|
|
| SCO's Motion to Compel Palmisano Deposition and Memo in Support - as text |
 |
|
Monday, January 17 2005 @ 11:00 AM EST
|
Here is SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition [PDF] and the supporting Memorandum [UPDATE: the court has sealed the document. See this article for an explanation], in which we can learn some interesting things by finding the original materials they have attached as exhibits.
One on their list was this quotation: "We intend to be a leader in our industry by ... making IBM technologies
available to the Linux and open source communities."
-- M. Chang, IBM Linux (September 2004),
http://www.mindwork.com.tw/0909/sildes/3_0909%20Novell%20Linux%20Day%20-
%20For%20Download.pdf, at 10 (Exh. N) (quoting Palmisano speech of Jan. 10, 2000).
When I copied and pasted the link, I first got a 404 error page in Chinese. So I searched by the quoted sentence. And it takes you here where you find two listings, one the Chinese page. I clicked on the link on that page to download the PDF. If you download it, you will find it is actually a 2004 PowerPoint presentation that IBM VP Mitchell Chang gave, and on page 10, one slide shows a picture of Mr. Palmisano and the quotation, and the date Jan 10, 2000. It wasn't a speech by Mr. Palmisano. How do I know? I clicked on the second link.
That takes you to a memo, an internal IBM memo from Palmisano dated January 10, 2000, that an IBM employee posted to a FreeBSD message board, and notice as you read it that he says in the same memo that the company will continue its support of Project Monterey and AIX:
As we look to the future, we will continue our aggressive push in the UNIX
marketplace with our industry-leading RS/6000 and NUMA-Q servers, our
award-winning AIX operating system and our efforts to evolve AIX in Project
Monterey. Here's the entire memo, which SCO probably should have taken the time to research more carefully, because it proves two things that don't help SCO: one, that IBM decided to back Linux because the world was starting to go mad for it and they had the smarts to realize it was going to be a player in the future and two, that they still had hopes for AIX and Project Monterey, SCO's paranoid memorandum notwithstanding. What they were trying to accomplish was to add to their offerings, not to kill anything. As Palmisano explains in the memo: We believe we're now on the brink of another important shift in the
technology world. The next generation of e-business will see customers
increasingly demand open standards for interoperability across disparate
platforms. Linux -- a community-developed version of UNIX -- will play a
pivotal role in this. We will embrace Linux on our server platforms -- and
help it become one of those open standards as a natural extension of our
commitment to e-business and the next generation of the Internet. And as you will see from some articles in the media at the time, Palmisano first got seriously interested in Linux by taking a world tour and hearing from his customers that Linux was the next operating system that all the young programmers preferred to use.
On page 5 of the presentation, you will find a chart of server operating systems shipped since 1999. As you can see for yourself, Linux was already on the chart back in 1998 and by 2000, the growth was noticeable to IBM. They didn't make that happen. It happened because people adopted Linux, knowing it really worked well. As SCO even says in their memorandum, Palmisano came back from an overseas tour of IBM partners having found out that the new generation loved Linux, and that is why he decided to support it.
SCO would like you to think there was something criminal in that. But the truth is, it was just business smarts. IBM didn't make the new generation fall in love with Linux. It merely noticed and decided to act to benefit from noticing early in its surge upward and to Linux-enable their products and services, as the former IBM CEO Lou Gerstner puts it in his quotation on page 10. That is what businesses do, is it not? They compete for business. One way is to be first to spot the next hot thing, like IBM did with the Internet, unlike Microsoft which almost missed the train altogether. And look at page 28. It's one of the success stories of a company switching from UNIX to Linux, Deutsche Bank AG in London, ironically enough. They went from 8+ hours to 20 minutes to do calculations. How stupid would a business have to be not to want to make a switch like that? Is it SCO's position that the increase in speed comes from stealing UNIX's code, methods and concepts? If so, then why is Linux blazingly fast in comparison to Unix? If SCO's theory were true, how come the "bicycle" is faster than the "race car"? Here is the memo in full:
Enterprise Systems Group
Samuel J. Palmisano
________________
From: SJP Comm/Somers/IBM @ IBMUS on 01/10/2000 09:14 AM EST
To: ESG EMPLOYEES US07 0021, ESG EMPLOYEES US07 0022, ESG EMPLOYEES US07
0023, ESG EMPLOYEES US08 0001, ESG EMPLOYEES US08 0002, ESG EMPLOYEES
US09 0001
cc:
Subject: Next Generation e-business
During the past two-to-three months, we've taken a close look at our server
business and what we need to do to get our momentum back.
Today we're taking a first step by making a significant announcement to
support Linux and the open source movement and to drive the next generation
of the Internet. We intend to be a leader in our industry by:
making all of our server platforms Linux ready;
engaging closely with the Linux community to help Linux evolve; and,
making IBM technologies available to the Linux and open source
communities.
This is important news for IBM and for our customers. Here's why:
Over four years ago, IBM stated that the Internet was about more than just
browsers; it was about a new way of doing business. Since then, IBM's
leadership and view of e-business have helped transform the world.
We believe we're now on the brink of another important shift in the
technology world. The next generation of e-business will see customers
increasingly demand open standards for interoperability across disparate
platforms. Linux -- a community-developed version of UNIX -- will play a
pivotal role in this. We will embrace Linux on our server platforms -- and
help it become one of those open standards as a natural extension of our
commitment to e-business and the next generation of the Internet.
To spearhead that work effort, we are creating a new organization, headed
by Dr. Irving Wladawsky-Berger, who has been named vice president,
technology and strategy, reporting to me. He was general manager, Internet
Division, Software Group.
Irving's organization will have responsibility for our UNIX software
efforts, advanced architectures and technologies, and IBM's next-generation
Internet strategy. With IBM as the industry's e-business leader, there is
no longer the need for a stand-alone Internet Division, since the entire
company has been focused on Internet themes for several years.
As we look to the future, we will continue our aggressive push in the UNIX
marketplace with our industry-leading RS/6000 and NUMA-Q servers, our
award-winning AIX operating system and our efforts to evolve AIX in Project
Monterey.
We believe the long-term growth of the Internet is about common application
platforms that can harness leading-edge technologies and simplify
customers' choices. We believe Linux will develop into that type of common
platform. By getting in early and being a key player in the open source
community, IBM will be a leader in working with the industry to advance
Linux into the future and bring our customers into the next generation of
e-business.
This is a long-term play. Significantly, this is not only about servers.
There is a huge opportunity for services. For software. For all of IBM.
So this is one step. You'll be hearing from me in the next few weeks on
other key initiatives that, in aggregate, will restore our momentum and
help us turn our business around. Stay tuned.
(Embedded image moved to file: pic10901.pcx)
Senior Vice President & Group Executive
Enterprise Systems Group
You may read more about IBM's Linux activities, RS/6000, NUMA-Q and AIX
successes at http://w3.ibm.com/servergroup
Another news article they cite is interesting because they use it to tell the court that IBM has invested heavily in Linux, which IBM has already told the court is true. To SCO, it's proof of a plot, to beef up services as a revenue source and thus to kill off software-selling vendors, like Sun and SCO. But in the article, an interview with Jim Stallings, IBM's Linux general manager, it's obvious that the growth in their services business comes as a surprise to IBM:
"The services business is growing much faster than we ever thought," doubling annually, said Jim Stallings, IBM's Linux general manager, in an interview at the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo. "Services is growing faster than servers, and middleware is growing faster than servers." This article, which SCO doesn't cite, from January 2001, says they did it to try to change their image as a stodgy company and it too says that it happened after Palmisano's world tour of customers: IBM Corp. Wednesday moved to slough off its reputation as a stodgy, slow-moving enterprise by throwing its considerable support behind Linux.. . . . Palmisano, who has been with IBM for 30 years, said he first became interested in Linux after accepting his present position with the company. At that point, he traveled around the world meeting with customers and the one thing everyone was talking about, he said, was Linux. He also did it, according to his speech at Linux World, reported on in this article, because he grasped a simple truth: no company, not IBM, not Microsoft, no company can match the development of Linux, not with all their money: "Communities working together can produce exciting, wonderful, quality work," he said. "IBM spends $5 billion in research and development a year. We can't match this," he said opening his arms to embrace the audience. He is right, of course. No company can afford to hire all the Linux contributors, and even if they could, they'd likely get rejected by many. It's not about furthering IBM's goals. It just isn't. But he was smart enough to see that Linux is an enabling technology and that it was the future of software.
