|
First Report from the Hearing - Updated 4Xs - Wells to SCO: "Is This All You've Got?" |
|
Friday, April 14 2006 @ 04:24 PM EDT
|
Chris Brown attended today's hearing in SCO v. IBM and sends this quick message: Taken under advisement. Rochkind declaration allowed, but IBM has 10 days for
expert to rebut it. More when I get home. I won't comment until we have more details. But I knew you'd want to know as fast as I knew. Here's the SCO motion to file the declaration, which IBM opposed or in the alternative asked for more time to respond to, which is evidently what happened.
Update: More from Chris: I've just returned from the SCO v. IBM hearing.
The short of it is that IBM's motion on the 192 items has been taken
under advisement. The court will accept the declaration of Marc
Rochkind, but will allow IBM 10 business days to submit an expert rebuttal.
David Marriott argued for IBM and Stuart Singer argued for SCO.
Before I write my full report, I'll mention a couple of quotes.
Judge Wells to SCO's Stuart Singer: "Does SCO have, can they provide,
additional specificity... I mean, basically, Is this all you've got?"
Stuart Singer replies: "There might be that in the last two months, that
more has been discovered, but yes, at the time of the disclosure we
provided all we have." 2d UPDATE: Chris now is home and begins the full report. This is part one. It was a 2-hour hearing:
Quite a few lawyers turned out for today's hearing. For IBM, David Marriott, Amy Sorenson, Jeremy Brown, and a couple others were present with David Marriott arguing. For SCO, Stuart Singer argued with Brent Hatch, Ryan Tibbets, and others present.
There was a short discussion of what was to be heard, and David Marriott yielded the podium to SCO's Stuart Singer to present why Marc Rochkind's declaration should be accepted. Stuart said that IBM elected not to submit an expert declaration with their original motion, but instead filed it with their rebuttal. The only way SCO could reply to the declaration is as they have done, that it is perfectly proper.
David Marriot replied that despite what the date of service says, they first received the declaration less than 24 hours ago. SCO said something in its opposition papers that we believe was wrong, he said. Professor Davis only created a table summarizing the versions, files, and lines of code identified in SCO's final disclosure. Rochkind's declaration is on something entirely different. IBM's reply brief does not raise any new issues while Rochkind's does.
Judge Wells asked "How does it hurt you?" to which David Marriott replied "It doesn't hurt us in the slightest way. As long as we have an oportunity to reply it doesn't hurt us." Judge Wells asked why IBM did not submit the expert report with their motion. David Marriott said that it was only when SCO denied what they'd asserted in their motion that they had to rebut it. Otherwise it would just be he-said, they-said. So they needed an expert.
Stuart Singer said that the Rochkind declaration says that in Methods & Concepts the specificity that SCO provided in their final disclosure is sufficient.
Judge Wells said that she will allow the declaration to be submitted and that Dr. Davis can reply within 10 days. (Later the 10 days was clarified as being 10 business days.) So now we can see why Wells allowed the declaration -- IBM said it doesn't hurt them, so she would naturally take the safer choice, to allow it. In general, you allow the plaintiff every opportunity to make a case. Had IBM argued that they would be harmed by allowing it in, it might have been different. What we learn from what Chris is reporting is that this is all about methods and concepts, apparently. That is evidently what SCO's expert is testifying about, something that SCO didn't indicate on its list. That is what I suspected when I saw the list, actually, that they were trying to keep from revealing that this is what their case is really about. I suspected it because otherwise there isn't anything there on the list to shake a stick at. By bringing its motion, IBM flushed SCO out of the bushes, and now it's on the table.
3d UPDATE:
And now, all the details from Chris: David Marriott spoke first on IBM's motion to drop the 198 items on SCO's final disclosure, which IBM believes fail to provide the requisite specificity. He said that he had four main points -- the first that the court specifically ordered SCO to identify "version, file, and line" of code; second, that SCO lacks the required specificity; third, that as a practical matter IBM is at a disadvantage; and fourth, that the only remedy is to not proceed on these 198 items.
David Marriott provided a binder to the court for reference and indicated by reference to tab 1 that the chronology of this motion is long, having started in 2003, only one or two months after SCO filed the lawsuit. He refers to tab 2 and says that SCO contends IBM "dumped" AIX or Unix code into Linux. IBM has been requesting this information for three years. He says that Unix SysV has 11 versions, 112,000 files, and millions of lines of code. AIX has 9 versions, some large number of files, and 1.2 billion lines of code. Dynix has 156 million lines of code, and Linux has over a 100 versions and over 1 billion lines of code. Thus SCO potentially implicates over 2 billion lines of code.
He refers the court to tab 3 and reminds Her Honor that she has repeatedly ordered SCO to identify, with specificity, versions, files, and lines of code. Never in this case has SCO asked for relief from any of these orders. The orders were crystal clear. Mr. Marriottt went over in detail the wording used in the cour's orders to fully, with specificity, and in detail, identify the code. It was so ordered four or five times.
In his second point, he said that SCO's final disclosures lack the required specificity, that it is indisputable that for these 198 items the version, file, and line information is not there. Referring to tab 5 (Addendum 5 to IBM's reply paper, the chart by Professor Davis), Mr. Marriott demonstrates how the chart shows the disputed operating systems AIX, Dynix, Unix, and Linux. He says that a number of these 198 identify Linux versions or files, but they do not provide information on how AIX, Dynix, or Unix are infringed. He said that Rochkind played the primary part in assembling SCO's final disclosure.
His third point was that as a practical matter, IBM is at a disadvantage to fairly defend itself. He compared it to SCO pointing to a giant haystack of 2 billion lines of code and IBM being told to find 198 needles. The original allegation was that IBM dumped lines of Unix code directly into Linux. He went over the types of things IBM would have to determine, such as who wrote the code, is it copyrighted, is it public domain, was it accepted in a patch, it is protectable, is it an unprotected idea, method, etc. He gave as an example an item that SCO did identify with sufficient specificity, that IBM was able to investigate it fully, and on that item was able to demonstrate that it was publicly available and published by Intel, line for line, in 1989.
His fourth point was that the only appropriate remedy is that these 198 be dropped. Judge Wells asked why is this appropriate rather than at summary judgment. David replied that with this it would be very messy at summary judgment, that SCO has not provided enough information to work from. He quoted Judge Wells' statements at an earlier hearing where she admonished counsel about withholding information.
Stuart Singer responded for SCO and provided another book of material to the court for reference. He said that some of this material is confidential but that he believed he could refer to it in this manner. He said he has three arguments, independant reasons, to deny IBM's motion. The first that SCO has complied by disclosing misused material but that there are differences in specificity for methods and procedures. Second, that IBM has no evidence SCO has willfully withheld information, which would be required for discovery sanctions. I didn't catch Stuart's third reason.
On the first, SCO said that they have identified with specificity, but that with technologies the code is not required. Judge Wells reminded him that the orders were to specify files, lines, but that now SCO's talking "technologies". Stuart replied that when SCO was talking about code, they were talking about methods and concepts. Judge Wells says that they have not argued that until now. Mr. Singer said that methods and concepts don't require file, line. Judge Wells said she doesn't remember ever talking about methods and concepts, that we've always been talking about the code. Judge Wells said, "Look at the specific orders". Stuart said they've complied where appropriate, that there has not been a requirement for SCO to identify files and lines for methods and concepts. Where they related to code, they have been identified. He said the contracts between SCO (sic) and IBM required it to keep methods and concepts confidential. He said IBM argues that if it's not source code with file, line, and version, it's not actionable.
He referred the court to tab 7 and provided a summary of the Rothkind declaration. In 130 of the 198, it has the "disclosure" itself. For 168, the file locations were specifically provided.
He drew the court's attention to item 146, indicating it's for a method and concept. It references an article by "McKinney", an old Sequent employee, and points to an IBM web page that they don't have access to. The article is about "Differential Profiling" and refers to scripts on the website. The item has emails between the person making the Linux submission and an individual familiar with the methods and concepts of the protected code. "So we have the identities of the individual making the disclosure, the emails, and reference to code for the methods and concepts."
He said that to throw these out as discovery sanctions, there must be proof of willful withholding of information. There is no such information. What we have is a list of items IBM would *like* to drop. He quoted some cases. He said that if IBM wants to, they can bring summary judgment motions. IBM is seeking discovery sanctions when they have actually sent out an order, after the case was filed, directing their employees to purge their "sandboxes" of AIX and Dynix/ptx code. He said that one developer said he had actual Linux code that he purged. Judge Wells says "That may or may not be true, but I want to stick with things that are properly before the court."
Mr. Singer continued with some more discussion of the items. He said in item 52 (2?) "Method and Concept about Improving Locking," IBM employee "Wright" sent an email to "Daniel Phillips" explaining the "classic Dynix method" and telling Daniel that this is not something currently in Linux. They indicate they have an admission from Wright in his deposition that this came directly out of Dynix/ptx.
From item 38, methods and concepts, SysV "Automatic Method of Making Updates in Memory" he mentioned a specific email with express reference to SysV release 4 for method and concept.
Item 22, "Multiprocessing". Mr. McKinney, again, with a specific email, deposition testimony, and admissions of disclosure of Dynix/ptx methods and concepts.
He pointed out item 23, for "Negative Know How", saying it's a disclosure of how *not* to do something. Where "Martin Bligh", in an email, is telling someone "We are trying to get Linux to have the benefits of (blank) without the pain." That he provided the specifics.
Mr. Singer said that the IBM motion should be denied.
Judge Wells then asked Mr. Marriott to address the "willfulness" issue in his remarks.
Mr. Marriott said that what he heard from SCO was a presentation that had little relation to IBM's motion. He says that the 198 are all deficient.
His first point was that the court had repeatedly ordered lines of code. He agrees that SCO has said methods and concepts, but that the orders applied equally to methods and concepts. He said methods and concepts exist as they are implemented in code. They do not exist in the "ether." SCO must describe, in detail, the location of any method. Location means file and lines of code.
He said that Mr. Singer did not refer to IBM's table (indicating the 198 and files, lines, versions, etc). He said the table is indisputable. The case is about code. We've been pointed to a bunch of our own documents and emails. SCO said, "Here, you know what you did, talk to your own developer, he knows what he did." But that they don't identify the allegation.
Mr. Marriott talked at length about how IBM needs the specifics of the allegations SCO claims IBM has done. That they must have them to know what they are to defend themselves from.
SCO claims that we've disclosed UNIX SysV release 4 internals, Marriott continued. He held up a book ("The Magic Garden Explained, The Internals of Unix System V, Release 4") copyrighted 1994. He said Unix internals have been in public for over a decade. He reiterates that IBM needs specificity; otherwise they are severely prejudiced in preparing for summary judgment.
Stuart rebuts. He said that IBM uses an assumption that for every method and concept, there's source code. He claims that not supported in case law.
Judge Wells asked: "Does SCO have, can they provide, additional specificity?... I mean, basically, is this all you've got?"
To which Stuart replied: "Since, the last two months, it's possible we've discovered more, but, yes, at the time of the disclosure we provided all we have."
Judge Wells asked about SCO only providing links to websites in their final disclosure. Stuart said, yes, it points to a password-protected IBM website.
Stuart said that they have provided the requisite specificity in their disclosures and that there is no evidence of willfulness.
Mr. Marriott then mentioned Judge Kimball's order about dates to disclose by. He said that methods and concepts exist in their implementation in code, not just in the air.
He reminded the court that AIX and Dynix are IBM's product. SCO claims that AIX and Dynix are derivatives of Unix and therefore they control it. SCO has not provided any lines of Unix System V code they say it is derived from.
He said that SCO is the master of their allegations, that they must disclose exactly what is being alleged. IBM cannot do that.
Judge Wells asked Stuart Singer: "How do you address that you maintain custody of the allegations and not provide them to IBM?" Stuart denied that and said that if there is something new that SCO brings up, IBM can object at that time.
Judge Wells concluded the hearing saying that she will take it under advisement and reminds that IBM is to provide expert rebuttal within 10 business days.
That's it. I really couldn't get any feeling from the Judge how this will go.
I think we can see the dance now. IBM brought the motion for a purpose, the stated purpose. If it wins, fine and dandy. If it doesn't, it has won the following: we know now that the case is about methods and concepts now and pretty much nothing else. Think back to what SCOfolk told the world the case was about in 2003 onward, and see if it matches.
We know that at least one item that SCO did mention with specificity on its list was proven already to be bogus.
We know now that the judge, who has seen the Rochkind Declaration, said to SCO, "Is this all you've got?"
And we know now that Rochkind, who is not, as I've pointed out, a Linux expert from what I've seen him say about himself, was the person who helped SCO make up its list, which was a list essentially of Linux files.
And we know that Wells gets it, that this methods and concepts claim isn't what SCO told the court the discovery they claimed they needed was for. Indeed, if what SCO today said is true, that you don't need lines and files and versions if the claim is about methods and concepts, why did they ask for all that AIX code in the first place? IBM was put to great expense, and the case was delayed, and IBM might just like SCO to have to pay for all that, if it was just a fool's errand.
And we've heard SCO's attorney hint that they may introduce more "evidence" which I predict they'll claim to have just discovered in the last two months. I gather they feel their only hope is surprise. IBM with this motion forced them to put at least one significant card on the table. You are not supposed to have to go to such lengths just to find out what the claim against you is, but Utah is Utah and SCO is SCO, but the bottom line is, SCO was forced to tell what they are suing about, not yet with sufficient specificity, but if the court allows their list to remain intact, SCO will surely have to explain its claims. At last. The only question now is whether Wells understands the tech enough to understand what David Marriott told her, that methods and concepts are found in the code, not in thin air, which is all SCO wanted to put on the table. Because IBM gets to answer the Rochkind declaration, with Randall Davis, no doubt they'll explain all that very, very clearly, with cases and charts or whatever is needed to make sure the tech is as plain as day to Judge Wells. And I hope they remember what SCO said to eWeek, not to the court, about Harry Potter, Vanilla Ice and their theory of copyright infringement including methods and concepts. A reminder: McBride: A lot of code that you'll be seeing coming on in these copyright cases is not going to be line-by-line code. It will be more along the lines of nonliteral copying, which has more to do with infringement. This has more to do with sequence, organization, which is copyright-protectable. It's interesting when you go down this path that everyone wants to go to the exact lines of code, but most copyright cases…
are not line-by-line, exact copies. It's too obvious. Most copyright infringement cases come from these nonliteral implementations of the same code or literary work.
Sontag: My favorite example is the Russian author [Dmitry Yemets], who lost in a copyright case [after being sued by] J.K. Rowling, author of the 'Harry Potter' books, in a Dutch court. He had written a book: It was a girl, not a boy, with magical powers who rides a magical fiddle and not a broom, goes to a boarding school to learn witchcraft and wizardry, plays a game of throwing balls through hoops. All these things were very similar to Harry Potter. Could someone else ever write a book about wizards and witches? Sure. But when the structure and sequence is the same…maybe the words, the code, isn't exactly the same, but Linux is trying to be just like Unix System V. The question is whether Linux was trying to be like Unix System V by doing it in ways that were illegal.
McBride: Before all of this is said and done, you'll see people saying that SCO already published a lot of this stuff in books but that these books contained copyright-protected materials....
No, that's (Lions' book) ancient stuff. We're talking about recent stuff posted as a result of the BSD [Berkeley Software Design Inc.] settlement. There are things out there that help people understand how to program to System V application binary interfaces [ABIs], to help them hook up to the OS. It was out there to help people write applications. It wasn't published to help someone knock off the OS and create a free version of System V. ... The analogy I like to use is Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" versus David Bowie and Queen's "Under Pressure." If you just look at the words, I don't see a copyright violation, but if you listen to the riffs, you can hear where they're the same. SCO told the court that IBM has no proof of willfulness. Please note that the eWeek interview was in May of 2004. 4th Update: I asked Chris if he had any idea what was in the Rochkind Declaration. Could he see it? And yes, he could, and it was very much like IBM's chart, but with different categories. Here's what Chris says: The Rochkind declaration seems to be a table, not unlike IBM's, but
that has different information on each of the things. It appears to
specify what SCO *did* include for each allegation and whether it meets
the requirements for a Methods and Concepts allegation (with, of course,
lots of filled in check boxes).
The table, on a couple of plain sheets of paper, was held up for
reference by both Stuart Singer and David Mariott. The table's columns
were explained. It looks so similar in physical appearance that David
Marriott at one point mistakenly held it up as if it was his own table,
then corrected himself saying "refer to *our* table that looks *just
like* their table."
But the columns are not Unix, AIX, Dynix, Linux etc. The columns are,
I believe, things like "Admission", "Disclosure Included", "Meets
Req'mts for Methods & Concepts", & etc. (Those are not the titles, but
something like this.) So while it's not really like
IBM's, it was SCO's method of showing that though those allegations
might be lacking in source code, they contained sufficient evidence, in
SCO's opinion, to meet the requirements for specificity and therefore
should not be thrown out.
David
Marriott pointed out that SCO's allegations lack a "real" allegation.
Alleging that IBM put *their own* code, methods & concepts, whatever,
into Linux doesn't bother them in the least. What SCO was missing was
how this relates to anything SCO owns. SCO didn't say "This method and
concept comes from Unix Sys V, R4, file xyz, lines 67-278 and can be
shown to be implemented in Linux version 2.4.16, file xyz_1.c, lines
120-400 and this admission/submission/email/whatever shows IBM caused
it to be put there." That's what's missing from SCO's final disclosure.
|
|
Authored by: perpetualLurker on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
And please remember to try for clicky-links! Thank you!
---
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that
take our breath away.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Best Buy Copyrights case - Authored by: grymwulf on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:05 PM EDT
- Novell v. Microsoft - Authored by: theMutant on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:31 PM EDT
- AMD subpoenas Microsoft - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:02 PM EDT
- "Could a Patent Lawsuit Stop the Xbox 360?" - Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 10:22 PM EDT
- Nice way to compare Windows Security - Authored by: TerryC on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 04:29 AM EDT
- Totally Off Topic :) - Authored by: Brian S. on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 11:12 AM EDT
- Hyperphrase Technologies Inc. files patent suit vs. Google. - Authored by: Brian S. on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 11:17 AM EDT
- "China president at Gates house, not White House" - Authored by: Brian S. on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 11:31 AM EDT
- 'French minister's response to Apple: ""I don't want the ****." - Authored by: Brian S. on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- Working on Good Friday? - Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 07:46 PM EDT
- "In Silicon Valley, a Man Without a Patent" - Authored by: Brian S. on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 09:46 PM EDT
- Sunday UserFriendly - Authored by: PeteS on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 07:19 AM EDT
- Groklaw account?. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 11:13 AM EDT
|
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
So PJ can find them.
---
IANAL
The above post is (C)Copyright 2006 and released under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Tibbets -> Tibbits [nt] - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 06:02 PM EDT
- cour's -> court's - Authored by: cybervegan on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 06:42 PM EDT
- their -> there - Authored by: cybervegan on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 06:48 PM EDT
- releated -> related - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:43 PM EDT
- it is protectable -> is it protectable - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:45 PM EDT
- McKinney -> Paul E. McKenney [nt] - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:15 PM EDT
- in the 3rd update, 5th paragraph - Authored by: Woad_Warrior on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 01:03 AM EDT
- Corrections Here - Authored by: The Cornishman on Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 04:48 AM EDT
- Corrections Here - Authored by: The Cornishman on Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 05:29 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
The schedule has been broken.
SCO wins (at least this round).
Want to bet how long they can milk this delay? I would guess longer than any of
us can imagine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- First Report from the Hearing - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- First Report from the Hearing - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- Not necessarily a delay - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- Nonsense - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- Did SCO Win, Or Did IBM Let Them Win? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 06:37 PM EDT
- It's those methods and concepts - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 06:51 PM EDT
- It's those methods and concepts - Authored by: Arnold.the.Frog on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:35 PM EDT
- It's those methods and concepts - Authored by: eric76 on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 09:46 PM EDT
- It's worse - Authored by: Winter on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 02:20 AM EDT
- It's EVEN worse - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 09:54 AM EDT
- It's EVEN worse - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 17 2006 @ 07:10 AM EDT
- It's those methods and concepts - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 10:05 PM EDT
- Would you please provide with specificity... - Authored by: Ed Freesmeyer on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 11:50 PM EDT
- Nope, "methods and concepts" are NOT trivially ruled out
Methods and concepts are ruled out. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 07:55 AM EDT
- Bill Clinton Impeachment - remember "It all depends on what the definition of what is, is ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 10:40 AM EDT
- It's those methods and concepts - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:42 PM EDT
- Novell and Arbitration - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 11:55 PM EDT
- Ah, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 17 2006 @ 01:14 PM EDT
- I agree .. another SCO win - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 02:04 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
Unless there is something awfully convincing, but under seal, I just do not
understand how this "Drunken Sailor" of a law suit remains standing.
I am increasingly embarrassed to call the US Legal System my own.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
So that was the sum total of the hearing today? It lasted like 10 seconds?
What a downer, I was looking forward to having good news going into the Easter
weekend :-([ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 04:57 PM EDT
|
Authored by: webster on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
You have to give a mark to SCO for their timing and coj...chutzpah. They won
the admission of their declaration and thereby also took the focus off the
specificity a bit. They also get time to file more stuff on it whether it's
allowed or not.
At the same time it looks bad for them. A denial would have been easy for the
judge. Letting in the declaration and giving IBM time to shred it for lack of
specificity look to be her maintaining the posture of fairness. Better to be
right than quick.
---
webster
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 04:51 PM EDT |
Did I read "one more delay and Red Hat case would start"? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
I know we have no idea exactly what is in the Rockkind declaration. But, do we
know how big it is? I mean is it big enough to answer file, version, and line
questions?
Was this filed under seal? Will we ever get to see it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 04:59 PM EDT |
Since when is a fully briefed motion allowed to be amended like this right
before the hearing, and without proper notice of the opposing council?
Especially when it's expert evidence that should probably be rebutted by another
expert.
I agree with an earlier post in this one. SCO was attempting to take the focus
off of the 198 insufficient claims. I wonder if they were playing to the fact
that Wells is a magistrate judge, and probably spends more time dealing with
these types of issues rather than ones that could drastically change the outcome
of the case, which this motion could certainly achieve.
I'm really surprised by this leniency that Wells is granting. But, then again,
SCO's lawyers have at least proven to be masters of delay. How long, though,
until the final deadline is up? When the horse is put on the stand, will it
sing? I still doubt it. But it needs to have its day in court.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:05 PM EDT |
So, 10 days for IBM to rebut it-- does that mean in 10 days we get the
"real" hearing and the judge decides concerning whether the couple
hundred unspecific items get tossed or not? Or does this mean 10 days for IBM to
file a rebut, then another delay while a hearing is scheduled?
Could this delay ripple through to create further delays? I at some point got
the impression that IBM would need a ruling one way or the other on the
"lack of specificity" thing promptly in order to complete their other
expert reports as the deadline for the next round of PSJs approaches. If this
ruling is delayed any further, will this create undue time pressure on IBM?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blang on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
The "more rope to hang them with" analogy is something we hear
everytime SCOX is allowed to do something outside schedule or other rules of the
court. That is is part if a strategy to get the final rulings of the case immune
to appeals.
But is this really so? Isn't it the judge's job to rule over his court? So
when one of the litigants are constantly given favors, he cannot hold those
favors against them when later making a ruling on substance. In a way the judges
set themselves up for some sort of estoppel.
If a litigant is given as much favors as SCO has received they would have won a
close case handlily. To me it looks like the blind lady Justice has a finger on
the scale, turning what should have been a slam-dunk case into a cliffhanger.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Estoppel? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:18 PM EDT
- Estoppel? - Authored by: BigTex on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:23 PM EDT
- Estoppel? - Authored by: grahamt on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 06:18 PM EDT
- Estoppel? - Authored by: rc on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 06:24 PM EDT
- Estoppel? - Authored by: blang on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:48 PM EDT
- Estoppel? - Authored by: PJ on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:20 PM EDT
- Estoppel? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 06:14 PM EDT
- Estoppel? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 04:12 AM EDT
- Estoppel? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 17 2006 @ 11:34 AM EDT
- Listen to what Marriot said - Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 12:30 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
IBM filed a motion to limit SCO's claims. It asks the judge to discard most of
SCO's claims. That's what was being heard today.(?) That's what was taken
under advisement.(?) Were we expecting a decision today?
To counter IBM's motion, SCO asked to take a deposition from an expert witness.
The judge granted that but gave IBM an extra ten days to refute it. Of course
IBM has to file that with the court and the court has to consider it. When do
we think there will be a decision about tossing out all those claims?
I suppose I should be able to figure out the answers for myself but I'm feeling
totally lost right now.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
Maybe reading Groklaw tends to give one
a rather one-sided view of this case.
Certainly, it seemed that SCO pulling
this Rochkind stunt was not going to
help them -- if you listened to the posts
here.
But it turns out that it was another
masterstroke of delay based upon
absolutely exquisite timing.
Although the evidence appears to be
entirely in IBM's favour, I think
the award for pure lawyering this case
should probably go to Boise et. al.
I am amazed and hope the transcript of
the hearing sheds some light on this
unexpected development (again - unexpected
from the point of view that one would
glean from a representative sample of
posts here). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dwheeler on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:36 PM EDT |
An occasional mistake happens in a case, so an occasional bout of flexibility
makes sense... but this is rediculous. SCO is getting concession after
concession, making schedules a complete farce.
This case has been going on
since March 2003 -- three years and a month, and counting. We still haven't
finished DISCOVERY, in fact, we just got yet another input from SCO on THEIR
SIDE of discovery. Yes, IBM can afford it... but is it fair that they
should have to?
The whole point of the discovery rules is to let the defendent
(IBM) know what it is accused of doing, in enough specificity and with enough
time so that it can defend itself. What's happening now is not justice; it's
becoming a mockery of it.
Yes, when SCO is given this many favors, it should
make the case harder to appeal once they lose.
But no one can get the lost time
back, which keeps stretching on forever.
I would like to see SCO finally
told to STOP breaking the rules, and actually meet their obligations.
No more
games.
I respect judges -- they have a very hard job. But a judge that grants
concession after concession like this has begun to lose control of their
courtroom, and risks having malicious entities walk all over the time of the
court and their opponents.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
Isn't there a danger that IBM pulled SCO into the next phase of litigation by
introducing expert testimony and inviting rebuttal expert testimony again to be
countered but making the question of dismissal moot? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Schedule? - Authored by: PJ on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:23 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:39 PM EDT |
Wells took this under advisement. This was almsot a fregone conclusion; she is
going to want a written opinion for this decision). So, she has to, at the very
least, review the transcript, review the docuemtns, review the law, and write
her decision. It looks like she may be going on vacation next week anyway;
would anyone expect this decision in less than 3 weeks or more anyway?
So SCO gets to submit their expert's declaration, IBM gets to respond and have
the last word (and I strongly suspect IBM wotn take near to their 10 days to
respond), and Wells rules based on all that. I don't see that this necessarily
has to add one minute to the schedule that was in place this morning.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stend on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:45 PM EDT |
Hi, Darl!
---
Please see bio for disclaimer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BobDowling on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:47 PM EDT |
I don't understand Judge Wells' question:
Does SCO have, can
they provide, additional specificity... I mean, basically, Is this all you've
got?
As I understood it, the deadline for further specificity
(line numbers etc.) had passed. Why is the Judge even asking the question? If
SCO were to provide further specificity now wouldn't it be disallowed? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: agriffin on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
Is there a basis for appeal resulting from judical nonfeasance or judical
misfeasance?
Definitions for those that might need
them:
Malfeasance is any act that is illegal or
wrongful. Misfeasance is an act that is legal but improperly
performed. Nonfeasance, by contrast, is a failure to act that results
in harm.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
#include <errno.h>
/*
If you're a programmer at all, you now know how lame this case is...
*/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- File Not Found - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:56 PM EDT
|
Authored by: MT on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
Could Judge Wells, taking this under advisement, decide "I don't even need
IBM's reply to SCO's expert submission. It is clear that IBM is right and SCO
is wrong. I order the 198 items stricken." ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:53 PM EDT |
IBM flushed SCO out of the bushes, and now it's on the table.
Indeed.
The cat is out of the kettle and into the fire now. Now that the dead horse has
been punctured, SCO's chickens are going to burn like a house of cards before
they've hatched. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:54 PM EDT |
"Does SCO have, can they provide, additional specificity... I mean,
basically, Is this all you've got?"
"There might be that in the last two months, that more has been discovered,
but yes, at the time of the disclosure we provided all we have."
It may be me, being english, but it seems to me that while judge wells is
asking about specificity, hes replying about actual code, as in they will want
to add more code claims later?
How do you make something like this more specific two months down the line?
And would it be allowed to be introduced, either sodewise, or for
clarity?specificity[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
For those in attendance today. What was the tone of voice that Judge Wells used
when delivering this line?
What is incredulous? or what?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Toon Moene on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 05:57 PM EDT |
> Stuart Singer said that the Rochkind declaration says
> that in Methods & Concepts the specificity that SCO
> provided in their final disclosure is sufficient.
Ach, so - they finally found a person to "support" their theory that
"methods & concepts" is a sufficient discriminator to prove
copyright infringement ?
Time for the multicians to step forward ...
http://www.multicians.org
[ I've only worked in Operating Systems for 7 years,
these guys and gals are the cream of the crop ]
---
Toon Moene (A GNU Fortran maintainer and physicist at large)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
Chris? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
Why is it not possible to locate methods and concepts with specficity?
Concept XYZ is in Unix file 'xxxx' and lines 'abcde' and in Linux file 'yyyy'
and lines 'fghij'.
What's hard about that?
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Methods and Concepts with Specificity - Authored by: Toon Moene on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 06:16 PM EDT
- Methods and Concepts with Specificity - Authored by: Khym Chanur on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:35 PM EDT
- Don't think so - Authored by: tangomike on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:21 PM EDT
- Don't think so - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 02:42 AM EDT
- We-eell... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 10:56 PM EDT
- Bingo, we have a winner - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:43 PM EDT
- unMethods and unConcepts with Specificity - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:50 PM EDT
- SCO's burden, hard or not, - Authored by: hardmath on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 09:14 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 06:10 PM EDT |
Iknow everyone keeps saying that the judge is giving SCO enough rope to hang
themselves and to limit the possibility of a successful appeal but the question
now must be 'How much rope is enough for heavens sake?'
How is it that SCO is allowed the better part of three years to TRY and make a
case and IBM will only be allowed a few short weeks to try and bury it,
considering that delays like this eat into the very time IBM is allowed to
defend itself...how on earth can this be called justice ???????[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 06:47 PM EDT |
Remember the confidential emails that Maureen & co. tried to unseal and SCO
read in open court? Here is what that was all about:
... IBM is
seeking discovery sanctions when they have actually sent out an order, after the
case was filed, directing their employees to purge their "sandboxes" of AIX and
Dynix/ptx code. He said that one developer said he had actual Linux code that he
purged. Judge Wells says "That may or may not be true, but I want to stick with
things that are properly before the court."
So the first email
was probably sent to Linux developers saying that, as a precaution, anyone
working on linux should not be looking at the AIX and Dynix code. Makes sense.
There is not enough detail to figure out what the second one was about.
I
can see now why SCO was so desperate to expose those emails -- they could have a
field day spinning it. But all it really shows is IBM doing its due diligence,
something which SCO has been avoiding. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 06:52 PM EDT |
I found these rather interesting:
...SCO said that they have
identified with specificity, but that with technologies the code is not
required. Judge Wells reminded him that the orders were to specify files, lines,
but that now SCO's talking "technologies". Stuart replied that when SCO was
talking about code, they were talking about methods and concepts. Judge Wells
says that they have not argued that until now. Mr. Singer said that methods and
concepts don't require file, line. Judge Wells said she doesn't remember ever
talking about methods and concepts, that we've always been talking about the
code. Judge Wells said, "Look at the specific orders". Stuart said they've
complied where appropriate, that there has not been a requirement for SCO to
identify files and lines for methods and concepts. Where they releated to code,
they have been identified...
Does that mean that there haven't
been any such lines as I don't remember any specific lines being mentions - or
are they under seal? Also, the underlying tone I get of Judge Wells is that she
is rather not happy that they are misreading/misinterpreting/ignoring her
orders.
SCO claims that we've disclosed UNIX SysV release 4
internals, Marriott continued. He held up a book ("The Magic Garden Explained,
The Internals of Unix System V, Release 4") copyrighted 1994. He said Unix
internals have been in public for over a decade.
This is
rather telling (and mess making - if I had been drinking a cuppa ^_^). SCO
claimed some stuff was theirs as well - until the hackers degreeked it and
showed it to be BSD. I'm more of the opinion, using the available evidence,
that all of SCOs millions of lines of copying is just this - stuff that is
freely available from another source; some of it not even theirs (possibly
[deriving from] the "stolen" BSD code that found its way into Unix - USL v
BSD?).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Bait and switch - Authored by: _Arthur on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:03 PM EDT
- Hmmmm - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 11:50 PM EDT
- Some thoughts - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 10:23 AM EDT
|
Authored by: PeteS on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 06:56 PM EDT |
First
A very big thank you to Chris. I hope (no offense to you Chris!) that there were
others. More eyes :)
Second
I think Judge Wells just gave SCOX enough rope to hang themselves, at least on
this motion. She'll allow it, *but she will allow an IBM expert rebuttal*.
Sounds to me like 'Hmmm... if I deny this (which I could), I get a lot of grief.
IBM doesn't really object (Marriot says it doesn't really hurt them), so I'll
allow it, but I'll let IBM destroy their expert'
Third
I think it is sad Marc is now in the middle of this. (Personal opinion). Perhaps
he chose it - who knows.
Fourth
Judge Wells has given IBM a target. 'Here you go IBM. I will let it in, but you
get to rebut it. Show me [especially with this new declaration] how they have
wilfully ignored me and I'll actually do something about it'
Just my take.
PeteS
---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
And so here we come down to it:
Judge Wells says that they have
not argued that until now. Mr. Singer said that methods and concepts don't
require file, line. Judge Wells said she doesn't remember ever talking about
methods and concepts, that we've always been talking about the code. Judge Wells
said, "Look at the specific orders". Stuart said they've complied where
appropriate, that there has not been a requirement for SCO to identify files and
lines for methods and concepts.
SCO has been pulling an
enormous bait and switch with the court this entire time. Their entire case is
based on the idea that if something "looks like" UNIX, it is UNIX; their entire
theory of infringement is based on the idea that the UNIX copyright applies not
just to the actual code, but to the very idea of UNIX itself, as if they had
some kind of mutant super-patents. But SCO hasn't wanted to say that out loud.
Instead they've been allowing the court, both IBM's arguments and the court's
rulings, to proceed as if this was about actual code. You know, real
infringement.
Now, at the last minute, when it's demanded where their
code is, they suddenly pull aside and reveal what they've really been
arguing this entire time.
We can only hope the court doesn't allow them
to do this. Because if it does, then SCO will have pulled off the marvelous
trick of sidestepping all of the courts orders up until this point; the switch
means that they can claim-- as they did today-- that the restrictions the court
has reasonably ordered on them only applied to their decoy case, not the secret,
real argument SCO's had hidden up their sleeve, and thus SCO doesn't have
to follow any of those restrictions anymore.
The court notices, as the
quote above indicates, that SCO is doing this. That isn't so much in question.
What is in question is whether the court will allow them to get away with
it. It is possible the court will, despite the late date, say "well, this is a
sort of argument you've never brought to our attention before, and changes what
the case is about, but okay, if that's what you want your case to be about, you
can do that, the change is effective". If the court takes this route, SCO gets
to start their case all over-- again-- at the very end of discovery. And
since they get to start over in a much fuzzier realm, then they get to bring in
insane arguments like:
Stuart rebuts. He said that IBM uses
an assumption that for every method and concept, there's source code. He
claims that not supported in case law.
The code is the
program. If it's not in the code, it's not in the program. If it's not in the
program, the program doesn't infringe. We can only hope the court understands
the technology well enough to understand this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Exactly... - Authored by: cybervegan on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:21 PM EDT
- SCO changes what their case is about... again. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:27 PM EDT
- Well, no - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:30 PM EDT
- IF IT'S NOT IN THE CODE, IT'S NOT IN THE PROGRAM!!!! - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:15 PM EDT
- SCO changes what their case is about... again. - Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:32 PM EDT
- And what was all the discovery for, then? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:49 PM EDT
- ...complied where appropirate... - Authored by: FreeChief on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 10:57 PM EDT
- SCO changes what their case is about... again. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 11:57 PM EDT
- What about the bigger picture if the bait and switch is allowed - Authored by: iraskygazer on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 02:39 AM EDT
|
Authored by: cybervegan on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:05 PM EDT |
You must have blisters on your fingers!
Cracking job.
regards,
-cybervegan
---
Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
Copyright? Patent? Trademark? Trade secret? Contract?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:13 PM EDT |
[Marriott] said that methods and concepts exist in their
implementation in code, not just in the air.
I note
with interest that Quatermass
made
exactly that same point earlier. This makes me wonder if IBM is
taking ideas from Groklaw.
Joke. It is an interesting coincidence,
though.
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it." --
Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
... which, according to SCO's lawyer, do not have to be embodied in source code,
then why did SCO demand all that source code from IBM?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:25 PM EDT |
First point:
Mr. Singer said that methods and concepts don't
require file, line.
I am baffled. Where the methods and concept
could be if not in the code? Doesn't SCOG have to prove they have been placed
into Linux somehow? How can they prove it is in Linux without showing the code?
Or are they going to trial based on emails alone? Could the judge believe a
proof of SCOG's claaim by showing emails without reference to code is
sufficient?
Second point:
What law are they going to invoke with their
method and concept claims? Copyright? Trade secrets? Contract? Other? Trade
secrets is unlikely since SCOG already dropped that claim, but with them nothing
would surprise me. Perhaps IBM needs another chart showing for each item SCOG
has detailed which law has been violated.
Third point:
This case is
about methods and concepts for the 198 items discussed today. We don't know yet
what the case is about for the other items. I am sure SCOG has some more
surprises in reserve. We will find out when IBM brings the summary judgement
motions.
IANAL
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
It just sounds like SCO is just continuing to be equivocal as to what their case
is about. The strategy seems to be don't give IBM a stationary target. When
does a Judge say you have run out of time to make a specific accusation?
One thing I worry about is that methods and concepts would be subject to
privilege as they may be considered trade secrets. Which may leave us in pretty
much in the dark. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
...that methods and concepts are found in the code, not in thin
air...
Peice of cake. What could be in "air"? Only secrets. Since most
of the stuff already open - they loose that defence.
Even if you look at
patents - something closest to defining methods and concepts - you will notice
that patent basicly protects right to *implement* the idea/method/concept.
E-mails (as quoted by SCO) are not the same as implemetation. It's only
implementation that can infrige on "methods and concepts" or patent. People are
(still) free to talk to each other about anything they like - even about
protected idea/method/concept. (*)
I think SCO tried to bluff and failed. As
PJ pointed, IBM cornered SCO to tell what they are after: code or
method/concepts. SCO might have had a slight chance with code. But recalling
evil monopoly IBM of 70s/80s I'm sure on methods/concepts they'll wash court
floor with SCO/friends. They did it as part of business - now as part of defence
they suely wouldn't restrain themselves.
(*) "Talk is cheap. Show me the
code."
-- Linus Torwalds [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:46 PM EDT |
Stuart rebuts. He said that IBM uses an assumption that for every method and
concept, there's source code. He claims that not supported in case
law.
Perhaps he's talking about contract violation by IBM's developer
telling Linux developers about methods and concepts, even if those methods and
concepts never made it into Linux? Of course, methods and concepts which never
made it into the Linux wouldn't have caused SCO any monetary
damages... --- Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but
set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from
Terry Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
Methods and Concepts are implemented in code, however identifying them by file,
line number, etc might not be the best way to describe them. However this
doesn't let SCO off the hook. If version, file, line number is not the ideal way
to identify them, they still must identify the method or concept with sufficient
specificity that IBM can answer SCO's argument.
They also need to explicitly identify which claims are method and concept claims
because IBM will need to respond differently to those than to allegations of
direct copying.
IBMs main argument against all the methods and concept claims is surely going to
be that copyright law as applied to software has developed to specifically
exclude methods and concepts. This was established in case law even before
software became patentable in the US, and the subsequent extension of patents to
software can ironically only strengthen the basis for this exclusion.
Sounds like a PSJ on all methods and concepts claims could be called for.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:04 PM EDT |
How about the remaining ones? Those that were not discussed today?
We seem to think this case is now all about M&C. Is this true? How about
the remaining items where files and lines of code have been identified?
Do we believe these other items are there just for show? That they are decoys to
distract from the M&C argument? Or is it too early to draw a conclusion?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:16 PM EDT |
I mean no one expects
"The Spanish Inquisition"
"Methods and
Concepts"
;)
--- RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:48 PM EDT |
This is about trade secrets - except when IBM tries to nail down trade secrets,
and then it isn't. But it's about patents - except that there aren't any. But
it's about copyrights - except that when IBM tries to nail that down, then it's
about methods and concepts, which are either patents or trade secrets.
Although I think IBM is making progress - there's not much room for trade
secrets, and patents is dead. So if IBM can get rid of copyright (which takes
direct copying), then all that's left is "copyright" of methods and
concepts (which I'm sure that SCO will try, but I doubt it will fly with
Kimball), or some new protection of methods and concepts that is not trade
secrets, trademark, patents, or copyrights (which I also expect SCO to try, and
I also expect similar lack of flight in the eyes of Kimball), or contracts.
And when it all comes down, this is going to turn into a contract case. SCO is
trying desperately to avoid that, because the contract is clear enough that
Kimball can rule on it without a jury trial, but SCO is running out of other
places to hide...
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 08:51 PM EDT |
>
Stuart rebuts. He said that IBM uses an assumption that for every method and
concept, there's source code. He claims that not supported in case law.
<
I'm not going to say what it is but you've infringed it. Go away and find out
what you have infringed then pay me for infringing my idea.
Sheeesh, does this make my blood boil!!
Tufty
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
Whether it is "methods and concepts" or code, we should all remember that SCO
distributed Linux under the GPL, even after starting legal actions against IBM.
I don't see how SCO could distribute code under the GPL without the methods and
concepts. That would be saying, "We allow you to distribute this code and/or
alter it and distribute it with source code, as long as the methods and concepts
are different". This could only make sense on PlanetSCO [TM].
It could
happen that they distributed Linux under the GPL without knowing it contained
their code. [Gee, that's too bad, they distributed it under the GPL and have no
one but themselves to blame.] But I say it is impossible that they did not know
it contained "their" "methods and concepts". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 09:02 PM EDT |
>on that item was able to demonstrate that it was publicly
>available and published by Intel, line for line, in 1989.
(!) (The ! is not about Intel doing so but about SCO not
realizing that semi-public knowledge till it was way too late.)
This explains why Intel fought so hard against SCO's subpoena.
It seems like Intel sent a clear message that it is not IBM.
If SCO will try to use legal ways to harass Intel then Intel
will find legal ways to make SCO sorry for doing so, FAST.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 09:26 PM EDT |
>Stuart rebuts. He said that IBM uses an assumption that
>for every method and concept, there's source code.
>He claims that not supported in case law.
It seems like IBM has a good technical point, namely, "the
judge ordered X, you did Y." Assuming that SCO has a point
(IANAL), why did not SCO raise that point after the judge
had ordered X? I mean, arguing this point could mean a
longer delay, a positive result from SCO's point of view.
Now IBM that, as we all know, has lawyers with first-rate
legal technique, may be able to use the judge's wordings,
in four different orders, to destroy most of SCO's case.
If the judge will say, correctly, "you should have raise
this issue when I had given my first order," what legal
answer will SCO have?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 09:28 PM EDT |
SCOx would love to get a naked "Methods and Concept" arguement
as
the focus of a JURY.
A judge already said that UNIX stuff was out
there and that USL
could not put it back in a can. So - now SCOx is trying
to do
just that! It has been methods and concepts all along, as they
know
that they can not win on the code. If they can get the
judge to
agree to argue Methods and Concepts then this makes this legal
and they will
then go to every court in the country and say look this
judge says we can argue
methods and concepts so we are going to sue all
these companies for infringement
based on this methods and
concepts. I have been saying this all
along!
The judge needs to know about USL vs BSDI and that USL did
not own
methods and concepts, period and that Methods and Concepts is not
a
copyright arguement at all. If the judge gets confused
about being
out there alone on this, with no evidence of a previous
ruling on UNIX's IP, it
the trade secrets etc loss that USL suffered vs
BSDI..., then if a JURY sees
this "Methods and Concepts", then the
whole case is a coin toss to see how smart
a JURY really
is. Think OJ... if the glove don't fit,
you
gotta_______! Methods and Concepts will be drilled and
drilled
and drilled into the jury and the rhythem and the music of it
will enter their
heads like a rap song... they will be singing it and
dreaming it in their sleep,
and all the code mumbo jumbo and the
complexity will be overridden by the easy
to sing and think about
"Methods and Concepts".
It will be just like
the magic played by the street magicians with
the card games or the shell game
that you never will win. This is
not about logic or code or the fact that
AT&T never kept their
stuff private (that a judge has already said they did
not)! It is
about the emotion of the JURY and the guess that they will be
making
about "methods and concepts"!
Hey - If IBM loses then UNIX
and everything LINUX will be basicly
proprietary. What infringer would
want to go to trial against
SCOx on a "Methods and Concepts" arguement before
today's jury pool of
our tech knowledgable peers! Hey ya gotta wonder if
IBM does not
care, they profit by hardware, services, and databases... they
don't
care what the price of the OS is that is! LINUX
folks
need to enter this case now! Otherwise, their interests will
be
decided without their even being able to defend
themselves
properly....! IBM is not LINUX. For IBM
Linux
is just an option (they still got AIX that the ownership contracts
are
solid on)!
It has been my bet hat every bit of energy on
this legal chess
board... is
being spent not to have any of the history of USL
vs BSDI admitted
for the judge to see in this case.
The judge in USL vs
BSDI ruled in an injunction in a way that was
not very favorable to AT&T's
USL attempts to recover lost and
openly developed code (steal it back from the
universities and others
who were part of the BSD efforts). SCOx today is
trying to
backdoor the USL case.
SO this is why the judge should be made
aware of the thought process of
another judge, who already ruled on pretty much
the same thing AGAINST
USL (AT&T).
USL was saying
in the early 1990s we own UNIX (including trade
secrets and all, including one
would think methods and concepts)!
Is SCOx saying anything else
today?
What would a judge today, think about a ruling that smashed
USL's
"we
own UNIX" actions of the early 1990's?
Does the judge even
know about USL vs BSDI, is so then prove to me
that the judge in SCOx vs IBM is
so informed, there has been nothing
filed that even mentions this by IBM or
SCOx. So - it
is about time that someone told the judge today
that a judge has
already been all over this
before.
Google:
Documents
about
USL vs. BSDI
USL vs.
BSDI documents. In view
of the interest in the newly-launched
suit by
SCO against IBM, I thought it
might be of interest to make
available some of ...
USL
v. BSDi -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BSDi's
1-800-ITS-UNIX telephone
number violated USL's trademark on
UNIX. ...
However, in
November of 2004, a copy of the USL
v. BSDi settlement agreement
..
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 09:41 PM EDT |
So describe with specifics which methods and concepts are infringing.
and while you're at it, show us proof that you own the rights to such under
patent, trade mark or some other proper method.
And remember concepts and methods are not covered by copyright, its more a
patent thing - which you dont own
or a trade mark thing - which you dont own
or a trade secret thing - which you dont own.
and even if it is copyright (somehow) show us you own it, and have the rights to
it, and control it.
Did we forget to mention how you explain the whole UL mess?
and what are the exact specifics that allow us to identify what is actually
misused?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sk43 on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 09:58 PM EDT |
[Singer] said that IBM uses an assumption that for every method and
concept, there's source code. He claims that not supported in case
law.
Even taking Mr. Singer at his word, most of the 198 items
list Linux source code files, but not SysV or Dynix or AIX files. If a method
and concept does not need to be tied to source code, then why are Linux files
listed at all? For entertainment purposes? If Linux files can be identified,
why can't files from SysV/AIX/Dynix be too?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: joel on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 10:06 PM EDT |
Just a couple of additional comments from the hearing.
Chris has done an admirable job, especially under the
circumstances. First, Mr. Singer tried tenaciously to
divert attention from the motion before the court by
reintroducing SCO's old arguments regarding "methods and
concepts". Interestingly, he tried to make everyone
believe that since "methods and concepts" do not require
specific versions, lines, and code, they were fully in
compliance with the courts and IBM's orders and requests.
If you like dancing around the issues and smoke &
mirrors, Mr. Singer was really good. Also, He spoke very
rapidly. How Chris got as much as he did was truly
miraculous. When I grew weary of the same old same old, I
wrote in my notebook "Methinks Mr. Singer doth protest too
much". Shortly afterward, Her Honor apparently had
similar inclinations, as she cut him off with something to
the effect of "I don't want to hear that. We're not going
there", to my great relief.
Mr. Marriot, as usual, was quite adept at trying to
keep the arguments on target. For me, his crowning
achievement occurred during his final summary when he said
"SCO is willingly sitting on its allegations and
contentions", after which he drew out IBM'S first
Interrogotory (sp?) and pointed out that IBM had requested
that SCO define explicitly what their allegations and
contentions were. He noted further that SCO still has not
complied with proper specificity, which seriously hampers
IBM"s efforts to defend theselves, therefore the motion
should stand.
Lastly, the Linux contingent was quite sparse today.
I counted four of us initially. I know many of you would
have loved to be there. I regret that I unable to more
adequately express the expressions an elucidations of
those involved. It was fairly intense, and lasted 2
hours.
cheers, joel[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Thanks - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 10:43 PM EDT
- Thanks - Authored by: joel on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 12:37 PM EDT
- Thanks - Authored by: walberg on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 10:13 PM EDT
- Thanks - Authored by: eskild on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 04:54 PM EDT
- Thank you for being there - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 05:15 AM EDT
- Since "methods and concepts" do not require specific versions, lines, and code. - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 05:18 AM EDT
- More eyes - more help. Thanks - Authored by: tangomike on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 10:03 AM EDT
- On methods, concepts, and lines of code - Authored by: sk43 on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 05:20 PM EDT
- MOD PARENT UP ! - Authored by: _Arthur on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 10:19 PM EDT
- On methods, concepts, and lines of code - Authored by: joel on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 10:40 PM EDT
- On methods, concepts, and lines of code - Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 10:41 PM EDT
- Computer vs Legal "Methods" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 07:46 AM EDT
- On methods, concepts ... UPDATE - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 17 2006 @ 02:27 PM EDT
|
Authored by: jdg on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 10:08 PM EDT |
[IANAL] and this is tinfoil time]
There has been speculation that MS is, directly or indirectly, behind this whole
exercise. The lynch-pin of argument is clearly Methods and Concepts. Is MS
after killing this concept so that they have greater freedom to pull material
from other parties. They have been losing often in legal disputes and it costs
them a bundle. Are they trying to shoot down a strawman here? Thus is MS wins
by either: a) SCO wins or has great success casting uncertainy about Linux
legality; or b) the M&C card goes down in flames.
---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL][ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 10:14 PM EDT |
SCOG claims that its disclosures meet the requirements of specificity, despite
the fact that they make ZERO effort to link source code to actual infringement.
This raises the question: what were these clowns looking at, that motivated them
to sue IBM for infringement? Source code, of course, with Darl the Snarl's three
teams of deep divers. And how did these clowns decide that IBM was infringing,
if they weren't looking at the source code LINE BY LINE?
What I am getting is that SCOG is deliberately refusing to comply with judge
Wells' orders, which require that the infringements be linked to actual lines of
source code. Period. If judge Wells contravenes her own orders, then IBM should
immediately appeal: in American jurisprudence, the accused has the right to know
with specificity what the charges and allegations against him are. And I will
say bluntly that judge Wells has complaisantly violated this Constitutional
principle since 2003.
---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 10:27 PM EDT |
This hearing was simply SCO changing horses in mid-stream (again).The SCO
lawyers certainly get an "A" for creativity. I'm actually impressed
with the new "methods and concepts" path -- how they stood in front of
the judge without giggling shows great self-control. Guess that's why they get
the big bucks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 10:38 PM EDT |
Does SCO has control over AIX and or Dynix/PTX ?. I see a lot of accusation
based on those products but none from SysV in this hearing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 11:55 PM EDT |
without any evidence. Follow the pea as it shuffles endlessly.
Grow entranced and dazed by the maze of meaningless
arguments. This is all misdirection!
IBM knows that TSCOG has no evidence. The judges know that
TSCOG has no evidence. So, do they ignore the elephant in the
courtroom or whittle this abomination of a case down to the size
of a pea?
TSCOG cannot trace the code from something that TSCOG owns
into Linux. Simple. Their dance today reveals this truth.
UNIX is a family of OSs. UNIX distributions are SW encyclopedias.
TSCOG's analogies apply to isolated songs or stories, so nothing
TSCOG has said about nonliteral copying of concepts or methods
could ever apply in this case. Straight to the heart of this case,
an OS has just what the OS needs without copying being
implied. For the SW challenged like TSCOG, every encyclopedia
needs an article on crimes like pump and dump, libel, fraud,
extortion, and RICO. It plainly does not imply nonliteral copying
of encyclopedias or OSs.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AllParadox on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 12:42 AM EDT |
And after it was all over, I said to myself:
"Is that all there is?"
"Is that all there is to this horrid little lawsuit?"
The Peggy Lee song goes:
Is that all there is?
Is that all there is?
If that's all there is, my friends, then let's keep dancing.
Let's break out the booze and have a ball,
If that's all there is.
Dear Reader, please do not forget that Caldera, on January 23, 2002, granted
something to you, me, and IBM.
I am referring to the infamous "Ancient Unix" grant from Caldera.
You, I, IBM, and everyone else, received the unlimited right to use all the
"Methods and Concepts" contained in the "ancient UNIX"
operating systems.
"Unlimited" is a fairly broad term in my dictionary.
The attorneys for "The SCO Group" keep bringing up Harry Potter. The
case is not apropos (apropos: a $27.29 lawyer word that means
"relevant".) J.K. Rowling never gave any Harry Potter plots to the
public, much less all of them prior to a specific date.
This also completely ignores the broad literal terms of the IBM-AT&T
contract where IBM received its' initial rights, and the Project Monterey terms
that specifically drafted for this situation.
If these folks are claiming "methods and concepts", then IBM has a
right to know *which* methods and concepts, so that they have a fair chance to
rebut those that are rebuttable.
"The SCO Group" does not have copyrights on all the methods and
concepts in UnixSysV. They have, at most, only the copyrights on the extensions
from ancient Unix, and then only if the extensions really are new methods or
concepts.
---
PJ deletes insult posts, not differences of opinion.
AllParadox; retired lawyer and chief Groklaw iconoclast. No legal opinions,
just my opinion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dbc on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 02:03 AM EDT |
SCO didn't say "This method and concept comes from Unix Sys V,
R4, file xyz, lines 67-278 and can be shown to be implemented in Linux version
2.4.16, file xyz_1.c, lines 120-400 and this admission/submission/email/whatever
shows IBM caused it to be put there." That's what's missing from SCO's final
disclosure.
Seems to me this is where it falls appart for
SCO. Let's sit in the judge's chair for a moment. And let's be a hard working,
competent, and analytical judge.
Now, the rules of procedure require us
to allow plaintiff to make their case at this point. But within that framework,
we do everyone (including ourselves) a big favor by using this opportunity to
simplify. So, we go over each item one by one and ask:
- Are specific
lines of code in a specific file and version mentioned, like I
ordered?
- Failing that, let's, for the sake of argument, ask: Is a
specific method or concept called out?
- If a method or concept is called
out, does SCO tell us where it originated, down to at least a file and version?
Did SCO tell us where it went, down to at least a file and
version?
Given previous rulings, those are pretty generous tests.
Frankly, too generous all things considered. Yet, I don't see how more than a
handful of claims could survive those tests.
The judge has a golden
opportunity to simplify the case. Smart judges are all over those, just from a
purely pragmatic standpoint. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 02:15 AM EDT |
1. (This is a second reaction as of the 4th update.) Ah, a hearing day. Who
could concentrate with the rumbling of refresh buttons? PJ's article had the
first news rather than a comment. That is fitting. No shooting SCO from the
hip. The Judge is taking the motion "under advisement." Slow by
internet time, but due course by Court time. Nature abhors a vacuum and Court
abhors excitement and sensationalism. Why announce a decision when you can
write it later after some thought? Patience, my friends. I think these Judges
know what they are doing and they are in control. Since neither party is
pressing them for anything drastic, they are letting the case take its due
course. There are many more motions to come, some more important than this one.
There are a number of principles to be learned from this week.
2. The first principle is "what goes around comes around." Or
"as ye sow so shell ye reap." SCO seems to have gotten away with a
few things this week: filing late, serving poorly, throwing in a late expert,
seizing the last word or filing on an opponent's Motion, stonewalling on
specificity... It appears that the Judge has bent over backward to accomodate
them. IBM has appeared to acquiesce at times. Marriott must have suppressed
his lawyer reflex when he stated that the late SCO Expert Declaration would not
hurt IBM. Of course, he more than any one could have argued that it would. IBM
has earned a lot of Brownie points. Just think how far backward and how many
times, the Judge is going to have to accomodate IBM when the time comes. They
are going to be allowed to pull a few obvious fast ones before the Judge has to
worry about being fair to both sides again.
3. The second two principles are: 2) You need to follow the rules. 3) You
can't try a case without specificity. Consider: this week; and the next ten
days; and then whatever happens in this Motion (replies, surreplies,
oppositions); and the wait until a decision is rendered; (reargument?), as an
example of what happens when you violate these principles. Look what has
happened without specificity and finality? Delay and a waste of time. Imagine
going into a trial without complete discovery and specificity. Whenever SCO
tries to introduce anything new, IBM can demand a recess, deposition of the
proposed new witness, investigation of the evidence, and time to consult their
own experts. Imagine a ten day recess every time SCO tries to introduce
something previously undisclosed. You can't have a trial that way and the
Judges know it. There will be a specified list of allegations as discovery
requires. SCO will not be permitted to introduce or argue anything else. If
this were not so, the trial would take three years.
4. Why is SCO so specifically vague? All that the SCO lawyers think they can
ethically argue is the "One-Sentence Derivative Contract Theory" which
they know is pitifully weak [and which I doubt specifies Methods and Concepts.]
They would simply love to begin recorded history with SysV Code and trace its
Concepts and Methods through history, compare it to a claim on good grammar. It
evolves a little bit, but they want to claim perpetual credit. It appears that
whenever they try and specify any of it, it gets shot down. There selections
when researched prove not to be original with them or even their immediate
predecessor. These Unix Methods and Concepts have been widely dispersed, like
genericly engineered corn being blown into the fields of naturally engineered
corn. So it has become this wild, bastard code-type upon which many have drawn
and shared, promiscuously. Even the SCO expert has been spreading them for
years. We'll spare him for now, see below. SCO fears specifying these Methods
and Concepts because they will be found to be pervasive and free. Indeed if
they were to specify the versions, for some specific Method and Concept, they
well might specify all versions of Unix, AIX, Dynix, Windows and Linux. Better
to try and get over without specificity than to be knocked out for too much
specificity.
**** "I think SCO knows it too, that is why they are fighting so hard
here. They know that IBM can refute all of their claims that contain
specifics." **** Comment above by ibb
5. More of My Method and Concept of SCOranting. Why is it not possible to
locate methods and concepts with specficity? It is. Compare a Method and
Concept to claiming rights to a plot, such as that recent DaVinci Code Decision
denying a claim based on plot. SCO realizes that their Theory is a little loose.
So loose that they are loathe to specify. By using SCO's own loose theory, IBM
can specify an antecedent Concept and Method whence theirs derives. They could
even use Medieval algorithms as guiding precedents, or Rothkinds books.
6. Let's not be rough on Mr. Rothkind. If IBM had approached him first, I'm
sure he would have done the same for them. He answered true to his principles,
if not methods and concepts. I'm sure IBM will still use him because much of
what he knows does not support SCO. IBM will question him with his own books.
And who couldn't use a little Spring Break money.
7. One way or another Kimball will have final say on the specificity issue. He
does not run a loose courtroom. Between IBM and SCO's charts, there will be
list of accusations with sufficient, defensible specificity, before this trial
begins. We are approaching Kimballs time limit and his line in the sand. SCO
is not going to have much specified when the Dispositive Motions flow. Then
what Methods and Concepts will they use to bore Kimball out of his astonishment.
After this case, he can retire and do arbitrations for amusement.
---
webster
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why the Judge must Strike: The Necessity of Specificity OR We Can't Have a Three-Year Trial - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 04:40 AM EDT
- The Magistrate is scared - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 05:13 AM EDT
- The Magistrate is scared - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 06:39 AM EDT
- In other words... - Authored by: Jude on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 08:44 AM EDT
- Hmm - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 10:37 AM EDT
- This is silly - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 10:38 AM EDT
- Did ya ever notice - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 11:14 AM EDT
- Ha, ha, hoo, hoo.... - Authored by: dbc on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 12:13 PM EDT
- I think you have it backward - Authored by: jbb on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 03:12 PM EDT
- The Magistrate is not scared at all - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 03:34 PM EDT
- The Magistrate is scared - Authored by: Waterman on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 09:35 PM EDT
- The Magistrate is scared - Authored by: tknarr on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 10:53 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 02:20 AM EDT |
SCO won this one.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 02:36 AM EDT |
"McBride: ... There are things out there that help
people understand how to program to System V application binary interfaces
[ABIs], to help them hook up to the OS. It was out there to help people write
applications. It wasn't published to help someone knock off the OS and create a
free version of System V."
I have a slightly-dog-eared copy
of "The Magic Garden Explained" (1994) in front of me. Unless there's
something buried in the depths of the text, I can see nothing in the book that
says what the contents are allowed to be used for and what they
cannot be used for. McBride's declaration that it couldn't be used to
create a free System V is wishful thinking on his part.
From the front
matter of the book:
"This book contains copyrighted material
of Novell, Inc., which is being reproduced with permission. The authors thank
Novell, Inc. for giving them permission to use this material.
The
authors wish to state that this book is presented entirely with the intention
of disseminating knowledge to professionals and academics who have an
interest in the subject. It represents neither the views not the commercial
interests of the organization in which they are employed." (underlining
mine)
Now I'm not a lawyer, but a simple reading of that, to me
anyway, seems to indicate that the copyright holder (Novell) had no problem
whatsoever with all those oh-so-valuable System V details getting out into the
world. Funny how SCO seems to think they can put the genie back into the
bottle.
-- RT
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: error27 on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 03:33 AM EDT |
This
must be the email that Martin Bligh wrote.
It says that there was a user
who hated a feature in Dynix and Martin was responding that Linux was going to
be completely different. That's clearly a copyright violation if you ask me.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jig on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 03:37 AM EDT |
agg. this won't be read by many...
anyway
this seems to have a parallel in the EU case against microsoft, though maybe not
in our favor. MS offered their network code as sufficient response to the EU
demand, but the EU told them it wasn't enough because the code by itself didn't
easily convey the methods and concepts needed to use the standards within (and
that it didn't offer the standards in an open manner, but that's a side issue).
sco seems to be tackling this from the other side, saying that they'll give the
general idea, but that it's immpossible to convey with just lines of code.
now, this is an incomplete argument on their part because they haven't listed
(at least in an unsealed doc) what the methods and concepts are in specificity.
but, i think the table they have from their expert does have such... so it might
only be incomplete to us.
i'm also ignoring the procedural misstep by trying to pull a switch and bait (i
wrote that backwards on purpose) on the court by hammering the "lines and
files" idea for so long and then all of a sudden arguing esoteric methods
and concepts. they might have just strung the court along long enough to educate
it on what the os and source code and etc mean enough so that they can pose this
argument without being laughed out of court for insubstantive standing, which is
what could have happened at the beginning if this is what they brought to the
table.
but, that's probably giving them too much credit. they are squirming, falling to
plan b, c and d, and trying to prolong the whole party, maybe even get to trial
with some esoteric concepts that a judge might be able to sort through, but that
will probably give them a better than 50-50 chance with a home team jury of
"peers" who can be swayed with bluster and irrationality more easily
than with cold facts.
ALSO,
while the harry potter suit is interesting, a more appropriate decission for IBM
to consider is the recent one involving the Di Vinci Code. Just because two
works discuss the same topics in similar ways doesn't mean there was
infringement involved, ESPECIALLY in works based off of academic work and
publications.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: geoff lane on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 04:52 AM EDT |
Is this really going to end up as just a "Look&Feel" argument?
I thought
that the courts had already decided that just because two programs have a
simpler external behaviour there was no infringement.
"Methods" must
surely depend on trade secrets and we already know that there are none of those
left for Unix. "Concepts" are just ideas with a fancy name and we know that
there is no copyright on ideas. It's possible that patents would be applicable,
but TSG doesn't have any relevant to the case.
So, has TSG just given up on
code after arguing for years they had specific examples?
--- I'm not a
Windows user, consequently I'm not
afraid of receiving email from total strangers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 05:17 AM EDT |
Sorry, I haven't been visiting Growlaw for a while and forgot my login/password.
And this may be a stupid question.
One thought just came to mind. AFAIK, BSF still has its fees capped, right? Or
at the very least, quite limited. So in a sense, the longer this lawsuit drags
on, the less BSF earns in relation to the amount of work put in.
By now BSF knows it can't hope to win, so how long until one of their lawyers
makes a "mistake" that effectively ends this lawsuit?
Yeah, I know...it's just a dream.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 05:40 AM EDT |
It occurred to me that SCOG has now built a pile of theories under which they
claim virtually all software is under their control.
First there was the actual Unix code.
Second there was the code developed by the licensees derived from the Unix
code.
Third there were the methods and concepts embodied in One and Two above.
Now fourth is all of the code which employs Negative Know How.
This last claim will soon be expanded to include any code which does not use any
Unix code or Unix methods and concepts because that could only happen due to
Negative Know How. Clearly if someone didn't use the methods and concepts
embodied in Unix, it was because they improperly knew all about them and
obfuscated their code to avoid paying SCOG their licensing fee.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 07:21 AM EDT |
> Judge Wells asked Stuart Singer: "How do you address that
> you maintain custody of the allegations and not provide
> them to IBM?" Stuart denied that and said that if there is
> something new that SCO brings up, IBM can object at that
> time.
Oh yes: Now they can bitch endlessly over each and every of the 198 items.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 08:33 AM EDT |
I have a hunch what Boies is up to: I think he wants to bury the jury in
mind-numbing testimony.
SCO has been unable to find code that embodies these 198 items, despite having
all the of source code and all the experts they cared to consult. If these
items go to trial, I think each one will require a lot of testimony about
abstract concepts that a jury would have difficulty following. The jury would
have even more trouble keeping track of them all.
Even if each one gets only an hour of testimony, these 198 items could take over
a month of trial time. The testimony could take a large fraction of a year if
each item is examined in detail. The jury will be worn out long before this can
be finished. I think Boies is counting on them giving up and deciding that
there must be SOME guilt if there are so many accusations.
Another way of looking at it is the old "If you throw enough at the
wall..." line. If the jury is 99% likely to find IBM innocent of each of
these items individually, they're only 13.6% likley to find IBM innocent of all
198 of them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PeteS on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 08:34 AM EDT |
Looking at the Quote database for
Darl McBride we see these gems:
According to McBride,
"obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor
will not, make such a claim." [August 2002]
"IBM has been happily giving
part of the AIX code away to the Linux community, but the problem is that they
don't own the AIX code," [March, 2003]
"But when they take our proprietary
code and, without our permission, put that into the open-source community, that
is where we do have a major-league problem," McBride said. [March
2003]
"We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux
kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code," McBride said in an interview.
In addition, he said, "We're finding code that looks likes it's been obfuscated
to make it look like it wasn't UnixWare code--but it was." [May 2003]
And
IBM took the same team that had been working on a Unix code project with us and
moved them over to work on Linux code. If you look at the code we believe has
been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in
some cases, an entire program. [May 2003]
"IBM has chosen to continue the
actions that violate our source code and distribution agreements,"[June
2003]
We're talking about line-by-line code copying. That includes not just
the function but the exact, word-for-word lines of code. And the developer
comments are exactly, 100 percent the same. [June 2003]
In discovery you
get to go in and investigate the things that relate to the case, and there are a
broad range of things that relate to Linux and AIX. We will be going in with a
fine-toothed comb and coming up with every detail. [June 2003]
"When you
look inside in the code base and you see line-by-line copy of [SCO's Unix]
System V code, not just the code itself but comments to the code, titles that
were in the comments and humour elements that were in the comments, you see that
everything is taken straight across," he explained.
McBride claimed that
everything was exactly the same, except that the copyright notices had been
stripped out. "There could not be a more straightforward case on the Linux
side," he said. [June 2003]
And so it goes on, but let's
look at some others
Gregory
Blepp
"'I have proof right here in my suitcase," Blepp said
in the Spiegel story, translated by a Groklaw reader. "Out of the five million
lines of the Linux source code, there are about 1 (million) to 1.5 million lines
affected," Blepp said [April 2004]
Then we have Chris Sontag, of
course:
Sontag said SCO has found numerous other violations
since filing the IBM suit. "We keep finding more stuff every day," he said.
"There's (allegedly infringing) code in all the Linux distributions."[June
2003]
"This shows 80 lines out of 100 that are completely identical to
System V code. This should not be in Linux," said Chris Sontag [August
2003]
``Their assertions are incorrect. The source code is absolutely owned
by SCO,'' said Chris Sontag, general manager of the company's software licensing
arm. ``In fact, SCO knows exactly which version of System V the code came
from.'' [August 2003]
I included Darl's early quotes to
give us a flavour of his journey, but I am still amused by all those statements
by Officers of SCOX that implicate soure code, yet now they say it's not
there.
PeteS
--- Artificial Intelligence is no match for
Natural Stupidity [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sk43 on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 08:45 AM EDT |
Did Singer really say this?
"... but that with
technologies the code is not required."
That is not what SCO
told the court 2 years ago. Here is what Heise said
in the Feb 6, 2004 hearing,
regarding the providing of specific lines of
code with respect to
"technologies":
"We have identified the technology, we just
cannot identify the lines
because we don't have their derivative modification
source code."
So, Mr. Singer, could you explain once again why
you made Judge Wells order IBM to produce all those versions
of AIX and
Dynix?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Even better - Authored by: Jude on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 08:50 AM EDT
- Brilliant! - Authored by: jbb on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 04:11 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 09:53 AM EDT |
From Darl...
The analogy I like to use is Vanilla Ice's "Ice
Ice Baby" versus David Bowie and Queen's "Under Pressure." If you just look at
the words, I don't see a copyright violation, but if you listen to the riffs,
you can hear where they're the same.
In the Vanilla Ice
case, the words were different, but the music - the notes, the arrangement,
the production - was identical. One could, in fact, hold it up in court and
say, "These are identical."
In SCO's case, no one ever challenged SCO to
prove that the entirety of Linux was identical, but they have to prove that
something is identical. In particular, that IBM copied something. So
far, every time SCO has trotted out an example, its been instantly
discreditied - BSD network code... Intel code... X Windows code... but
nothing from SysV, and more specificly, nothing from IBM.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "Ice Ice Baby" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 12:27 PM EDT
- "Ice Ice Baby" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 12:30 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 10:28 AM EDT |
I seem to recall SCO saying recently in court and filed documents (and in the
press many times) that they have "boxes and boxes" of
"proof" of "literal copying" of "code".
I can't find the links, but I seem to recall this was filed in their court
papers as well in recent motions - even as recent as the last documents they
filed.
So why isn't anyone calling them on this? Especially the judge?
Isn't it contempt of court or perjury?
Either they were lying about having proof of literal copying, or they're lying
now about "methods and concepts"
and what about calling them on the whole M&C stuff anyhow? I mean it's not
like M&C is protected by copyright - they are back at this angle again,
trying to get copyright to cover something it doesn't.
Even in the filings for this hearing and the quotes we see SCO trying to say
that M&C are covered by copyright and it is supported by case law. uhm...
what?? since when?
anyone out there got a clue? and also why no one is throwing the book at them?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 10:41 AM EDT |
It looks so similar in physical appearance that David Marriott at
one point mistakenly held it up as if it was his own table, then corrected
himself saying "refer to *our* table that looks *just like* their
table."
When reading Chris' report I immediately thought that
this is absolutely not a mistake. Mr Marriott on purpose did this mix-up.
In fact, he could send two messages to different recipients at the same
time:
- to the judge "we are talking about the same things albeit SCO
chooses to name them differently"
- to the masses "you can deduce the content
of the Rochkind declaration from the mostly unredacted material, just read
ours".
Whow, this Mr Marriott is surely a really clever guy. He must
be laughing all the way home that he basically made fun of the O'Hara/G2/etc
stunt where she/they and SCO tried to make redacted material available to the
public in order to distribute it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
Note:
I was going to post the following but after searching for
the correct spelling of the last name of Santa Cruse
Operations I know not where but I believe that it does
place some of the actions in contectx so I am posting it
here.
I have a hard time believing that Sun Microsystems bought
Talnet (sp=?) (the remains of Santa Cruze Operations) for
their code.
As I see it Novel is attacking on the bases that nothing in
the way of ownership was transfered to Santa Cruze
Operations in US federal court and SuSE is attacking that
what they SCO owned before the purchase of the two
divisions of Santa Cruze Operations is open sourced by
contract. That leaves Sun which is not directly in the war
yet to attack on the bases that Santa Cruze Operations did
not sell what The SCO Group says was sold.
From another point of view there is another big dog in the
fight that is very seldom spoke of here on Groklaw that has
a very personal vengeance issue [or at least if it were me
I would be most vindictive] which is not being heard from
at all. Now if I had that type of money and that knowledge
of finance and I did not care in the least about loosing a
few million I am sure that I could arrange some sort of
financial ambush which I am certain is coming
Note to PJ:
I just took a look for the name last name before Sun
Microsystems bought them of the Santa Cruze Operations for
correct spelling. What I found was a list of character
players but NO list of companies that are players in this
saga
There was AT&T which spin off Unix Systems Laboratories
which was acquired by Novel which sold something to Santa
Cruze Operations who the split two one portion somehow how
becoming part of some company with the name Caldera which
may or may not be the same Caldera [there were a number of
Caldera companies] that changed its name to The SCO Group.
Meanwhile the remaining division of Santa Cruze Operations
renamed itself to Ta????? (sp=?) which was then purchased
by Sun Microsystems. Now recall Caldera was a part of
United Linux along with SuSE, Mandrake and ???Linux. Novel
has just applied for arbitration via SuSE over the United
Linux contract which most Likely has just drug Mandrive
[successor to Mandrake] and ???Linux into the picture since
most likely the arbitration agreement is not based on
English/US law but on continental law.
And! This is for the SCO / IBM and SCO/Novell which is only
a partial list of companies. Then there are the other
fights in SCO vs The World. Some where along the line I
seem to recall that SCO was planning to sue a major bank,
gosh knows which one, but switched to DilimerChrisler.
If that is not enough then there are the numerous financial
players and PIPE ferries around and their relations ships
which I never have followed closely. By now I am confused
so I flip off to ?The Players? only to find a list of
people in law firms and no list of companies of financial
firms which of course have lawyers too.
PJ we need a better score card to keep track of all the
companies and participants in this dog fight. I am lost and
I have read Groklaw since about your third month as a blog. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: El_Heffe on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
My biggest fear about this case from the very beginning has been that the judges
lack the technical expertise to see through SCO's smoke and mirrors.
I'm encouraged by the fact that Judge Wells seems skeptical of SCO's sudden
change of course to "methods and concepts" and hopefully she's smart
enough to figure out that if IBM has indeed mis-appropriated some of SCO's
"methods and concepts" then SCO can easily point to specific lines of
IBM code that uses those methods and concepts.
However, I continued to be dismayed by the fact that IBM has repeatedly pointed
out to the judges that SCO still (after 3 years!) has not presented any specific
evidence and yet it doesn't seem to matter -- SCO just says "yes we
have" and the judges seem to accpet that.
---
My dog! It's full of rats! - 2001 a Dyslexic Odyssey.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mossc on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
IANAL.... Looking over the reports from the court it seems like TSG has added
a
couple new categories of alleged violations by IBM/Linux. Here are the
types of
violations that have come up in this case. (at least what I can come
up with at
the moment) Some of this is just speculation trying to divine what
TSG is really
claiming.
Non-contract rights:
- copyright infringement - this is what the case was
initially about (at least according to press releases and press coverage)
-
Probably most of the stuff shown to the press under NDA were similar
files
between UNIX and Linux. They probably did not realize how bad this
claim was
until the conference with the obfuscated BSD files. I am
guessing all that
remains of this category is header/ABI files. Hopefully
this should be
removed in PSJ phase. Header files are non-protectable,
also the files in
Linux were created independently. TSG acknowledges this
if they use any
header files from Linux in their products.
- obfuscated
code - this has not come up recently in
court so I would bet this
has been dropped.
- non-literal copying - not sure if
this is in remaining
claims or supported by case law.
- TSG
copyright definition (ladder theory) - If code was
revised many
times to the point where it does not contain any of the
original code,
according to TSG, this could still be a copyright
violation if they can
verify each successive modification led to the
final version. I think this
is a stretch and not supported by case law.
This was the justification for
much of the discovery(hard to tell if they
were asking for source code
control data for this category or category 8
below) The work required to
research and document this type of alleged
violation would be substantial, I
also doubt there are any files
developed like this starting with system V
files and moving to Linux.
- copyright after irrevocable
license revoked -
According to TSG they had the authority to revoke
IBMs AIX license. The
justification was for claims that may no longer be in
the case. The
license is fully paid and irrevocable. I would be interested
to see
- patents - TSG don't own any applicable
patents in
UNIX. Not part of the case although Darl stated that microsoft
"took a
patent license on our technology"
- trademarks owned by "The Open Group(tm)"
- trade secrets (is this protected by anything other
than
contracts once disclosed?) "There is no trade secret in Unix system
files.
That is on the record. No problem with that. " Kevin McBride
Contract rights(confidential):
- derivative works (as in copyright law)
- TSG defined derivative works(as TSG defined does not
need to include original code) (copyright code from AIX cannot be used in
other products) Problem with this theoretical violation is that it does
not
agree with standard copyright law definition of derivative works and
the
contract does not redefine the term.
- methods and concepts
from original works(should have
source lines in Sys V) presumably
must be kept confidential by licensee
unless disclosed by another party.
All methods and concepts from System
V could be considered disclosed.
- methods and concepts from TSG defined derivative
works(
should have source lines in AIX/Dynix even if patented by
IBM) - I think
this makes no sense in the case of patented works since
the very act of
patenting a method would disclose it.
- methods and concepts
without source code(no idea how
this can be defined) How can this
be claimed to be in AIX or Sys V if it
was not implemented in source
code?
- methods and concepts not used in linux because of
knowledge
gained by doing it the wrong way in dynix - this is my
favorite, we are suing you because you did not make the same mistakes
someone else did who once saw some code that had been written by a third
party that may have been included in their derivative
work.
Random Thoughts:
I am betting that most of the
items in the final disclosure fall into the
later categories. They would still
need to define most of the details
including SYS V or AIX code and sections of
contract they feel give them
rights to control the material.
Violations
of a contract by IBM could not incur a liability for a
third
party.
Distinctions must be made over what TSG claims they own and
what
IBM/others own but they TSG claims to control some rights over.
A
question of logic. Why would the contract be intended to prevent
disclosure of
IBM works that were not part of original product? If FOSS was
not a big issue at
the time how would that harm AT&T more than using code
in proprietary
product?
I think the reason this case seems so off the wall is
that the
decision to start a lawsuit was made first.
Then
Caldera/BSF/Canopy/Yarro looked around for a reason to sue and someone
to
sue. Looking at Darl McBride's history I see no indication that he would
be
competent to run a tech company with a product. He does however have
some
experience with litigation.
Not having a good grasp of the linux
development environment and the
history of UNIX they found some indication they
were sure they would be able
to find enough to make a lot of noise and get some
money. Even if they only
managed to milk some license donations and boost the
stock price Caldera
assest could be monetized similar to the way Yarro made
money on every
transaction while at Canopy.
Thoughout this case and the
FUD campaign Darl & Co. have disregarded
the fact that because Linux/Open
source has source code available for all to
see that makes it less likely for
anyone to contribute inappropriate code
because it is immediately
obvious.
I find when companies mention their "Intellectual Property"
rights they
are trying to be vague.
"We've always been very open with
the source code to any institution that
wanted it, whether it's a university,
government or a corporation." Darl
McBride
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: argee on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 02:25 PM EDT |
Madam Foreman, has the Jury reached a decision?
Yes your Honor.
What is it?
We the jury find that IBM has copied code, methods and
concepts from Unix to Linux. But we cannot say exactly
what, and therefore we cannot say how much damages to award.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 02:43 PM EDT |
Unless SCO could show where the method and concept was in Unix SVRx, they are
out of luck. When they do show that, IBM will have an easy time at summary
judgement. For instance, the book they mentioned that was published in 1994,
"The Magic Garden Explained, The Internals of Unix System V, Release 4". That
probably covers a ton of the methods and concepts. Then we have BSD, which has
been public for 15 years with the blessing of AT&T. Then we have Unix v32,
which Caldera itself made public under a BSD-style license in 2001 I believe.
Unless they can point to a specific section of code that IBM got in 1984
that contains a method and concept that IBM disclosed, and that was still secret
at the time of disclosure, they don't have a chance at summary judgement. And
since they have already been told to disclose all of this, there is no reason
that these items should be allowed.
The quote about Harry Potter doesn't
really have much bearing as they are not claiming copyright infringement.
Methods and Concepts are not copyrightable, and using themes and situations
(which are copyrightable) from another book is not the same as using methods and
concepts of a computer program.
Stuart rebuts. He said that
IBM uses an assumption that for every method and concept, there's source code.
He claims that not supported in case law.
Show me where in
case law a plaintiff has won a case about "methods and concepts" where they
haven't had to show how their code even contained those methods and concepts.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bigbert on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 04:32 PM EDT |
"Dis is my car. It got four wheels an' go brrm-brrm. Dere de Linux car. It
got four wheels an' go brrm-brrm. Clearly, ya honour, dey copied our mefids an'
concptts-thingie"
---
4c 69 6e 75 78 20 52 75 6c 65 73 21[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Simple summary: - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 10:54 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 05:09 PM EDT |
Item 52, the Wright/Phillips allegation (not item 2, as that
allegation is not subject to IBM's present motion to limit) can confidently be
identified as this LKML thread
entitled "Semaphores used for daemon wakeup".
Previously, in an
under-appreciated comment here on Groklaw, error27 identified the Bligh
allegation (Item 23) as this
LKML thread which refers derogatively to Dynix/ptx's "error event
subsystem".
Item 146 apparently involves Paul E. McKenney's paper
"Differential profiling" published and available for purchase here.
