decoration decoration
Stories

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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO Files its Experts Reports Too
Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 06:27 PM EDT

SCO has now served and filed its experts reports and here's the Certificate of Service [PDF]. IBM filed its experts reports already. SCO's filing tells us that they have the several experts on their side, with an emphasis on how much money they'd like to get, including Christine A. Botosan, who has prepared two reports, one on "IBM's AIX Related Revenue" and one on "IBM's Accounting for Linus." I'd say that is a bad sign. I believe they mean IBM's Accounting for Linux. Last I heard, IBM doesn't have to account for Linus.

And they have a report of Dr. Thomas A. Cargill, "on the Infringement of the Unix System V Release 4 Operating System by the Linux Operating System," which also doesn't bode well, since Linux is a kernel.

There is also a report of Dr. Evan Ivie, a "Valuation of Lost Asset" by Avner Kalay, an "Expert Report of Dr. Jeffrey Leitzinger," another by Gary Pisano, and "An Analysis of Certain Technological Issues," by Marc J. Rochkind again. His is the only name I recognize. I'll research the rest and share with you what I find. I think this is probably Dr. Cargill's page. If so, he's an "independent software consultant, specializing in Java and object-oriented programming" and the author of "C++ Programming Style", published by Addison-Wesley, 1992. Here's a page of his old bookmarks, which shows his interests, at least at the time, in 2000.

All of these reports were served on IBM on the 19th of May and filed with the court on the 24th. The Certificate of Service is signed by Ted Normand, so he's still on the case. I was afraid he was so humiliated by the Intel business, he had gone walkabout or signed up for time travel back to the court of Marie Antoinette to forget it all or been told to devote more time to his family or something.

Also the Order [PDF] giving IBM until May 30 to respond to SCO's Motion for in camera review of allegedly privileged documents has been signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells.

Update: Here's what I find on Evan Ivie. He taught computer science at BYU. I gather he is now retired, and he's a consultant. He was a Bell Labs researcher who was one of the creators of the PWB.

He was an expert for Caldera, along with J.R.Kearl, by the way, in the Caldera v. Microsoft litigation (2:96-cv-00645-DB). Here's the docket, thanks to Frank Sorenson. And he was an expert for Novell in the Novell v. Timpanogas Research Group case. Here's something he wrote, " "The Programmer's Workbench—a Machine for Software Development," in 1977, which references a paper of Marc Rothkind's. It seems it's a small world.

And for what it's worth, here's some feedback from a couple of his students and some details from an article in Wired in 1999 on geneology, a subject Ivie is interested in. And here's an interesting email from Tim Bird, of Caldera, in 1997, which indicates Ivie is familiar with Linux.

You'll find Dr. Jeffrey Leitzinger [PDF] on that docket too. Microsoft filed a motion to exclude him as a nonexpert, but the case settled. He is an economist who does seem to know quite a lot about natural gas [PDF], in addition to evaluating damages in intellectual property cases, which is more to the point here.

Here, thanks to mwexler, is the text of the Certificate of Service.


**********************************

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH


THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of each of the following: (1) Expert Witness Report of Christine A. Botosan, CA, Ph.D. (two reports IBM's AIX Related Revenue and IBM's Accounting for Linus); (2) Report of Dr. Thomas A. Cargill on the Infringement of the Unix System V Release 4 Operating System by

the Linux Operating System; (3) Expert Report of Dr. Evan Ivie; (4) Valuation of Lost Asset by Avner Kalay, PhD; (5) Expert Report of Dr. Jeffrey Leitzinger; (6) Expert Report of Gary Pisano, Ph.D; and (7) An Analysis of Certain Technological Issues by Marc J. Rochkind, was served on Defendant, IBM on the 19th day of May, 2006, by U.S. mail to:
David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]

And

Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]

DATED this 24th day of May, 2006.

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC

By: /s/ Edward Normand

Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.

2


  


SCO Files its Experts Reports Too | 277 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread
Authored by: kjb on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 06:34 PM EDT
So PJ can find them . . .

