Client Server News and LinuxGram, its sister publication, have asked the Utah district court hearing the SCO Group's $5 billion suit against IBM and IBM's subsequent counterclaims to open all the filings that have been sealed.
SCO's suit claims IBM improperly incorporated aspects of SCO's Unix operating system in Linux. If proved, it could derail the Linux market and take the open source movement down with it.
Our motion to intervene cites the fact that Linux is an inflection point for the industry and that any question of its future is a matter of intense public interest.
However, the public has lost any real insight into the case because of a so-called stipulated protective order that SCO and IBM signed in September of 2003 that has let either of them unilaterally designate discovery material as "confidential."
As a result, a large part of the case has been sealed, especially the substantive and material parts.
IBM is believed to have been particularly free with the seal.
Our motion to intervene contends that the protective order, usually reserved for trade secrets whose disclosure could be competitively damaging, may have been abused and that the material that has been put under seal has never been shown to be really confidential.
It argues that merely protecting potentially embarrassing information that the parties "do not want the public to see" violates the public's common law right of access to judicial records and its First Amendment right to oversee the judicial system.
The nine-page motion, filed today, asks that the protective order be modified to keep the record open going forward or that the parties be required to demonstrate a genuine need to seal each document.
It also asks the court to open any correspondence that SCO and IBM have had with the court that is not reflected in the clerk's file and to open all transcripts of court hearings that have been sealed.
Our lawyers, Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, a Salt Lake City firm experienced in First Amendment matters, is prepared to argue our case in court.
About Maureen O'Gara Maureen O'Gara is the Virtualization News Desk editor of SYS-CON Media. She is the publisher of famous "Billygrams" and the editor-in-chief of "Client/Server News" for more than a decade. One of the most respected technology reporters in the business, Maureen can be reached by email at maureen(at)sys-con.com or paperboy(at)g2news.com, and by phone at 516 759-7025.
NemesisNL wrote: "
Ooooops. Somebody needs
to apologize maybe?"
Ehm why would I have to
do that? Because you want
to unseal the court
documents? This shows
somehow that you do have
integrity? I see that you
filed together with SCO,
them stipulating to jan
7th? So basically you are
asking an apology while
nudging even closer to
SCO? Maybe I'm missing
something but from where
I stand you've just shown
that my remarks are to
the point. The fact that
you reported sealed
information and are now
asking to unseal that
information does not
absolve you after the
fact.
Maybe it's time to try
some independant
journalism again?
Jez wrote: "SCO's suit
claims IBM improperly
incorporated aspects of
SCO's Unix operating
system in Linux. If
proved, it could derail
the Linux market and take
the open source movement
down with it."
You wish!
It became clearly over a
year back that SCO was
lying about millions of
lines of infringing code.
They never produced any
proof, and they've long
since stopped making such
wild claims.
Now they are trawling
with ever increasing
desperation for some
evidence - actually *any*
evidence - of possible
infringement, no matter
how tiny. In the event
that SCO eventually found
some small snippet of
Linux that they can prove
wasn't quite legitimate,
that small section of
code would be simply and
quickly rewritten. No
need to abandon the whole
of Linux, let alone open
source.
Doubt they'll have time
to find this needle in ...
Mark G wrote: are you
mental or too young
commented on 2 December
2004:
First, let me say that
you dont appear to have
looked into what you are
saying.
You wrote:
These documents were
sealed after the "open"
court hearing the buddies
of this cyber-person were
also present. Her buddies
reported to Paul Jones
the same exact thing
Maureen published. Paul
Eggar deleted this report
from Groklaw. It WAS an
OPEN court! Do you get
it?
First try Paula, not
Paul. Second, I would
love to know who this
Paul Eggar is. Third, it
was an open court but
what SCO spouted off in
court was sealed
information and was not
to be repeated for the
public (something all
parties agreed to,
including SCO). Forth,
what kind of psycho
statement is Paul Eggar
deleted this report from
Groklaw? Everything you
mention missing is still
there. Just ...
Elektro wrote: SCO and
you have lost your
credibility. No UNIX
user, no journalist
believes your stories
anymore.
SCO = daily media fuss
and no single proof. It's
over, get it. Don't make
noise when you got no
case.
Fedora wrote: att: are
you mental or too young
Why are you so angry?
And... No, the thing here
is that the information
that was breached was
confidential and not for
the ears of the court. It
was not sealed after the
session it was sealed
evidence.
I understand a thing or
two about law. I'm in IT
but my entire family is
in Law.
idiot
Daniel Wallace wrote: Did
anyone notice that PJ and
her Groksters became
blind and deaf today when
it came time to focus on
and repudiate SCO's legal
claim:
"SCO did not breach the
GPL by selling its UNIX
license. The Court is to
interpret a copyright
license
agreement in
accordance with general
principles of
contract construction.
See Miller v. Glenn
Miller
Prods., Ltd., 318
F. Supp 2d 923,934(C.D.
Cal 2004).
("Courts apply general
principles of contract
interpretation when
interpreting the terms of
scope of
a licensing agreement");
Mendler v. Winterland
Prod.,
Ltd., 207 F.3d.
1119, 1121 (9th Cir.
2000)(applying
such
principles in
interpretation of
copyright
license)."
Hmmmm... maybe it's a
CONTRACT after all.
Daniel Wallace
Luc wrote: Hi,
This must be the
stupidest 'news' I ever
found in my mailbox. A
good reason to at last
click on this link:
http://sys-con.com/global
delete.cfm?email=name@pro
vider.com
And never waste time on
nonsense like this again.
Luc.
freecode wrote: Still say
the only thing that
matters is if all of the
files come out in the
wash. Let the dirty
laundry from both sides
hit the street. Then I
can make up my own mind
from there. If that is
successful, then we can
all see both sides of the
fence and decide for
ourselves what is right.
No spin - just the facts,
please.
Have a nice day.
freecode
Still Puzzled wrote: Okay
so if I understand this
aright the deal is that
Groklaw's ear- and
eye-witnesses at the
hearing are saying that
none of *them* heard any
of what O'Gara r
eported about IBM
supposedly claiming not
to be able to find code.
If she has committed an
offence then it isn't
that of lying, but of
disclosing something
that's true - am I
getting this right? Can
we not infer, from the
way this has played out,
that what she reported is
actually true - why else
all this incredible
fuss??? Surely companies
are not like individuals,
so long as trade secrets
aren't involved why don't
we have a right to know
everything that goes on
in a public trial - who
pays the judge's salary
in the Utah district
court, for example: is it
IBM or the taxpayer?
Sure...
are you mental or too
young wrote: to
understand things?
Maureen O'Gara is a
legend and an institution
in technology journalism.
She is not an unknown
cyber person who knows
who may live in the caves
of Afganistan.
These documents were
sealed after the "open"
court hearing the buddies
of this cyber-person were
also present. Her buddies
reported to Paul Jones
the same exact thing
Maureen published. Paul
Eggar deleted this report
from Groklaw. It WAS an
OPEN court! Do you get
it? And there were people
who were in that court
room who did report the
same exact information to
Groklaw. Groklaw deleted
this information. Maureen
did not dig out this
information from the
sealed court files.
Groklaw received the same
information from th eopen
court hearing and
intentionally deleted
this from the web site,
like they always do.
No...
Fedora wrote:
Puzzled commented on 2
December 2004:
* Can anyone clarify
this for me...?
Pamela Jones has
just repeated over at
Groklaw a serious
allegation that she and
her followers have made
many times, namely that
Maureen O'Gara has
committed some kind of
offense:
Judge Wells
certainly was not born
yesterday, and she
observed what happened at
the last hearing, how
confidential matters were
"accidentally" leaked by
one of SCO's attorneys,
and now up pops the very
reporter who reported
some more details about
that leaked info, despite
apparently not being at
the hearing in person
But my question is
this: who decides what is
"confidential"? Not PJ,
surley. Or am I missing
something?
Well, it's actually the
judge and apparently
there's more to it than
finger pointing but I
wasn't there...
an00n wrote: I suspect
both SCO and IBM will
oppose this suit. SCO
definately won't want to
unseal all the documents
they are keeping hidden
from the public and they
certainly don't want any
links between them and
O'gara made public.
Also once this stuff gets
to the court there is a
chance the SEC might
start to scrutinuze the
issue a bit and that
would be disasterous for
SCO
harlan wilkerson wrote:
Ages ago the non-profit
Bell labs fan club of
licensees in the USENIX
association funded the
startup of Rick Adams
UUNET. It aimed to
compete in the
telecommunications market
against SUN which was
then 20 percent AT&T
owned and AT&T. Peter
Salas was the executive
director at the time, and
the USENIX board
(including Kirk McKusick)
directed him to give
UUNET loan guarantees
that proved to be worth
hundreds of millions
instead of an on-going
string of small direct
cash loans. UUNET had a
three year contract to
serve as a DARPA gateway
and 50 paying customers
before they were finally
spun-off from USENIX into
an independent for-profit
corporation. Within a
year of the Berkeley
settlement UUNET was
purchased and Microsoft's
share then was estimated
at over 500 million
dollars.