The article is significant for pointing out what IBM's real contribution has been, and it isn't code. It's credibility and support: "In the year since IBM embraced Linux as key to the evolution of e-business, our customers have rapidly adopted Linux in real e-business solutions. Linux is now ready for real e-business," said Irving Wladawsky-Berger, IBM vice president of technology and strategy, Server Group. "Now, in addition to providing top to bottom Linux support for our hardware and software, we're investing in Linux services so that IBM can assure our customers that the level of support they have come to expect for their enterprise computing environments will be available for Linux."
Stallings is also quoted defending Red Hat from Sun's lock-in mantra:
Stallings also took issue with a prominent rival, Sun Microsystems Chief Operating Officer Jonathan Schwartz. Schwartz argues that the success of top Linux seller Red Hat has allowed the company to lock customers into their software, success that has forced IBM to back Novell's SuSE Linux.
Lock-in is a matter of degree, Stallings said, and it's less with Linux than with other operating systems. "There's a lot more freedom of movement from servers underneath and applications on top with Linux in the middle," Stallings said. "Windows has control points. There's no way out." SCO also cites a press release from January of 2003, but they provide the wrong url. If you go to the link they give the judge, you will find only 2004 and 2005 press releases. If you want January of 2003, you have to go here. I went down the list looking for that press release, checking by plausible titles. If you find it, do sing out. ( Update: Jaywalk informs me that if you go to the IBM press releases page and choose biographies on the left, you will find the phrase in his bio.) I also searched by keywords: Palmisano 2003 Linux January but I found nothing. So, again, I figured they just searched on Google, so I did the same, and here is a page that uses the phrase in question, but notice how many other irons in the fire Mr. Palmisano has had going on in addition to the Linux activities, and ask yourself if he is really the right man to talk about the details of the Linux strategy after all: Biographical Information of CEO
Sam Palmisano is chairman of the board and chief executive of the corporation. He was elected Chairman in October 2002 effective January 1, 2003. Mr. Palmisano has served as executive officer since March 2002. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Palmisano was President and Chief operating officer.
Mr. Palmisano has held a number of key leadership positions during his IBM career, including senior vice president and group executive for IBM's Enterprise Systems Group, where he led IBM's adoption of the Linux operating environment, as well as the launch of the company's unified eServer family. Prior to that, Mr. Palmisano was senior vice president and group executive for IBM Global Services, with responsibility for the worldwide operations of the largest and most diversified IT services organization in the industry.
Mr. Palmisano has served as senior vice president and group executive for IBM's Personal Systems Group; led IBM's strategic outsourcing business; and was president of the Integrated Systems Solutions Corp. (ISSC), an IBM wholly owned subsidiary, and now part of IBM Global Services. Before joining ISSC, Mr. Palmisano was IBM senior managing director of operations for IBM Japan. He joined IBM in 1973 in Baltimore, Maryland. He isn't a programmer. And Linux was only one piece of all he had going on. He started as a salesman with the company. I find it quite plausible that, after making the decision to support Linux following his trip abroad, he delegated the implementation to others. That is what heads of divisions do. That is not to diminish his role, just to say that I doubt he can speak to the technical issues that are central to this lawsuit. SCO should really have deposed those at IBM who handle the nuts and bolts. They have had since March of 2003 to do so, but in their memo they say the are going to, future tense. I gather they feel they have to in order to justify forcing the CEO to be deposed. I'm not saying they won't get to depose Mr. Palmisano. I'm just saying it is silly, unless they have some other purpose beyond what they are telling the court. The impression I form is that SCO is stilll learning how to use Google. I say that because they reference the home page for things like news articles, which will bring the judge not to the article but to the current page. That spells inexperience to me, or that they prefer that the judge and you and I not check. They used Google to find information on Mr. Palmisano, I gather, and they stopped before doing the kind of careful research that you need to do to be positive you are right. I wrote about that in the previous article, about how dangerous it is to rely on only partial information. Here is an example. They likely will be able to depose him, but what they will then elicit from him is the tale you can find for yourself by doing thorough searching on Google, as I just did, namely that IBM's Palmisano got interested in Linux because of a world tour of IBM's customers which convinced him that the younger generation was talking about Linux and *they* were wanting it. It was, therefore, the future. It had nothing to do with taking shortcuts to kill Solaris, as SCO tries to spin it here, although obviously any company would hope to pull ahead of the competition. That's every company's goal. And it isn't illegal, last I looked. So the last piece is now in place in my mind: IBM wasn't trying to kill UNIX. Mr. Palmisano simply had the intelligence and good business sense to notice that the world had begun to switch to Linux, that the younger generation all loved it, and he realized it would be prudent to include Linux in IBM's offerings. The Palmisano memo also shows that the company itself had no idea Linux would take over everything the way it has, though, and they at the time still believed that Project Monterey would continue. Whatever customers wanted, IBM would provide it. They were simply positioning themselves to offer whatever their customers wanted, but they also had a solid hunch that for a lot of their customers, it was going to be Linux. All the rest from SCO is the kind of wild guessing that result from inadequate research and a hostile imagination. Case closed. And with that, here are the legal filings, and our thanks go to bstone for transcribing them for us.
