The Caldera v IBM Complaint and Legal Procedure
We asked the IBM people some questions about the Caldera v IBM Complaint and legal proceedings. As you can see, IBM has some very interesting options in how it can proceed with its defense against SCO-Caldera.
MozillaQuest Magazine: What is the case number for the suit?
MozillaQuest Magazine: When was IBM served a copy of the Caldera lawsuit?
This question is important because the date of legal service starts a clock setting the date by which IBM must file an answer or response to Caldera's Complaint or run the risk of losing by default. That's not to say anyone would expect IBM to default in this lawsuit. But knowing the date of legal service does let everyone know by when IBM would be expected to respond in court to SCO-Caldera's Complaint.
MozillaQuest Magazine: Will an in-house IBM attorney or an outside counsel be appearing on behalf of IBM in the Caldera lawsuit?
MozillaQuest Magazine: What is/are the name(s) of counsel that will be appearing on behalf of IBM in the Caldera lawsuit?
IBM refused to answer these questions too.
Now, here come some very interesting options that IBM can exercise if it so chooses.
Looking over the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure (Utah R.C.P.), it appears that IBM has several initial options in responding to the Caldera Complaint including, inter alia:
Simply put, under Utah R.C.P. Rule 11 the trial court may impose sanctions if it finds that SCO-Caldera and/or its lawyers told lies in the Complaint. And from the interviews we so far have published, it sure does look like SCO has told some hum-dingers in its Caldera v IBM Complaint.
MozillaQuest Magazine: Which, if any, of these options does IBM plan to exercise?
IBM refused to answer this question.
Under the Utah Code, Title 76, Chapter 08 -- Offenses Against the Administration of Government, Section 504:
Judges are public servants who in their roles as judges perform official functions. So, if it can be proved in a criminal court proceeding that SCO-Caldera's officers and lawyers knew the Caldera v IBM Complaint, a written statement, is false and they intended to deceive the judge, a public servant, then those SCO lawyers and officers could be convicted of a class B misdemeanor under Utah's criminal laws. Or at least that seems to be what the black-letter law reads. Isn't that interesting?
IBM through its spokesperson Mike Fay refused to answer any of these questions referring to an IBM policy to not respond to questions about lawsuits.
That's mostly a fair response here. It is understandable that IBM might not want to comment on whether IBM will respond in Court with an answer, preliminary objections, motion to dismiss, a motion for sanctions under Utah R.C.P 11, and so forth. That goes to legal strategy and legal options -- it does not go to the issues or the merits of the claims -- it does not go directly to the facts of the case.
It appears the allegations of SCO-Caldera's Complaint fall into two broad categories:
Please see the first two parts of our series about SCO-Caldera's IP claims plus its intentions to enforce and license its intellectual property rights.
Related MozillaQuest Articles
SCO-Caldera v IBM: