|
|
| More Discovery in SCO v. IBM and SCO Files Proposed Memo on Scheduling Order - Pacer Entries |
 |
|
Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 07:45 AM EDT
|
Pacer is listing four more documents that we hope to have for you later today, indicating more discovery activity in the IBM case:
5/28/04 163 Memorandum RE: Discovery filed by SCO Grp (tsh)
[Entry date 06/01/04]
5/28/04 164 Ex parte motion by SCO Grp for leave to file overlength
reply memo in support of pla's Motion to Amend the
Scheduling Order (tsh) [Entry date 06/01/04]
5/28/04 -- Proposed document from SCO Grp entitled Pla's Reply Memo
in Support of Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (tsh)
[Entry date 06/01/04]
5/28/04 165 Certificate of service by SCO Grp re: Pla's Response to
Dft's Fourth Set of Interrogatories (tsh)
[Entry date 06/01/04]
This tells us, assuming the entries are accurate, that IBM has served SCO with another set of interrogatories, their fourth, which SCO has responded to, and that SCO has filed its Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order, which if you recall is their effort to delay some more. The Memorandum is longer than normally allowed, so they are also asking the judge to permit it, despite its length, by means of an ex parte motion, and that is why it is listed as a proposed Memo instead of just a Memo. Here is the definition of an ex parte motion, from Law Dictionary, 2d Edition, by Steven H. Gifis: "Lat: in behalf of, on the application of, one party, by or for one party. An ex parte judicial proceeding is one brought for the benefit of one party only, without notice to or challenge by an adverse party. It refers to an application made by one party to a proceeding in the absence of the other. Thus, an ex parte injunction is one having been granted without the adverse party having had notice of its application. An uncontested application where notice was given is not ex parte." SCO also has apparently filed a Memorandum regarding discovery. I haven't a clue what that entry is. I could guess, but why not just wait until we see it?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Nivuahc on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 01:17 PM EDT |
| Sun COO Schwartz Promises Open Source Solaris
lin
k
---
My Doctor says I have A.D.D... He just doesn't understand.
It's not like... Hey! Look at that chicken! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT Links and Discussion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 01:22 PM EDT
- I don't get it... - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 01:28 PM EDT
- SCOGs reply to RedHat's Motion still missing - Authored by: ChrisP on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 01:50 PM EDT
- Upcoming legal events - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 02:01 PM EDT
- OT Links and Discussion - Authored by: David Gerard on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- OT Links and Discussion - Authored by: bb5ch39t on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 03:43 PM EDT
- OT Links and Discussion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 05:43 PM EDT
- Prior art? - Authored by: swengr on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 06:06 PM EDT
- Prior art? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 06:40 PM EDT
- Prior art? - Authored by: dcm on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:32 PM EDT
- OT Links and Discussion - Authored by: fLameDogg on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 03:48 PM EDT
- Sun to open source Solaris - Authored by: tizan on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 03:49 PM EDT
- At least you dont have F U D D - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- At least you dont have F U D D - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 03:53 PM EDT
- NT History - Authored by: AdamBaker on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 04:25 PM EDT
- NT History - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 05:42 PM EDT
- Decent LinuxInsider article - Authored by: gp2 on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 05:02 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: jdg on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
Is the time-stamp correct on this Post? Delete this comment if it is not
relevant, but 7:45 am EDT was a number of hours ago. (I agree about waiting for
the document rather than speculating, since there is enough (!) new material out
recently.)
---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Lev on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 01:29 PM EDT |
Could this be the memorandum that SCO promised to file in Hatch's letter
(Exhibit 28)? The one that supposedly explains why they need to see every AIX
and Dynix version in existence. Took them a while to prepare it...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
Maybe they just don't want to be laughed out of the Judge's office with any
witnesses to the events that led up to it...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ruidh on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 02:25 PM EDT |
...IBM refused to stipulate?
In the past when SCOX has wanted more time, they proposed an extension to IBM
who stipulated they could take more time. The judge entered the notice as
stipulated.
But here, IBM hasn't agreed. I don't know if Kimball is likely to grant leave to
file the longer reply, but I think it means that SCOX is beginning to run out of
rope.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 02:30 PM EDT |
| No one really expects anything serious from this joke of humanity, do they? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: meke on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 03:06 PM EDT |
Microsoft granted patent for double-click
http://www.
smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/02/1086058889577.html
I cannot believe it
(Victor Meldrew like)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Completely OT: Microsoft Patent - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 03:14 PM EDT
- Completely OT: Microsoft Patent - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 03:16 PM EDT
- Completely OT: Microsoft Patent - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 03:16 PM EDT
- Completely OT: Microsoft Patent - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 03:17 PM EDT
- Completely OT: Microsoft Patent - Authored by: micheal on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 03:35 PM EDT
- Completely OT: Microsoft Patent - Authored by: Stephen on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 03:44 PM EDT
- Completely OT: Microsoft Patent - Authored by: nylarthotep on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 03:51 PM EDT
- The letter "I" or Morse Code and Prior Art - Authored by: Eeyore on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 05:06 PM EDT
- Completely OT: Microsoft Patent - Authored by: ujay on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 05:18 PM EDT
- Double-click & drag - Prior art - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 07:14 PM EDT
- Not double-click: Completely OT: Microsoft Patent - Authored by: Tyro on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 07:34 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 03:25 PM EDT |
at http://sco.tuxrocks.com/
There are some file/lines from dynix SCO claims
were "dropped" into linux. Probably no one needs
to dispute this (IBM owns that source code).
There are, so far as I can see, absolutely zero
lines from unix syxV listed, as IBM pretty much
stated. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
Up 88 cents today. CBS Marketwatch claims it's due to the buyback.
---
The only reason we retain the rights we have is because people *JUST LIKE US*
died to preserve those rights.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mhoyes on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
Pacer has SCO's memorandum regarding discovery.
In it, in section A, it
says the following:
SCO claims that IBM breached its software
agreement (AT&T Technologies, Inc Software Agreement, executed on Feb 1,
1985 ("Agreement") (Exh. 1)) by, among other actions, distributing parts of the
AIX and Dynix operating system software programs to Linux. Because the
Agreement does not permit IBM to lease or transfer any parts of the AIX and
Dynix programs, IBM's contribution of AIX and Dynix code to Linux violates the
Agreement.1 Such contributions to a public forum also violate the requirement
to maintain the "resulting materials," AIX and Dynix, as confidential. Id. at
7.06.
SCO also claims that IBM's contribution of parts of AIX and Dynix to
Linux breached the Agreement because both the AIX amd Dynix programs, as whole
programs, are modifications or derivative works of UNIX System V, so no parts of
those programs may be sold, leased or otherwise transfered. See note 3.
Again, for example, because the Agreement prohibits the transfer of software
programs in whole or in part, IBM's contribution to Linux from AIX and Dynix -
as derivative works of UNIX System V - violate the Agreement. SCO is entitled,
under the Federal Rules, to evidence relevant to these
claims.
So, here we see the crux of their thoughts, actually
laid out on paper. They look at the AIX and Dynix system, not as a collection
of parts, but as a single item, and anything touching it becoming part of that
amorphous blob.
What I find interesting, is if you go by what they are
saying, then IBM was not able to lease or transfer so how is IBM
actually providing AIX to their customers. The only place I saw such language
was when the agreements were talking about software to be used by the
company.
All of this seems to show that SCOG is ignoring totally, the echo
newsletter, and the amendments.
Additionally, the next few pages are trying
to argue that to provide the discovery request that IBM demands, that they have
to have all iterations of AIX and Dynix, yada, yada, yada...
By page seven,
they state:
IBM has selected snapshots of AIX and declined to
provide either the change-log information or the revision control information
showing the changes between the various snapshots. Consequently, it is
difficult if not impossible to find the original sources of the improper
contributions of SCO's contractually protected code. Without the listed items,
SCO has spent countless hours, and sometimes fruitless effort, trying to track
the improper use of UNIX System V code in Linux through AIX and
Dynix.
So, they have a start, and an end, but nothing between,
so they can't find the path it took. And they are saying that after reviewing
the public code of Linux and the code they have gotten from IBM, that they
haven't found the information or as they put it: These efforts have not,
however, yielded much of the information required for SCO to further respond to
IBM's discovery demands. SCO has attemtped to follow IBM's scattered path
throught the winding history of countless alterations, derivations, and
revisions, but the task is nearly impossible without a map, a map so easily
accessible to IBM, so clearly relevant to this case, and so absolutely essential
to SCO that IBM's withholding of it and subsequent filing of a summary judgment
motion is unconcionable.
Ohh...now IBM is being "unconscionable" in
filing a motion. SCOG seems to be saying they can't find anything, but it is
IBM's fault for not giving them everything. I'm sorry, but I thought you were
supposed to have the evidence before you started, not a year into the
case.
Then, it continues in the old vein of how they have to have this
discovery, so they can prove the path the revisions took and that it was
contributed to Linux improperly.
All of this seems predicated on their
argument that AIX and Dynix, as a whole, as derivative works. This would seem
to be refuted by AT&T's statements that any code you create that does not
contain the UNIX code, is your own.
Interesting, in a mild sort of
way.
meh [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 05:12 PM EDT |
Microsoft discovers the double click?
At last, all those billions Microsoft has invested in research has finally paid
off! IBM, watch out![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ray08 on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 05:19 PM EDT |
| the link is here ---
Caldera is toast!
And Groklaw is the toaster! (with toast level set to BURN) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
In the document "Memorandum RE: Discovery filed by SCO Grp" SCOX has
committed its whole case to the interpretation of 'SOFTWARE PRODUCT' in the
AT&T liscense agreement. There is no effort made to show that any code from
SYSV is in Linux. The only claims are that code from AIX and DYNIX (code that is
not also in UNIX), has made its way into Linux. Their contention that Linux
contains illegal contributions from Unix is only supported by the claim that AIX
and DYNIX some how (they are not specific) belong to things known as 'SOFTWARE
PRODUCT'. If they are not right about that, then this document is and admission
that they have no case at all.
Bill Collier[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: turtle on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
It seems that SCO is saying "IBM contributed AIX code to Linux which is
forbidden by contract X", and IBM is saying exactly the same thing except
that the contract does not forbid it.
Since a Jury is only needed to decide matters of fact, wouldn't this mean that
the Judge could make a full summary judgement if she ruled that the contract was
legally unambiguous?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
I hope this is a joke.
Prior art: Amiga, Archimedies Riscos, Gem, Windows 1 (They didnt patent it back
then), Apple Lisa, Apple Mac.
Did xerox do something similar? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AdamBaker on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
| The 8-K has now been filed for the Baystar deal at the SEC
One interesting point is that Baystar don't
have their shares yet, they might not get them until the end of July depending
upon how quickly SCO can get the paperwork filed with the SEC. Don't expect
their sales to be affecting the share price yet. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 06:35 PM EDT |
You people still can't seem to remember that Novell owns the copyrights. You
keep discussing all this as if SCO has the copyrights. This is what SCO wants
you to do.
SCO only has a license to market and sell Unix. Once Kimball deals with the
Novell case, the IBM case gets dismissed.
As far as I can tell, even IBM keeps defending this case as if SCO has standing
to sue.
Someone please instruct me why I am wrong.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 06:41 PM EDT |
There used to be a UNIX-like product for various microcomputers (including the
Tandy Color Computer) called OS-9, I believe it was from a company called
Microware. Why isn't this on the Grokline?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
Even though I am aware of the maxim...
"For every complex problem, there is a simple answer... and it is
wrong" (Mark Twain)
I have to ask, at this point, couldn't the judge simply demand (immediately)
the basis for their current claim? If there is none, or not enough, couldn't he
dispose of this quickly, or am I just being stupid?
ps. please don't answer that last question
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 07:16 PM EDT |
| On Page 8 of SCOX' Memorandum Regarding Discovery, they allude to the
extent of their "intellectual property:"
- Identification and tracing
of certain multiprocessor lock-avoidance code (RCU) from Dynix/ptx to become
modified, derivative multiprocessor lock-avoidance code (RCU) in Linux that
appears to be based on proprietary UNIX-based code, methods, or
concepts.
- Identification and tracing of substantial activity by former
Sequent engineers and IBM engineers in debugging, testing, andd logging
information for use by other Linux engineers in improving Linux performance in
other areas that appear to be based on proprietary UNIX-based code, methods, or
concepts.
- Identification and review of all design documents related to
multiprocessor technology created by USL engineers, or as work for hire by
Sequent engineers for USL relating to multiprocessor technology ("ES/MP design
documents.")
- Identification of the areas in Unix System V ES/MP code base
that contain multiprocessor technologies based on the proprietary ES/MP design
documents.
- Identification of, to the extent possible from IBM's production,
the former Sequent engineers who had access to System V and to Dynix, and have
made contributions to Linux.
- Identification of, to the extent possible from
IBM's production, the AIX engineers and contractors who had access to System V
and to AIX, and have made contributions to Linux.
There's more, but the
interesting part is that they are clearly staking out not only IBM's actual
creations, not only patent-like control of whole technologies created by others
(RCU, the ES/MP stuff), but even the basic professional skills of former
IBM and Sequent employees and contractors.
The part about the "ES/MP
documents" is particularly telling, since it has all the properties of a direct
trade secret claim -- after SCOX has told the Court that there are no trade
secrets at issue.
Then SCOX go on to declare that they still haven't found
"much of the information required for SCO to further respond to IBM's discovery
demands." In other words, they still don't know what rights they have to
Linux!
By the way, what's this about "work for hire" done by Sequent for
USL? New one to me. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
| I really love these:
In addition, SCO requests that this Court order IBM
to produce all design documents, whitepapers and programming notes, created from
1984 to the present, related to the following:
As to Dynix, ptx, and
Dynix/ptx:
- performance enhancement tools and methods
- debugger and
statistics gathering for both kernel and user-space
functionality
- inter-process communications
- hot swapping
You
gotta love it! SCOX is really going fishing here, since they are
demanding what amounts to IBM's internal research papers on technologies
developed independent of SysV for which AT&T had no contribution. I really
love the hot-swapping demand, but the best of all is the interest in debugging
and performance-enhancement methods.
This goes to SCOX' earlier intimation
that they owned "know-how" that IBM "improperly" applied to improving Linux.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