---
keith.burt at gmail dot com
Copyright info in bio

"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
- Yoda

[ Reply to This | # ]

Linux is a kernel.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 06:35 PM EDT
That was quite unfortunate to say immediately after giving Richard Stallman a
forum for his ideas.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: kjb on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 06:39 PM EDT
n/t

---
keith.burt at gmail dot com
Copyright info in bio

"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
- Yoda

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dr Evan Ivie
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 06:43 PM EDT
Most of his research seems to date back to the 1970s. One of his publications (the most famous I think) is here.

An interesting coincidence is that one of his references in the paper is authored by Marc Rochkind.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Dr Evan Ivie - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 30 2006 @ 05:43 PM EDT
Evan Ivie
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 06:46 PM EDT
Sorry, messed up the link ...

Most of his research seems to date back to the 1970s. One of his publications (the most famous I think) is h ere. An interesting coincidence is that one of his references in the paper is authored by Marc Rochkind.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could Aver Kalay be Avner Kalay?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 06:49 PM EDT
There is a an Avner Kalay at Utah Business School. Web reference:
http://www.business.utah.edu/faculty/kalay.htm

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files its Experts Reports Too
Authored by: walberg on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 06:53 PM EDT
Quick google hits - not 100% sure they're the right folks, but they seem likely:
Christine Botosan
Evan Ivie
Avner Kalay
Gary Pisano
Plenty of matches on Jeffrey Leitzinger, but nothing that looks like a current home page. Looks like he's familiar with the expert witness role, though...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files its Experts Reports Too
Authored by: stats_for_all on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 06:54 PM EDT
C. Botosan is U of U business faculty, sites may be slashdotted
Faculty Homepage
Faculty Bio

Kalay is also U of U econ, "valuation of lost assets'
Utah Faculty Bio Kalay has a European and Israeli bio on the web as well

Jeffrey Leitzinger
ECon One Research
Los Angeles
largely Gas Pipeline anti-trust and deregulation
also Salmon price fixing in Bristol Bay
Opposition to the Leitzinger analysis from this outfit
Analysis Group

Evan Ivie, computer professor, BYU (retired)
BYU faculty page
Publication: Evan L. Ivie: The Programmer's Workbench - A Machine for Software Development. Commun. ACM 20(10): 746-753 (1977)

Gary Pisano is Harvard Business School, and works mainly in Drug industry economics of innovation.
Faculty home page

The astute Nob points out on Y!SCOX that Cargill has his broken Bookmarks link preserved in the wayback archive. This particularizes some of his interests and associations.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dr. Botosan's C.V.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 06:56 PM EDT
Googling for "Christine A. Botosan" finds her home page at (gasp!)
business.utah.edu. Nothing like finding a local expert.

Her C.V., from internal evidence, appears to have last been updated in May
2005 (a year ago!). She identifies her interests as financial reporting and
financial statements analysis. Could it be that SCO hired her to protect their
(occasionally imaginative) financial reporting from her analysis?

[ Reply to This | # ]

mygoogle results, (your results may vary)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 07:11 PM EDT
Jeffrey Leitzinger, Ph.D.
Here's the results I'm getting. Name's him as President of EconOne Research Inc.
And the google result to that search has this as the company's tag line

"Litigation and general business consulting with a focus on
economics"

And from the tuxrocks hit:
Seems he also did some consulting for Caldera in the past against a major
software company.
(it appears Microsoft© didn't think very highly of him)
"Motion by Microsoft in limine to exclude non-expert
testimony of Dr. Jeffrey J. Leitzinger (hom)
[Entry date 12/08/99]"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let Them Eat Windows!-Marie Antoinette
Authored by: lsmft on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 07:30 PM EDT
Formerly Queen of France, currently employed as a consultant in the Redmond,
Washington area.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tom cargill
Authored by: iksrazal on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 07:50 PM EDT
Probably the same professor I had at CU Boulder back around '93 in a course for
C++ , back when the language was en vogue. There's no C++ in the linux kernel.
I seem to remember he was involved somewhat in the ansi C++ standard, which was
very late in comming. IMHO an above average teacher, but he was pretty wrapped
up at least at the time in a technology that has nothing to do with Linux. For
any leading expert (I'll go that far) in C++ in the 90's, I have a hard time
imagining they spent much time in *nix because it never really took off there
(beside a bit later with KDE) . I base that on subscribing to the C++ journal
and all the letters to the editor I wrote about no articles on *nix.

