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 | # ]



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 | # ]



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 | # ]



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 | # ]



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 | # ]



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

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 | # ]



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 | # ]



Enough rope? - Authored by: joel on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 09:51 PM EDT

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 | # ]



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 | # ]



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

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 | # ]



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 | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 02:20 AM EDT

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 | # ]



Martin Bligh email - Authored by: jig on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 03:40 AM EDT

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

- 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 | # ]



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 | # ]



A pleasure to watch - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 15 2006 @ 11:33 AM EDT

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 | # ]



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 | # ]



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,