Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

IBM Subpoenas HP, Baystar, Sun & Microsoft 196

nicolaiplum writes "CNet is reporting that IBM is sending subpoenas to HP, Baystar, Sun and Microsoft requiring them to disclose most of their dealings with SCO over UNIX licensing and litigation." From the article: "The subpoenas demand that Microsoft, HP, Sun and BayStar hand over a range of information, including details of their dealings with SCO, by March 7. They will also have to appear in court later in March to give depositions." Groklaw also has links to each of the subpoenas.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Subpoenas HP, Baystar, Sun & Microsoft

Comments Filter:
  • by techfury90 ( 806273 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @04:56PM (#14779408)
    Maybe they bought them for their System V based product known as Services for Unix (also built into Windows Server 2003 R2)?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:02PM (#14779455)
    If you buy in to the theory that MSFT funded the SCO follies in part because they wanted to slow the adoption of Linux in light of the delay in fielding Vista, then it's only sweet that IBM would be dropping on Redmond in time for MSFT's dirty laundry to get a good airing in court before the big roll out this fall.
    You know of course that the good folks at Microsoft are busy shredding and deleting incriminating documents right now, while their landsharks are divided into two teams, one in closed door meetings to come up with some pausable execuses and the other laying out plans to stall the legal preceedings.
  • Why (Score:3, Insightful)

    by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:30PM (#14779680)
    Since corporations generally lack human emotional response, I can only assume there is good strategety and/or profit motivation. Anyone care to speculate?

    1. It's good to be respected.
    2. Fear is a reasonable substitute for respect.
    3. Most of IBM's business depends on others trusting them with confidential information. SCOX, very publicly, impugned IBM's trustworthiness.
    4. The Nazgul hadn't been fed lately.

    Assign whatever weights you like.

  • Conspiracy? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by whitespiral ( 941984 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:38PM (#14779752)
    So will it end up all being a conspiracy masterminded by Microsoft to kill Linux? But Microsoft always plays fair, who would have thought!
  • by The Pim ( 140414 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:48PM (#14779855)
    If only that were true. The majority of highly-rated posts dwell on off-topic political commentaries, ridicule of the board's blacklist, and various distracting but irrelevant side-shows. (Thankfully, meta-discussions of Groklaw have subsided.) There is a lot of good information, but I would use Yahoeuvre [warmcat.com] and start with posts having at least 20 recs.
  • It's worse! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by capt.Hij ( 318203 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:55PM (#14779938) Homepage Journal
    In some ways the scenario is worse than that. They will be taking depositions in private, and there will not be a judge present. Can you imagine being the poor nerd being asked questions with both the MS lawyers and IBM lawyers leering at you from all sides of the table. I wouldn't go in that room without the protection of being in a steel cage hanging from the ceiling.
  • by hayden ( 9724 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:56PM (#14779948)
    ... "commanded" to appear in various lawyers' offices.
    At which point they will be "commanded" to bend over and grab their ankles for IBM. Suddenly secretely supporting a company to launch a bullshit attack on a competitor doesn't seem so funny. And also picking a legal fight with the company that tied up the Justice Department with so much legal bullshit they gave up on their antitrust suit probably wasn't the best idea either.
  • by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:59PM (#14779969) Homepage Journal
    "and despite their hype on Linux, less than 1 percent of IBM's servers ship with it."
    But I think you are free to choose to order Linux on just about any of them. I thought that was the idea to be free to choose.
    I used to HATE IBM back in the good old days. Between Eclipse.org and all the Linux resources they have on line I am an IBM fan.
  • by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @06:27PM (#14780255) Homepage
    It's not so much Windows "killing" OS/2 -- IBM can live with that in a fair fight. It's that Microsoft was parternered with IBM on OS/2, and saying nice things about it, right up until the eve of the Windows introduction.

    Microsoft not only sucker-punched IBM on that, but also all the 3rd-party application vendors who were diligently developing for OS/2, leaving the Windows field wide open for Microsoft's Office apps.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @06:45PM (#14780406)
    I want to know what Rob Enderle has to say. I haven't heard much from him lately and I need his "forward looking emerging technology advisory firm" and the insight only they, ok - he, can give.

