DOCSLIB.ORG

EXHIBIT 2 Case 2:04-Cv-00139-TS Document 852-3 Filed 04/19/2010 Page 2 of 56

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EXHIBIT 2 Case 2:04-Cv-00139-TS Document 852-3 Filed 04/19/2010 Page 2 of 56 Case 2:04-cv-00139-TS Document 852-3 Filed 04/19/2010 Page 1 of 56 EXHIBIT 2 Case 2:04-cv-00139-TS Document 852-3 Filed 04/19/2010 Page 2 of 56 :' I 1 rN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH/ CENTRAL DIVIS]ON 3 4 THE SCO GROUP/ INC., a Delaware tr J corporation, 6 Pl-aintif f and Counterclaim- 1 Defendant, B VS. Case No. 2:04-CY-739 dak 9 NOVELL, INC./ a Delaware 1U corporation, 11 Defendant and Counterclaim- Pl-aintif f . T2 13 EOPY 74 15 76 BEFORE THE HONORABLE DALE A. KIMBALL I1 DATE: APRIL 29, 2008 1B REPORTERIS TRANSCT]PT OF PROCEEDTNGS 19 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT 20 2L 22 23 24 Reporter: REBECCA JANKE, CSR, RMR 25 KELLY BROWN H]CKEN/ CSR/RMR 1 Case 2:04-cv-00139-TS Document 852-3 Filed 04/19/2010 Page 3 of 56 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 FOR NOVELL: MORR]SON & FOERSTER LLP 4 BY: MICHAEL A. JACOBS, ESQ. q EIRC M. ACKER, ESQ. 6 DAVID E. MELAUGH, ESQ. 1 3625 I{ARKET STREET B sAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNTA 94105 9 1_0 11 I2 FOR SCO: BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 13 BY: STUART H. SINGER/ ESQ. L4 EDWARD J. NORMAND, ESQ. 15 ,JASON CYRULNIK, ESQ. T6 401 EAST LAS OLAS BLVD, SUITE 1200 L'7 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33301 1B I9 HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C. 20 BY: BRENT O. HATCH, ESQ. 2T 10 VüEST BROADWAY, SUITE 400 22 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101 23 24 25 Case 2:04-cv-00139-TS Document 852-3 Filed 04/19/2010 Page 4 of 56 1 Thesecondpointl'dl-iketoturntorwhich'if 2 we turn to sl-ide Ig in the binder of materials and 3 hopefully werII put it on the screen momentarily here. 4 And it is a follow-up of a statement Mr. Jacobs made here And 5 today, where he said. the focus of scosource is svRX. 6 that's really similar t.o a statement which was f iled in 1 Novel-l's memorandum in support of its motion for Summary B judgment on its fourth claim, which is, from start to 9 finish, Novell said, sco never claimed scosource had 10 anything to do with sco's UNIX derivative rights and any 11 attempt by SCo to recast scosource now should fail. t2 SotheyarefeelingtheCourtinitspapersand 13 now in open court, that scosource had nothing to do with I4 unixware. That is símply not so. If one turns to what 15 the documents the court will see during this week of T6 trial will- show, and the very next slide it's the I1 December 2oo2 press rel-ease. sco's shared libraries -- _LO and it talks about unixware and openserver licensing L9 agreements did not allow those UNIX libraries to be 20 separated from the operating systems. 2I The January 2003 announcement, which talks 22 about SCO's UnixWare and OpenServer l-icense aqreements, 23 the February 2OO3 sales guide, which says precisely that 24 with respect to the shared library, the document and LJ repeatedly refers to sco's concern that unixvÍare 31 Case 2:04-cv-00139-TS Document 852-3 Filed 04/19/2010 Page 5 of 56 1 OpenServer technology have been improperly used in Linux. 2 In the July 2003 press release, where it says the company 3 also announced it wil-l offer UnixWare licenses to support 4 one-tíme binary use of Linux for al-l- commercial users of 5 Linux based upon certain terms. 6 So the evidence wil-I show that in fact 1 SCOsource, at its inception and throughout remained B concerned with technology that was in UnixWare and 9 OpenServer. 10 And the third point Ird l-ike to observe comes 11 off of a chart which Mr. Jacobs used which tries to draw 1,2 this distinction. It's the chart that was the timeline 13 where on the left-hand side you had SVRX and, on the I4 right-hand side, you had SCO UnixWare. And ít suqgrests l_5 that these are two different universes, that SVRX and SCO 16 UnixWare are somehow distinct and, if you're referring to 1'1 II SVRX¡ you're not incl-uding UnixWare, and vice-versa. 