|
IBM Files Motion In Opposition to SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery |
|
Friday, November 21 2003 @ 12:22 AM EST
|
IBM has now filed with the Utah court a Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel Discovery, which you can get, as a PDF, here. It's number 79, the last on the list of IBM documents. We'll have it as text soon.
IBM's argument is simple: We have already provided a lot of what they are asking for or are willing to produce it, but on the rest, SCO can't ask for discovery until it tells IBM "what this case is about". Here is the Preliminary Statement from the Memorandum: "SCO has moved to compel responses to six of its discovery requests. The motion is misguided and should be denied. As an initial matter, much of what SCO seeks IBM has already agreed, or is willing, to produce as soon as is practicable. More fundamentally, SCO's motion should be denied because most of what it seeks is irrelevant, overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly in light of SCO's continued refusal to particularize its claims. Unless and until SCO tells us what this case is about, IBM should not be required to collects tens of millions of ages of documents and gather information that is very likely irrelevant to the case," The sad part is to realize that time, effort and money have been used to even have to say this. IBM is showing restraint by calling the motion "misguided". It's more like Alice in Wonderland objecting the the Queen's "Off with their heads!" It just shouldn't be necessary to point certain things out in the first place. It's elementary that the accused should be informed of what the "crime" is alleged to be, with enough specificity that the accused has the opportunity to defend. It's shocking that SCO simply refuses to tell anyone what code they allege is infringing. Maybe yesterday's article, "Progress is not Proprietary", with the interview with Chris Sontag and McBride tells the story? Sontag said that if they tell exactly what code they mean, the Linux community will remove the code immediately. But if their issue was really about protecting their IP, isn't that the correct solution, if there really is any infringing code, which many doubt at this point? And McBride let slip that the longer this case drags on, their damages increase (in his mind only, by the way; if they are responsible for the delay, the judge will not reward them for it, even if in some legal Wonderland they could ever be awarded damages in the first place).
|
|
Authored by: blhseawa on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 12:57 AM EST |
PJ,
I find it interesting, that the laywer IBM added to the case, is apparently
a ex-law partner of mark Heise.
IBM, is being extremely careful and methodical in how this is being
handled.
Thanks for all of your hard work.
---blhseawa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Scriptwriter on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 01:03 AM EST |
Sontag said that if they tell exactly what code they mean, the Linux
community will remove the code immediately.
Correct me if I'm wrong,
but if I think you've violated my copyrights, isn't giving you the opportunity
to make amends by removing the violation the first thing I'm supposed to
do?
I mean, if I were SCO I think I'd want to come right out and say what
code I thought was violating my copyrights. I mean, if it's a copyright
violation, they're not revealing anything that isn't already out in the open,
are they?
Unless, of course, there really is no copyright
violation, and SCO is just blowing smoke.
Not that that would happen, of
course. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ljdursi on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 01:11 AM EST |
I want to be an IBM lawyer when I grow up.
``Unless and untill SCO tells us what this case is about...''
``Morover, it makes no sence for IBM to have to identify and produce all of its
contributions to Linux when SCO has represented publicly that it knows the
`offending' code.''
``Furthermore, while it is possible that a proposd contribution to Linux that
was not actually incorporated into Linux might not be publicly accessible, any
such contribution is hardly relevent here. SCO could not have been injured (in
a cognizable way) by a contribution that was ignored.''
``There is nothing to `evaluate'. SCO asked IBM to identify persons with
access to source code, and we did.''
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Newsome on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 01:19 AM EST |
I just noticed on Judge
Wells' schedule that the Status Conference is now scheduled for 9:00am
rather than 10. --- Frank Sorenson [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Status Conference - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 01:31 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 01:21 AM EST |
So there's a special "Dot Com" edition of the Monopoly boardgame,
and last night I spent $150 million in Monopoly money to purchase Linux. I just
wanted everyone to know that I, Anonymous Coward, am now the one true owner of
Linux.
I KNOW YOU HEAR ME SCO. I AM PUTTING YOU ON NOTICE![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- off-topic joking - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 08:22 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 01:29 AM EST |
If this is Document 79 what is Document 78? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 02:06 AM EST |
Footnote 3: "See also Xerox Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp.
..."
It has to be nice to be able to cite cases where, not only did the ruling
support your current position, but it was you getting the ruling then as well.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Hepburnj on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 02:06 AM EST |
In this Memorandom IBM is stating what we have
been saying for some time.
<Quote>
Moreover it makes no sense for IBM to have to
identify all its contributions to linux when SCO
has represented publicly that it knows the "offending"
code
</Quote>
My take on this is that IBM is rather nicly asking SCO
to show the code or STFU.
GO IBM
---
__________
Hepburnj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 02:06 AM EST |
I was curious, since IBM filed a countersuit against SCO claiming patent
infringement, how many patents IBM has. They have a webpage with patent and
copyright information stating they have 37,000 worldwide patents and 20,000 US
patents. In the last ten years EACH year they were number one in patents
awarded, with over 3200 last year. Tell me again why Darl and Blake thought
suing IBM was a good thing? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 02:13 AM EST |
I'm guessing you meant your posting above mine which were posted approximately
the same time.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 02:18 AM EST |
SCO argued that they want a list of Linux contributions from IBM (instead
of searching themselves), because they can't know the stuff that was
rejected. IBM is saying, that thats bull, because rejected stuff could
hardly have injured SCO (it was rejected, not incorporated, thus no
damage)!. IBM's lawyers are smart. Simply impressive.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nealywilly on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 02:25 AM EST |
Most beautiful quote:
"SCO could not have been injured (in a cognizable way) by a contribution
that was ingnored."
"cognizable" means 1. Capable of being known or perceived. 2.
Capable of being tried before a particular court of law.
Talk about killing two (Dodo) birds with one stone.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 02:29 AM EST |
How are we going to know what happens tomorrow during the
conference call? I am very sure IBM lawyert's won't say a thing and what
SCO is going to announce afterwards is just BS. How soon is there going
to be a transcript available from the court?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 02:47 AM EST |
tens of millions of ages of documents
Reminds me of that
old sign:
This is our ool. Notice there is no 'p' in it. Let's keep it that
way.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Typo - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 03:10 AM EST
|
Authored by: PM on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 03:28 AM EST |
I am having difficulty getting my head around this madness. To start with I
have been wondering just what SCO's business model is. I think that there are
four facets to SCO's business:
1. Unix software sales - seems to be a dying business, but useful to have to
claim you are running a legitimate business.
2. Profiting from Linux IP - supposedly the most prominent aspect of SCO's
business, if you believe what Darl and Chris say. Main purpose however seems to
be to underpin facet 3.
3. Lawsuits - the prizes are big if you win, second prize seems to be
successful sale of company - but pretty sought after. Main purpose was probably
to support facet 2, but now is to support facet 4. David Boies and co are no
doubt the 21st century of the old British courtroom lawyers who had a pocket at
the back of the gown into which the client had to keep inserting gold coins to
keep them pleading.
4. Fundraising - the SCO car keeps running only as long as there is gasoline in
the tank. Fundraising is supposedly to support facet 3, but seems that there
are several syphon tubes in the tank all busy bleeding off the contents. As any
fundraiser knows, PR support is essential - what better than to keep lawsuits or
threatened lawsuits on the boil. So what if they ultimately collapse - they
have served their purpose of keeping the funds flowing.
This brings me to the next point of confusion - where do the funds come from? I
reckon there are three sources:
1. Joe Bloggs investor - with glowing reports from Deutche Bank who can resist?
I won't call Joe a sap, sucker, etc - he has investigated the financial
markets, looked for a reasonable 'long-shot' and invested. Geeks know that it
is a turkey, but that has not been getting into the financial media.
2. Those investing other peoples money eg shady mutual funds etc. I suspect
that there are kickbacks and mutual back scratches here. Again it is Joe Bloggs
who is effectively investing - not knowing his money is at risk The risk is
spread however - his fund may not do quite as well as it could have.
