Message ID: 180656
Posted By: b29651
Posted On: 2004-09-15 20:24:00
Subject: Chris Brown

is now back from court and telling us a little about it
bottom line is the judge took it all under advisement
no dismissals at all
he is going to do a written ruling
but the best part
attorney silver fell asleep during the court hearing
isnt that great
the shareholders are paying 31 million to lawyer to sleep thru their court case

Message ID: 180665
Posted By: flimbag
Posted On: 2004-09-15 20:43:00
Subject: From Groklaw

I know people are waiting, and Groklaw is slow as hell, so I hope Jlund doesn't mind my doing this:

Authored by: Jlund on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 08:31 PM EDT
LONG. The session started at two and ended at 5:30 MST.

I am going to leave the full summaries to people who actually had pen and paper
in hand to take notes. I also saw some laptops as well and hopefully we'll get
some nice summaries. I'm happy to answer questions though.

Here's the answer to what most of you probably want to know:
Everything is under advisement. There were no yays or nays today but I did get
the impression he was leaning in IBM's favor. SCO was interrupted numerous times
and their council actually asked for a ten minute recess after Marriot finished
his initial summary judgement argument.

SCO of course did their best to turn the entire hearing towards their discovery
woes and Hatch even tried to argue about their motion to adhere to the
scheduling order before another lawyer stood up to argue why it should be stayed
or dismissed.

IBM was beyond impressive. I have read about the previous hearings and this is
usually mentioned but today was my first opportunity to experience their
arguments first hand and they are incredible.

There was an exhibit brought brought before the court today. It was confidential
and sealed so they only mentioned it in passing. Through their arguments and
discussions though we learn that is was written by someone named John(?) Harrop
and evidently is SCO admitting they are unable to find infringing code. SCO also
brought forth a draft report from 1999 bringing forth the opposite viewpoint and
asserting that there was infringing code in Linux. IBM deftly pointed out in
their closing argument though that the very report SCO presented today refers to
Mr Harrop (I hope I am getting his name right, someone will correct me I'm sure)
and says the final analysis depends on his work. The email IBM presented was
sent three years after SCO's draft report. Was Caldera planning in 1999 to
acquire Unix and use it against Linux? Why would they commission a study of this

SCO's lawyers were, to be frank, garbage. The lone exception is Fry. Hatch did
very little arguing save his embarassing stand in front of the Judge at the
beginning of the session today. Wait for details on that as it was hilarious.
Fry went last for SCO and did the best job I've yet heard of articulating their
claims. Even with my viewpoint being where it is I understood where he was
coming from and after hearing their other attorneys I was impressed with his
delivery. As to the facts he presented I completely disagreed but he was a
capable lawyer.

Kimball imposed a very strict schedule for IBM's response to SCO's scheduling
order motion as well as SCO's followup response. He wants to have that issue
decided quickly but was extremely annoyed by Hatch's attempts to argue it at the
beginning. He said specifically "Suppose I don't grant this" or
something to that effect so I wouldn't worry too much about the fate of summary

I'll post answers to specific questions you may have and I can assist those of
you who may be working on more complete summaries if you desire.

Message ID: 180681
Posted By: cat_herder_5263
Posted On: 2004-09-15 21:08:00
Subject: First hand report by "cxd" on Groklaw



Message ID: 180744
Posted By: heimdal31
Posted On: 2004-09-15 22:01:00
Subject: Groklaw updated with lots more info

More detailed reports on the hearing at that link now.

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "b29651", "flimbag", "cat_herder_5263", "heimdal31" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Copyright 2004 Yahoo! SCOX. Messages are owned by the individual posters.