    Mr. Enderle, are you there? Should I be concerned that IBM is stealing all the thunder while SCO continually gets bitch slapped out of the headlines (and court)? SCO is still going to school the technology world, right? You predicted they have a solid case and not to rule them out. Are they still a sure bet? After all IBM is the unethical company in all of this because you told me so...and that's stronger than Bible in my book anyday.
  • by dracocat ( 554744 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @07:18PM (#14780679)
    Perhaps he also e-mailed g$$gle or $ony or kri$py kreme.

    I can't wait for the next slashdot version where I can give minus points to comments containing keywords. The first on my list will be M$ and micro$oft.

  • by steve_l ( 109732 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @07:35PM (#14780791) Homepage
    Yeah, when all this is over and the books are written, SCO's choice of targets for lawsuits is going to go down there as sensible as invading russia proved to various european nation states over the centuries.

    First they pick IBM, who probably have more lawyers than R&D engineers. Then, for collateral damage, they pick on a car company, what was it, Daimer-Chrystler. I mean, car companies. They have legal departments on 24-hour call waiting to dismiss the classic "I ran over a bus queue of 8 people while drunk, it was the fault of your ABS system" lawsuits coming in every day. Having someone sue you over linux violations is just a spare time activity.

    On the other hand, from the lawyers perspective, going up against well funded legal departments guarantees large amounts of cash coming your way...
  • by Finsterwald P Ogleth ( 759715 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @08:00PM (#14780929)
    I don't think IBM is looking for settlements, they are a lioness on the hunt. IBM is looking for blood, following the money trail.

    "Non quatro" is playing. If I were MS, I would be concerned about IBM's blood lust revealing some anti-trust evidence and turning it into Kolar-Kotelly. The terms of the settlement with DoJ are NOT friendly to officers if they are caught with their hands in to cookie jar.

    This is going to be fun...I'm sure there is some piggy type squealing going on in Redmond right now.

  • by celtic_hackr ( 579828 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @08:03PM (#14780955) Journal
    Does this mean if IBM loses (please don't die laughing until you read the whole reply), that Microsoft will have to rewrite NT because of all those methods and concepts used by the former Unix programmers who wrote NT that are part of SCO's precious IP?

    Sadly, having been involved in a number of dealings with judges and American law, this could actually still turn out bad. Judges are lacking in basic skills and make rulings that are completely OTT and wrong. IBM, could still lose. Although, they have a great team of lawyers and a great presentation, and the judge seems to have gotten a clue as to the shenanigans of SCO. It ain't over till it's over. On the flip-side, SCO may have damaged what little of a case they had by being so OTT. SCO has no case and never did, but all you have to do is fool the judge into believing your BS over the other team's BS.
  • by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @08:52AM (#14783676)
    For nearly three years I've been rolling my eyes after reading these comments like: "oh yeah, scox is gonna get their ass handed to them now." Scox will likely lose the case, but that is immaterial. People still continue to adopt Linux at about the same rate, but that is also immaterial.

    Msft is sending a message to those companies who might dare to contribute to Linux. The message is: "if you contribute to Linux, expect to be tied up in court for the next five years. And expect to spend $100M in legal fees, and expect to have some sleezy Utah penny-stock scam company digging through all of records, expect endless and pointless "discovery." Expect depositions, and expect to bashed in the tech-pop-media, and expect other endless hassles." From now on, contributing to Linux is not something that you just casually do. Clearly, this will slow Linux development.

    The entire scam is costing msft less than $100M, hardly more than a few of their idiotic, and ineffective, commercials. Even if IBM sues msft, it will have been worth it for msft. Forget the DoJ, the USA government works for msft.

    The scam is also working out well for scox. Who else would pay darl $1M a year? When darl took over, just before the scam, scox's market cap was under $6M, now it's over $80M.

    So, while the groklaw cheerleaders gloat about scox's great defeats; the execs and msft and scox are laughing up their sleeves.

Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan