IBM Subpoenas Several Companies in SCO Case 253
bl8n8r writes "IBM subpoenas are flying. Morgan Keegan, EV1, Oracle, Royce, CAI, Center7, Novell, Canopy, S2, are all asked to reveal details on all documents concerning any communications with or any meetings involving Microsoft regarding Unix, Linux, SCO and/or Canopy." Groklaw notes that even more subpoenas are likely on the way.
I like the s2 subpoena (Score:4, Interesting)
with SCO
S2 doesn't even have to say what it is for THAT to be very telling.
Re:I like the s2 subpoena (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I like the s2 subpoena (Score:4, Interesting)
sPh
Re:I like the s2 subpoena (Score:2, Informative)
court: "S2, give us these documents"
S2: "but they're covered by a confidentiality agreement. w
Re:I like the s2 subpoena (Score:5, Informative)
Not exactly (Score:4, Interesting)
It would be nice if IBM wasn't quite so quiet about all of this. I mean, I wouldn't mind seeing a little bluster from them, what they're thinking. On the other hand, it does give them this aura of a silent killer; you know speak softly and carry a big stick and all. And certainly enough people are complaining about SCO on their own.
The tongues of corporate lawyers... (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is when people are playing this kind of corporate mind games, what they say doesn't tell you what they're thinking. It tells you what they want the other party to think they're thinking, and that's not the same thing at all. Or else it's a diversionary move, or a double bluff, or a smoke screen, or...
White men may speak with forked tongues, but th
IBM is smart and has smart lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
It is good advice, the best advice and the one piece of advice you should always take. DON'T SAY A THING. Let the lawyers talk. They are trained for it and if they are any good they will say the absolute minimum as well.
We have two recent and excellent examples of people who didn't take this bit of advice. Martha Stewart. They didn't get her on her crimes but got her because she didn't keep her mouth shut and lied to cops. A big nono.
The other is of course Darl "Leghorn" McBride himself. Baystar is reclaiming their investment because Darl just can't keep his mouth shut. Baystar is not against the lawsuit, they love the lawsuit, they just want it to be fought out in the courts where there is a change of SCO winning (or at least they like the odds on it) rather then being fought out in the streets and press where SCO is only loosing.
So wishing for IBM to make public statements is like wishing for the CIA to have press annoucements about the deployments of secret agents. Ain't gonna happen.
Go Blue! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Go Blue! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Go Blue! (Score:5, Funny)
Knock-knock
Who's There?
Little Boy Blue
Little Boy Blue Who?
Michael Jackson
IBM must be hunting for something more... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:IBM must be hunting for something more... (Score:2, Funny)
Kill two birds with one stone.
Weak birds. And a fucking big stone.
Re:IBM must be hunting for something more... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:IBM must be hunting for something more... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:IBM must be hunting for something more... (Score:5, Informative)
So far, that Baystar, one of the major sources of financing for SCO, did so at the behest of Microsoft. (The other major source of funding is a Canadian bank acting for unnamed private parties.) And that, Mike Anderer, the consultant who is "S2" wrote a subsequently leaked memo [opensource.org] discussing how SCO was obtaining >$80M in funding (mostly indirectly) from MS.
Re:IBM must be hunting for something more... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not only that it was obtaining the funding, but that Microsoft had asked SCO to slander Linux to attempt to slow down its domination of the operating system market. Something that's not just blatant anti-trust violation, but very probably illegal in any number of ways.
Not that it'll get persecuted while King Bush's on the Oval Throne, but one can never tell...
IBM and Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Go back, as they say. Remember how Microsoft, as a small startup no one had heard off, sold a third-hand operating system to IBM, profited enormously, and then went on to replace IBM as the world's #1 IT superpower?
Perhaps IBM simply think it's time for a payback. Ironic that if it were successful, this payback would also be 'aided' by a third company (SCO in this case), isn't it?
Re:IBM and Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM makes more money, has more employees, and is a bigger company. Go check out the facts at some point...
Re:IBM and Microsoft (Score:4, Informative)
IBM's revenues are much larger (91B vs 36B) but the EBITDA (10.4 vs 11.7B) and net earnings (7.8B vs 7.4B) are pretty close.
> has more employees,
Making the same amount of money with more people is not good.
> and is a bigger company. Go check out the facts at some point...
Depends on your metric. Measured by market cap, MSFT (297B) is much bigger than IBM (155B).
Re:IBM and Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
>IBM's revenues are much larger (91B vs 36B) but the EBITDA (10.4 vs 11.7B) and net earnings (7.8B vs 7.4B) are pretty close.
maybe its because IBM inovates and spends lots of money on R&D unlike MS who steals other peoples ideas and depends on poeple being locked into their OS.
>> has more employees,
>Making the same amount of money with more people is not good.
Maybe they would rather spend their money then have 50 billion sitting in the bank? IBM does alot m
Re:IBM and Microsoft (Score:3, Informative)
But diversity is. IBM has broken into the services market, and various other markets microsoft could only dream of.
I would much rather have my revenue derive of various small points than very very few HUGE ones.
popularity contest (Score:2, Insightful)
i think it is hated by almost everyone for almost everything
but they still use it
some for the games, some for the applications, some for the ease of use, some because they know nothing else, some because they have to, some for hacking fun
hey and there are even people which like it
Re:IBM and Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IBM and Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Take away Microsoft and all it does, it can be replaced overnight, on the same hardware. Maybe you would need to replace your mouse.
Re:IBM must be hunting for something more... (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM & lawyers (Score:2)
Re:IBM & lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM is the defendant, remember?
Once IBM demonstrates how you get screwed by suing them for crap, maybe some of this stuff will settle down.
Re:IBM & lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
In Other Words... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In Other Words... (Score:2, Insightful)
And exactly how much mental effort does it take to piss and moan?
Some Insight? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's likely because these are corporations that would probably resist assisting IBM, and the IBM legal team could still be working out methods for compelling each of these corporations into full testimony. RBC would likely resist, and as a Canadian Bank they can tie up the whole process for as long as they want, unless compelled by a Canadian federal court. Plus, RBC is the most profitable bank in Canada, so they have billions in pocket change to throw at the fight, need be.
BayStar confirmed that Microsoft was connected to SCO [eweek.com], but maybe they have some kind of legal reason not to help? Or maybe the public facts are enough?
Trying to get documents from Microsoft in connection to SCO would likely be a huge legal undertaking, so that might be what's slowing things down. IANAL, but if Microsoft, BayStar and RBC joined the fray, wouldn't they have the power to somehow stop the whole process, or slow it dramatically as a joint force? You have to be extremely delicate when handling companies with track records like Microsoft. Maybe IBM's legal team is getting as much data as they can from corporations who won't put up much of a fight, before Microsoft comes in and shuts everything down.
Re:Some Insight? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder what dirt will be found...and if there's dirt for the EU and the states that settled with Microsoft in their respective anti-trust suits to make their moves.
Re:Some Insight? (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM might have targetted some of the listed companies because they are willing to help IBM, and some of the companies because they are not going to put up much resistence.
I hope IBM kicks ass and takes names.
Re:Some Insight? (Score:5, Interesting)
My felling of RBC investment in SCO is to ballance its portfolio. I am almost sure that RBC have undisclosed high profiled HPC/Linux Company investment aswell.
There is a reason why RBC is the richess Bank in Canada, they are managed by backstabing financial foxes (in a more politicaly correct way to say it: Diversification Specialist)
Just for your information, usulay in a balanced portfolio investment, you always WIN the Wining Return less the loosing investment. For example, if SCO wins RBC 30Million will be Woth say 130Million Less the 30Million they invested in the Linux Companies (as a bonnus, they control portions of the company which holds the IP, which they can leverage on keener treatment for theire Linux Company). On the Other hand if SCO looses, RBC's investement in Linux Company will be worth say 30Million will total a 130Millions less the 30Millions invested in SCO. So No mater how wins RBC makes Money (100Million is a suggested figure).
All in All, the point is that RBC will not waste billions of dollars to fight IBM because they win anyway. and perhaps, maybe they have stake in Novel. Corel was a canadian company which spined off its Corel Linux to annother small company which was bought by Ximen, which was bought by Novel (if i recall, but i may be wrong.) For sure i know RBC has stakes in Nortel Networks and i am prety sure that Nortel is working behind the sceen on a NIO with Linux.
Re:Some Insight? (Score:3, Informative)
Why do you think Microsoft went through BayStar and the like? While they hate each other with passion, they are bed fellows.
BayStar already subpeona'd (Score:4, Interesting)
this is why (Score:3, Informative)
Working link (Score:4, Informative)
Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Normally I have no favoritisms towards corporations, but let's hope IBM crushes SCO once and for all with this move.
Move when ready (Score:4, Insightful)
"Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt."
"All warfare is based on deception. Therefore, when capable, feign incapacity; when active, inactivity."
"Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible. Thus he is a matter of his enemy's fate."
And of course, the greatest:
"What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease. Hence his victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage. He wins his battles by making no mistakes. Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated. Hence the skillful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy. Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."
Let us not forget that IBM.... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Plunging stock price
2. The Baystar admissions
If you are thinking of buying SCO stock, do it to short it. It only goes down from here. See ya in hell Darl.
Re:Let us not forget that IBM.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't even do that. The stock is way too volatile. The Baystar interviews were apparetly viewed as positive by investors because the stock jumped back up 20% again. We think SCO is dead, but at this point I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to get the stock back up to $20 this year. I think it will be near zero within 5 years, but it's going to be a rough ride along the way. I wouldn't want an $8 or $10 short to be flying upwards of $20.
Pay attention: most geeks think SCO is a stock scam. Well, even if it is, they are good at it! How did the price go up over $8 after threats of pulling all their cash? I wish my company could handle that kind of bad news so well.
Re:Let us not forget that IBM.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let us not forget that IBM.... (Score:2)
One word, Sheeple. You'll note that SCO is down 40 cents from thursday (today being sat). I expect things to keep "trending downwards" on Monday :)
Dead cat bounce (Score:2)
This will probably continue to rebound until they get really on the nose, and finally end with a splat.
Re:Let us not forget that IBM.... (Score:2)
Hopefully Novell's stock doesn't get shaken up over this, as I see they are one of the named
Go IBM! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is kind of like seeing the school bully being hit by a bus - you are internally elated, but its not a pretty sight and you feel pretty sick afterwards.
Oh, well - as long SCO gets taken out, that's all that matters
Re:Go IBM! (Score:5, Insightful)
You young
Re:Go IBM! (Score:2)
Re:Go IBM! (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM *has* really chaged for the better:
I got a bid from IBM to help out one of my clients - they did a great job (if expensive). And here's the kicker - at no time did they try to steal my customer away from me.
Not one did they go over my head. When the project was finished, IBM wen't home and diden't perster me or my customer one bit.
20 years ago IBM would have tried to push me out and pilfer my customer.
I trust them. Now.
Re:Go IBM! (Score:5, Interesting)
With that said, though - there are some bright spots at this company. My personal story is that I recently got an IBM NetStation PC (one of the really old ones) from my work. No drivers, nothing - but I wanted to get it working. The problem is, all the info about getting it to work using a Linux server to boot was out of date - all the links in FAQs to IBM were broken, no longer supported. I searched and searched, found only a little information - so I decided to contact IBM directly.
I thought it was going to be a dead end - likely they would ask if I had a service agreement (or would I like to purchase one), so they could help me. But surprise, surprise!
Not only did they help me, and quickly, they pointed me to the source for all the PDF documentation and drivers, and old TurboLinux install software for the boot server and everything - all in the span of a week!
I have so rarely received service like that - I was (and still am) greatly impressed. Technically, they didn't have to help me - I wasn't another company (I explicitly told them I was a hobbiest), but they supported me anyway - on their own dime.
THANK YOU, IBM (though I still hold my reservations about corporations)...
IBM is very people friendly. (Score:3, Interesting)
I used it for my project then later that year sold it to a production house (that I happened to be working for). Hooray for IBM.
Re:Go IBM! (Score:3, Interesting)
In an age when corporations are considered as evil as terrorists, IBM is quickly positioning itself to be the caring father figure who will watch out for us, and that is a DAMN good position to be in.
Re:Go IBM! (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM *has* really chaged for the better:
I guess that depends on what you mean by "better". IBM used to have loyalty to the employees that built the company into the success that it is. Now, they are offshoring jobs, and non-executive employees are just replaceable widgets. IBM really doesn't have any regard for its customers [gripe2ed.com] either.
I trust them. Now.
Okay, IBM is better than SCO, but I wouldn't go all warm and fuzzy. I wouldn't trust them any further than I could throw their headquarters building.
Re:Go IBM! (Score:3, Insightful)
I too have been playing this game long enough to remember when IBM were the big monopolist. At present, IBM are being reasonably good corporate citizens, but it has to be said that unless and until we get open commodity data formats for the overwhelming majority of interchanged data (and, to be fair, we are on the way there) the software industry is dynamically unstable and will tend to produce monopolies. I don't trust any large commercial software business to hav
Re:Go IBM! (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's idea of innovation is a talking paper clip. Sheesh.
Monopoly power corrupts absolutely (Score:4, Insightful)
Revolutionary technical change destabilises monopolies. It is, after all, what brought IBM down in the end. All monopolies seek to stifle and hold back technical development - IBM did so in the 1970's in just the same way Microsoft does now. They were not 'cool evil', they were just another greedy parasite, but, unlike Microsoft, a fearsomely efficient greedy parasite. IBM as a monopolist was far more damaging to our industry than Microsoft is now. You don't want them, or anyone else, back in that position. Seriously.