18 The reality is, is that there is not a 19 dichotomy in terms of the technology between UnixWare and ZU System V. UnixWare is System V technology. It is the 21 latest evol-ution of that. It is UnixVüare -- UNIX System 22 V, 4.2 MP. And this dichotomy that Novell- seeks to draw 23 between UnixWare and System V, with respect to the z4 technology, is simply not the case. And that's shown, for example, by documents such as Novel-l I s own sales JL-a Case 2:04-cv-00139-TS Document 852-3 Filed 04/19/2010 Page 6 of 56 1 binders for UnixWare, which says that this is the latest 2 implementation of UNIX System V, Release 4.2 MP 3 technology and repeats that many times as being the 4 l-atest generation of that use, that this is powerful, 5 scaIable, reliable UNIX System V, Rel-ease 5. 6 Thus, when we talk about our UnixWare rights, 1 when we talk about the System V license in the context of B SCOsource, that doesnrt mean something other than 9 UnixWare, that includes UnixWare. And that will be 10 important as we look at the fact that UnixWare has within 11 it the critical- System V technology, and SCO obtained the 12 right to license that technol-ogy and do other things with 13 that technology with third parties through the Sun I4 agreement, the Microsoft agreement and the SCOsource 15 agreement. L6 The question is valuation of for the I1 purposes of the APA, what is the value on the SVRX 1B rightsr âs defined in the APA, for that portion on which 19 that has to f low through to Novel-l-. 20 Now, if f can put that and let me, before 2I leaving that issue, refer to a couple of the documents aa LL that Mr. Jacobs referred to. He refers to a letter that 23 was sent out to a lot of people with respect to SCOsource .A ¿¿) lj-censing and it talked about are UNIX System V, but that 25 does not exclude UnixWare, which is part of System V 33 Case 2:04-cv-00139-TS Document 852-3 Filed 04/19/2010 Page 7 of 56 1 for those products, therefore Noveff is entitled only to a L a de minimus royalty with respect to its residual rights. 3 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Singer. 4 You may call- your first witness. 5 MR. JACOBS: We do, Your Honor. We call 6 Mr. Joe LaSala. 1 THE COURT: Come forward and be sworn, please B right up here in front of the cl-erk of the Court. 9 JOSEPH LA SALA, 10 the witness hereinbefore named, being first 11 duty cautioned and sworn or affirmed to teII the truth, I2 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was examined 13 and testified as follows: t4 THB CLERK: Please state your name and spell it 15 for the record. L6 THE WITNESS: My name is Joseph A. LaSaIa, Jr. I1 My last name is spelled L-a, capital S-a-l--a. 18 THE CLERK: Thank you. 79 THB COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Jacobs. 20 D]RECT EXAMTNATION 2L BY MR. JACOBS: 22 O. Good morning, Mr. LaSal-a. Coul-d you briefly 23 introduce yourself and your background to the Court. 24 A. Yes. Good morninq. My name is Joe LaSal-a. I 25 was the general counsel- at Novel-l- from July of 2001 45 Case 2:04-cv-00139-TS Document 852-3 Filed 04/19/2010 Page 8 of 56 1 through mid-January, 2008. Today I am, and since that 2 time, I have been the qenera I counsel of Discovery 3 Communications. 4 O. Were you involved in the dispute and the 5 rel-ationship between SCO and Novell as the SCOsource 6 campaÍgn unfolded? 1 A. Yes, f was. B O. Can you characterize the level of your 9 involvement, please? 10 A. WeIl¡ âs qeneral counsel of the company, I was 11 made aware of virtually all of the important activities T2 j-n connection with the litigation and in connection with 13 SCOrs launch of the SCOsource campaiqn, our company's T4 reaction to that, the various public and private 15 communications that occurred between the companies at the 16 time and the enqagement of counsel and overall the 1,1 strategy with respect to our company's response to those 1B activities. 1_9 O. Could you look at the first exhibit in your 20 binder, please, NovelI ExhibÍt 2I5? 2t A. Yes. 22 O. What is that? 23 A. This is a June 24, 2003 Ietter from me to .A z1] Mr. McBride, and I thlnk it. constitutes one of the first 25 letters that NoveIl sent to SCO, and the principal 46 Case 2:04-cv-00139-TS Document 852-3 Filed 04/19/2010 Page 9 of 56 1 purpose of this l-etter was to request that SCO provide us 2 with copies of two SCOsource licenses that it had 3 recently announced that it had entered into; one with 4 Microsoft and one with an unnamed party. q MR.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Android (Operating System) 1 Android (Operating System)
