|
|
| IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery: What Trade Secrets Are You Talking About? |
 |
|
Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 02:11 AM EDT
|
Here is IBM's Motion to Compel, as a pdf, thanks once again to Frank Sorenson. Here's another one. And here is IBM's Memorandum in Support of their motion, which is where IBM explains its position and cites all the cases it can think of and the law that supports its side of the argument. Thanks go to Peter Frouman. (We only have the first 9 pages of it, but the rest will come later. -- Done. The link is now to the complete Memorandum.) And here is an Addendum to the Memorandum. Enjoy! We're reading it together at the same time, because I just now got it. What I see so far is IBM is asking SCO to specify precisely what trade secrets it accuses IBM of having misappropriated. They are asking them to tell them exactly what source code is involved. They point out it's been six months since the lawsuit was filed, and they still don't know with any particularity what the accusation is about: "In a case relating to software, such as this case, a defendant is entitled to know the files and lines of code it is alleged to have misappropriated. A plaintiff may not persist in vague assertions about the substance of the claimed secret and leave the defendant to guess at the basis of the lawsuit." Hear, hear! I've read some of the Exhibits, and SCO's position appears to be in part that IBM already has the code and that they want confidentiality preserved. That again, to which IBM says, fine to the confidentiality, but it continues to press for the particular code. IBM points out in the Memorandum that in its marketing, such as the SCOForum, SCO showed specific lines of code, but in discovery, it hasn't mentioned one line of code but instead mentioned "non-literal transfers" of "methods". So, it's "put up or shut up" time at last, it seems. IBM has requested oral argument. That means both sides have to show up and actually present their arguments to the judge, not just on paper. I'd so love to be there for that. Thank you, Frank. Thank you, too, Mrs. Sorenson, for putting up with Groklaw. We have more documents too that Frank got for us, the Exhibits, but it'll take a while to get it all up for you. Meanwhile, enjoy what we already have available. On the Red Hat front, if anyone in DE is passing by the courthouse, here is what is new: 9/30/03 14 Letter to Clerk from A. Poff re DI # 13; problems with formatting and minor typographical errors; enclosing a corrected version of the brief (ft) [Entry date 10/01/03]
10/2/03 15 MOTION by SCO Group Inc. to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss Answer Brief due 10/16/03 re: [15-1] motion (ft)
10/3/03 16 STIPULATION to extend time for deft. to file reply brief in support of Motion to Dismiss; with proposed order (ft)
10/6/03 -- So Ordered granting [16-1] stipulation reset Reply Brief Deadline to 10/10/03 re: [8-1] motion to Dismiss ( signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson ) Notice to all parties. (rd) UPDATE: Here are the exhibits we promised: Exhibit A - IBM letter April 2, 2003
Exhibit B - IBM letter May 5, 2003
Exhibit C - Maureen O'Gara LinuxWorld story
Exhibit D - Defendant IBM's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for the Production of Documents
Exhibit E - Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for the Production of Documents
Exhibit G - IBM letter August 27, 2003
Exhibit H - SCO letter September 8, 2003
Exhibit I - IBM letter August 29, 2003
Exhibit J - Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories Yes, we seem to be missing Exhibit F, but we're hunting for it. Try this for Exhibit F - SCOSource Slide Show. We have arranged to get the DE documents, so no more volunteers are needed.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: mdchaney on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 02:31 AM EDT |
There's not just a little bit of irony in seeing IBM lawyers accuse another
company of using FUD tactics...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shaun on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 02:43 AM EDT |
You have to love how it's worded though. IBM is asking for an immediate
intervention depsite the extension till February. All because they still don't
know what the hell SCO is actually referring too. They want to know exactly
where SCO is accusing them of illegal code submissions in Linux. I hope IBM gets
this because it will start the process of bringing the light of day on to SCO.
--Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 02:49 AM EDT |
IANAL, this is just opinion, but:
I think the reason that SCO can not identify the trade secrets that they allege
IBM has broken, is they don't know of any.