3. Those investing who anticipate getting a return on their money. Not by
legitimate company business, but the company stifles other businesses with
lawsuits and FUD. This puts the wind up clients who attempt to seek refuge by
purchasing the products and services of the investing company.
SCO seems to have started with the idea of making money from IP, needed lawsuits
to try and achieve this, but has now probably found that fundraising has been
relatively easy thanks to a big 'sugar daddy' who is only too happy to see
mayhem in the marketplace (a bit destroying the Louvre to get the Mona Lisa).
The question going through my mind is how dependent is SCO on the Joe Bloggs'
of this world for continued existance, or will the 'sugar daddys' continue to
be generous thus ensuring its existence for a bit longer.
I have rambled here, perhaps I am starting to see what the madness is all about.
Has any one else got ideas of any other businesses SCO are engaged in or other
sources of money.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jamesw on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 05:13 AM EST |
SCO makes much of the fact that IBM has stated that it intends
to produce the "base operating system" for AIX and Dynix. In fact, we are not
limiting our production of AIX or Dynix to the base operating
system.
To understand this comment, you should know that "base
operating system" is a technical term in AIX, and its scope is quite
limited.
AIX LPP packages (the equivalent of RPMs) have names like
bos.net.nfs.server, where bos stands for "base operating system". There is a
clear hierarchy in these names.
Stuff like the Logical Volume Manager,
shells, NFS, and terminal info are in the base operating system.
Stuff like
Java, X11, OpenGL, and most device drivers (PCI bus drivers, ethernet, disk
drives, printers) are excluded.
Whether SCO understands "base operating
system" this way is, erm, debatable.
I don't know what the situation is in
Dynix. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 05:28 AM EST |
I honestly think SCO believe they haveprovided IBM with the
information. It seems to me that the decision that Linux must be
infringing
SCO "intellectual property" has been made by a non-technical
member of staff
(probably a board member, and quite possibly Darl
McBride himself), using the
following logic:
- We (old SCO) developed and sold UNIX for
Intel.
- We (SCO/AT&T/Novell/Microsoft) developed the UNIX trunk and
added features including SMP, NUMA, journalling file systems and other
"high-end" features. (Microsoft are in there because of XENIX.)
- 1 and
2 took us a lot of time, and AT&T, Novell and Microsoft are
big companies
with lots of employees. There's no way that Linux
could be anything other
than copying, because it was developed so fast
and it looks like UNIX on
Intel.
- SMP is hard. It was difficult when we did it, and it is
too hard for
"amateurs" to do by themselves. Maybe they can do two-way SMP,
but not a full-blown implementation.
- NUMA is a derivative work of
Sequent's, because it was in
their UNIX source tree. IBM bought Sequent,
then NUMA support
appeared in Linux. It must have come from Sequent's
work,
because it's too difficult for anyone to develop that quickly,
so we have rights over it because it's a derivative work.
- JFS is
also a derivative work of UNIX, following the same
logic, so we must have
rights over it, but IBM have given it to Linux.
- IBM engineers have
been helping with Linux. Some of those
engineers must have seen our code, and
we have evidence that they've
said things about how AIX does things. Those
are our methods
and they're protected by our confidentiality
agreement.
Just to be clear, that list was me trying
to think like Darl et
al. I've highlighted the sections where SCO's
logic falls down in
italics.
I really don't think SCO have done
a great deal of investigative work
on this entire issue; everything they've
shown the public and everything
they've done so far seems to indicate a
complete lack of thorough,
detailed research, and a total misunderstanding of
their position and the
meaning of terms like derivative work.
It
looks to me like a lot of this is driven by non-technical people
(Darl? Chris
Sontag?), who have got it into their heads that there's a
problem, probably
through a (flawed) reasoning process like the one
above, and won't listen to
more rational voices saying "hang on a
moment" because they are so convinced
that they're in the right. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM Files Motion In Opposition to SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery - Authored by: jobsagoodun on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 06:25 AM EST
- Sontag supposedly technical - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 06:27 AM EST
- IBM Files Motion In Opposition to SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 07:23 AM EST
- IBM Files Motion In Opposition to SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery - Authored by: brenda banks on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 07:30 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 08:03 AM EST
- Thinking like Darl? Oooh that smarts (ooops, wrong word) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 07:52 AM EST
- a possible hypocracy atop SCO - Authored by: jeleinweber on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 08:15 AM EST
- IBM Files Motion In Opposition to SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 08:45 AM EST
- IBM Files Motion In Opposition to SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery - Authored by: hutcheson on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 09:53 AM EST
- What about POSIX(tm) though? - Authored by: sphealey on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 01:13 PM EST
- IBM Files Motion In Opposition to SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 02:21 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 06:46 AM EST |
He floated the idea for the lawsuit
and some wanker said
"It's a million to one shot but it just might work"
And from that Darl concluded it was a sure thing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fb on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 07:25 AM EST |
Boies learned from the IBM-DOJ suit that you can "win" by delaying. The
object here is simply to create as much confusion as possible. It is in SCO's
interest not to say anything sensible.
The final outcome is
irrelevant. By the time the tangle is sorted out, the financial backers have
been rewarded and the lawyers have made out handsomely. Interesting that in this
case the two groups are approximately the same.
Here also is where the
interests of SCO and Microsoft converge.
However this mess started, it sure
looks like Boies is applying what he learned from his old law firm. The
difference is that in the IBM-DOJ case, IBM buried them in facts. Here Boies is
trying to bury everybody in bull. And, who knows, he thinks? Some of it might
even stick... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: elrond_2003 on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 07:57 AM EST |
I have this daydream in which the judge says to SCO "alright, you may use
the file names in court as evidence. But, you may not cite any of the contents
since you never gave the line numbers nor the exact version. Nor may you say
anything further about why you alledge that the files infringe since you never
gave such evidence in discovery. Have a nice trial."
---
free as in speech.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 08:01 AM EST |
Motion this, Motion that...
When are we going to get any information on the success or failure of these
"motions"?
Or are we eventually going to see a headline in the near future called
"IBM Files Motion to Supresss SCO's Motion to Supress IBM's Motion to
Compell Discovery!"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Budgreen on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 08:10 AM EST |
How long untill we see TSG file a similar paper?
It would almost be fun to have a poll started to guess what day TSG's legal
team responds[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Tit for Tat - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 08:49 AM EST
- Pretty soon - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 01:36 PM EST
|
Authored by: bobh on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 09:02 AM EST |
from the dark ages of computing ( the dawn of Dynix and AIX)
until
now...
Sheesh. You sure know how to make a guy feel
old.
Before AIX came to be, I am. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 09:07 AM EST |
It must have taken IBM a superhuman effort to resist dropping them on SCO from a
great height. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 40,000,000 Pages!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 09:37 AM EST
- 40,000,000 Pages!! - Authored by: overshoot on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 10:29 AM EST
- 40,000,000 Pages!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 11:00 AM EST
- 40,000,000 Pages!! - Authored by: SteveS on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 04:45 PM EST
- CD launcher? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 06:43 PM EST
|
Authored by: sjohnson on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 09:09 AM EST |
I've come access another site what has some theories about who's SCO's lawyers
really are. Interesting reading...
SCO's Real Lawyers? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 09:30 AM EST |
I am concerned by several thoughts:
The SCO os is obsolete.
IBM has the best programmers anywhere.
SCO is requesting from IBM source code that could improve SCO Unixware or
Microsoft Windows.
SCO and Microsoft have a closed source base, If they use the code turned over in
discovery to SCO by IBM in the future we cannot verify it.
I think SCO is on a "Quest for the Grail" not just on Linux, but to
get all the source code they can from IBM.
If SCO survives, SCO might have a decent next generation OS using discovery
requested IBM code and IBM trade secrets.
If SCO does not survive, SCO will probably hand this discovery
"product" over to Microsoft.
IBM should have a court ordered verifiable protection of IBM IP before any
release to SCO.
---
Veritas vos liberabit
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 10:34 AM EST |
The following mutual funds own SCOX. I own one of these. I am selling.
I'm asking everyone to sell them to show our disapproval that the fund manager
use our money to support this madness:
Royce Technology Value Fund
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund
Vanguard Extended Market Index Fund
Marketocracy Masters 100 Fund
Vanguard Balanced Index Fund
Quantitative Master Series Tr-Extended Market Index
Spartan Extended Market Index Fund
Vanguard Institutional Index-Inst Total Stock Market
Spartan Total Market Index Fund
Manufacturers Investment Trust-Total Stock Market Index[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 11:00 AM EST |
Would someone clarify this for me please?
The way I understood it, if evidence is introduced, it becomes part of public
record. Thus, if SCO puts forth SysV code as evidence, the code becomes part of
public record and can be viewed by anyone. SCO would have copyright on it still
(public record != public domain). Trade secrets would, of course, no longer be
secret because they don't depend on copyright, but on secrecy.
Likewise, this would happen for IBM's AIX code if it were introduced as
evidence. Even Linux code would follow this, but nobody would care because it is
available to the general public anyway.
Thanks.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Public Record? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 11:14 AM EST
- Public Record? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 11:30 AM EST
- Public Record? - Authored by: Nivuahc on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 01:44 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 11:01 AM EST |
It is really strange how SCO has changed what the case is about. Originally they
were saying in public that they had uncovered in Linux code that came from
UnixWare, original SVR4, and derivative code. And in the lawsuit they seem to be
saying in the complaints that IBM made violations with all three types of code.
But now we get to discovery, and they seem to have abandoned the claims about
UnixWare and SVR4. I say that because they say they can't hand over a specific
listing of lines of code because they don't know what it is. Now if they have
done a code analysis of UnixWare and SVR4 against Linux, then they would know
the specific lines of code. So to say they don't know the lines means they are
no longer making UnixWare and SVR4 claims against IBM.
That leaves only the derivative code claims. And once the judge looks at the
letter and amendment x, that will be thrown out. SCO will no longer have any
case, and that will quickly lead to dismissal (with prejudice?). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 11:26 AM EST |
I notice SCO's lawyer picked up another high profile
client.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2003/11/21/rtr1156738.html
The interesting comment is "Boies told Black to tone down
his public comments about the issue". I take it he hasn't
said the same thing to Darl.
Derek [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: beast on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 12:19 PM EST |
From IBM's motion: "We assume SCO does not intend Interrogatory No. 2 to call
for the identification of anyone who is familiar with IBM's business or is
genrally aware of SCO's case".
Just in case this is what SCO meant, IBM
ought to put out special advertisments: "Have you ever heard of IBM? Do you
know what we do? Well, SCO would like to know who you are. Please write your
name down on the attached postage prepaid postcard and send it to SCO. Let's
try really hard to beat the one billion mark!"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 12:56 PM EST |
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&am
p;newsId=20031121005267&newsLang=en
Heading: `Viral' Open-Source License Can Destroy Software's Value, Wolf
Greenfield Lawyers Tell Conference; SCO vs. IBM Further Muddies Picture
Quote: BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 21, 2003--"Your employee could grab a
piece of open-source code off the Internet and you no longer have a proprietary
product. Your $50,000 software package is now worth zero," Steve Henry, a
senior intellectual property lawyer with Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.,
told the Software Business 2003 Conference in Boston.
This "time bomb" lurks because a popular license for open source,
the GNU General Public License, (GPL) is "viral." The license
attaches to any product with GPL-licensed code, including a derivative work, he
said. The entire software package becomes open source and the company thus must
distribute it freely and let anyone copy it. A widely used open-source utility,
for instance, could "infect" hundreds of software products and
destroy their commercial value.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: Wolf Greenfield Lawyers decry 'viral' GPL - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 01:22 PM EST
- He is right if... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 01:32 PM EST
- OT: Wolf Greenfield Lawyers decry 'viral' GPL - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 01:45 PM EST
- OT: Wolf Greenfield Lawyers decry 'viral' GPL - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 01:48 PM EST
- OT: Wolf Greenfield Lawyers decry 'viral' GPL - Authored by: coffee17 on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 02:05 PM EST
- How did these guy pass the bar? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 02:26 PM EST
- OT: Wolf Greenfield Lawyers decry 'viral' GPL - Authored by: linuxbikr on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 02:59 PM EST
- Maybe they do "get it" - Authored by: Jude on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 04:33 PM EST
- OT: Wolf Greenfield Lawyers decry 'viral' GPL - Authored by: adamruth on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 04:58 PM EST
- OT: Wolf Greenfield Lawyers decry 'viral' GPL - Authored by: Christian on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 05:11 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 01:23 PM EST |
A lot of people seem to be misunderstanding what IBM said
It is more subtle than rejected contributions have no relevance.
IBM is saying there are three types of IBM contributions
1. Code IBM contributed to Linux and was accepted
2. Code IBM tried to contribute to Linux, and was rejected
3. Code IBM proposed contributing to Linux but for whatever reason never got
around to contributing, or didn't go ahead with, or whatever
For 1+2: IBM is saying, the records of 1 and 2 are public of all these. IBM
doesn't have an index of all these so would have to have build one for SCO.
Moreover IBM is saying an IBM built index would include things which are not at
issue in the law suit (as IBM does not know what SCO is claiming as theirs)
would be extremely burdensome, and more burdensome for IBM than for SCO. IBM is
also hinting that if SCO specifies what is at issue, IBM might be prepared to
make the index.
For 3: IBM is saying, just because we thought about contributing it (e.g. we
thought about open sourcing any part of AIX), if we didn't actually get round
to doing it, so what? SCO can only have been damaged by what we actually did,
not what we thought we might perhaps do.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jtsteward on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 01:40 PM EST |
IANAL, but I read Groklaw so I know what NOT to do if I ever want to win an
IP/Copyright/Patent/Contract dispute lawsuit.
After reading IBM's filing I am AGAIN amazed. I know exactly what they want,
and what they are responding to, and why.
When I read SCO's filings I am left with thinking "WTF are they
saying?"
I hope the judge feels the same way.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 02:04 PM EST |
"And McBride let slip that the longer this case drags on, their damages
increase (in his mind only, by the way; if they are responsible for the delay,
the judge will not reward them for it, even if in some legal Wonderland they
could ever be awarded damages in the first place). "
I read
McBrides comment to be related to SCO's revocation of IBM's AIX license. As
soon as the license is revoked and IBM continues to distribute AIX, the clock
starts ticking. Of course the validity of this revocation hinges on the validity
of the original lawsuit against IBM which is becoming increasingly doubtful.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tcranbrook on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 04:19 PM EST |
Novel just had a
conferen
ce call.
"To coin a phrase, Novell seems committed to the
"Linuxization" of all its businesses. "
There was also a comment about
SCO.
"And what about the apparent intent of SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX) to
block the SuSE acquisition because of a contract breach? Novell says the claim
has little if any merit, and appears to be a public-relations ploy."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 04:55 PM EST |
Various people have expressed optimism that SCO's case could be dismissed.
Could the lawyers among us please say whether they think this is realistic? SCO
have applied for Red Hat's case against them to be dismissed, and I was just
reading Red Hat's opposition to this motion. The message seems to be that
it's pretty hard to get a case dismissed. If I understand correctly, Judge
Kimball would have to pretend to believe all "facts" claimed in
SCO's complaint and could only dismiss the case if he STILL thought that there
was no merit in the suit. But perhaps the rules change after the motions to
compel discovery have been decided? Can anyone explain how this works?
Neil Strickland
(An ex-MIT mathematician, FWIW :-) ) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cfitch on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 05:59 PM EST |
I'm suprised this has not come up earlier. There are some interesting comments
in this interview from Ransom Love.
Linux veteran tries
again
Thoughts?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MattZN on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 09:09 PM EST |
Docket #80 just went up. "Counsel present. After discussion with counsel,
the motion to compel hearing will remain set for 12/5/03 at 10:00. Court
Adjourned."
-Matt [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|