****************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
Sean Eskovitz (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.
___________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
__________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
____________________________
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
SCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL IBM
TO PRODUCE SAMUEL J.
PALMISANO FOR DEPOSITION
Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
____________________________
The SCO Group, Inc., by and through counsel hereby respectfully moves the Court to
compel International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") to produce Samuel J. Palmisano
for deposition, for the reasons set forth in supporting memorandum filed herewith.
DATED this 12th day of January, 2005
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver
Stephen N. Zack
Edward Normand
Sean Eskovitz
By _____[signature]___
Counsel for the SCO Group, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Compel IBM to
Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition was served by mail on Defendant International
Business Machines Corporation on the 12th day of January, 2005, by U.S. Mail to:
David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]
Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]
Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]
___[signature]____
****************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
Sean Eskovitz (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.
___________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
__________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
____________________________
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
SCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL IBM
TO PRODUCE SAMUEL J.
PALMISANO FOR DEPOSITION
Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
1
[UPDATE: May 6, 2005: The court has sealed this document. Until it is unsealed, Groklaw has removed it.]
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 11:16 AM EST |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 11:18 AM EST |
| Make links Clickable if possible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 11:40 AM EST |
SCOG's makes its pleading based on its assertion that Sam Palisano played a key
role in IBM's Linux strategy. I presume that were SCOG be successful in getting
to depose Sam Palisano, SCOG would only be allowed to ask questions about Sam
Palisano's role in IBM's Linux strategy. Given that IBM had no sinister motive,
that Sam Palisano most likely delegated the job of designing and implementing
IBM's Linux strategy to his subordinates and that a senior member of the IBM
legal team will babysit Sam Palisano, I expect that Sam Palisano's deposition
will be of marginal benefit to SCOG's case - if that.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 11:49 AM EST |
1. SCO likes to repeatedly pretend they are suing IBM for doing Linux stuff, and
if only SCO could prove IBM was doing Linux stuff - then Wow! That would win the
case.
e.g.
IBM's "Linux strategy" is directly at issue
in this litigation, by virtue of both SCO's claims
and
IBM's counterclaims. Indeed, in refusing to produce Mr. Palmisano for
deposition, IBM
has not contended otherwise. To
illustrate:
Of course, that isn't the case
IBM
does Linux stuff. That isn't in dispute.
IBM doing Linux stuff is not
illegal or a violation of any contract that we know of.
What matters
for SCO's claims is not Whether IBM does Linux stuff... but whether IBM violated
a SCO contract, a SCO copyright, etc. And SCO totally misses the
point:
- SCO's core contract claims put
IBM's Linux strategy at issue because that
strategy
explains IBM's strong financial motivation to use shortcuts in order to
promote Linux's commercial appeal, including by
contributing important UNIX
technologies from the AIX
and Dynix operating systems to Linux; and
The above is like
shouting "Murder!" and looking for motives, when you can't find the body. Again
it boils down to: What SCO code did IBM copy? - and SCO's total
failure to identify any such code, makes the entire issue
irrelevant.
Similarly, we see the same illogic here:
- IBM's own Tenth Counterclaim puts IBM's Linux strategy
at issue, because in
that counterclaim IBM seeks a
declaration that "IBM does not infringe, induce
the
infringement of, or contribute to the infringement of any SCO copyright
through its Linux activities, including its use, reproduction
and improvement of
Linux." IBM's 2d Am. Countercl. ΒΆ
173.
SCO is wrong. IBM's Linux strategy is NOT at issue in IBM's
10th counterclaim. What is at issue, is whether there is any SCO code in Linux
- and again SCO can't find it (they claim lines in Linux, but never say what it
is allegedly copied/derived from in System V or UnixWare)
2.
Careful reading suggests Darl has not yet been deposed yet.
If you
check IBM's previous notice of deposition, Darl was last.
So maybe SCO
are trying to avoid Darl being deposed - and how to use some variant of the
argument "Sam wasn't deposed, why shouldn't Darl"
Of course, there is a
big difference: Darl's letters to IBM, Darl's press conferences, Darl's
letters to 1500 companies, *ARE* explicitly referenced in the complaint and
counterclaims.
There is, AFAIK, nothing similar for
Sam.
3. The SCO-to-Sam deposition notices, the dispute and this
motion, closely overlap in time with the G2 motion to unseal
everything.
If Sam is deposed, and talks about confidential IBM
business issues and strategies.... would it made available to the public or
competitors? Would IBM fear a risk that it could be? Even if IBM would not fear
it, would SCO think that IBM would fear it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 11:56 AM EST |
This is an interesting history of IBMs internal workings. But I fail to see
how/where this makes a case for IBM breaking a contract with SCO.
IBM asked for a team of 11 to evaluate Linux and alternate futures, the team did
so, and some/all of the proposals were put into effect.
At the same time, or soon after, IBM did an evaluation of alternate strategies
(such as Monterey) and saw less or fewer business opportunities.
Welcome to the real world... New information results in new business decisions.
Developers for Linux had more energy in making it improve faster than the
developers for SCO-UNIX were improving UNIX. IBM recognized that there was more
energy and activity around Linux and they moved on... as they say, the rest is
history.
Night Flyer at work
-------------------
Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fxbushman on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 11:56 AM EST |
I speculate that SCOG has requested so few depositions because depositions
produce evidence, and the evidence does not support SCOG's case. I doubt that
anything Mr. Palmisano might say will support SCOG's case, unless they spin it
out of recognition. That may be the goal: to produce more fodder for the PR
machine. This case seems to be mostly about PR.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedHatMatt on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 11:57 AM EST |
So what will IBM's move be? Since they have already told SCO that they will not
be producing Palmisano for deposition, should be be looking forward to a motion
in opposition from IBM? If so, since the deadline to discover is coming up fast
can IBM get this motion fast-tracked in some way to get is ruled upon before the
deadline, and not get the deadline moved back?
-Matt[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO waited... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 12:06 PM EST
- IBM's Move? - Authored by: Jaywalk on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 04:30 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: josmith42 on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 11:58 AM EST |
The text "Exhibits/ Attachments to this document have not been
scanned" appears as garbage in Firefox on my compter, but in Konqueror it
renders correctly. Anybody else notice this?
---
Forty-two: the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO has it wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 12:23 PM EST
- Strange - Authored by: RedHatMatt on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 01:39 PM EST
- Strange - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 02:31 PM EST
- Strange - Authored by: PJ on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 02:53 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 12:13 PM EST |
.... It's one of the success stories of a company
switching from UNIX to Linux, Deutshe Bank AG in London,
ironically enough.
...(chop)... If SCO's theory were true,
how come the "bicycle" is faster than
the "race car"?
That's London.
So the bicycle
is faster than the race car. Even the doddery
old
pensioner on a shopping bike, let alone the commuter
or sporty type. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 01:55 PM EST |
The Unix vs. Linux comparison cited by IBM is probably invalid. Such speed
differentials are commonly only achievable if the hardware is significantly
different. I suspect that this is a typical marketdroid drive by. They probably
are comparing the existing, older generation Unix (Sun?) system with new IBM
hardware/software. They are also probably comparing the original cost of the
existing system, against the current cost of the IBM equipment.
Attributing all of the difference to Linux is probably invalid. There is
insufficient information in the presentation to validate the comparison.
By the way is it just me of is Groklaw almost unusable today because of delays
and timeouts?
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linux vs. Unix comparison invalid? - Authored by: inode_buddha on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 02:26 PM EST
- It's a redeployment cost comparison - Authored by: cheros on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 02:37 PM EST
- Linux vs. Unix comparison invalid? - Authored by: julian on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 02:38 PM EST
- Linux vs. Unix comparison invalid? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 04:13 PM EST
- Linux vs. Unix comparison invalid? - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 04:32 PM EST
- Timeouts - Authored by: star-dot-h on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 04:46 PM EST
- Timeouts - Authored by: star-dot-h on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 04:49 PM EST
- Timeouts - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:06 PM EST
- Linux vs. Unix comparison invalid? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 04:55 PM EST
- Linux vs. Unix comparison invalid? - Authored by: Jaywalk on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 05:28 PM EST
- Linux vs. Unix comparison invalid? - Authored by: Christian on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 07:08 PM EST
- Cray quote - Authored by: dan_d on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 08:14 PM EST
- Cray quote - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:54 PM EST
- 1024 chickens -- - Authored by: tyche on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 10:29 PM EST
- It could be true in some cases - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 07:36 PM EST
- Linux vs. Unix comparison invalid? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 01:19 AM EST
- Linux vs. Unix comparison is probably valid - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 07:37 AM EST
- Linux vs. Unix comparison invalid? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 12:34 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 02:58 PM EST |
There is NO direct benefit to depose Palmisano. Do they really think they would
be able to "crack" him? Nope, all they want to do is let out press
release that says: "We went straight to the top at IBM and put the CEO in a
tough position to answer all of our questions about how IBM stole from SCO to
produce Linux."
I am sure they will leave off the sentence that should follow that one:
"Unfortunately, for SCO, we were unable to find anything incriminating at
all."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not Quite... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 04:36 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: jim Reiter on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 03:32 PM EST |
From TSG's Motion, the PRELIMINARY STATEMENT,
"and who personally committed to make technologies at the
heart of this case available to the open source community"
and;
From TSG's Motion BACKGROUND
"- SCO's core contract claims put IBM's Linux strategy at
issue because that strategy explains IBM's strong
financial motivation to use shortcuts in order to promote
Linux's commercial appeal, including by contributing
important UNIX technologies from the AIX and Dynix
operating systems to Linux; "
if I were in Sam's shoes I would want these things
clarified.
And which technologies would those be? Are you talking
about Patents?, which Patents? Do you own those Patents?
Are you talking about Copyrights?, which Copyrights? Do
you own those Copyrights?
Are you talking about derivative works? It's your
understanding with AT&T that we own our own derivative
works.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 03:37 PM EST |
"SCO will show that, if IBM considered its obligations under its software
agreements with SCO at all in deciding whether and what contributions to make to
Linux, IBM simply placed a higher priority on defeating Sun and other
competitors than on compliance with those contractual obligations"
We have seen all of the contractual obligations that IBM had with *old* SCO. IBM
has NO contractual obligations to *new* SCO. It may have residual ones relating
to AT&T and old SCO but these relate to copyright and use of code.
Nothing there that I can see for the court.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
'the Court has in effect already determined that Mr. Palmisano is relevant to
and "has something to say" about this litigation.'
This *interesting* claim is based on three further statements only one of which
seems to have any relevent basis here.
"In specifically identifying Mr. Palmisano's files as discoverable by SCO,
the Court has thus already recognized the relevance of the discovery that SCO
seeks through Mr. Palmisano's deposition."
This is a bit of a presumption by SCO.
Because Judge Welles earlier allowed discovery of some files of Mr. Palmisano
then he is required to give a deposition. Is it possible that there was nothing
in the files that was relvent which is why we have heard nothing more about
them? And that SCO is simply on yet another fishing trip?
Of course we have not seen the files in question so we can't comment. But I for
one favour the opinion that there was nothing useful in them for SCO.
The rest of the memo is a smoke screen for these two arguments.
--
MadScientist[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jaywalk on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 04:00 PM EST |
| The press release you were looking for is a biography and the IBM web site keeps
bios separate from the other press releases. The one you want is here.
It has a January date because that's when Palmisano officially became
chairman. ---
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. ===== [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 04:48 PM EST |
> And look at page 28. It's one of the success stories of a company switching
from UNIX to Linux, Deutsche Bank AG in London, ironically enough. They went
from 8+ hours to 20 minutes to do calculations. How stupid would a business have
to be not to want to make a switch like that? Is it SCO's position that the
increase in speed comes from stealing UNIX's code, methods and concepts? If so,
then why is Linux blazingly fast in comparison to Unix? If SCO's theory were
true, how come the "bicycle" is faster than the "race car"?
PJ, this is not a result of better coding in Linux alone. Usually, when people
upgrade, new hardware replaces the old one and this new hardware is usually an
order of magnitude faster. Unix is not all that slow, not even the ancient SCO
OpenServer, although many things in this dinasour tend to be, well, crummy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 06:15 PM EST |
Thanks for letting us know.
Repeatedly.
And what really is devastating for SCOG is the fact that SCOG didn't show yet
positively that it can handle Google too.
Another nail in the coffin. It must be.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kurt555gs on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 06:29 PM EST |
One thing I have noticed that is a distinct advantage of groklaw research over
SCO's is that besides the 1000 eyes of Groklaw, the folks at SCO unlike PJ
take time to sleep.
Cheers
---
M$ Delenda Est!
* Kurt *[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: garbage on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 08:27 PM EST |
Incredible as it may seem, even at this late juncture, in order to maintain the
pretence that SCOX is suing IBM for legitamate reasons, SCOX continues on this
course.
At every turn SCOX continue to bring to light more evidence that SCOX actually
have'nt got a leg to stand on.
It looks more and more like it's all about P.R. value & presumably
maintaining the pitiful stock value to the bitter end.
Historians will continue to research wehther it was Dar McBrides big mouth that
got them into this mess or wehther it was orchestrated from higher up the
corporate ladder.
I suspect the latter...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Night Flyer on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 08:53 PM EST |
You don't get to be CEO of IBM unless you have a whole range of high level
skills...
(Good memory, good grasp of strategic comments, good oratorial skills,
'presence', skills at 'on your feet' repartee, etc.)
Couple this with the usual thoroughness that IBM lawyers do in preparation, I
rather look forward to reading the SCO questions and IBM response in the
deposition (and Groklaw's analysis of same).
My real hope is that it is not sealed.
My thinking is that SCO will be disappointed.
I wonder what kind of spin SCO will put on it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 08:59 PM EST |
It seems like the more dirt SCO tries to dig up, the better IBM looks. What is
really funny is that if SCO had stuck with linux for one more year they probably
would have survived as a major linux player. Poor Darl must be just about the
worst CEO in the world...no foresight, no imagination, no intelligence and no
skills. Makes you wonder how he got this far!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:54 PM EST |
According to Mark Heise (SCO lawyer), 4 March 2004, Sam Palmisano is an
important witness, which makes me wonder why they didn't get around to noticing
his deposition until December
2004:
http://www.devxnews.com/article.php/3321591
Though the court order didn't say so, those documents are being sought
by
SCO because it wants to get a look at correspondence
between IBM chief
executive officer Sam Palmisano and IBM
vice president for technology and
strategy Irving
Wladawsky-Berger.
The information came to light
in a [separate] hearing held before Judge Wells
on Feb.
5. In a transcript obtained by internetnews.com, SCO attorney Mark
Heise told the court: "We want the documents and materials from Sam
Palmisano [and] from Irving Wladawsky-Berger, the key
executives that are
intimately involved in the Linux
project."
Later in that hearing, speaking about
SCO's desire to see copies of IBM's AIX
and Dynix
software, Heise said: "Sam Palmisano is a critical witness in this case. The
fact that he is
the CEO of IBM does not make him somebody
who is not to be put on this list."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 10:27 PM EST |
SCO's case would not be complete without a deposition and cross-examination of
Sam P. It would create dozens of headlines. Why do you think M$ hired Boise to
do this? They are acutely aware of what Boise did to Bill G. In the course of
hours of examinations with emails and contracts and speeches, there are bound to
be slips and snippets that can be tocked (taken out of context) and twisted
into FUDdish embarassments. So no matter that Sam P knows nothing of code, SCO
Linux, and archival APA's, SCO will try and twist the determination to succeed
with the new Linux Strategy into a determination to steal SCO UNIX. Exhausted
by tag team examiners and easy set-ups, it will be impossible for him to endure
over his whole interrogation. Fatigue alone will cause some gaffs. He can't
play too dumb, nor can he play too overbearing. It will be impossible to be
perfectly convincing on every point for hours on end.
So we have the chess game again. Protect your King at all costs. If they kill
your King, you lose. Bill knows that. He knows he is a hopeless witness and
will never be one again.
As for Darl.....He will never testify or be deposed. It is hopeless for him.
They won't even try. What fun it would be! Spectral analysis, MIT experts, the
mountains of code, the code at SCO Forum, his friend Mike, calls to BayStar, DB,
RBC, M$, the slander of title.......weeks of deposition this would be. But it
will never happen.
If they won't disclose the code, then they won't "disclose" Darl. If
they stonewalled on one, then it is easy to stonewall on the other. Why make
things worse? Indeed, there are executives going to jail in other scandals.
Why this one female went to jail for lying to cover up her suspected acts. If
I'm wrong about this, then there are more fools around SCO than originally
suspected.
So they can scream for Sam, but they will not be yelling from the high ground.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 04:51 AM EST |
Don't just use Google...
What if someone censors it?
What if it misses something?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AllParadox on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 02:58 PM EST |
Groklaw continues to grow in popularity and acceptance.
Those of us who have been around it for a while tend to forget that new readers
have not read all the old articles, and are not necessarily aware of Groklaw's
solid performance and quality. New readers may take for granted that this is
the way every site is run.
If you are a newer reader, and did not know, let me make this very clear:
Groklaw, and PJ, are the best.
I am a retired trial lawyer and programmer. Fifteen years of experience trying
all kinds of trials and appeals gives me some perspective on the quality of PJ's
analysis.
Never, in the entire time that I practiced law, did I ever receive an analysis
from a paralegal or fellow attorney that even approached the detailed, careful,
critical analysis that PJ routinely presents, as above. The few times that I
saw presentations in the class of this analysis, they were the closing argument
at trial or very well prepared appeals.
To rephrase the previous comments: I cannot find better analysis on the 'web. I
can't even buy it. If you are not IBM or Microsoft, you can't either.
Please, savor these articles for what they are.
---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 10:55 PM EST |
I don't see any possible benefit for SCO coming from their deposition of
Palmisano.
It strikes me as just one more move to create maximum annoyance for IBM. First
they were insisting they need everything ever written about AIX for
"discovery" of their allegedly stolen code - with no results. If
stealing Palmisano some hours of his precious time is their last desperate
attempt to buy some time, it tells volumes about how weak their position really
is.
Yes, time. Time is running out for SCO. If you just be quiet for a moment,
Darl, can you hear the clock ticking? Tic, tac, tic, tac...second by
second...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, January 19 2005 @ 06:20 PM EST |
| That used to be said many years ago, when IBM dominated the market, with
mainframe products that were not particularly competitive on price, but would
never let you down. Hence the decision makers in companies who went the IBM
route would not run into many problems, unlike those who bought less expensive
systems of lesser quality, which would crash many times more often. Hence the
expression, because while the IT works reliably, people do not get fired. Now
it occurred to me that at least within IBM now (still with high quality
products, but with a lot more competition) the saying should be "No-one gets
fired for buying Linux", Indeed, Mr. Palmisano got promoted to Chief
Executive, after in effect doing that. The management at Sun and certain other
companies should take note..... And by the way I do hope that Mr. Palmisano is
deposed, because although not a programmer I am sure he will have some very
interesting things to say, as far as the Groklaw community is concerned, which
hopefully will not be sealed. But on the other hand I don't think that he should
have to be deposed, just because the SCOundrel and their schysters demand it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
