Authored by: pfusco on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 05:59 PM EDT

clikkity clack please



---

only the soul matters in the end [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:00 PM EDT

Wells has seriously redeemed all her previous slack. She covers every little

detail in this one. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: pfusco on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:01 PM EDT

Hukkd on fonicx werkd fer me



---

only the soul matters in the end [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:07 PM EDT

Specifically for pfusco, who doubted advance notice. Happy now? Although, come to think of it, it applies rather well to the rest of us in our more cynical statements about the Court. I vote we all apologize for any unkind thoughts that may have troubled Her Honor's dreams. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:07 PM EDT

This is a devastating order. SCO has "willfully" failed to comply

She lambastes them for beating on the "good faith"

She uses their own interrogatories against them

She hammers their "newly renewed all new motion to recompel" behavior. It also fairly screams out, "don't bother appealing this, you'll lose." ---

I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United States of America.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:08 PM EDT

I'm just reading the order now. The language seems

decidedly "non-judgelike" to me. I'm wondering if this

may be a red herring.



(Specifically thinking of the "If however, the level of

specificity did not require specific source code then IBM

has fired a wayward shot off the starboard bow in its

attempt to sink SCO s ship." from page 22.)

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: entre on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:08 PM EDT

Life is Finally Good, Nothing else here... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:09 PM EDT

As the target of the "get some sleep" jibe, I say this. Go ahead and

sleep regularly anyways. We can wait, especially when its worth it like this!



---

I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United

States of America.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Sleep - Authored by: mwexler on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 09:31 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:15 PM EDT

"Given the amount of code that SCO has received in discovery the court

finds it inexcusable that SCO is in essence still not placing all the details on

the table."



The judge has made it clear that she understands the case, and is sick and tired

of SCO's games-playing. The dismisal on the grounds of vagueness also has clear

ramifications for the so-called expert reports, and the folks at BSF should be

plenty nervous about the next ruling. Bliss :)



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:16 PM EDT

The judge in this document outlines the "story to date", and seen in this form you can track how she came up with the decision. I quite like this bit at the start of Section I: SCO's Public Statements. As repeatedly noted by IBM, concurrent with SCO's court filed allegations has been SCO's siren song sounding the strength of its case to the public. Look at the definition of Siren Song. And this was written by the judge. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Alan(UK) on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:17 PM EDT

Now I know it is true I can go to bed (11:17pm here). [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:21 PM EDT

We already knew Judges Wells and Kimball were on to SCO and upset about it. My

concern was whether Magistrate Judge Wells would be able to find legal

justification for the huge step of ditching the only SCO claims with a decent

chance of surviving summary judgment motions. Well, we have the answer: a

resounding "YES!" In fact, the claims left are some of the easiest to

refute, for instance, the negative know-how items. [ Reply to This | # ]



negative know-how - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:32 PM EDT tenuous - Authored by: WhiteFang on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 09:16 PM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:32 PM EDT

Authored by: Jaywalk on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:22 PM EDT

Here are my favorite bits from the ruling. Doesn't look like she's pulling any punches on this one: ... the court finds that SCO has failed in the part to meet the level of specificity required by this court's orders and the order entered by Judge Kimball. It is also apparent that SCO in some instances failed to meet the level of specificity it required of IBM. Further, this failure was willful under case law and prejudicial to IBM. And she goes on at some length about what she means by "willful" too. Apparently she's a bit miffed that -- with every scrap of AIX, Dynix, Linux and SCO UNIX available to them -- SCO couldn't do a better job of identifying code. So I guess IBM coughing up a fully configure MVCS machine was worth it. Nor did it help that SCO was simultaneously demanding source code themselves. After reviewing the record, the court has not found any evidence that SCO abandoned the level of specificity it required from IBM in its first set of interrogatories, to wit, "identification of the specific lines and portions of code" . . .> If IBM could come up with all that code, why couldn't SCO? And it looks like the repeated re-renewed reiterations of the motions to compel bit them too: Given SCO's track record in this case, the court is certain that if IBM had simply provided line information without version and file information for "methods," SCO would have filed motions to compel complaining about IBM's lack of specificity. She goes on like that for a long time and -- somewhere around page thirty -- reaches the conclusion that SCO really did need to provide source code. Based on the forgoing, the court finds that methods and concepts can be identified in source code and that under the court's orders SCO was required to provide the source code behind them. Remember when Wells got peeved with SCO for expanding her orders by claiming they weren't clear, but not asking for clarification? Looks like they did it again. IBM warned SCO that if the final submissions were of the same level of specificity court intervention would be sought. Tellingly, SCO did not seek court guidance as to the required level of specificity after IBM disagreed with SCO's interpretation of the court's orders. But my all time favorite is this one. It's the kind of stuff I expect to see in Groklaw or the other discussion forums, but it's way cool to hear a judge say it. The court finds SCO's arguments unpersuasive. SCO's arguments are akin to SCO telling IBM sorry we are not going to tell you what you did wrong because you already know. ... Given the amount of code that SCO has received in discovery, the court finds it inexcusable that SCO is in essence still not placing all the details on the table. Ceritainly if an individual was stopped and accused of shoplifting after walking out of Neiman Marcus they would expect to be eventually told what they allegedly stole. That's my list. Feel free to make your own; there's a lot of fun reading in this one. The bit that survived included three bits where SCO theorized "negative know how" (i.e., they learned from UNIX not to do it this way). The judge called the theory "quite a tenuous position" but, since it explained them not having source code, she left those bits in. She also left in some parts which really aren't about copying code. They go to the theory that somebody who worked on AIX is contractually forbidden from contributing to Linux. But that's it. The bulk of what IBM wanted out is gone. It's been a good day. ---

===== Murphy's Law is recursive. ===== [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ChasF on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:23 PM EDT

"IBM seeks to limit items numbers 3-112, 143-149, 165-182, 186-193, 232-271, 279-293." Here are the ones left: 23

43

90

94

186

187

188

189

190

191

192 [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Kaemaril on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:31 PM EDT

What exactly constitutes 'negative know how'? It sounds like 'They must have done it via method X because they knew method Y, which is in Unix, doesn't work very well. Gasp! They've infringed on our method by ... not using our method!' [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:35 PM EDT

Because it invariably seems to go up on bad news. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Rudisaurus on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:37 PM EDT

There is no evidence before the court to indicate that SCO lacked the ability to comply with the courts orders. In fact, given SCOs own public statements outlined in part supra, it would appear that SCO had more than enough evidence to comply with the courts orders.

Boom! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: KBellve on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:43 PM EDT





What a nice read. It is clear she spent time on this and she knew all the

details. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:46 PM EDT

Oh, wow... after reading this, words simply fail me. Oh, waitaminnit... here's one: *** SMACK!! *** ---

"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:46 PM EDT

Would anyone with formal legal training like to outline exactly what these two

terms imply. I had the feeling that the distinction was crucial in allowing

Magistrate Judge Wells to substantially grant IBM's motion. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:50 PM EDT

Many people have complained about the amount of rope that TSCOG has been given.

The court has hitched it to the rail. Now for reeling it in.



IANAL so I don't get much pleasure out of reading legal documents but I have

very much enjoyed this one. What comes next is going to get even more

interesting. So far the court has given an appearance of patient listening. Here

we see that still waters run deep and someone has done a lot of reading.







---

There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!

Now I want its hide. [ Reply to This | # ]



Rope - Authored by: JThelen on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 04:00 AM EDT

- Authored by: JThelen on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 04:00 AM EDT Rope - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 07:29 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:52 PM EDT

Typo: page 8: "SCO's trademark claims" - I think that it's pretty

apparent, Wells meant "SCO's trade secret claims"



Killer underlining: Page 11: "After reviewing the progress of the case upto

that point, the court lifted the discovery stay in the light of "SCO's good

faith efforts to comply with the discovery order"". --- "upto

that point" being underlined, to emphasize the finding of "SCO's good

faith efforts" doesn't necessarily apply to SCO's subsequent actions,

despite SCO's protestations to the contrary.



Quatermass

IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:56 PM EDT

Authored by: Arnold.the.Frog on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:56 PM EDT

177 items down at a stroke! This is indeed very good. After tSCOg complained that Randall Davis wandered off into opining about "wilfulness", Wells sticks a pointed boot in by echoing precisely what Randall Davis quoted on the subject. She also produces her own octavo version of Kimball's Lament, that tSCOg had so amazingly failed to back up its large claims, not only claims against IBM but claims to have evidence, with actual production. Davis claimed that NONE of the items on tSCOg's list actually complied with the orders for specificity. The decision to move against only 188 of them at this point was an interesting judgment call. By the look of things, IBM and its legal team made very judicious decisions on what to move to strike in the motion. Only getting 11 items out of 188 denied is extremely good going, particularly when the relief being asked was (as Wells says) so hard on tSCOg. We'll have to see whether IBM is equally successful in moving for PSJs. A different judge, and different rules. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 06:57 PM EDT

2/3 of SCO's case has gone up in smoke. Can't wait for summary judgements. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Latesigner on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:00 PM EDT

I gloat.

Every weasel word, every slippery trick, every delaying obfuscation now comes

back and bites them.

Wells really did give them enough rope to hang themselves.



---

The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: pauljhamm on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:00 PM EDT

Now we can all understand why the court has been so accommodating to SCO. The

more rope that you reel out the easier it is to hang them from their own petard.

Delicious!



Have a great one



Just another PJ [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:01 PM EDT

There's been a lot of criticism of Wells for not slapping SCO down sooner.



But what's generally been ignored is that she's limited (in a practical sense)

to ruling on motions raised by either party.



I believe, though I may be wrong, that she could legally have decided at any

point to unilaterally slap SCO down for their antics. But that would be an open

invitation for SCO to come up with some garbage accusation of "bias"

on appeal.



And Wells, Kimball, IBM and World+dog know that they'll jump on any such chance

to run their scam for another couple of years.



So she's had to wait until the time was right and proper for IBM to start to

administer the richly-deserved kicking themselves [sorry, present this motion

for the court to rule on].



Now we, and SCO, are on notice that she hasn't just been sitting around

twiddling her thumbs in the meantime!



[ Reply to This | # ]



I agree entirely - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 04:59 AM EDT

Authored by: Falcon on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:03 PM EDT

Good Evening All,



I think the Judge has made a mistake in the order. On page 32 is the sentence:



"Based on the foregoing, the court finds that SCO has had

ample opportunity to articulate, identify and substantiate its claims against

SCO."



I think she meant: Based on the foregoing, the court finds that SCO has had

ample opportunity to articulate, identify and substantiate its claims against

IBM.



1) Am I correct that an error exists here?

2) If I am correct, how serious is this?



Bernie AKA Falcon [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: argee on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:04 PM EDT

Unless there is a total disconnect between the two judges

(and the Magistrate and District Judges work hand in hand),

we can surmise that the other IBM motion will also be

granted.



IBM has asked that no new material other than that disclosed

in December be used. It does not ask for specific parts of

the expert declarations be tossed, only sets up the stage

for it.



In order to be consistent with Well's order, it seems obvious that IBM's motion

would also be granted. Otherwise

SCO can simply introduce by expert testimony that which

Wells just threw out.



Kimball couldn't really rule without Well's going first,

so there is the first punch of the one-two.





---

--

argee [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SirFozzie on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:04 PM EDT

Some gems (line breaks added in some places to make it readable)



Page 32



"Based on the foregoing, the court finds that SCO has had ample opportunity

to articulate, identify and substantiate its claims against SCO (Sic, should be

IBM).. The court further finds that such failure was intentional and therefore

willfull based on SCO's disregard of the court's orders and failure to seek

clarification.



In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide it's case until

the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being

repeatedly told to put "all evidence... on the table.



Accordingly, the court finds that SCO willfully failed to comply with the

court's orders."



Page 33-34



"The court finds SCO's arguments unpersuasive. SCO's arguments are akin to

SCO telling IBM sorry we are not going to tell you what you did wrong because

you already know. SCO received substantial code from IBM pursuant to the court's

orders as mentioned supr. Further, SCO was required to disclose in detail what

it feels IBM misappropriated. Given the amount of code that SCO has received in

discovery the court finds it inexcusable that SCO is in essence still notplacing

all the details on the table.



Certainly if an individual was stopped and accused of shoplifting after walking

out of Neiman Marcus they would expect to be eventually told what they allegedly

stole. It would be absurd for an officer to tell the accused that "you know

what you stole I'm not telling" Or, to simply hand the accused individual a

catalog of Neiman Marcus' entire inventory and say "its in there somewhere,

you figure it out."



Ladies and gentlemen, a lot of folks have said unknind things about the Judges

in this case. including myself. How would we like our crow cooked? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:08 PM EDT

This is ART! It severely limits what SCO can actually take to trial. I

particularly enjoyed how SCO's initial trumpeting has been brought back against

them, and the judgement that their actions, or lack of, are wilfull.



The rope that SCO have been given has finally been put around their neck.



Expect a big drop in share price. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:10 PM EDT

Hey, everybody!



It's a hap hap happy day!



Listen to the silence, and somewhere inside, you will hear corks popping in the

vicinity of Armonk.



I think it's safe to say that this is the watershed we've all been waiting for.

SCO has gotten chance after chance, and gambled that pulling the same stuff

would work here. The last hearing, where the judge told them about

reinterpretting her orders and not seeking clarification, should have signaled

SCO that they had hit the PNR.



This can only be the beginning. They are now limited to certain things, and

they have to sing and dance like crazy.



From now on, I'm reading Groklaw with a tub of popcorn. Oh, and I guess I can

stop playing that CD of "There's Got To Be A Morning After."



Dobre utka,

The Blue Sky Ranger



"You want it all, but you can't have it.

"It's in your face, but you can't grab it."

--Faith No More

"Epic"

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:20 PM EDT

<blockquote>

See what happens when you tell me to get some sleep?

</blockuote>

Yes and I love it. I suspect we now know why this case takes so long. Sleep more

often! Obviously twice per year is not enough. [ Reply to This | # ]



Score - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:38 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:22 PM EDT

The surrounding commentary is a clear follow-on from "Is that all you've

got?".



Subtext: "It's all you're getting anyway. You lose. Now, how badly and

painfully do you want to lose?". [ Reply to This | # ]



The cluestick - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 11:03 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:23 PM EDT

I'm suprised at the style and tone of this document. I've

been totally exasperated at how slow things have moved, how

patient the judges have been, giving SCO chance after chance,

after chance. By reading between the lines, we've been

able to tell that the Judges were losing their patience a bit (e.g. Judge

Kimball with his: "is that all you've got?").



And then this. I was expecting this result but not the tone. Judge Wells

could have been very clinical in the wording. This reads like she ran out of

patience.



After 3 years it's about time!!! Finally!!!!



One thing is clear: they can't play games with this judge anymore. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Cassandra on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:23 PM EDT

To everyone who has ever doubted Judge Wells, please go and write out one hundred times in your bestest handwriting: Judge Wells Rules OK! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mobrien_12 on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:24 PM EDT

Well, you know, this is really good. I was getting worried because it had been

over a month since this garbage happened.



The judges made their decision a long time ago. They communicated it with

crystal clarity. At the last minute SCO/BSF told them they were wrong.

Everyone knew it was completely inappropriate. Everyone knew it was a bogus

claim. Everyone knew SCOG needs to argue on specifics (and WE all know they

won't be able to). But to be quite honest, I thought the judges would cave once

again in what has been a giant joke of a trial (that was still being fought over

what it would be about).







