1067 - Filed & Entered: 06/13/2007
Notice of Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF FILING of Certificate of Service of SCO's Objections and Responses to IBM's Requests for Admissions Sets 2-12 filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Boruchow, Sashi)

1068 - Filed & Entered: 06/13/2007
Certificate of Service
Docket Text: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by International Business Machines Corporation of Responses to Requests for Admission (Sorenson, Amy)

1069 - Filed & Entered: 06/15/2007
Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion
Docket Text: REPLY to Response to Motion re [1016] MOTION TO DEEM A PROSPECTIVE THIRD-PARTY DEPOSITION IN RELATED LITIGATION TO BE A DEPOSITION TAKEN IN THIS CASE AS WELL filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Normand, Edward)

I notice that IBM called its responses to requests for admissions "responses"; SCO served "objections and responses". But if you look at the documents themselves, you'll see that in fact both sides are objecting to some things, which would be normal. The only difference I see in the Certificates of Service is that IBM seems to have served a lot more requests for admission than SCO. IBM responds to two; SCO to eleven.

The last PACER entry reads: "SCO respectfully submits that the motion has been mooted given that the referenced date of April 30, 2007 referred to in the opening memorandum has passed." What does it mean? I don't know. No one has told me anything. Which is likely what really moots it. I don't know anything.

Just what is that bridge Microsoft has had with academia, I wondered? What does Microsoft have in mind for Open Source businesses that sign up for that bridge?

Perhaps we need to define our terms. And the time frame:

So I think you can all imagine that I don’t have much time for blogging, given the time requirements that organizing the LF Summit require. But I just wanted to say that so far this inagural meeting has been AMAZING.

I’ve been working with open source companies for about six years now, and very closely with Linux for the past four, and I have never see such a diverse and accomplished group of people gathered together. At the summit, we have (in the words of one very well known journalist I won’t name)

• “more kernel developers in one place than I’ve ever seen,”
• all the distros (Novell, Red Hat, Ubuntu and more)
• all the system vendors (HP, IBM, Intel, etc.)
• key ISVs like Adobe, Real, MySQL and many others
• other community projects
• major end users who are betting their business on Linux.

Wow, they are talking to each other, and most importantly, listening. I know one event won’t solve all the work we have to get done, but this reminds me just how unstoppable a united group around a common goal can be. The brain power and passion in the room is palpable.

Well, enough cheerleading from me.

They call it the Open Source Law Immersion Program. It makes me wish I were an attorney, frankly. I'll give you the details and where you go to apply in a moment.

I hope a lot of lawyers take advantage of this chance to get up to speed on how to approach things like licensing and how to handle various types of legal threats against FOSS. As SFLC puts it, "legal support is becoming increasingly critical to Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) development and use." So we all benefit when there are more lawyers familiar with FOSS legal issues.

There's a second event happening today, the Linux Foundation's Linux Collaboration Summit, where Andy Updegrove is blogging away live and also moderating the legal panel later. From what he's writing so far, it appears the Linux Foundation is very much focusing on the legal defense of Linux, its uptake by corporate users, and standardization.

Well, he's so fast, it seems he simply must be a bot. Yes, bots respond to appreciation shown. He's actually faster than this. He finished both hearing transcripts last night but for some reason, Groklaw fell off the Internet for a while, and then I fell asleep waiting for it to pop back up to the surface again.

Now we get to hear the arguments in detail about whether or not SCO suffered special damages when Novell announced that it believed Novell owns the copyrights, not SCO.

That means we must fall down the rabbit hole once again and enter that special wonderland called SCO.

• June 4, 2007
• May 31, 2007

I'll put them up separately as text, but I didn't want you to have to wait, so here they are as PDFs, and we can enjoy them together.

It's the first generation that actually can do this, and heaven only knows we need it, and I'm really happy to see someone doing it.

Take a look and then perhaps it will inspire you to video your grandad or dear granny or parents, so they can share too. I wish nursing homes and retirement communities would do this. Maybe they know how to cook or sew or fix things around the house. Life lessons. How to stay married. Raise kids. How to live happily despite the challenges of aging. What they remember about important historical events they lived through. In this video, he talks about dealing with frustrations, being unhappy with your life. Can you imagine what a valuable collection this could be? Why should all that life knowledge be wasted? I confess I sent an email to the Zimmers suggesting something like this, and I simply love that I see it happening. This is living history, and I've had it in my mind as a dream literally for years, but Groklaw got me so busy, I had to set it aside. I gather geriatric1927 was way ahead of me and had the same idea on his own.

It's one more proof that YouTube has uses way beyond anything Hollywood ever dreamed of. And in case you think nobody watches, he's now #10 Most Subscribed (All Time).

Novell's motion is based on the premise that SCO has failed to show evidence of any special damages from any slander of title -- here's the Memorandum in Support if you want to refresh your memory on how it all began and what special damages are -- and this is SCO's reply. It's dated May 18, but we are just getting to see it now, and it gives us a more detailed picture of what SCO's arguments were at oral argument.