Pretty subjective, but thought I'd share it.

iksrazal

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files its Experts Reports Too
Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 08:01 PM EDT
>And they have a report of Dr. Thomas A. Cargill, "on the
>Infringement of the Unix System V Release 4 Operating
>System by the Linux Operating System,"

I am interested in what's written in the reports.
Credentials are nice, but hard data is even nicer.

So, is there any legal way to find out what the resports
actually say? If they are filed under seal, can a third
party with a strong interest (e.g. Linus) ask the court
to remove the seal?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files its Experts Reports Too
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 08:27 PM EDT
So basically, SCOG has not stated either its charges or its evidence with any
specificity. And now, it hands in expert reports on the damages it would like to
get?

At the minimum, SCOG has got its sequence of steps wrong, counting the chickens
before they hatch, as usual. In the worst case, SCOG will have to beat off IBM's
Lantham Act violation charges and IBM's patent violation allegations.

Frankly, I don't think that the declarations of any of SCOG's experts-for-hire
are going to survive a thorough cross-examination by IBM. SCOG is going to have
to specify its charges and its evidence with specificity sooner rather than
later, so as to get its experts-for-hire to march in step in the same direction
- But for SCOG, any direction leads to confrontation and death.


---
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 | # ]

The effect on a Jury
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 08:43 PM EDT
Assume for a minute that this goes to trial. SCO only needs a tiny part of its
case to survive PSJ for this to happen. I wonder if the strategy for SCO is then
to spend as much time as possible in the trial talking about damages and as
little as possible talking about the case.

An expert addressing the question of valuation of damages will inevitably start
by assuming SCOs case to be proved. It isn't such an experts job to assess the
details of contracts and copyright. I try to imagine the effect on the jury of a
whole parade of people passing in front of them, who all start their testimony
with this assumption and then talk endlessly and in minute detail about billion
dollar plus damage estimates.

Are they perhaps hoping to beat the jury into submission with a parade of people
each assuming that SCO has a real case. Perhaps they hope the Jury will be so
mesmerised by the huge dollar values being tossed around that they'll forget to
notice that SCO actually has no case at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files its Experts Reports Too
Authored by: nattt on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 08:49 PM EDT
Unless "on the Infringement of the Unix System V Release 4 Operating System
by
the Linux Operating System," points to line numbers, files and versions,
what
use is an "expert" report?

This case isn't about expert opinion (well maybe it is, as SCO doesn't have any

facts to support them), it's about facts. I want facts. I demand facts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files its Experts Reports Too
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 09:04 PM EDT
"I'd say that is a bad sign" ? for who ? & doesn't bode well ? for
who ?

I've seen the claim for damages (cart) put before the proof(donkey) all the time
and it is astonishing that this is our system of "justice"

It seems like more of a poker game with high stakes, who is gonna pay IBM for
their legal costs?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Current theory
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 09:06 PM EDT
Could the theory of the day be to prove SCO is losing to Linux so it must be
IBM's fault??

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files its Experts Reports before an evening ride on the Eastern slope
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 11:09 PM EDT
.
1. Experts are fun [except maybe Davis]. You are allowed to ask them
hypothetical questions. Such questions should lead to your own theory of the
case. You can assume they based their assumptions on SCO claims. So you
hypothesize SCO's diminishing claims and have them opining for you. (Did you
base your conclusion on specified code or vague concepts and methods?) (Would
your bottom line conclusion be affected by a claim involving 300 lines as
opposed to millions of lines?)

2. If you learn a little about their field, you can use them to corroborate
your contentions. I know this from bitter experience. I had to use the
opposition expert because in my ignorant youth I went into trial without one.
Unwittingly the opposing expert, a doctor, illustrated my point. It saved my
assets.

3. What are these poor guys going to do without specificity? "On what
code, i. e. version, file, line, did you base that conclusion? uh....? Motion
to strike, your honor! Without SCO specifiying their claim, these guys aren't
going to be able to substantiante anything.