    Android (operating system) 1 Android (operating system) Android Home screen displayed by Samsung Nexus S with Google running Android 2.3 "Gingerbread" Company / developer Google Inc., Open Handset Alliance [1] Programmed in C (core), C++ (some third-party libraries), Java (UI) Working state Current [2] Source model Free and open source software (3.0 is currently in closed development) Initial release 21 October 2008 Latest stable release Tablets: [3] 3.0.1 (Honeycomb) Phones: [3] 2.3.3 (Gingerbread) / 24 February 2011 [4] Supported platforms ARM, MIPS, Power, x86 Kernel type Monolithic, modified Linux kernel Default user interface Graphical [5] License Apache 2.0, Linux kernel patches are under GPL v2 Official website [www.android.com www.android.com] Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware and key applications.[6] [7] Google Inc. purchased the initial developer of the software, Android Inc., in 2005.[8] Android's mobile operating system is based on a modified version of the Linux kernel. Google and other members of the Open Handset Alliance collaborated on Android's development and release.[9] [10] The Android Open Source Project (AOSP) is tasked with the maintenance and further development of Android.[11] The Android operating system is the world's best-selling Smartphone platform.[12] [13] Android has a large community of developers writing applications ("apps") that extend the functionality of the devices. There are currently over 150,000 apps available for Android.[14] [15] Android Market is the online app store run by Google, though apps can also be downloaded from third-party sites.
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications of Incumbent Intellectual Property
    THE IMPLICATIONS OF INCUMBENT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STRATEGIES FOR OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE SUCCESS AND COMMERCIALIZATION A Dissertation Presented to The Academic Faculty by Wen Wen In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the School of College of Management Georgia Institute of Technology August 2012 THE IMPLICATIONS OF INCUMBENT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STRATEGIES FOR OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE SUCCESS AND COMMERCIALIZATION Approved by: Dr. Chris Forman, Advisor Dr. Sandra Slaughter College of Management College of Management Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Marco Ceccagnoli Dr. D.J. Wu College of Management College of Management Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Dan Breznitz Dr. Ram Chellappa College of Management Goizueta Business School Georgia Institute of Technology Emory Unive rsity Date Approved: June 18, 2012 To Mom, Dad, and Xihao ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I sincerely thank Chris Forman for being a great advisor and mentor. This dissertation would not have been possible without his guidance. I owe him a great debt of gratitude for his generous support and boundless patience throughout the dissertation process. I am honored to follow in his footsteps to always strive to identify important research questions and conduct rigorous research. I am also indebted to the constructive advice and insights of my committee members, Sandra Slaughter, Marco Ceccagnoli, DJ Wu, Dan Breznitz, and Ram Chellappa. Their sage counsel along the course of this dissertation has both enriched my research in Information Systems and cultivated my interdisciplinary knowledge and skills. I also gratefully acknowledge the enormous support from the entire faculty of the Information Technology Management group and the Scheller College of Business at Georgia Tech.