RCU (patented), NUMA (patented), SMP (patented), the laughable "methods
from AIX" slide, are all IBM's not SCO's, and are not secrets, and while
they might play well to the gallery... are essentially useless.
My guess is they hoped to submit the whole of Linux source code, and mailing
list, and hope to come up with something substantial in the next few months.
I was thinking about it, and the style of response, as well as the original
complaint (see discussions about the contract interpretation and basis for
relief in last comments section), all have PR written all over them, and even
the mark of Darl. I'm starting to wonder just how involved he is in the case,
as the good faith type issues, are actually strengthening IBM's hand.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 02:57 AM EDT |
| Has anyone explored the fact that a US
Senator's (Orrin Hatch, Republican, UT) son, Brent Hatch, is lawyer for
SCO?
Does anyone think daddy is calling in any favors or has sway with the
Judge?
I wonder how tight Judge Brooke Wells is with Judge Paul Cassell
(former counsel at the Hatch law firm).
http://www.utahbar.org/sections/litigation/html/judge_cassell_judicia
l_profile.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tleps on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 03:15 AM EDT |
I think some might be missing from the link for Memorandum in Support from IBM.
Seems to sort of cut out in the middle of a thought - anyone know if there is
more then the 9 pages?
Thomas[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 03:35 AM EDT |
I love the case quote, "Everything you got from us was a trade
secret." (page 9 of the memorandum)
It totally sounds like "All your base are belong to us."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 04:50 AM EDT |
It seems that SCO is trying to delay both cases as much as possible, but they
haven't succeeded in delaying the RedHat case much. SCOs responses to RedHat
are due on Friday.
I'm looking forward to reading them.
On the one hand, you feel a little bit sorry for SCO's lawyers because their
client is obviously breaking the law. On the other hand it's interesting to
see what things they'll try next.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 04:58 AM EDT |
| IBM: Can you say 'Motion to dismiss', children? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 05:41 AM EDT |
Slightly off topic, but there is an article in 'Silicon Valley' where McBride
looks like he is increasing need of strong(er?) medication - basically we're
all (including ESR) being paid by IBM to act as their stooges...
"You've got all of these guys and it looks like the whole world is coming
against SCO. It's really IBM that has wired in all of these
relationships."
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/gmsv/6594915.
htm
Needless to say, the editorial doesn't appear to take him all that seriously. I
wonder if this is a subtle prelude to an insanity plea?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 06:11 AM EDT |
| So what are you really saying? Are you saying that if Magistrate Judge Wells,
or Judge Kimball, makes a ruling in IBM's favor, it's proof of "fairness", but
if a judge makes any ruling at all that favors SCO, it's proof of
corruption?
I believe what he's saying is what an enormous
coincidence it is that the son of a powerful Utah Senator was chosen as
the most competent attorney for the case by SCO and you can continue
pontification about the realm of possibilities and what that might mean from
there.
Remember
this interview excerpt?
"So are you saying that the U.S. government
might file a "Friend of the Court Brief" to support your case against IBM?" I
blurted out. "Don't be surprised" was Sontag's answer.
I know it seems
outside of the realm of possibility, but maybe Sontag isn't completely insane?
The reality is that this isn't a perfect world and politics may come to play a
part in this. You should be suspicious as well about the people involved with
this. Rememeber, us Linux users and developers are IP theives, communits, and
all around anti-capitalists, according to SCO - gee whiz what US senator would
get bent out of shape about us if they believed that?
I would hasten to add
that I do realize the US government is an active participant in Linux
developement, NASA helped get Beowulf up and running, the NSA (which doesn't
exist of course) has added a few touches to security as well. These are
technically competent and intelligent people though that work for the
government, they aren't politicians.
Don't forget that McCarthism broke
several fundamental constitutional laws, SCO may be hoping for the same sort of
help. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Peter on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 07:18 AM EDT |
Thanks Frank for getting the exhibits and documents. Now if only we
had
someone as dedicated as you in Delaware to trudge down to the
courthouse there
and get the documents in the Red Hat case that would
be great. Perhaps a local
LUG there might be able to find a volunteer or
two?
I'm not sure why
the first one came up with only nine pages but I
retrieved it again and got the
full 20 pages - the updated version is at
http://
images.frouman.net/45b.pdf
-Peter Frouman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sri Lumpa on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 07:32 AM EDT |
"If, in fact, SCO has any evidence to support its claims, then there
cannot be any question that it will be less burdensome for SCO simply to
identify it than for IBM to divine from SCO's production what we do not believe
even exists."
Of course, if IBM decided that this or that code excerpt must be what SCO is
talking about SCO wouldhave had IBM do their discovery for potentially
infringing code for them (any rocket scientists working at IBM, or ex-MIT
guys?).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: greg_T_hill on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 08:42 AM EDT |
OT: This link from Yahoo message board
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-05-20-029-05-PR
Ransom Love, then CEO of Caldera, praises SGI for contributing XFS to Linux.
Quite the flip-flop. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: piskozub on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
It seems SCO gave IBM 46 CDs with over 900,000 lines of code.
This means the precious trade secrets of SCO are not in its source code (you
need a NDA to see 80 lines of it). The only trade secret is the litigation
strategy itself!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 46 CDs? Wow! - Authored by: kaip on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 09:41 AM EDT
- 46 CDs? Wow! - Authored by: Bob Carpenter on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 10:10 AM EDT
- 46 CDs? Wow! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 01:17 PM EDT
- 46 CDs? Wow! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 09:36 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: ZeusLegion on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
I'm only 3/4ths of the way through the full document but judging from the
runaround IBM is getting and the continued stubbornness of SCO to produce any
evidence whatsoever to support its claims, I think its safe to say that SCO bet
the farm on trying to intimdate IBM with a bluff and is going to lose
everything.
The documents seem to verify our belief that SCO has no evidence whatsoever (not
even an Ace up their sleeves) and have instead decided to throw the codebases of
UNIX System V and Linux at IBM and say "Find the alleged violations
yourself." as if this would be permitted by any competent judge.
If I accuse you of being a thief and you ask me what it is I think you stole, I
can't toss you a 900,000 page 'Book of Everything & Then Some' and say
"Its one or more of the items in there. You know what you stole so find it
yourself."
I hope the court finds them in contempt. I'm certain they will fail to comply
with the order even if the judge compels them to provide this info. He will then
throw out their claims and IBM will win by default and SCO will finally be
annihilated, hopefully with criminal charges against its management to follow.
---
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 09:19 AM EDT |
you have done a fantastic job of writeups
the articles are always so well written that i can usually follow the whole
thing
this group does such a grand job of finding info and explaining it and i am just
proud to have found you all
to the people taking their time to go to courthouse for paperwork a big thank
you also
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wayne1932 on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 09:54 AM EDT |
What am I missing?? When I go to the link with the PDF I draw a blank page.
This happened on my linux machine with Mozilla, but since I'm kinda dense, I
went to my Win98SE machine and looked with (horrors) Internet Explorer and got
the same thing. It tells me I'm loading components (probably something about
adobe reader) and then quits with a blank page.
Browsing around the site I see lots of his personal stuff but no links to what
I'm looking for. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: agriffin on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 10:04 AM EDT |
PJ, I do not know now to contact you 'off-line' so let me make an offer to you
in public.
If there are oral arguements and you can find the time to attend, I will
undertake to provide for your reasonable and ordinary expenses for travel,
meals, and lodging up to US$2,000.00.
You have my email address if you are interested.
With high regards,
Jim
P.S. The funds are from sucessful shorting of SCOX.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
I posted this in a deeply nested discussion, forgive me for reposting it more
prominently.
BTW some months ago, I said I thought this would be largely over by mid
November. I still think so.
Here goes
--
IANAL, but I think the judge will accept IBM's motion
There are three reasons why I think this will happen:
1. IBM's motion and memo, is supported by specific citations of law, federal
rules of procedure, and case law - as well as evidence
2. It's fair - IBM are entitled to know with specifically what they are being
accused of. Even more so, since SCO says they already the specifics, and IBM's
evidence shows SCO saying this.
3. IBM can not by themselves identify any trade secrets that they might be
accused of breaching.
(a) Yes IBM can only identify any trade secrets they have actually broken - if
there are any.
(b) But SCO could accuse IBM of breaching items that were not trade secrets, or
were not breached by IBM but by some other party, or were not breached, etc.
IBM can not even guess as regards (b) what it might be accused of. However, if
SCO's claims conceivably might include any items of type (b) [and the judge has
to allow that possibility], then IBM is entitled to prepare a defense to
allegations of type (b) too. And the only way that IBM can prepare a defense, is
to know all the specific allegations.
So, IBM's motion will be granted.
SCO will then have to present the specific trade secrets that IBM is alleged to
have breached.
Personally I opine that they do not have any, or any that will stand up. I even
wonder about the "3 teams", as Chris Sontag was asking tech
questions about installing Red Hat, around December 2002 approx on newsgroups.
So SCO will be compelled to make specific allegations for the trade secrets.
If they then don't make any, all the trade secret claims, and possibly much of
their entire suit will be dismissed, in the next step after the motion is
granted.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
This could be the K-O punch for SCO. My guess is that they are going to be shut
up fairly quickly. "Game Over," as Arnold told the powers-that-be
in Sacramento.
Even if SCO shuts up, my guess is that this is only the beginning of the ordeals
in store for SCO and Canopy Group. The extortion didn't work. Let's hope
that MS gets a fair amount of egg on its face, too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
can we say smack down to sco
IBM definitely put it on the line to them
the weaseling might work in the press but they told the judge it is time to
state some facts
hehehehe
got to love it
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: agriffin on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 12:18 PM EDT |
Here is (another) Q&A with Mr Sontag for your amusement and amazement.
SCO: No choice but to go after Linux
By Michael S. Mimoso, SearchEnterpriseLinux.com News Editor
08 Oct 2003
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/qna/0,289202,sid39_gci931259,00.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Newsome on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
Just a note on the numbering of the documents. Document 46 is currently
linked as the Memorandum, but 45 is the Memorandum and 46 is an addendum to the
Memorandum (there were a lot of documents, and it's tough to keep them all
straight). Hope this helps clear it up:
- Document 44 - IBM's Motion to
Compel Discovery
- Document 45 - IBM's Memorandum
in support of Motion to Compel Discovery
- Exhibit A -
IBM letter April 2, 2003
- Exhibit B -
IBM letter May 5, 2003
- Exhibit C -
Maureen O'Gara LinuxWorld story
- Exhibit D -
Defendant IBM's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for the
Production of Documents
- Exhibit E -
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and First
Request for the Production of Documents
- Exhibit F -
SCOSource Slide Show
- Exhibit G -
IBM letter August 27, 2003
- Exhibit H -
SCO letter September 8, 2003
- Exhibit I -
IBM letter August 29, 2003
- Exhibit J -
Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of
Interrogatories
- Document 46 - Addendum to IBM's
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery
---
Frank
Sorenson [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Documents - Authored by: tcranbrook on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 01:15 PM EDT
- Documents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 03:00 PM EDT
- Documents - Authored by: Dick Gingras on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 08:15 PM EDT
- Documents - Authored by: nabet on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 12:43 AM EDT
- Documents - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 01:26 AM EDT
- Documents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 09:03 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: tcranbrook on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
Some common sense in the financial press
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/08/technology/techinvestor/hellweg/index.htm
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blhseawa on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 01:32 PM EDT |
PJ,
When I click on Exhibit I link I get the following error:
The requested URL /pdf/Doc-45-Exhibits/Exhibit-I.pdf" was not found on
this server
Thanks, to everyone involved in posting this stuff.
SCO FUD will quickly come to end, they can no longer wave their arms they now
have to get specific, which it seems has been there strategy to avoid. (Can you
say pump and dump?, Thought you could!)
That leaves only one question left for Mr. McBride. How do like going to jail?
I can't believe so-called intelligent people would put themselves in that
position.
Thank you PJ, and special thanks to IBM and it's attorney's!
Regards,
blhseawa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
REQUEST NO. 51
All documents concerning the resumes or
curicula vitae of any person on whom plaintiff intends to rely as a witness,
declarant or affiant in this action.
RESPONSE:
None at this
time.
No "subject to and without waiving ..." like in other
responses. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
http://tinyurl.com/q7ak
is this a possibility as an argument?
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- trade dress? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 03:40 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: lightsail on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 02:18 PM EDT |
SCO intends to take and create maximum delay for profit.
SCO will comply with requested discover at last possible minute. Publicity and
time to convert stock value into cash or other companies are the goal. See the
purchase of Vultus. Link:
http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/management/story/0,10801,83452,00.
html
Hypothesis:
After reply to amended IBM counter claim at last minute, SGI will be added
before extended reply date, forcing more delay, generating more publicity.
Another round of paperwork and delay and perhaps a Linux distributor is added to
lawsuit. More delay, time and publicity are what SCO is buying.
The real question is if SCO Group can generate income during this period? They
can stock swap purchase smaller companies to get cash flow several times if
their luck holds out. With the stock value at 2000% of low, SCO can add
companies greater than their size before lawsuit by these stock based sales,
adding companies with real products. Then change name to re-focus and drop suit.
Give UNIX to open source to make amends. Will this gambit work? Only time will
tell?
That is hypothetical, here are facts:
Inflated stock value enabled the Vultus purchase.
SCO has yet to move quickly on any aspect of lawsuit.
SCO is constantly using press to their advantage.
SCOX is selling at 20X of pre-lawsuit low.
Are there other ways for SCO to make money, dodge counter claim and survive?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skidrash on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 02:37 PM EDT |
Remember fractal compression? Those guys tried to have their cake and eat it
too, by patenting a subset of the techniques required to make the compression
work while keeping some other parts a trade secret.
Trouble with going that route is, independent discovery does not invalidate
patents, but independent discovery does invalidate trade secrets.
-____
AND BESIDES,
if there were any trade secrets in IBM's contributions of RCU, SMP, JFS, NUMA
IBM OWNED THOSE TRADE SECRETS.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nabet on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 04:44 PM EDT |
After having read the Addendum to the Memorandum, it struck me that SCO's
response to interogatory 9 is the most revealing.
In this response, SCO is essentially saying that the code that IBM released
under the GPL was in fact a derivative of System V. No surprise there, but
given that the rest of their responses are nothing more than stonewalling, it
would seem to me that their entire case hinges on the definition of
"derivative work". They seem to think they will be able to convince
the court that all the code that IBM developed for AIX is a derivative work, and
therefore should have been kept in confidence.
Now, SCO has also leveled the same claim against SGI in respects to XFS. But we
know from recently uncovered information that SGI went to great lengths to
ensure that the open source version of XFS was not encumbered by System V code.
We also know that IBM erected a "Chinese Wall" between their AIX and
Linux groups in order to ensure that code they released as open source was not
encumbered by System V code either.
I was a little disappointed with IBM's reply to SCO's response to
interrogatory 9, however. IBM says that SCO's claims regarding breaches of
contract are vague, but given that IBM has a copy of those contracts, and SCO
listed the sections they believe IBM has breached, then IBM could have just
looked them up. For the first time in the Addendum, it seems like IBM is
stonewalling.
Am I misinterpreting IBM's reply in some way?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AdamBaker on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 04:55 PM EDT |
One interesting point from IBM's discovery request - the only reference I could
see to MicroSoft was a request for documents relating to the DR-DOS suit and the
destruction of records afterwards. Are IBM suggesting that that might be related
to MS's willingness to pay up?
I would have expected a request similar to the Canopy one regarding what MS paid
SCO for but maybe that will appear in the next round.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AdamBaker on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 05:32 PM EDT |
Just noticed anothing thing - IBMs set of SCOforum slides include the greek text
- I wonder where that set came from.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 06:05 PM EDT |
Attention PJ:
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/qna/0,289202,sid39_gci931259,00.html
According to Sontag:
1. Both examples at SCO forum were infringement, including BPF. Relevant to IBM
motion: why haven't they even presented IBM with these examples
2. They aren't BSD (sanity speaks: hello BPF = Berkeley Packet Filter!).
Anyway, Relevant to IBM motion: they claim to have evidence for it not being BSD
licensed - let IBM see it!
3. SCO has lots of examples, these are just the tip of the iceberg. Relevant to
IBM motion: why is SCO unable to show IBM all their examples?
4. They already have a line-by-line comparison which they've shown to hundreds
of people under NDA. Relevant to IBM motion: why are they unable to show IBM the
line-by-line comparison.
~~
Here is the quotes:
The code you displayed at the SCO Forum was later scoffed at by Linux advocates
and experts as code covered by a BSD license that allows sharing of that code.
Were those the best examples of the code in question you have?
Sontag: This was one example of misappropriated code that went into Linux. I
would characterize it as the tip of the iceberg. Was it our very best example? I
think we are saving our very best examples for the courtroom, where we will
ultimately have to try our case.
Were the Linux experts correct that this code is covered by the BSD license?
Sontag: We respectfully disagree that this was code covered by the BSD license.
Our contention is that this code comes from Unix System V, which is owned by
SCO.
Why won't you publicize the code in question and allow for a line-by-line
comparison?
Sontag: We have shown a line-by-line comparison of this code to anyone willing
to sign a nondisclosure, of which there have now been hundreds of individuals
that have done so.
~~[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 08:39 PM EDT |
PJ is this normal the way that sco answered the requests?
the responses seem evasive?
is this normal
will the judge allow them to be this vague?
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 08:02 AM EDT |
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6970044.htm
"The contentiousness of the pre-trial hearing is likely a preview to what
could be a bitter, long trial. The judge has moved the trial from San Jose to a
courthouse on Homestead Road in Santa Clara, where the courtrooms are larger to
accommodate the big tables required by one group of plaintiffs' attorneys and
four separate groups of defense attorneys representing both IBM and the chemical
companies. The trial -- which includes the cases against IBM as well as those
against the chemical companies -- is scheduled to begin Tuesday."
just gives a hint of how many lawyers IBM will be bringing into court
hehehehe
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 10:16 AM EDT |
IANAL, but there is another subtle point, well not so subtle, in the IBM case -
it shows when SCO said they had given IBM all the requested documents - that
they hadn't, and both SCO and SCO's attorneys knew that they hadn't!
IBM: Show us ALL documents showing your contention that SCO IP is in Linux
SCO: Here all the documents. The license agreements. The UNIX code. The Linux
code.
IBM: Is that really all the documents?
SCO's attorney in sworn responses: Yes, we're not withholding anything.
IBM: Is that really really all the documents?
SCO's attorney in unsworn letter: Yes, we're not withholding anything. P.S.
Quick Darlism - are you withholding anything, we think you might be?
IBM: Yes we've given you everything that you asked for, you never complained
before. And that's really everything.
SCO: Yes we've given you everything. The documents are the licenses, Linux
source code, UNIX source code.
==> IBM to judge: Here's a document, they didn't give us which we know
exists!
Now this is not just any document or some trivial accidental ommission.
(a) It is the precise document that fufills the requests that IBM have been
asking for (at least in part)
(b) It implies that there are other documents (analysis of lines of code, other
examples)
(c) SCO's attorneys are most certainly aware of it (and yet denied its
existence by repeatedly saying yes they had given IBM *all* the documents).
Boies was originally planned to take part in the presentation at SCOforum. Heise
actually did.
Now because of (c), I think not only SCO's case could be in trouble, but maybe
their attorneys too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