This is not an attack on IBM as presently constituted. Today they are pretty good citizens, as corporations go. But power corrupts, and monopoly power corrupts absolutely.
Re:Go IBM! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Go IBM! (Score:4, Insightful)
(apropos innovation)
I was running a multitasking operating system, with a GUI, using a mouse, with audio hardware, and connected to the internet, in 1985. The name on the box was Xerox. There is no essential feature of the software environment of a modern Windows box that wasn't present on my Dandelion then. However, the Dandelion had lots of cool software features that your Windows box could not even begin to emulate.
Next?
Re:Go IBM! (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway.
I don't think anyone here is arguing for a return to the days of "no one ever got fired for buying IBM." What I'd like to see, personally, is a world where no one company dominates; where IBM and Microsoft and Oracle, and Sun and Dell and Apple and HP, and whoever else, are all fighting it out. Where there are lots of reasonable choices for any purchase of hardware, software, or combination thereof. Where people who make good decisions are rewarded, and those who make bad decisions learn their lessons, because their products and/or purchases are evaluated on the basis of performance, not brand name.
Right now, today, in 2004, Microsoft is clearly a dominant and destructive force. If IBM or anyone else can put a dent in their power, then good for them. If at some point IBM returns to its former dominance, or if any of the other companies I named above (or someone else we've never heard of, which is always possible) finds itself in that position, then I'll worry about them.
"We have no permanent allies, only permanent interests."
Re:Go IBM! (Score:3, Insightful)
Every corp would love to be MS. Dont you think Sun or Oracle would be just as antiopen source and proprietary if they had the market?
A company only exists to gain marketshare and profits for their investors. If they dont be a bully and stop any competition from existing then they are not doing their job. The investors are paying the CEO for maximum return, which can be gained by a monopoly.
FOSS is the only end one. If something sucks or takes a wrond direction a
Re:Go IBM! (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now IBM is pushing Linux forward. Of course they do that because they want to make money on their hardware. But if they suceed (and I think they will, it can suddenly go very fast), how could they possibly dominate the world? If another company could make some good hardware, they could run Linux as well. And with open standards, and two hardware platforms running the same open source software, it will really be hard to monopolize the market.
Novell ? (Score:2)
Re:Novell ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Plus, it's to make it so they can't say no, legally. So even if the document fishing turns out to be unfruitful, no harm to those subpoenaed, at least not in the long-turn (like having a colonoscopy).
Re:Novell ? (Score:5, Interesting)
sPh
Re:Novell ? (Score:5, Funny)
The beast is up walking! (Score:4, Funny)
It's probably not just me... (Score:5, Interesting)
... anyone else looking forward to the day when SCO's ''office'' is just a smoking field of rubble, their execs are all in jail, and anyone who had their fingers in this pie is up to their necks in subpoenas and/or SEC/FTC probes?
I can imagine IBM wanting to make that happen. Sorta the corporate equivalent of hanging corpses outside of a medieval town as a warning to others.
Re:It's probably not just me... (Score:2)
Re:It's probably not just me... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is because the winners wrote the history
Nice Turnaround. (Score:5, Interesting)
In an ideal world anyway!
nick
I thought I heard... (Score:2, Funny)
Go get 'em, Big blue.
And for the record, I'm not holding that whole 'business tie standard' thing against you. I mean that!
Subpoena: for stupid people like me (Score:5, Informative)
Subpoena \Sub*p[oe]"na\, n. [NL., fr. L. sub under + poena
punishment. See Pain.] (Law)
A writ commanding the attendance in court, as a witness, of
the person on whom it is served, under a penalty; the process
by which a defendant in equity is commanded to appear and
answer the plaintiff's bill. [Written also subpena.]
Re:Subpoena: for stupid people like me (Score:5, Funny)
sub = below
poena = penis
subpoena = below the penis
subpoena = by the balls.
Thanks to IBM's subpoenas, they now have these companies by the balls.
Lets Hope.. (Score:2, Funny)
Apologies if this is already been posted.
Got delayed - busy misplacing some documents
it's a good thing....this time (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think companies that are being sued or threatened to be sued by SCO would say no to IBM's requests, as it is in their interests to help the one who has the bigger army of lawyers. Basically, the subpoenas are a legal formality; in case there's a non-disclosure agreement (a subpoena is a legal way of taking a peek without breaking that NDA), so the companies don't get sued by SCO/Microsoft for disclosing the agreement.
Fight fire with fire....this case, lawyers with lawyers. The only issue is that since SCO seem to have a secret ally/live-line (Micro$oft), hence IBM's move to possibly expose the foulplay by Microsoft, which will get M$ in hot water with the anti-trust settlements.
Re:it's a good thing....this time (Score:2)
I have to say I haven't had such a laugh since I ate two slices of spacecake and drunk a crate of beer.
Ohh I smell a good one here... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I doubt they're going to find condemning evidence, I don't think it'd take much to open another antitrust case against Microsoft. Along with the recent EU findings, I don't think they'd like that at all.
Kjella
Re:Ohh I smell a good one here... (Score:4, Interesting)
KA-CHING!
That sound you just heard was hundreds of millions of dollars of Microsoft monopoly money headed for the campaign coffers of both Bush and Kerry. Bribery has found a permanent place alongside lying, cheating, and stealing on Microsoft's standard playbook.
Fishing? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you read the others that focus mainly on communications with SCO, it looks like IBM is just being complete or simply curious; the case be dammed, who knows what this net will drag in?
That said, I am fully willing to consider that Microsoft is behind the SCO/Baystar/... mess strictly as an abuse of the market.
For those of you wondering.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oracle is currently not paying SCO for a license along the same lines as EV1. IBM knows this and want to find out why companies like Oracle are bound to a different agreement on licensing than other companies like EV1.
Basically, IBM *knows* there is something fishy going on with SCO's licensing and plans on pointing it out in court. If any of you have any correspondence with SCO regarding their licensing, I would highly suggest contacting IBM and willingly giving it over, as it will only help their case.
There are two other reasons for the subpoenas that I can tell: 1) IBM wants to dispel the myth that you have to settle with SCO in order to avoid subpoenas. 2) IBM is most likely using this round to prepare for a second round of requests to appear in court. They are doing this to probably scare Microsoft out of ever trying to thwart Linux and Linux development again.
Re:For those of you wondering.. (Score:4, Insightful)
They are doing this to probably scare Microsoft out of ever trying to thwart Linux and Linux development again.
I think the correction would be "They are doing this to scare Microsoft out of ever fucking with IBM again." From what little business studying I've done, I'd say that they're only looking out for their own interests. Red Hat on the other hand, are looking out for the GPL because their stuff is bound under its terms.Just a wild speculation... (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems really clear that BayStar was encouraged, through S2, by MS, to invest in SCO.
But is it impossible for RBC to inject in SCO IBM's money, just to be sure they have the money to go all the way to the supreme court and to prove clearly and for all that Linux is OK. Without speaking of the boost in public image for IBM, as the good guy.
Thanks, ESR (Score:5, Interesting)
It's possible that IBM's legal team knew all along, but on the face of it those Baystar documents that Raymond posted seem to have provided a breech for IBM to charge into.
Kudos to him and his source.
This is great! (Score:4, Interesting)
TV commercial I'd like to see (Score:5, Interesting)
Scene: Godzilla rampages through town smashing buildings with MS, SCO and other rivals logos on them. People run screaming through the streets like so many cockroachs. Uses breath weapon to roast fleeing individuals who have a suprising resemeblence to Gates, Ballmer, McBride etc.
Voice Over:IBM, we're back and we're pissed...
fade out
Re:TV commercial I'd like to see (Score:3, Interesting)
Beware the Nazgul (Score:3, Interesting)
Thereafter some bright tort lawyers got the idea that if Apple provided a nice payday, then IBM would provide richer pickings. They sued IBM, but IBM did not settle. Instead, IBM fought and won in court.
But IBM did not stop there. Big Blue turned around and sued the law firms who had brought these nuisance law suits.
If, as us tin-hat wearers have suggested, Microsoft has financed barratry, maintenance and champerty against the Open Source community (of which IBM is a member) through SCO, Canopy and/or BayStar, then Microsoft should be held responsible. These subpoenas may indicate IBM's inclination to explore this kind of litigation.
Re:IBM in action (Score:5, Informative)
Because they're being sued by SCO and they're gathering evidence against them?
Re:IBM in action (Score:2, Funny)
Re:IBM in action (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IBM in action (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IBM in action (Score:2)
One thing is sure though, the fud won't end with SCO's demise
Re:Microsoft and Novell? (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting? More like didn't RTFA (Score:2)
Re:What is the purpose? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What is the purpose? (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Litigate SCO down to approximately $.07/share.
2) Buy them out in the most vicious, humiliating way possible. Condemn their corporate headquarters, and let the Salt Lake and Provo LUGs wield the sledgehammers and wrecking balls.
3) Play nice with Novell, offering them a reasonable amount to release the entire SysV codebase into the public domain.
That attack vector against Linux is now dead as a doornail. The O
Re:Wouldn't it be simplier...? (Score:3, Insightful)