    [Show full text]
  • Titans and Trolls of the Open Source Arena
    Titans and Trolls Enter the Open-Source Arena * by DEBRA BRUBAKER BURNS I. Introduction .................................................................................... 34 II. Legal Theories for Open Source Software License Enforcement ................................................................................... 38 A. OSS Licensing .......................................................................... 38 B. Legal Theories and Remedies for OSS Claims .................... 40 1. Legal Protections for OSS under Copyright and Contract Law ..................................................................... 40 Stronger Protections for OSS License under Copyright Law ................................................................... 40 2. Copyright-Ownership Challenges in OSS ....................... 42 3. Potential Legal Minefields for OSS under Patent Law ...................................................................................... 45 4. Added Legal Protection for OSS under Trademark Law ...................................................................................... 46 5. ITC 337 Action as Uncommon Legal Protection for OSS ..................................................................................... 49 III. Enforcement Within the OSS Community .................................. 49 A. Software Freedom Law Center Enforces OSS Licenses .... 50 B. Federal Circuit Finds OSS License Enforceable Under Copyright Law ......................................................................... 53 C. Commercial OSS
    [Show full text]
  • Android (Operating System) 1 Android (Operating System)
    android text PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:56:19 UTC Android (operating system) 1 Android (operating system) Android Home screen displayed by Samsung Nexus S with Google, running Android 2.3 "Gingerbread" Company / developer Google Inc, Open Handset Alliance [1] Programmed in C (core), Java (UI), C++ Working state Current [2] [3] Source model Mixed (free and open source software and proprietary software) Initial release 21 October 2008 [4] [4] Latest stable release Tablets: 3.2 (Honeycomb) Phones: 2.3.6 (Gingerbread) / 2 September 2011 Package manager APK [5] [6] Supported platforms ARM, MIPS, x86 Kernel type Linux kernel (monolithic) Android (operating system) 2 Default user interface Graphical [7] License Apache License 2.0 before 3.0, closed source for 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2: Linux kernel patches under GNU GPL v2 [8] Official website android.com Android is an operating system for mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers. It is developed by the Open Handset Alliance led by Google.[9] [10] Google purchased the initial developer of the software, Android Inc., in 2005.[11] The unveiling of the Android distribution on 5 November 2007 was announced with the founding of the Open Handset Alliance, a consortium of 84 hardware, software, and telecommunication companies devoted to advancing open standards for mobile devices.[12] [13] [14] [15] Google released most of the Android code under the Apache License, a free software license.[16] The Android Open Source Project (AOSP) is tasked with the maintenance and further development of Android.[17] Android consists of a kernel based on the Linux kernel, with middleware, libraries and APIs written in C and application software running on an application framework which includes Java-compatible libraries based on Apache Harmony.
    [Show full text]
  • Novell's Motion for a More Definite Statement Was Also Scheduled to Be Heard at the Court's Hearing. but the Parties Inform
    Case 2:04-cv-00139-DAK Document 139 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 1 of 9 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION THE SCO GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION vs. AND ORDER NOVELL, INC., Defendant. Civil Case No. 2:04CV139DAK This matter is before the court on Defendant Novell, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Claims Raising Issues Subject to Arbitration. The court held a hearing on the motion on July 17, 2006.1 At the hearing, Defendant was represented by Michael A. Jacobs and Thomas R. Karrenberg, and Plaintiff was represented by Stuart H. Singer, William Dzurilla, and Brent O. Hatch. The court took the motion under advisement. The court has considered the memoranda submitted by the parties as well as the law and facts relating to the motion. Now being fully advised, the court renders the following Memorandum Decision and Order. BACKGROUND In January 2004, this case originated in state court as a single claim for slander of title. Novell removed SCO’s state court action to this court. After this court’s ruling on SCO’s 1 Novell’s Motion for a More Definite Statement was also scheduled to be heard at the court’s hearing. But the parties informed the court at the hearing that they had reached an agreement that had resolved the motion. Therefore, the motion is moot. 1 Case 2:04-cv-00139-DAK Document 139 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 2 of 9 motion to remand and Novell’s motion to dismiss, SCO filed its First Amended Complaint.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\My Documents\06-2454.203.Wpd
    In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 06-2454 DANIEL WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION; RED HAT, INC.; and NOVELL, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:05-cv-678 RLY-VSS—Richard L. Young, Judge. ____________ SUBMITTED OCTOBER 26, 2006—DECIDED NOVEMBER 9, 2006 ____________ Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and EVANS, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Does the provision of copyrighted software under the GNU General Public License (“GPL”) violate the federal antitrust laws? Authors who distribute their works under this license, devised by the Free Software Foundation, Inc., authorize not only copying but also the creation of derivative works—and the license prohibits charging for the derivative work. People may make and distribute derivative works if and only if they come under the same license terms as the original work. Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any 2 No. 06-2454 creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge. Copyright law, usually the basis of limiting reproduction in order to collect a fee, ensures that open-source software remains free: any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws, even if the improver has not accepted the GPL. The Free Software Foundation calls the result “copyleft.” One prominent example of free, open-source software is the Linux operating system, a derivative of the Unix operating system written by AT&T in the 1960s and now available without cost.
    [Show full text]
  • MEMORANDUM in Support Re 657 MOTION for Daubert Hearing To
    SCO Grp v. Novell Inc Doc. 658 Att. 1 EXHIBIT A Dockets.Justia.com Brent O. Hatch (5715) Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice) Mark F. James (5295) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC Bank ofAmerica Tower - Suite 2800 10 West Broadway, Suite 400 100 Southeast Second Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (801) 363-6363 Telephone: (305) 539-8400 Facsimile: (801) 363-6666 Facsimile: (305) 539-1307 David Boies (admitted pro hac vice) Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice) Stuart Singer (admitted pro hac vice) Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd. 333 Main Street Suite 1200 Armonk, New York 10504 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 Telephone: (954) 356-0011 Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 Facsimile: (954) 356-0022 Devan V. Padmanabhan (admitted pro hac vice) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: (612) 340-2600 Facsimile: (612) 340-2868 Attorneysfor Plaintiff, The SeQ Group, Inc. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH THE SCO GROUP, INC., EXPERT REPORT AND a Delaware corporation, DECLARATION OF GARY PISANO Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, Civil No.: 2:04CV00139 vs. Judge Dale A. Kimball Magistrate Brooke C. Wells NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff. DECLARAnON AND EXPERT REPORT OF GARY PISANO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 I. ASSIGNMENT 2 II. QUALIFICATIONS 3 III. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 4 IV. BACKGROUND 5 A. The Evolution ofUNIX 5 B. SCO's Relationship with UNIX 7 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Enforcing the Gnu Gpl
    ENFORCING THE GNU GPL Sapna Kumar† I. INTRODUCTION Artists and authors push for strong legal protection against forces that seek to erode future innovation and the American way of life. These groups are supported by some of the most powerful copyright holders and creative associations in the United States, such as the Motion Picture Association of America and the Walt Disney Corporation.1 They have not only altered public perception about the rights to which creators are entitled, they have also successfully lobbied Congress.2 This has led to an outcry by scholars who believe the broad rights of creators threaten innovation and even freedom.3 Lawrence Lessig describes the † The author is a Faculty Fellow at Duke University School of Law and a 2003 graduate of the University of Chicago Law School. The author would like to thank Matthew Sayler for his research assistance and support; Michael Newman, Uli Widmaier, and Douglas Lichtman for their guidance; and Alex Nguyen, Michael O. Jackson, and Melissa Fatool for their comments. 1. See, e.g., Matt Richel & Neil Strauss, Metallica to Try to Prevent Fans from Downloading Recordings, N.Y. TIMES (Late Ed.), May 3, 2000, at C1 (“Napster has . forced [Metallica] to ‘take a stand.’ That stand entailed hiring a company to visit Napster to compile a log of the online handles of Napster users who say they have Metallica music to offer.”); Business Software Alliance, Anti-Piracy Information, http://www.bsa.org/usa/antipiracy (last visited Jan. 13, 2006) (“Poor software management can cost a company or an individual, not only in terms of legal and financial risk but also in terms of lost efficiency and productivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Ninth Counterclaim
    Brent O. Hatch (5715) Mark F. James (5295) HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C. 10 West Broadway, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Telephone: (801) 363-6363 Facsimile: (801) 363-6666 Stephen N. Zack Mark J. Heise BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER L.L.P. 100 Southeast Second Street Suite 2800 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 539-8400 Facsimile: (305) 539-1307 Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH _______________________________________________________________________________ THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, SCO’S ANSWER TO IBM’S AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff, Case No. 03-CV-0294 vs. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES Hon: Dale A. Kimball CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells Defendant. _______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff and counterclaim-defendant The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”), by and through counsel, answers the amended counterclaims of defendant and counterclaim-plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) and further admits, denies and alleges as follows: ANSWER 1. Admits that the UNIX operating system was originally developed by Bell Laboratories, then a development arm of AT&T Corp., but denies the remaining allegations of ¶1. 2. Admits that it respects the intellectual property rights of others, but denies the remaining allegations of ¶2. 3. Admits the allegations of ¶3. 4. Admits the Court has jurisdiction over the claims, but denies that IBM has any valid claims and denies the remaining allegations of ¶4 not specifically admitted herein. 5. Admits the allegations of ¶5. 6. Admits the allegations of ¶6. 7. Admits the allegations of ¶7. 8. Admits that the earliest UNIX operating system was built by software engineers at Bell Laboratories, the research division of AT&T, but denies the remaining allegations of ¶8 not specifically admitted herein.
    [Show full text]
  • SNELL & WILMER LLP Alan L.Sullivan (3152)
    SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. Alan L.Sullivan (3152) Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651) Amy F. Sorenson (8947) 15 West South Temple, Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1004 Telephone: (801)257-1900 Facsimile: (801)257-1800 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice) David R. Marriott (7572) Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212)474-1000 Facsimile: (212)474-3700 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH THE SCO GROUP, INC., IBM'S REDACTED REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF v. NON-INFRINGEMENT (IBM'S TENTH COUNTERCLAIM) INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, (ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED) Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff. Civil No. 2:03-CV-00294 DAK Honorable Dale A. Kimball Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells SMELL & W1LMER L.L.P. Alan L. Sullivan (3152) Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651) o STATES D'ST*'CT Amy F. Sorenson (8947) DISTRICT OF UTAH 15 West South Temple, Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1004 JAN 1 2 WI Telephone: (801)257-1900 Facsimile: (801)257-1800 MARKUS B. ZIMMER, CLERK CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice) David R. Marriott (7572) Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212)474-1000 Facsimile: (212)474-3700 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH IBM'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON- THE SCO GROUP, INC., INFRINGEMENT (TOM'S TENTH COUNTERCLAIM) Plaintiff7Counterclaim-Defendant, (ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED) v.
    [Show full text]
  • Sco Contro Linux 26-3-04
    BECCARIA, MARCHETTI-STASI PARRELLA, SOMMA (NMI CLUB) NOSCOPYRIGHT A cura del NMI Club: Antonella Beccaria (giornalista) Francesco Marchetti-Stasi (programmatore) Bernardo Parrella (giornalista) Emmanuele Somma (programmatore) Nella programmazione, NMI (Non Maskable Interrupt) indica un evento che inter- rompe l’attività di un microprocessore di fronte a condizioni che hanno priorità su ogni altra attività e che non possono essere ignorate. NMI Club si propone di approfondire alcuni temi caldi dell’attuale panorama tecno- logico, rileggendoli attraverso le inevitabili ricadute socio-culturali ad ampio raggio, con un linguaggio chiaro e diretto per un’informazione alla portata di tutti. Possiamo forse permetterci di ignorare l’attività di NMI Club? Contatti, collaborazioni, proposte: [email protected] Versione elettronica del libro: http://www.nmi-club.org/libri/nosco La versione elettronica del volume viene rilasciata sotto la licenza Creative Commons: Attribution- Commercial-ShareAlike (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/). Prefazione Questo è un libro sull’informatica, ma non un libro di informati- ca. È un libro rivolto agli appassionati di informatica, che usino Linux, FreeBSD, MacOS, Windows o qualunque altro sistema ope- rativo; è un libro per gli amanti della tecnologia, ma anche per chi è semplicemente affascinato dalle nuove frontiere della comunica- zione. È un libro sulla nascita, la crescita, il destino di un sistema operativo che può fare la differenza, almeno nel settore informati- co, tra il capitalismo selvaggio e lo sviluppo sostenibile. Nello specifico, questo lavoro ripercorre le vicende che hanno por- tato e fanno da sottofondo al caso “SCO contro Linux,” un caso che va scuotendo non solo l’ambito del software libero/open sour- ce ma, appunto, anche l’intero mondo informatico.
    [Show full text]
  • Securities and Exchange Commission the Sco
    S-3 1 a2114384zs-3.htm S-3S-3/A 1 a2118764zs-3a.htm S-3/A Use these links to rapidly review the document TABLE OF CONTENTS As Filed: July 8,October 14, 2003 SEC File No. 333- No. 333-106885 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 Amendment No. 2 to Form S-3 Registration Statement on Form S-3 Under the Securities Act of 1933 THE SCO GROUP, INC. (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter) Delaware 87-0662823 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 355 South 520 West, Suite 100 Lindon, Utah 84042 (801) 765-4999 (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant's principal executive offices) Darl C. McBride President and Chief Executive Officer 355 South 520 West, Suite 100 Lindon, Utah 84042 (801) 765-4999 (Name, address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of agent for service) Copy to: Keith L. Pope, Esq. PARR WADDOUPS BROWN GEE & LOVELESS 185 South State Street, Suite 1300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-1537 Telephone: (801) 532-7840 Telecopy: (801) 532-7750 e-mail: [email protected] Copy to: Keith L. Pope, Esq. PARR WADDOUPS BROWN GEE & LOVELESS 185 South State Street, Suite 1300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-1537 Telephone: (801) 532-7840 Telecopy: (801) 532-7750 e-mail: [email protected] Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As soon as practicable after the effective date of this registration statement. If the only securities being registered on this Form are to be offered pursuant to dividend or interest reinvestment plans, please check the following box.
    [Show full text]