4. We've gone beyond specific code, beyond methods and concepts. Clearly they
are going to say IBM stole the philosophy Unix and put it in Linux. This shall
be the seminal case on Philosophical Rights. We need to establish the USPTO,
the US Philosophy and Thesis Office.

5. I'm getting punchy. It is late. Tonight I was mounting a constitutional
attack on our local "Deceptive Labeling" criminal statute. This
allows the RIAA to roam the street with local cops and arrest and confiscate the
wares of local vendors selling knock-offs or bootleg gear. It is amazing to
what lengths a cartel will go to maintain its high prices. These vendors are
making sales that wouldn't be made otherwise. Plus the merchandise can be poor.
Vendors and sellers aren't deceiving anyone. I welcome any briefs or
suggestions, fn.ln aatt gmail. Surprisingly little on it.



---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files its Experts Reports Too
Authored by: kurtwall on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 11:18 PM EDT
What amuses me most is how provincial SCOG has proven to be — notice how
many have strong Utah connections. Or perhaps they are not being provincial but
practical — their pockets are growing shallow, so they rely heavily on
local "experts" because they can no longer afford to spend serious money on
heavy-hitter experts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tom Cargill
Authored by: gvc on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 11:18 PM EDT
Cargill is also an (ex?) AT&T employee. His PhD, from the University of
Waterloo circa 1980, was "A view of source text for diversely configurable
software." He got in on the ground floor of C++ with Stroustrup and I'm
not familiar with his recent research activities.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So how does Cargill's testimony work?
Authored by: Jaywalk on Wednesday, May 24 2006 @ 11:19 PM EDT
Let's see, we've got three economists and a business geek to argue how much IBM should pay if SCO can prove they did anything wrong. Irrelevant unless SCO can dig up some evidence. Then we've got another lightweight (Ivie) to add to the first lightweight (Rochkind). That leaves only one techie to allege wrongdoing "on the Infringement of the Unix System V Release 4 Operating System by the Linux Operating System."

But SCO was supposed to have provided all their examples of "allegedly infringing materials" back in December. Doesn't that mean that whatever Cargill's testifying about has to be based on what SCO's already presented? Otherwise, what was the point of the December deadline?

---
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====

[ Reply to This | # ]

Excellent - the closest of the closed out of the closet
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 25 2006 @ 03:44 AM EDT
"Professor Evan Ivie at Brigham Young University teaches an operating
system class there, and personally told me that his class uses both NT (with
source code) and Linux for the research projects in the class. He lets the
students decide which OS they will use."

_uses NT (with source code)_
_uses NT (with source code)_
_uses NT (with source code)_

in the classroom!

So much for closed, proprietary code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files its Experts Reports Too
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 25 2006 @ 10:57 AM EDT
In a way I'm kinda glad scox filed this suit for the sole reason is it shows the
entire world why there are so many lawyer jokes, why our system here is serving
a purpose other than it's intention, IMHO it is only serving a few businesses
interests and hindering natural selection.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files its Experts Reports Too
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 25 2006 @ 05:55 PM EDT
Really. There are 2 ways to get a picture of the Eiffel Tower. Either go into a bookshop and buy a book with an 'all-rights-reserved' commercial picture of the Eiffel Tower in; or go to Paris with a camera, and take yourself a 'free' one.

The one does not exclude the other; I've got both kinds of picture in my home. I buy cameras, I buy develop-and-print services, I buy Eurostar tickets to Paris, and I buy travel books too.

It's the same with commercial software and free software.

Now, SCO seem to think that someone has taken the photo out of their book from the bookshop and photocopied it. But the evidence does not stand up to examination. And they aren't the publisher of the book anyway.

[ Reply to This | # ]

i want to read them !
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 12:46 PM EDT
apologize for my ignorance in this topic, i have a question:

will we have the opportunity to read this SCO and IBM filed reports or they are
or will be sealed?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files its Experts Reports Too
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 05:14 PM EDT
Maybe you should check the status of the UofU CS
department. It is one of the better in the world.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

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