SCO's "Notice of Compliance" Says They Have Not Yet Fully Complied (Groklaw) [LWN.net]

According to Groklaw, SCO has posted a Notice of Compliance that states that they have not fully produced the evidence required by the court order. "The notice claims they have fully complied with the court's order with respect to answering Interrogatories 1-9, 12 and 13, but they reserve the right to supplement after they get more code from IBM. However, they say they have *not* produced all the documents requested by IBM, specifically files of certain directors and officers. Because of the holiday, they didn't have time to fully review them yet. That is another way of saying they have not fully complied."

(Log in to post comments)

SCO's "Notice of Compliance" Says They Have Not Yet Fully Complied (Groklaw)

Posted Jan 14, 2004 21:54 UTC (Wed) by Eudyptes (guest, #15589) [Link]

Ok, let me get this straight. Didn't they just say they "fully complied"
with the court mandate a day or two ago? Now they're say that "they have
*not* produced all the documents requested by IBM, specifically "files of
certain directors and officers. Because of the holiday, they didn't have
time to fully review them yet"? Oh, another brilliant move to endear the
Judge to their cause.

Part of the order stated - "...and if, for some reason, it is in good
faith [SCO track record is poor related to 'good faith' behavior] unable
to obtain a particular portion of that, then it [MUST] file the
appropriate affidavits indicating why it cannot". But according to
SCO's own filing of "Notice of Compliance" filed on Nov 12 - "SCO has
responded fully and in detail to Interrogatories 1-9, 12 and 13 of IBM's
First Set of Interrogatories".

So what the hell is going on here? Could it be that SCO is trying to play
the fast shuffle with the courts based on "INTERROGATORY NO. 4" which
"seeks (a) the date of the alleged misuse or misappropriation; (b) the
persons involved; c) the manner of misuse or misappropriation; and (d) the
location of any method or code in any IBM product, Linux, open source or
the public domain". And that a specific part of the order related to #4
is that SCO is "[t]o identify and state with specificity the source
code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM".

Seems SCO is like a child that got caught playing with matches and now
squirms and wriggles when it comes time to face the music. It's come time
to put up or shut up and SCO is trying to milk every second they can.
Guess they need a bit more time to figure out how to pump and then dump
their stock without looking too obvious (ya, right).

I'll go out on a limb on this one. My father, the highly decorated police
officer of 30 years told me - "Son, never make the judge angry, in the
courtroom the judge is god" (in the figurative sense). In otherwords, the
judge has a lot of discretion on the manner in which the court proceeds
and if you make an enemy of the judge one will most likely pay the
penalty. Seems McBride and company make little, if any, distinction
between the market and the courts. Considering that the judge said SCO
"must" file docs with the court as to why they can't fully comply and that
SCO has both not done this and on top of that filed documents stating full
compliance that in actuality fall short, SCO might be perceived as using
this behavior as market leverage in their stock play.

I'm willing to guess the judge will be "less" than pleased by this action.
I know... Safe bet! I never was much of a gambler, unlike Mr. McBride and
staff. What do you think? Will this bring SCO and the Judge closer to "a
meeting of the mind"?