It would
be much appreciated if the Groklaw glitterati could pursue these leads. For
example, were these contributions ever actually merged into Linux?
The
status of all 294 allegations and what has so far been revealed about them is
tracked on this table of the 294
alleged violations.
-- Old Nob [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 06:26 PM EDT |
I'll apologize in advance in case anyone has already posted this observation, I
haven't had time to read all the posts.
I find it fascinating how in the begining of their claimS SCO stated how there
were hundreds of thousands of lines of UNIX code copied directly into Linux,
line for line, including the programmer comments. Now its now longer about
literal copying, it's about methods and concepts. Now SCO says you won't find
line for line copying. Personally I think this is a positive development.
Since SCO must become less specific in their claim instead of more specific,
three years since the start, I don't think it bodes well for them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 09:35 PM EDT |
I humbly submit the following into evidence.
File:
/pub/netware/README Created: 24-Jun-1998
Updated: 21-Aug-1998
This
directory on Caldera's FTP site contains the components of the Caldera(R)
NetWare(R) for Linux(R) software. To download the free three-user version, see
the appropriate "INSTALL" file for your Linux distribution. Each of the
"INSTALL" files contains a list of software to download and instructions for
installing NetWare for Linux.
Description of contents in this
directory:
INSTALL.general - General Linux installation instructions
INSTALL.openlinux - Installation instructions for Caldera OpenLinux users
INSTALL.redhat - Installation instructions for Red Hat Linux users
LICENSE - NetWare Server for Linux license agreement
README - This
file README.
pserver - Print Server setup instructions
CHANGES -
Description of recent NetWare for Linux updates RPMS/ - NetWare client/server,
updated utilities, and binaries
SRPMS/ - Updated utilities and sources
clients/ - NetWare clients for non-Linux systems
col/ - OpenLinux 1.2
install/update directory structure docs/ - NetWare guides in HTML format
index - More detailed list of files
patches/ - Kernel patches for IPX
and streams
rh51/ - Files used for Red Hat(R) Linux 5.1 installations
update.NWS4L - Automated update script for OpenLinux 1.2
system
netware-linux/patches/
linux-ipx-COL.patchlinux-ipx
-COL.patch 9.68 KB-Jul 18 1998 12:00:00
AM
linux-streams-COL.patchlinux-streams-COL.patch 21.36 KB-Jul 18 1998
12:00:00 AM
streams-1.30.98.tar.gzstreams-1.30.98.tar.gz 280.46 KB-Jul 18
1998 12:00:00 AM
streams.update.tgzstreams.update.tgz 80 KB-Jul 18 1998
12:00:00 AM
.............
$ tar zxvf
../streams-1.30.98.tar.gz
./
makefile
include/
include/sys/
include/sys/LiS/
include/sys/LiS/poll.h
include/sys/LiS/stats.h
incl
ude/sys/LiS/share.h
include/sys/LiS/linux-mdep.h
include/sys/LiS/loop.h<
br>
include/sys/poll.h
include/sys/strconfig.h
include/sys/strport.h
include/sys/stropts.h
head/
head/stats.c
dirs_made
LSM
scop
e
Makefile
LICENSE
LICENSE.README
README
README.PATCH
RE
ADME.TEST
README.DEBUG
README.INCL
README.DRVRS
VOLUNTEERS
N
OTES
patches.kernel.24-27
COPYING
patches.semaphores
patches.str
eams
install.sh
patches.kernel.28-33
..............
$cat README
Linux STREAMS Package
CONTENTS
This
package gives UNIX(TM) SVR4 compatible STREAMS capability to
the Linux system.
It consists of the following parts:
1) A patch for the kernel
(currently 2.0.24-33) that allows the STREAMS
executive to be compiled into the
kernel directly or as a module.
See README.PATCH.
$ head
README
Linux STREAMS Package
CONTENTS
This package gives
UNIX(TM) SVR4 compatible STREAMS capability to
the Linux system. It consists of
the following parts:
1) A patch for the kernel (currently 2.0.24-33)
that allows the STREAMS
executive to be compiled into the kernel directly or as
a module.
See README.PATCH.
daniel@omara:~/colstreams$ head
README.PATCH
Patching the Kernel
===================
The LiS
distribution contains patch files that are intended for use
with the
2.0.24-2.0.33 versions of the kernel. There are patch files
for the
2.0.24-2.0.27 kernels and the 2.0.28-2.0.33 kernels. You must
determine which
version of the kernel you are going to patch to continue
with this
installation.
You can install the STREAMS executive one of two
ways
...........
The "evidence", line
numbers, kernel versions, dates, times.
Of course, it's only LiS.
But SUSE's "implementation of STREAMS" is apparently just ss7, the decendant of
LiS.
Caldera had a long history of working to incorporate STREAMS into
Linux in it's desire to make Linux a branded UNIX.
Google Lasermoon
+linux-FT +Caldera, there's plenty of interest.
Newsgroups:
comp.os.linux.announce
Subject: Caldera Open Linux
Announcement
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
CALDERA OPEN
LINUX PRODUCT TO OBTAIN
POSIX AND FIPS CERTIFICATIONS, AND THE
X/OPEN BRAND
FOR UNIX 95 AND XPG4 BASE 95
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) and localization added
to Caldera's product line.
LINUX
KONGRESS, BERLIN, Germany May 23, 1996 Caldera, Inc. today
announced that it
has acquired additional key Linux technologies and
engineers, enabling the
company to achieve the X/Open brand for UNIX 95
and other certifications for its
next version of the Linux operating
system, Caldera Open Linux, upon which
Caldera will base its product
line beginning this Fall. Caldera believes the
X/Open brand and other
certifications are the next steps forward in providing
the corporate and
government markets with proven Linux technologies and
products, which
have gained substantial market share among the Internet and
development
communities during the past several years. Caldera also today
announced
plans to add LDAP technologies to Caldera's product line.
"By developing and publishing source code over the
Internet, Caldera and the
Linux community are changing the way that an
X/Open branded UNIX 95 operating
system is developed and distributed,"
said Bryan Sparks, President and CEO of
Caldera, Inc. "Linux technologies
developed by the Internet community have
secured market share and
application development that rivals the best of
established computer
industry vendors. Caldera development and infrastructure
efforts will
now take Linux technologies and products into companies,
governments and
other organizations that demand that software undergo rigid
standards
testing and certifications."
Caldera has acquired
additional Linux technologies from
Lasermoon of Wickham, England. Lasermoon
pioneered Linux's migration
towards X/Open standards and other certifications,
and held the necessary
test suites and membership in The Open Group, the leading
consortium
for the advancement of open systems. Ian Nandhra, one of
Lasermoon's
co-founders, is now Caldera's Director of Product
Certification.
Caldera has also retained the UNIX systems and
Linux expertise of
engineers from Linux Support Team (LST) of Erlangen, Germany,
who
will spend the next few months integrating technologies from
Lasermoon,
Caldera's existing operating system, additional Single UNIX
Specification
APIs and Internet technologies, and LST's Linux 2.2 operating
system
distribution, including the version 2.0 of the Linux kernel. The
resulting
combination of the Linux OS will be called Caldera Open Linux. It
will
be POSIX.1 (FIPS 151-2) certified, localized and fully compatible
with
Caldera's existing products.
Caldera Open Linux, scheduled
for release in Q3 1996,
will be published freely with full source code via the
Internet
to individuals and organizations seeking stable, UNIX
systems
solutions. Caldera plans to achieve: POSIX.1 (FIPS 151-2) in Q3
1996;
XPG4 Base 95 (POSIX.2, FIPS 186) by Q4 1996; and X/Open brand for UNIX
95
based on the Single UNIX Specification (formerly known as SPEC 1170)
during
1997.
"The Open Group is very pleased that Caldera has chosen
to
obtain the X/Open brand for UNIX 95 for its version of the Linux
operating
system," said Graham Bird, Director of Branding for the Open
Group. "Once
Caldera Open Linux achieves the X/Open brand, it will be
qualified to bid
business in the open systems market the value of which
exceeds $16 billion
in procurement of X/Open branded products alone."
Ransom Love,
Vice President of Marketing and Sales for
Caldera, added,"Our customers are
pleased with the capabilities of
Caldera's first product, the Caldera Network
Desktop, and are now asking
us to provide the X/Open brand, localization, and
additional technologies.
Caldera Open Linux will provide this additional
functionality and
certification capabilities that no existing Linux OS version
can provide."
Caldera made this announcement from Linux Kongress
in
Berlin, Germany, where the core of Linux developers and vendors
worldwide
meet each year to discuss accomplishments and future plans for
Linux
technologies. At Linux Kongress, Caldera planned to meet with key
Linux
developers and vendors to discuss how Caldera can best meet the needs
of
the Internet community, Linux developers and enthusiasts, and the
commercial
computer industry market all of which are seeking to lower
computing costs while
increasing the functionality and availability of
customizable software
systems.
Caldera will collaborate with developers in the
Internet
and Linux communities to develop and refine technologies that add
specific
functionality that Caldera's customers are requesting. In addition
to
publishing the source code for Caldera Open Linux, Caldera will provide
a
significant percentage of net revenues from the product back to the
Internet and
Linux communities through funding for future technology
development.
Caldera is also collaborating with mainstream industry
software vendors (ISVs)
who are porting their products to Caldera's
platform. Caldera and its partners
are delivering products that provide
Internet and UNIX systems capabilities at
commodity pricing.
LDAP
Caldera also today announced
plans to release Lightweight
Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) services and
incorporate LDAP into
Caldera's product line this Fall. LDAP creates a standard
way for Internet
clients, Web servers and applications to access directory
listings of
thousands of Internet users.
"Caldera supports LDAP as
a proposed open standard for
directory services on the Internet," said Sparks.
"LDAP will enable
Caldera's customers to access online directory services via
the TCP/IP
network protocol."
Caldera Europe
Currently,
Caldera's European business is handled by
LunetIX based in Berlin, Germany. This
Fall, Caldera will create Caldera
Europe, comprised of employees from both
LunetIX and LST. European
customers and resellers seeking additional information
about Caldera
should contact LunetIX in Berlin at telephone number
+49-30-623-5787 or
contact Caldera's Provo, Utah-based
headquarters.
The Caldera Linux Operating System
Caldera's mission includes creating the products, alliances,
VAR channel, ISV
channel, technical support programs and corporate
accountability necessary for
an emerging technology to obtain widespread
implementation in the business
environment. Using Linux technologies,
Caldera has a solid start. Mirai, a
Chicago-based consulting company,
polled Webmasters worldwide in 1995 and found
that nine percent of
World Wide Web servers were running on the Linux operating
system
(http://www.mirai.com/survey). This places Linux second only to
Sun
technologies as a UNIX systems Web server platform.
Caldera
has created a solid foundation on which third
party developers can successfully
design, develop, distribute or employ
services that meet the needs of the
expanding market with low product
costs for consumers.
Caldera,
Inc., a privately held company established in
1994, empowers the Internet
community, developers, OEMs, channel partners,
ISVs, industry partners,
consultants and end- users to collaborate,
innovate, build and deliver
meaningful computing alternatives based on
Linux to the business community.
Caldera is at http://www.caldera.com/
or (801) 229-1675. For orders and
information call (800) 850-7779 in
the United States or (801) 269-7012
Internationally.
###
Caldera is a
registered trademark; and Network Desktop, Caldera Solutions
CD, and Caldera
Open Linux are trademarks of Caldera, Inc. UNIX is a
registered trademark, in
the United States and other countries, licensed
exclusively through X/Open
Company Limited. X/Open is a registered
trademark of X/Open Company
Limited.
Caldera Press Contact:
Lyle Ball, Senior Manager,
Public Relations
lyle.ball@caldera.com, tel: (801) 229-1675
x305
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version:
2.6.2i
iQCVAwUBMbB3CoQRll5MupLRAQG7VAQAlCD/OEO+cwHxCLfvqRCDBJ7mL/SYRIrZ
XYoMu35BljH3wsuFWgBMerCbns04+6CuJqgwtuLIM3yCu6mKjEJUDuPgOSlc+I83
5fNQHldHs0Z37T
5tjbqI/DbKt+1T5pbwjhped8ZyjyJB5tfH6kRN5+jHKhfxnNSm
VOZRtRBtk9kG6
-----END PGP
SIGNATURE-----
--
This article has been digitally signed by the moderator,
using PGP.
Finger wirzeniu@kruuna.helsinki.fi for PGP key needed for validating
signature.
Send submissions for comp.os.linux.announce to:
linux-announce@news.ornl.gov
PLEASE remember a short description of the software
and the LOCATION.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 10:49 PM EDT |
A lot of people are interpreting SCO's laste minute switch to methods and
concepts, as some kind of preplanned action.
While we can't rule that out, another possibility is that they simply are saying
whatever is most expedient at the time.
Go back over the case....
In no particular order:
In 2003, when IBM asked for details of SCO's allegations, SCO first produced a
massive paper dump, then a massive electronic dump, and said "find it for
yourself".
In late 2003, when told they need to point out the trade secrets at issue by
Judge Wells, they didn't point out any. They even said there aren't any in
System V, and that was beyond dispute (Kevin McBride at December 2003 hearing).
They didn't produce any responses to trade secrets questions in the compelled
discovery, but instead dropped the trade secret claim in their case. One reason
they might have done that, is to be a trade secret, they need to say to whom the
secret has ever been disclosed, and AT&T couldn't do that even as far back
as the BSD case. The methods and Concepts they are talking about now - is
basically a return to their dropped claim, under a new name - and they will
have to show they kept and protected M+C secret (which AT&T couldn't show in
BSD, and which SCO themselves conceded there were none in System V), and the
same problems with M+C arise.
In the Summary Judgement motions, they began by claiming Gupta, etc. showed
copyright infringement. Then they conceded that it didn't, but simply showed
that there was stuff that might be worth investigating.
When they wanted massive discovery from IBM, they said said without it,
comparison of programs was impossible and would take 25,000 years. Now they say
comparison is easy, and IBM should do it for themselves - but don't explain,
why, if it's so easy, they didn't fill in the missing boxes for the 198 items.
When it suited them in the 2nd amended complaint, filed in February 2004, they
alleged both IBM's contributions to Linux, and IBM's continued distribution of
AIX after purported license termination, infringed SCO's copyrights. They also
made the same issue a centerpiece of their public allegations - including in a
conference call in 2003, which Mark Heise participated, in which very specific
numbers of supposedly infringing lines contributed by IBM, were named. But when
IBM brought added their 10th cause of action seeking to clear IBM's copying of
the whole of Linux (including IBM's contributions and others' contributions),
SCO suddenly claimed that their only copyright issue was about IBM's continued
distribution of AIX.
Or remember, when they were requesting massive discovery from IBM, they said how
only it would allow them to point out the lines of code at issue. In December
2005, in fact *AT THE SAME TIME* or *AFTER* the final disclosures were sent to
IBM, they were still arguing for more massive discovery from IBM, on the basis
it would allow them to point out the lines of code at issue. But, now, they are
arguing they don't need to find lines of code, never did, and so on... it's not
just the CMVC issue from a year ago - the question is why were they asking for
more of the same in December 2005, in order to find lines of code, at the same
time as producing disclosures which they NOW argue do not need to include lines
of code.
The same pattern continues in other cases.
They threatened Red Hat with a lawsuit. When Red Hat sued them first, they
fired a press release back the same day saying they would countersue for
copyright infringement and "conspiracy". Then they went to the
Delaware court, saying they never had any issue or controversy with Red Hat.
Or for example, in Novell. They ask Novell to transfer copyrights. Then they
suddenly discover, they didn't need to ask Novell, because according to SCO,
they had the copyrights all along. Then they say that, Novell has conceded that
SCO owns the copyrights (even while Novell was vigorously asserting the dispute
was still in progress in private correspondence). Later they argue that
Novell's assertion is wholly in private, is tantamount to acquiesence, but then
when Novell's position that the copyrights were not transfered is revealed in
public, they also argue, that it's tantamount to slander of title.
And I could go on and on and on.
For example, remember the BPF code. When initially revealed it was supposedly
evidence of "non literal copying". Then it was supposedly evidence of
their supposed ability to detect similar code (no matter that they never own
BERKLEY Packet Filter). A year later, as noted earlier, their supposedly
amazing code detection abilities disappeared, and the only code comparison
possible was manually comparing sheets of paper, to take 25,000 man years.
And I could still go on and on and on.
In short there's a real simple hypothesis that could explain SCO's behavior:
1. There is no master plan
2. They decided to be nuisance (by suing)
3, They just say whatever seems expedient at the time.
I don't know how one would go about proving or disproving this hypothesis - but
to me the hypothesis seems consistent with those facts that I'm aware oof.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The mistake I think many people are making in interpreting SCO - Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 12:11 AM EDT
- What a magnificent listing - Authored by: CraigV on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 12:15 AM EDT
- The mistake I think many people are making in interpreting SCO - Authored by: Khym Chanur on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 03:16 AM EDT
- SCO's Mickey Mouse games with Methods and Concepts - Authored by: sk43 on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 07:40 AM EDT
- Expediency - Authored by: tangomike on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 09:12 AM EDT
- The mistake I think many people are making in interpreting SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 09:28 AM EDT
- Running With Your Observations... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 10:47 AM EDT
- Mr Obvious - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 10:55 AM EDT
- The Mistake in... interpreting SCO - Authored by: webster on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 11:00 AM EDT
- The mistake I think many people are making in interpreting SCO - Authored by: PolR on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 11:10 AM EDT
- The thing to remember is..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 12:00 PM EDT
- Imaginary law - Authored by: Boundless on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 01:50 PM EDT
- The mistake I think many people are making in interpreting SCO - Authored by: Dave23 on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 10:15 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 12:07 AM EDT |
The Rochkind declaration seems to be a table, not unlike IBM's, but
that has different information on each of the things. It appears to specify what
SCO *did* include for each allegation and whether it meets the requirements for
a Methods and Concepts allegation (with, of course, lots of filled in check
boxes).
The table, on a couple of plain sheets of paper, was held up for
reference by both Stuart Singer and David Mariott. The table's columns were
explained. It looks so similar in physical appearance that David Marriott at one
point mistakenly held it up as if it was his own table, then corrected himself
saying "refer to *our* table that looks *just like* their
table."
Hmm... Maybe IBM should claim that they developed the
"Methods and Concepts" that were used to design their table. And that SCO has
now violated their copywrite in designing their "Rochkind declaration" table to
look similar. After all people wanting to use the IBM table could become
confused and end up using the SCO table instead.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 12:18 AM EDT |
David Marriott pointed out that SCO's allegations lack a "real"
allegation. Alleging that IBM put *their own* code, methods & concepts,
whatever, into Linux doesn't bother them in the least. What SCO was missing was
how this relates to anything SCO owns. SCO didn't say "This method and concept
comes from Unix Sys V, R4, file xyz, lines 67-278 and can be shown to be
implemented in Linux version 2.4.16, file xyz_1.c, lines 120-400 and this
admission/submission/email/whatever shows IBM caused it to be put there." That's
what's missing from SCO's final disclosure.
I believe that the
above quote is why they don't feel that this new expert hurts them at all. They
get to make the above point again, more clearly, succinctly, and using an
expert.
Let's face it, this one IS the point that they are making in
this motion. It's the heart of it. It's what I hope the judges realize if they
have any temptation to deny it. Or, if it's improper to deny this motion because
of the difficulties with proving wilfulness, then at least let the point be made
clearly, and let it be removed in the PSJ for similar reasons.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NemesisNL on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 05:52 AM EDT |
wouldn't a lot of these methods and concepts originate in the unix
standards.....meaning everybody knows them already and there was nothing to
secretly contribute?
Standards govern almost any OS because without them you would never be able to
write software that runs on it. Wouldn't a lot of people be exposed to these
methods and concept through their study... If so ..and sco wins...wouldn't that
mean that everyone that ever took a course in unix would be "unclean"
and never be able to do programming ever again without paying someone? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: q.kontinuum on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 06:36 AM EDT |
... why does IBM not fight stronger to avoid unneccesary delay? Let's face it:
IBM is not a person, but a company. Their intent is not to fight a holy war for
open source or particularly Linux, but to increase shareholder value. So, whats
in this case for them? The assets of SCO are probably used up when this case
closes, so no noteworthy positive cash flow to be expected for them. What realy
counts migh be the marketing effect. Everyone in the OSS community watches them
as the good (TM) company. This is worth more than any mony from SCO.
What else could be reported about IBM? AFAIK they support the pro-sw-patent
lobby in EU. They have more patents than most other High Tech companies. Their
investments to the Open Source community shouldn't be undervalued, but these
contributions don't lead to half as much positive publicity as this case does.
I think, it is in IBMs interest to drag on this case while looking as hard
fighting as possible.
PS: I'm not against IBM. They saw the opertunity provided by open source and
open source currently profits from IBM. But we should never forget that IBMs
interest is to increase shareholder value, not to fight a holy war for open
source.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Harry Nicholls on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 08:59 AM EDT |
If it is SCO's position that actual code expressing the methods and concepts is
not necessary to be shown in SYSV, then how can they enforce the original
AT&T contract with IBM? Didn't the letter agreement of Feb 1st 1985, clarify
the meaning of clause 7.06a in that IBM was only bound to not disclose the
methods and concepts contained in "SOFTWARE PRODUCTS"? The letter
agreement specifically gave IBM the right to develop its own code/products using
those methods and concepts, providing that they did not copy any code from
SOFTWARE PRODUCTS.
Seems to me, that SCO would be required to at least show where (by version, file
and lines) the methods and concepts are in SOFTWARE PRODUCTS. The methods and/or
concepts have to be somewhere in SOFTWARE PRODUCTS, for IBM to have violated the
contractual agreement not to disclose them.
Harry Nicholls [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 10:25 AM EDT |
SCO can delay the suit by appealing a loss; IBM must appeal a loss since it
really can't defend itself against amorphous accusations. IANAL, so I don't
know whether court rules could cut the appeal short.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 11:22 AM EDT |
Your honor, don't tell *us* what we need to provide to IBM. We will decide what
IBM does, or does not need.
In this case, we have decided (several months after the court's order, and at
the last minute). That IBM does not need specific files and lines, nor does IBM
need to know our specific allegations. We know that's what was ordered. But,
once again, we have decided that order that order was stupid. So, as usual, we
will ignore that particular order.
We realize, that technically we are not entitled to bring in expert testomony at
this point. But, we are doing it anyway.
As usual, we are demanding more delay. Now snap to it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Scox to Judge: - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 02:58 PM EDT
|
Authored by: msfisher on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
I've only done a small amount of progamming, and that in (please forgive me)
Excel VBA. However, one thing seems obvious to me. A method or concept is
something that exists in someone's mind. Until someone can read a programmmer's
mind, the only way to determine if a method or concept was understood and/or
implemented is in the code. No source code, no way to know. So, Chris's
observation that
"What SCO was missing was how this relates to anything SCO owns. SCO didn't
say "This method and concept comes from Unix Sys V, R4, file xyz, lines
67-278 and can be shown to be implemented in Linux version 2.4.16, file xyz_1.c,
lines 120-400 and this admission/submission/email/whatever shows IBM caused it
to be put there." That's what's missing from SCO's final disclosure."
is the single most important point made about SCOG's "discovery" thus
far. Frankly, when the judges realize this I think (and I am most definitely
NOT a lawyer) that the lack of a demonstrated connection between code and
concept may sink SCOG's case. It seems to have the potential to do so, at
least.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: polymath on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
Do "methods and concepts" claims hold any water? Are software
"methods and concepts" protectable under trade secret, patent or trade
mark law? Does SCO in fact "own" the claimed "methods and
concepts"? (IMHO no, no and no but IANAL.) Do the POSIX standards and
UNIX United (both created with the participation of SCO's predecessors in
interest) vacate SCO's claim to ownership/control? How can SCO claim protection
for "methods and concepts" when its Linux compatibility layer uses
Linux "methods and concepts" and when SCO distributed Linux itself?
If "methods and concepts" are protected is all FLOSS that implements
or interfaces with proprietary closed source software APIs in jeopardy? (I
think that there is at least one large software vendor that would be delighted
to see such a theory upheld.) For comparison: Is a semiconductor maker
prohibited from making functionally equivalent circuits if trademarks, patents
and trade secrets are respected? Even though the specifications were released
to help customers not competitors?
[BTW Many of these comments seem little more than rants that add nothing to our
understanding. Each one presents that portion of the public record that
supports its position but none takes into account all the relevent information,
much of which is sealed from public view. We are stuck waiting for the court's
(courts') decision(s) and our speculations and prognostications are moot.][ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ian.waring on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 03:22 PM EDT |
... the concept of "contempt of court"?
If a judge in the UK instructed you to provide - specifically - code down to
line number detail to back your claims, and you went on to not provide this on
one occasion, let alone 4-5 - you'd have the book thrown at you. The whole SCO
legal team would be in prison by this stage.
I pray that the judge starts to behave in a way that would earn their seat of
office - and the US legal system - some international respect. It's nowhere
close yet, and heading fast in exactly the opposite direction.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 09:13 PM EDT |
" But the columns are not Unix, AIX, Dynix, Linux etc. The columns are, I
believe, things like "Admission", "Disclosure Included",
"Meets Req'mts for Methods & Concepts", & etc"
Next reply from IBM expert should include columns like :
Exclusively owned by SCO, Ownership is questionable, home ground code / concept,
etc.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sk43 on Sunday, April 16 2006 @ 10:12 PM EDT |
Kevin, could you please go beat Stuart Singer over the head and knock some sense
into him? In case you want to know what I am referring to, here is your opening
statement to Judge Wells in the Dec 5, 2003 hearing:
The --
what we need to get our arms around collectively, on our side and on IBM's side,
is a clear definition of what source code is at issue, what source code is
potentially an infringement.
Thank you, Kevin.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 17 2006 @ 03:01 AM EDT |
"Stuart rebuts. He said that IBM uses an assumption that for every method
and concept, there's source code. He claims that not supported in case
law."
It may not be supported in case law, but it certainly is in the mind of any
rational software engineer. You can write concepts and methods all day. Until
you actually code it up, THEY DON'T EXIST IN THE PRODUCT.
How does this Stuart expect a concept or method gets into a program without
being expressed in the source code? Gremlins?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 17 2006 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
The only thing which comes to mind for not specifying lines of infringing code,
is that the methods and concepts SCOX are referring to are the names of things.
For example, a list of possible error numbers gets placed in a header file
called errno.h. Which on the ridiculous side of things, means that they might
be suggesting that nobody can use a variable called 'i' as an integer counter.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 17 2006 @ 05:03 PM EDT |
Well Judge? That has been what we have been asking for years now. "Is that
all you got?"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: iabervon on Monday, April 17 2006 @ 09:41 PM EDT |
The email he referred to is presumably this
one. The interesting thing is that it is in response to Daniel Phillips
posting a patch proposing that scheme, presumably with no knowledge that Dynix
had done it (he cites an "Arjan Vos", actually "Arjan van de Ven", who has no
association with IBM or any other SCO-licensed UNIX vendor so far as I can
tell). Tim Wright is responding in support of the patch, based on having
experience with this method. A Nigel Gamble also mentions that a lot of
operating systems use this technique. Tim Wright goes on to say that the
proposed change isn't actually all that similar, and cites Dijkstra. And then
the patch seems not to have been applied.
So this turns out to be a case
where somebody outside of IBM comes up with a common technique that Dynix
happens to use, proposes it, somebody from IBM says that Dynix (among others)
does things that way, but not really, and it's not original to them, either,
and, in any case, the code doesn't end up in Linux.
I don't think SCO could
come up with a worse example for them. Code they don't own is similar in spirit
but not design details to code which IBM didn't submit to Linux and which Linux
doesn't include and never did. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 12:53 PM EDT |
McKenney's "Differential Profiling" paper available
here
or
indirectly here
omz [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|