[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jplatt39 on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:25 PM EDT

I know you just said that you're reading the transcript to prepare a fuller

report for us lazybones, but sleep is obviously a goodness if this is what

happens when you take a few hours off.



You do whatever it takes to properly enjoy that Red Dress (whose day is not yet,

but will clearly be here soon). [ Reply to This | # ]



Sleep & clothing color - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 09:47 PM EDT

Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:29 PM EDT

For years some of us had predicted that the courtroom shenanigans of BSF/SCO were partly designed to so peeve the judges as to get them to over-react and thus give BSF/SCO a redo by claiming that the judges were prejudiced against them. Judge Wells had many harsh words for SCO in this ruling. Do any of the legal eagles here know if this is going to give SCO a shot at successfully complaining about the judges? ---

Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:29 PM EDT

... and SCOG can cry if it wants to..... *grin* Thanks! Couldn't ask for a more enjoyable gift... well.... I could, but there's so few gifts that can give so much sudden joy. RAS [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:36 PM EDT

If I had any SCO shares I'd be on the phone to my broker, going "sell,

sell, sell", and it wouldn't do me any good because by the time the markets

open there will be all sellers and no buyers. I expect the share price will drop

radically as this kicks in. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: kurtwall on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:37 PM EDT

WOOT! What we see here is a magistrate who precisely understands SCO's nature: Given SCO's track record in this case, the court is certain that if IBM had simply provided line information without version and file information for methods, SCO would have filed motions to compel complaining about IBM's lack of specificity. Indeed! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:41 PM EDT

(Seeing as there's no corrections thread) PJ writes: What's left in the case? Only item numbers 23 (about "negative know how" regarding EES, an "error event subsystem" in Dynix/PTX), 43 ("learning from TCP failures to help networking and storage for Linux"), 90 ("avoiding a logging event that caused problems in PTX), 94 and 186-192 (about Dynix again). That's it. That's all the case is about now. This may be an exaggeration. There are also 90-something items that weren't challenged in the current motion. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:48 PM EDT

Long time lurker of Groklaw. (Will a 12 step program be available to help me kick the addiction to Groklaw when this is over?)

Simply amazing.

First legal document that I can understand. Not so good for SCO. gcb [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:51 PM EDT

And how do we KNOW that methods and concepts still require source code?



BECAUSE SANDEEP GUPTA SAID SO!!!



Hee hee, that's what expert opinion gets you! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: szakvok on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:51 PM EDT

Wow, very good news! And let me take this opportunity to

thank you PJ for the great reporting on this case since

its beginning in 2003 march - I have been reading every

day since than (although I have not really written

comments until know)!



Denes [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: webster on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:53 PM EDT

.

-1. Yet to read PJ's article. This is a personal risk, SCOish even.



0. Thirty-nine pages. Did she get leave to file an overlength order?

"Granting in Part." I wonder if SCO got left with a part they really

wanted. Let's see.



1. It is simple, well-written, authoritative, powerful, with devastating

factual arguments. She repeatedly uses SCO words and actions against them. She

lines up with Kimball. It is a decision difficult to assail.



2. She lists some of SCO's specific claims and their demands for specificity

from IBM. This is quite devastating. She is VERY familiar with the record.

McBride and Sonntag's words have come back to haunt them. The millions of lines

and the MIT deep divers are all referenced by her. She spends over 17 pages on

the discovery history including the Motion to Strike. She lived it and reviewed

it.



3. She discusses specificity: what IBM defined and demanded, what SCO defined

and demanded, what Kimball ordered. She knows the record. In a most

devastating fashion to SCO she quotes Kimball rebuking SCO for its lack of

specificity, the "...vast disparity between SCO's public accusations and

its actual evidence-or complete lack thereof..." p. 27. Then there is her

line "Given SCO's track record in this case." They demanded the same

specificity from IBM. Then she uses SCO's own Sandeep Gupta's words on the

necessity of file, line, and version against them. And this is for methods and

concepts. She also notes that lines are needed for copyright registration. A

strong argument. p. 29.



4. Willfulness: She discusses how noncompliance arises from intentional

failure or inability. Wrongful intent is not required for willfulness. Then

she crams some more SCO words down their throat: "given SCOs own public

statements outlined in part supra, it would appear that SCO had more than enough

evidence to comply with the courts orders. p. 31. She notes IBM gave them

another chance. SCO never asked for clarification. She also uses a

"ninth-inning" baseball analogy which seals her conclusion of

willfulness. p. 32.



5. Prejudice: Look at her argument about code on page 34. She really

understands how IBM is prejudiced without specific code. She finds prejudice

based on the delay and burden to IBM at this late stage.



6. The Specifics: She denied striking some "negative know how"

claims. Even in doing that she made sure to disparage the possible merits of

any claim. She also reminded SCO that they had to specify their misappropriated

items. p. 36. The rest of the specifics are best left to the coders and

attorneys up to snuff.



7. The Risk of an appeal to Kimball. SCO can appeal to Kimball immediately if

they really want something that has been excluded. Why bother? Why risk it?

Kimball is in no way more sympathetic than Wells. They probably have to

"go through the motions" lest they be attacked by their client for not

doing so. IBM will oppose and cross-appeal. Do they really want to give IBM

another crack at the rest? If IBM doesn't cross appeal, presume they consider

what remains "sitting-duck" material. SCO runs the risk of losing the

rest of what IBM moved to strike. SCO may also gain a little. This decision

takes on presumptive power. It is not going to be disturbed without finding a

severe abuse of discretion by the court. It's not there to be found. It will

sound reasonable to Kimball. Why do all that work when Wells already did. She

did a good job.



[8. A good exercise would be to go back and see which of her arguments were

made by IBM in Motion and Reply. The decision would be that much more

impressive if many of her arguments were original. The Q-Mass team could do

this in a few seconds.]





---

webster

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Dave23 on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 07:57 PM EDT

After scanning through the PDF text of Judge Wells' decision, I have a number early comments to make: I read Judge Wells' decision with great delight. Seeing that Discovery in this case is nearly at its end (barring a rising creek) this likely will be near the end of the series of decisions she's had to make in SCO v. IBM. Within the constraints of her position as Magistrate Judge, issues of equity and fairness were foremost in her mind, and it showed. She seemed to cover every argument thoroughly, and explained her decisions in admirable detail. Was the good judge reading my earlier commentary here on Groklaw on what the basic arguments and issues were in this motion? Or do great minds just think alike? ;-) Justice was not only done here, it was seen to be done. Judge Wells gives us some additional tidbits about some of the remaining claims in the text, even though the full claims themselves were filed under seal. It would be good to update the SCO Claim Table with this latest intelligence. The (less than a dozen?) SCO claims that were contested in this motion that remain did so because they were deemed specific enough. Issues of contractual chattelry and negative knowledge will have to be dealt with at Summary Judgement time, even though they are highly questionable for a number of reasons. (Wells labeled the negative knowledge argument as "tenuous".) Wells was careful, and treated the claims in question separately or in small groups. That's why she took a long time, I think. This decision will almost certainly be supported by Judge Kimball. All in all, the text of her decision is not a bad piece of work. Not bad at all. ---

Nonlawyer Gawker [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 08:02 PM EDT

hasn't begun singing yet. But I do see her warming up on the on-deck circle.

:)



<Baseball metaphor for those of you who don't follow the sport> [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 08:05 PM EDT

The beginning of this order contains a pretty good summary of the case so far. I suggest copying the whole Background section from the order into the Case Summary area. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: gfim on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 08:23 PM EDT

Although the court did not specifically say version and file in its orders, the court finds that this information was inherent within the court's ordering of "specific lines." The court agrees with IBM's argument that line information without version and file information is not very specific and makes identification of what is at issue much more difficult. I haven't gone back to the original order to check but, if it really said "specific lines", then that is not the same a "specific line numbers". IBM (and hence Judge Wells) could have avoided the whole problem by pointing this out. If SCO just provided line numbers, IBM could say "we want lines i.e. the actual text of the line". That would make it much easier to identify regardless of file and version. Although file, version, and line is even better!



---

Graham [ Reply to This | # ]



"specific lines" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 09:59 PM EDT

Authored by: jws on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 08:24 PM EDT

utahb ar.org link



"She also applauds lawyers for their civil conduct in her courtroom. There is, however, one area that has surprised her. On the limited number of civil matters that I have had hearings on, I have been astounded at the sheer volume of paper which, when reduced to its principal elements, is much less in terms of what really is relevant to the topic. Her advice, particularly to civil litigators, is to cut to the chase in motion practice. For lessons on trial practice, look to the criminal bar"



In a case I was an expert witness on, we got about 4 cases of half inch tapes (2400') and several cases of printouts from the other party in a civil matter. I don't think that much of it ended up being useful, as Judge Wells points out here.



Also, the "cut to the chase" is the best advice missed by SCO here, if this turns out to stick. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: grahamt on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 08:27 PM EDT

Ah! Finally! Somebody noticed that SCO has stubbornly refused to show the code from day one. And now it has cost it dearly. No. They were asking for the Sun, are now restricted to asking for the Moon, but were never entitled to ask for anything. It hasn't cost them anything. And they have gained years of delay, and an environment of FUD that has yielded millions of dollars of sales for their masters. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: IMANAL on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 08:33 PM EDT

Even as a non-native English speaker I am struck by her effective use of colloquialisms where needed to emphasize how silly SCO has been at times. Down to earth when in place. Just one of a half a dozen examples:



" Certainly if an individual was stopped and accused of shoplifting after walking out of Neiman Marcus they would expect to be eventually told what they allegedly stole. It would be absurd for an officer to tell the accused that you know what you stole Im not telling. Or, to simply hand the accused individual a catalog of Neiman Marcus entire inventory and say its in there somewhere, you figure it out. "



The precision is there. :)







---

--------------------------

IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 08:35 PM EDT

IANAL but I read this as "Your case is toast, you are toast, your evidence

is a pop-tart. And as for your client, well ... they're toast,

extra-crispy!" [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 08:35 PM EDT

Okay, my favorite part may be that next up is TSG's expert testemony claims with their ". . . and, oh yeah, the rest of Linux infringes too" insinuations. Heh heh heh. Man I hope IBM stays the course, I mean, I think this case needs to be taken to the bitter end (by that of course I mean the counter claims, because SCO's case? clearly going nowhere). There needs to be no ambiguity about Linux's legal status or the fate of those who would exploit the lack of familiarity with it's novel methods of development in order to threaten other with costly litigation. I have maintained for years that SCO should end up as a sidebar in a business school text-book as a case study in what not to do. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: merodach on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 08:37 PM EDT

"We're pleased with the ruling by Judge Wells. This allows us to more

narrowly focus our case on those topics which are core.



We will be vigorously pursuing these remaining claims and.... "



I'm sorry - someone else will have to continue this. I'm laughing like Harvey

Coreman after Tim Conway just perfectly and seriously delivered the riotously

funny punch line to the joke. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Jamis on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 08:38 PM EDT

I wonder what Daniel Lyons thinks of this? Remember his "What SCO Wants,

SCO Gets" article from three years ago? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 08:42 PM EDT

If I understand correctly, counterclaim 10 is that Linux contains no code owned

by SCO or even unix code in general. Are we in a position now where a summary

judgement on counterclaim 10 is almost automatic?



"173. IBM is entitled to a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U. C. 9 2201

that IBM does not infringe, induce the infringement of, or contribute to the

infringement of any SCO copyright through its Linux activities, including its

use, reproduction and improvement of Linux, and that some or all of SCO' s

purported copyrights in UNIX are invalid and unenforceable."

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 08:43 PM EDT

"She knows about the MIT deep divers who then disappeared." PJ



I'll speculate:



(1) They drowned like rats in their last dive

(2) They are at the bottom of the Hudson, after having been outfitted with

cement shoes

(3) They never existed, except in Darl the Snarl's hallucegenic visions which he

was kind enough to share with us Groklaw yokels and Groklaw miscreants









---

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: blacklight on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 08:54 PM EDT

SCOG's whiny magnum opus "They did me wrong" finally got the editorial

review that said opus deserved: a thorough slash and burn job from the much put

upon judge Welles herself. It was long overdue.





---

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: thorpie on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 09:00 PM EDT

When discussing items 94 & 186 to 192, which she left standing, Magistrate Wells provides a direct quote of "Under SCO's interpretation of the contracts at issue, IBM is prohibited from having former Dynix/ptx developers write source code for Linux". A search for "ibm is prohibited from having former" fails to find any matches on Groklaw. So a couple of questions: Is this the first we have heard of this? ; Does anyone know where the quote comes from? (It is likely within the redacted portions of their memorandum); Do we have any idea what items 94 & 186 to 192 are? ---

The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 09:06 PM EDT

In short, no I am not happy.



Yes, I am very happy for this ruling in this situation, and I love seeing SCO

get trounced like this, but.....



What I *REALLY* wanted to see was SCO to move forward in December with a list of

thousands of claims against IBM and Linux, each one backed up with hundreds of

lines of source code (with file, line and version information).



Then I wanted this to go to trial.



Then I wanted to see a jury and judge rule in IBM's favor.



That is the *ONLY* way that Linux can put all this FUD behind it.



I think it is a foregone conclusion that IBM will prevail if anything survives

until trial, and it will win many a summary judgement.



**BUT** there will still be the cloud hanging over all this that is SCOG saying

"IBM got away with something". [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Slimbo on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 09:28 PM EDT

I can hardly wait to see Rob Enderle's, Maureen O'Gara's and all those

analyst/journalyst who saw the evidence take on this.



Should be some interesting fiction.



Randy [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 09:54 PM EDT

SCO whined incessantly about how needed AIX and Dynix source cose - ALL of it -

in discovery, but thier final list of allegedly abused material supposedly cited

only 697 lines of code. I wonder if this contributed to Wells' decision.



I would think that the methods and concepts items could have been detailed much

earlier. If SCO really DID need all that AIX and Dynix source to find these

items, they should have had no problem identifying the relevant code. The

conclusion I reach is that SCO either:



1) Planned all along to claim the methods and concepts items, but deliberately

delayed revealing them until the last possible moment, or



2) Did find the methods and concepts in the AIX and Dynix code, and thus should

have had no problem identifying the code with the required specificity.



Either way, it looks like SCO was trying to avoid obeying the court's orders.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 09:58 PM EDT

"Mountains of code" to "tiny ant hill of code".



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: WhiteFang on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 09:59 PM EDT

A few misplace commas. A few constructs which could be a little smoother and one

outright typo.



It's minor blemishes merely reinforce it's beauty.



I've already printed a copy and read the hard copy twice.



Thank you Judge Magistrate Wells!

Thank you very, very much.



---

DRM - Degrading, Repulsive, Meanspirited

'Nuff Said [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: iksrazal on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 10:16 PM EDT

"Or, it may be possible that the code comprising a method or concept was

already disclosed pursuant to some other license such as the BSD License. Since

Linux uses some BSD code this could have a substantial impact upon SCO's case.

Especially since SCO claims to be a successor in interest to some of the

technology involved in the dispute between Unix System Laboratories and The

University of California"



I'm mostly a lurker and often thought that this court never really has decided

anything important up until now. However, reading the PDF has suprised me a

great deal!



In short, I thought alot that PJ's effort was preaching to the choir. Not so at

all! I understand from a laymans standpoint everything that Well's is saying due

to reading groklaw for 3 years, and to this I give a small thanks ;-) .



iksrazal



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mr.mighty on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 10:20 PM EDT

This was incredible. I've taken the last three hours to savour reading it and

the hundreds of comments.



Judge Wells makes it very clear that she understands the case, knows the

history, and after giving SCO every opportunity to make its case, made the right

decision.



I laughed! I cried! It was beautiful. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: dcf on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 10:24 PM EDT

In describing the Cargill report in IBM's Reply Memo in Support of Motion to Confine/Strike SCO's Claims, IBM mentions that SCO's Final Disclosures identify only 326 lines in total in the Linux kernel. SCO has previously shown examples of what it claimed were lines improperly copied into Linux. Has anyone gone back and counted the lines they've previously cited to see if we've now seen all the Linux kernel lines in the Final Disclosures? Of course, this exercise would be a bit error-prone, because many of the previous examples have been shown to come from BSD or elsewhere, so it is possible that SCO decided not to include them in the Final Disclosures. On the other hand, they are still harping on JFS, ELF, etc. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 10:30 PM EDT

Based on this this ruling, can IBM get damages or reembersement for legal costs

related to all the items that are part of the sanction, due to the judge calling

SCO's actions willful?



Not asking if IBM will, just asking if they can. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: om1er on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 10:49 PM EDT

Judge Wells says:



"This court further finds that Judge Kimball intended the same level of

specificity in his July 2005 order which provided what amounted to a date

certain for the parties to define their case."



Does this signal that SCO will NOT be allowed to continue adding new charges at

any time, now that the "date certain" has passed?



Will Judge Wells grant IBM's latest motion to limit SCO's expert reports, where

claims in excess of those from Dec 22, 2005 were added?





---

Are we there yet? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 11:14 PM EDT

Okay 200 odd items are eliminated from this case as being too vague.



But Wells goes out of her way to say that she isn't ruling on the merits of

these items.



So question: Can SCO try to reintroduce these 200 odd items, into the other

cases, when the other cases (AutoZone, RedHat, Novell) eventually come back to

life?



Quatermass

IANAL IMHO etc [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 11:40 PM EDT

Well, I guess we will just have to watch the stock price tomorrow. It ended

today at $4.17, if it shoots up to $20.00, then we will know how bad this really

is.... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mwexler on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 11:44 PM EDT

I noticed that this came out right after IBM turned in their rebuttal on the

contest expert witness testimony. Might the judge have been waiting for that. If

this ruling came out a few days ago, I bet IBM would have been awfully tempted

to refer to it in their rebuttal, but perhaps that is unfair because SCO had no

access to it when doing their reply. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mwexler on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 11:47 PM EDT

IBM has contested both SCO's list of misused materials and their expert witness

reports. SCO doesn't appear to be even attempting to do the same with IBMs

materials.

Yes, I know, IBM doesn't make the same kinds of mistakes, but when has that

stopped SCO before?

Is this more evidence of SCO's (BSF's) growing frugality on legal costs? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mwexler on Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 11:51 PM EDT

There has been lots of talk of SCO appealing the results of this trial. If they

do, won't they have to post an appellate bond in the amount of any money's

awarded to IBM?

Lets say IBM gets awarded $100,000,000 for their counterclaims. Won't SCO have

to do a $100,000,000 appellate bond? If so, how would they fund it? PIPE fairy?

I guess they could appeal the findings on the claims but not the counter claims,

but if, as everybody seems to expect, the counterclaim awards are large enough

to bankrupt SCO, will there be enough left of SCO to fight the findings on the

claims?

Or will the big bankruptcy court in the sky have to decide such issues?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: stend on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 12:49 AM EDT

3SCO submitted its alleged misappropriated materials on CD-ROM. The court has reviewed all of the disputed items individually. In other words, "Don't try running to Judge Kimball and claiming that I did not review all if the items.". ---

Please see bio for disclaimer. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Zarkov on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 12:54 AM EDT

"...dont try to make the wheels square, its been tried before and doesnt

work..." "Doh!" [ Reply to This | # ]



Negative Know How - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 07:00 AM EDT

Authored by: jig on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 01:02 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 02:11 AM EDT

I'm wondering if we'll actually see any appeals. Everyone expects appeals in any

long court case, but if SCO ultimately loses and then appeals, I don't think it

will matter. The gig will be up before the appeals are done.



Especially if all the judgements read like this!



Also, does their contract with the lawyers cover appeals? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: elronxenu on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 02:56 AM EDT

You bet. There's only one thing to say at a time like this: "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 03:40 AM EDT

Judge Wells did a very thorough job.

It will be impossible for SCO to prevail on appeal.

SCO is being nailed to the wall. Over 180 nails were just shot from the

nailgun.

Fantastic.

We are finally moving forward on this case.

I am waiting for the hearing on IBM's motion to strike parts of SCO's expert

witness reports.

IBM is again going to nail SCO for not following Judge Kimball's and Judge

Well's

orders on discovery.

Hee hee hee.

This is fun. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: cybervegan on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 04:44 AM EDT

... is that SCO will now begin crowing about these issues never having been

tested in court - that they were thrown out without discussion (not "on the

merits"?).



Will they try to use this action to feed their "IBM's dirty tricks"

storyline?



For sure, they'll spin it somehow - we all know this case isn't about "the

case"; it's about smearing Linux, casting doubt on it.



All that said, they got what they deserved. They never had a case - it was

always a tower of cards, and most of it just got blown down. Now all they've got

left are a few 2's and 3's - and maybe the jokers.



It's not Red Dress Day yet, but maybe time to check out a few dry-cleaners in

preparation. I just hope that this won't become one of those sad sequels where

the bad guy keeps coming back, despite having been "definitely killed"

every time...



-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: DaveJakeman on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 07:22 AM EDT

"Certainly if an individual was stopped and accused of shoplifting after

walking out of Neiman Marcus, they would expect to be eventually told what they

allegedly stole. It would be absurd for an officer to tell the accused that 'you

know what you stole I'm not telling.' Or, to simply hand the accused individual

a catalog of Neiman Marcus' entire inventory and say 'its in there somewhere,

you figure it out.'"



I love this analogy and it beautifully illustrates what SCO has been trying to

get away with. To spoil this analogy slightly, but make it ring closer to the

truth, it could go something like this:



...Or, to simply tell the accused it is listed in one of the catalogs that

Neiman Marcus has issued to date, or one of the back-catalogs of a number of

related or unrelated stores, without giving the accused the aforementioned

catalog, letting the accused know which catalog to look for, or indicating where

said catalogs may be located....



Haven't read the PDF yet, but oh, this makes me happy :)



---

Shampoo for my real friends, real poo for my sham friends - not Francis Bacon

---

Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jlnance on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 08:56 AM EDT

I've got a legal question. Had SCO been allowed to proceed and then lost these

motions, the questions would have been settled. SCO would not be able to raise

them again in another case.



Is this the case now? Since these questions were not litigated, can SCO sue

someone else for these same things? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Debonair on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 10:14 AM EDT

So just how much of the mountains of code, to borrom a term from SCOX, (Gee, I

hope they don't sue me for using their hyperbole.) that IBM delivered to them

was actually looked at, analyzed, or examined in any way? I am no expert, but I

suspect 99.99% of it was never examined in any way. I can't see how they could

have examined any sizeable portion of it without a massive number of bodies

being involved. They only demanded all the code to annoy IBM, with no real

intent of using it. I imagine this is a typical tactic in litigation.

Any speculation for someone more informed than myself? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 11:54 AM EDT

For the final humiliation,

1.)Novell proves beyond a shadow of doubt they own the Unix code and that SCOG

owes them $$$$$$$$$ royalties as a distributor

2.)Red Hat wins $$$$$$$$$$$ from SCOG for defamation

3.)SCOG declares chapter 7, the vultures pick over the debris

4.)Darl, et al., investigated and indicted by SEC, FTC and FBI and drag several

key employees of Sun and Microsoft with them; all go to jail, more broke than

Bowery bum wino.

5.)Boies quietly works for Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, doing nothing but

GOOD works instead of making money out of other peoples' misery. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 12:56 PM EDT

I think it will not be long before IBM, **SCO's successor in interest**, will be

dismissing the cases against Novell, and Auto Zone. :-) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 03:36 PM EDT

Where is Laura DiDio now???????? [ Reply to This | # ]



Laura Didio Speaks - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 11:20 AM EDT

Authored by: pgmer6809 on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 08:34 PM EDT

I applaud this decision as much as the next FOSS lover.

However I don't see it as a vindication of the legal system. Consider that a

competent, conscientious judge felt she had to endure 2-3 years of legal

shenanigans before she felt safe in issuing a substantive ruling.

SCO have no case. Everyone knows they have no case and never did have. The

judges have said as much.

Yet they still have the right to game the system, cost IBM miilions in legal

fees, spread FUD over a wonderful FOSS product, and blatanly ignore the court's

orders, and keep this up for THREE years.

Their penalty?

The "severe" sanction that they don't get to play anymmore.

Gee - that's a real severe punishment all right.

pgmer6809 [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ray08 on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 11:11 AM EDT

There are "millions" of lines of code, in a briefcase, somewhere in

Germany. We're looking for it right now!



---

Caldera is toast! And Groklaw is the toaster! (with toast level set to BURN) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: gvc on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 04:29 PM EDT

"SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said Wells left strong claims asserting

line-by-line Unix code was dumped into Linux, dismissing the more generalized

claims that IBM misappropriated the architecture of Unix code."



I have glanced at "the chart" and the only code copying that I see

remaining is JFS and NUMA (items 1 and 2). These are based on the laughable

theory that anything included in AIX/PTX becomes tainted for all time.



But they do claim to have some SVR2 code that is copied in JFS. Is this because

JFS was added to SVR2? Or is it BSD code or otherwise released code?



And are there any other points that refer to copied code? I don't see any

obvious ones but if anybody does, please speak up.



As far as I can see, the remaining claims are:



- SCO claims that Sequent employees were prohibited from working on Linux

(I'd like to see some evidence for that)



- SCO claims that anything in the world that has been in the same room as AIX

or Dynix is protected



- SCO claims that declining to repeat the mistakes of SYSV is a violation



I think all the "sco forum" stuff and the ABI stuff all got thrown

out. Where's this "line-by-line copying" claim that survives? Pulled

out of the air, like everything else Stowell says? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 12:24 AM EDT