decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
It's Raining SCO Redacted Documents - Updated
Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 10:07 PM EDT

All of a sudden, there are SCO redacted documents galore. I haven't had time to read them myself yet, so we'll do it together.

I started reading the David Rodgers deposition while I was busy uploading all the documents, and I'm up to the part where he tells us that Dynix is based on BSD. He also explains what methods and concepts are, and why he feels sure they were not covered by the license the company signed, and he explains what a derivative is as opposed to a modification, and he amplifies his Declaration. I haven't finished reading it, so there may be many more things of interest.

I also saw the SCO proposed 3rd Amended Complaint, as an exhibit, which is all it will ever be, since SCO was denied the right to file it. There are quite a number of documents in support of that failed effort, so just remember as you read them all, it didn't work for SCO. There are a few exhibits I think we already have, but I haven't carefully parsed that all out yet.

And I also saw that there is an IBM answer to some interrogatories in which they detail on what basis they are asking that SCO be ordered to pay them damages. But the overarching feeling I am left with is how many, many documents SCO filed under seal. Just uploading them all and making this list took hours. No wonder Judge Kimball mentioned the poor clerk getting buried.

I'll write about anything interesting in this collection, piece by piece, if I see anything that needs explaining, as we get them transcribed. I will really need your help transcribing, so if you can help, please leave a comment that you will do whatever document you can do, so we don't duplicate. If you are new to transcribing, take a look at earlier documents transcribed by Groklaw, to see our general style on headers. Also, if doing an exhibit, make sure we don't already have it, by checking the IBM Timeline page or the Legal Docs page. Then send me the finished work, and let me know what credit, if any, you'd like. Thank you if you can help.

Update: We've added #497 plus exhibits to the list.

Here's the list, all PDFs. Can you believe it?


  


It's Raining SCO Redacted Documents - Updated | 109 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
corection hear
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 12:33 AM EDT
.

---
webster
>>>>>>> LN 3.0 >>>>>>>>>

[ Reply to This | # ]

I will transcribe IBM-476
Authored by: Totosplatz on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 12:42 AM EDT

I will post it when I am done - the whole enchilada.

---
All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Here
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 12:51 AM EDT
Clicky links and HTML mode.

---
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make
you commit injustices.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's Raining SCO Redacted Documents
Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 01:33 AM EDT
Attachment #495-1 looks to be a firecracker for SCO, but I'll reserve judgement
until they've been under the Groklaw microscope.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm trying 477
Authored by: chotchki on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 01:36 AM EDT
Im new to transcribing so please bear with me :D

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's Raining SCO Redacted Documents
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 01:58 AM EDT
Well that clears that up. All that SCO found in IBM's documents are an attempt
of the developping team of AIX on IA64 to get the product they have worked on
for so long released.

Their argument is that the agreement was set up in order to make this product
happen and that they needed to release it in order to secure the necessary
rights. They hate to see their work end up in the garbage bin.

The answer is clear: we made an effort, and no one wanted the damn thing.

SCO is running (or better was) with this argument. Unfortunately it might be
that the development team was dead wrong. As happens often with SCO's
assertions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Transcribing Effort, Who's Doing What
Authored by: apessos on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 08:25 AM EDT
Post which documents are being transcribed to help with the effort and reduce
any duplicate work...

Totosplatz has IBM-476
chotchki has 477

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this really right?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 11:14 AM EDT
Did SCO really seal two certificates of service?

This is so insane, words fail me.

MSS

[ Reply to This | # ]

499 is done
Authored by: Matt C on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 11:29 AM EDT
mailed it to ya.

[ Reply to This | # ]

a little humor from the david rogers doc
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 12:45 PM EDT
Q. Do you understand that, at least as the plaintiff SCO alleges, IBM has
contributed code from Dynix/pts to Linux?

A. I do, but you were my source.

Q. I'll put on the record that that was not meant to be a waiver of the
attourney-client privilege.

Mr. Heise: Too late.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's Raining SCO, thanks a lot.
Authored by: Stumbles on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 01:08 PM EDT
Now I have this little ditty running around in my head;

It's raining, it's pouring... SCO is a snoring.

---
You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wookie Alert?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 03:37 PM EDT
There certainly must be a reason why SCO puts out so many documents at once?
Maybe they want to drown the signal in lots of noise. There's probably a
"smoking gun" hidden in the pile. Let's read it all, carefully...

</tinfoil>

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's Raining SCO Redacted Documents - Updated
Authored by: rm6990 on Thursday, August 25 2005 @ 01:16 AM EDT
Re : Supplemental Memorandum re Discovery #482 - REDACTION to [287] Sealed
Document/Supplemental Memorandum re Discovery by Plaintiff SCO Group.

Don't you just love how SCO confuses the Judge into thinking that because SCO's
products ran on Intel chips (x86), they somehow have expertise on developing for
the Itanium architecture?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who wanted documents sealed?
Authored by: GLJason on Thursday, August 25 2005 @ 02:26 PM EDT
It looks like over half of the documents SCO recently released redacted versions
of were filed under seal because they contained information IBM marked
CONFIDENTIAL. Some of that confidential material is shown here, did they get
with IBM to make sure it was ok to release that? Some stuff is still marked
'Redacted at IBM's request' so that must be the case.

Why were documents filed under seal?

476 - SCO - Part of Chris Sontag's declaration is still redacted (UNIX code in
it)

477 - IBM - Information contributed by IBM in discovery and marked CONFIDENTIAL

478 - IBM - Interrogitory responses marked CONFIDENTIAL by IBM

479 - IBM - Those emails IBM didn't want read in court, still redacted form this
document at IBM's request

480 - IBM - Two pages marked as redacted at IBM's request

481 - SCO - Why is one paragraph redacted?

482 - IBM - Three pages redacted at IBM's request?

483 - IBM - Documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL by IBM

484 - IBM - Documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL by IBM

485 - IBM - Documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL by IBM

486-7 - ?? - Declaration of IBM witness

488 - IBM+SCO - Documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL by IBM plus SCO documents

489 - IBM+?? - Documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL by IBM and others also

490 - ?? - Citations and samples of other cases? Why was this not filed?

493 - ?? - I couldn't open the document ("damaged and cannot be
repaired")

494 - ?? - 404 error

495 - SCO - Proposed third amended complaint
495-1 - IBM - Documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL by IBM
495-2 - ?? - Cases and stuff from WestLaw?

496 - ??

497 - SCO+IBM?? - Agreement between AT&T and SEQUENT
497-1 - ?? - RCU paper
497-2 - ?? - Sample RCU code contributed to Linux by IBM
497-3 - 404 error
497-4 - "file is damaged and cannot be repaired"
497-5 - ?? - Two linux header files and some SYSV init manual pages
497-6 - ?? - SYSV init manual pages, Linux ELF code
497-7

498 - IBM? - Motion for 3rd complaint, maybe contains info in the emails IBM
didn't want disclosed?

499 - IBM - Documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL by IBM

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )