SCO vs. IBM					 Tech Insider's Review

From: Al Petrofsky <>
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.caldera
Subject: Otis Wilson subpoena proceedings in North Carolina
Date: 16 Aug 2006 23:38:58 -0700
Organization: The Vegetable Liberation Front
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cache-Post-Path: smirk!
X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see
Lines: 147
Xref: alt.os.linux.caldera:213

Otis Wilson worked in AT&T's licensing department twenty years ago.
He was deposed as a witness about the UNIX contracts in the BSDI suit
in 1992, and his June 2004 deposition was a much discussed piece of
evidence in the briefing about IBM's motion for summary judgment on
SCO's contract claims.  (That motion was denied in February 2005
without prejudice to it being renewed if and when discovery ever ends
in the SCO v. IBM case.  The current scheduled date for the possibly
mythical End of Discovery is September 22, 2006.  This is the fifth
date that's been scheduled for that event.  On the original schedule,
the End of Discovery was to arrive on October 22, 2004.)

IBM's filing in Utah today reveals that there's been an ongoing
proceeding in North Carolina, since April, about SCO's desire to
depose Otis Wilson a second time.  See:

I had never noticed that this proceeding existed.  It had never been
mentioned by SCO at  It had apparently also escaped the
notice of and of  Here's a docket
listing of what's occurred over in the Middle District of North Carolina:

There was a hearing on May 30 before U.S. Magistrate Judge P. Trevor
Sharp, and on May 31 he ordered that Wilson appear for a second
deposition.  He added that:

   The only limitation imposed upon the deposition is that SCO may
   depose Mr. Wilson for no greater length of time than 4 hours.

This appears to conflict with the minutes of the conference before
Magistrate Judge Wells in Utah back in January, which said:

   As to Mr. Wilson - he is not to be subjected to any questions other
   than reasonable inferences re: new information ONLY.

How to resolve that conflict is the subject of IBM's filing today.

I've added a section about the May 30 hearing, with links to all the
motions that were heard, here:

I also added this update to the section about the January 26

   As the minutes reflect, no electronic nor stenographic record of
   the conference was made.  For conflicting accounts of what
   occurred, see the Normand declaration and Shaughnessy declaration
   that were later filed in conjunction with the 2006-05-30 hearing in
   North Carolina about the Wilson deposition.

Below is the text of Judge Sharp's order.


pdftotext -layout -htmlmeta Wilson-subpoena-15.pdf -

The materials and information included in this review are not to be used 
for any other purpose other than private study, research or criticism.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb: