BSD owned source, AT&T established ownership of a pitifully few source files, they're the ones BSD had to rewrite."

9:56:25 AM

Re: BS&F should replace Wells

monsieur_bobo

August 23 2006

[As BSF’s servant, and a make-believe judge, Well is nothing but an un-needed “middle-woman.”]

It isn't going to change the outcome in any way. Wells and Kimball still ultimately get to decide what a jury hears, and in Kimball's case, he gets to decide if there is even any need for a jury. After all the discovery shenanigans are over, Kimball is going to grant IBM's PSJ's. If SCOX/BS&F are stupid enough to appeal, the appeals court is going to examine a judicial record and discover that they judges bent over backwards in order to help SCOX look under every pebble on the beach trying to find some evidence. After turning over every pebble 30 or 40 times, SCOX will have exactly as much evidence has they have now: none. I'm personally enjoying their slow, painful death and it is going to be kind of deflating when it is all over.

5:23:24 PM

Re: Can the deposed object to being asked a question, that was already asked?

AllParadox

August 24 2006

So far, this has all been surprisingly friendly.

The IBM attorney has a lot of leeway to object at Mr. Wilson's second deposition.

If he is really on his toes, he can have a super-secretary present who will type in the questions as they are asked, and a small database will be searched for similar questions.  When there is a match, it is displayed to the attorney.  He then may object to the question having been asked and answered.

The basic problem is that "The SCO Group" may re-ask questions that the IBM attorneys asked, then enlarge upon them, without being subject to this objection.

Worse, if the wrong thing comes out, or the IBM attorney objects and Wells later disagrees, then they might get a third whack at poor Mr. Wilson. 

Still, the North Carolina Judge could put Wilson in jail for contempt, if Wilson refuses to answer.  That consequence would give me pause.  It should be a concern for Wilson.

Probably best to just answer the questions completely and be done with it.
__________________________________________________
AllParadox - Retired Attorney, no legal opinions, just my opinion.

5:15:47 AM

Seems to me: Wilson depostion could be a huge win for scox

walterbyrd

August 24 2006

All scox needs is a sequence of about four words, that scox can twist and spin to mean something completely different than they were intended to mean.

That will give scox all scox needs to demand that the issue require further investigation.

These jackass judges, who seem to think they are scox's servants, will of course accomodate scox. Insane filings, and massive delays will ensue.

8:29:39 AM

Re: Seems to me: Wilson depostion could be a huge win for scox

MathFox

August 23 2006

"All scox needs is a sequence of about four words, that scox can twist and spin to mean something completely different than they were intended to mean.

"That will give scox all scox needs to demand that the issue require further investigation. "

Source: Investor Village SCOX [ http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911 ]

Copyright 2006