Many of us are old...
Daniel Wallace wrote:
"Hanging parties are
as offensive online as
they are
offline. PJ will
presumably be apologizing
soon for
keeping the spurious
non-attendance argument
alive, as
the decent person she
clearly is."
Apologize she will not
soon do. PJ is not above
a
little "offline"
hanging attempt now and
then as I have
experienced first-hand.
Her offline attempts at
manipulating things
remove all doubt about
her being
"the decent person" she
clearly isn't.
PJ is slowly learning
that what comes around
goes
around. Six months
from now, Groklaw, PJ and
her little
cult will be nothing more
than a failed blog
memory.
Maureen O'Gara
and LinuxGram will still
be reporting on
all aspects of the
IBM-Novell Linux business
news.
Daniel Wallace
Mike Battle wrote: There
seems to be a great deal
of concern over just
_who_ PJ is. It's pretty
obvious to me - she's the
webmistress of groklaw.
There are some "10
questions" that are of
great importance to those
who've obviously never
even visited her website,
as they're unaware even
that it's GrokLaw.NET,
_not_ GrokLaw.com. One
post stated that the
important questions would
be answered and the
unimportant ones ignored.
All 10 of the questions
(which are still being
repeated) really fall
into this latter
category. There was a
statememt from PJ's early
blogs which pretty much
explained who she is: a
former Micro$oft user who
got disgusted with its
lack of quality and
overabundance of
restrictions and
vendor-lock, and is now a
Linux user. There seems
to be great fear that
GrokLaw readers somehow
follow her, like ...
Conrad Mazian wrote: Wow
- this is better than
Comedy Central. My
stomache hurts from
laughing so hard.
On a serious note, if the
documents are all or
partially unsealed they
will be an interesting
read. My personal
suspicion is that there
won't be anything
momentous in them. Most
"Trade Secrets" are
simple things. If they
weren't simple a patent
would have been filed to
protect them.
Still we should thank SCO
for filing suit. This is
more entertaining than
anything that's ever
happened in IT that I can
remember, and I go back
to the good old days of
punch cards.
Two of the biggest
launches in Rich Internet
Application history took
place in 2007/2008 when
Adobe launched AIR 1.0 in
February '08 and
Microsoft launched
Silverlight (September
'07). At the 6th
International AJAXWorld
RIA Conference & Expo in
October SYS-CON Events is
delighted to be
MuleSource announced
general availability of
Mule Galaxy Enterprise, a
new production-ready
solution for storing and
managing SOA artifacts
offering new
enterprise-class features
such as clustering for
high availability, an
extensible query engine,
and more. Mule Galaxy
Enterprise, the
Oracle announced new
releases of Oracle
Berkeley DB, Oracle
Berkeley DB XML and
Oracle Berkeley DB Java
Edition. The new releases
and enhancements signify
Oracle's commitment to
continued innovation
across the Oracle
Berkeley DB product
family, while maintaining
the open source dual li
Open source applications
provider Red Hat has
introduced three
applications targeting
enterprise-wide adoption
of next-generation
virtualization. It has
introduced embedded Linux
Hypervisor for hosting
virtualized Linux and
Windows environments,
which provide
virtualization with
improv
Red Hat announced
advancements that extend
the Company's Linux
Automation strategy by
providing expanded
capabilities and
incorporating broadened
community involvement for
secure management of both
users and systems across
virtual and physical
enterprise
infrastructures.
Red Hat saw earnings rise
6.6% to $17.3 million, or
eight cents a share in
its first fiscal quarter
ended May 31 on revenue
up 32% year-over-year and
11% sequentially to
$156.6 million. EPS was
dead flat year-over-year.
Subscription revenue was
$130.7 million, up 27%
year-over-year and
SUBSCRIBE TO THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL NEWSLETTERS
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR RSS FEEDS & GET YOUR SYS-CON NEWS LIVE!
Click to Add our RSS Feeds to the Service of Your Choice:
About Newsfeeds / Video Feeds
.gif)
Two of the biggest
launches in Rich Internet
Application history took
place in 2007/2008 when
Adobe launched AIR 1.0 in
February '08 and
Microsoft launched
Silverlight (September
'07). At the 6th
International AJAXWorld
RIA Conference & Expo in
October SYS-CON Events is
delighted to be
Red Hat saw earnings rise
6.6% to $17.3 million, or
eight cents a share in
its first fiscal quarter
ended May 31 on revenue
up 32% year-over-year and
11% sequentially to
$156.6 million. EPS was
dead flat year-over-year.
Subscription revenue was
$130.7 million, up 27%
year-over-year and
