decoration decoration
Stories

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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 05:23 AM EST

Here are SCO's Supplemental Responses to IBM's First Set of Interrogatories. You can find the original PDF here. IBM also makes reference to this document in its Second Motion to Compel Discovery. I have redacted the names listed in the document and some addresses in the text version. You can read them in the PDF. It just seems kinder. Our thanks for this to Frank Sorenson for arranging to get this document from the courthouse and especially to Elizabeth Sorenson and to Evan for typing up this detailed project.

Please note that for research purposes, this would seem to be the most significant paragraph to answer, when SCO alleges the following on pages 30 and 31:

"In addition, IBM has unfairly competed with SCO by acts that include, but are not limited to, entering a conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade with others in the Linux development and distribution business, pursuant to the GPL, to artificially restrain prices below natural levels for the purposes of destroying competition in the operating systems market for UNIX software on Intel machines, and to improperly gain advantage and extract profits from customers through inducing customers to unnecessarily switch operating systems from UNIX to Linux, without any technological benefit for customers, solely to gain additional services work for IBM and license middleware to customers in lieu of operating system software. In other words, Linux adds no technology advantage to customers - its only advantage is that it is purportedly 'free' for customers. If Linux is not distributed at a zero price point, customers will not switch to Linux and therefore will not purchase related IBM services or middleware. By artificially restraining the price of Linux to zero, which price is very substantially below the actual development cost contributed by IBM and others, IBM induces customers to switch to Linux. This is, among other things, unfair competition."
Obviously, this isn't true, because most of us buy Linux instead of downloading it, if only for convenience. It is also not true that there are no technological benefits to using Linux instead of Unix. One of the major reasons why it's superior is because it is developed in the open source model, and this has direct security benefits, including speedy prevention of security issues and recovery when necessary, something that fully depends on avoiding a lockin by means of indemnification. Perhaps that is why they are so determined to call for indemnification, because they are fully aware that flexibility is a technical advantage they don't want Linux to be able to claim. I note that Laura DiDio has been quoted as saying the following:

"'You would have to be Nostradamus to know how all this would end,' Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio told NewsFactor. . . .

"'But even if SCO were to settle with IBM tomorrow, there could likely be copycat lawsuits filed,' DiDio noted. . . . 'Government organizations, the healthcare , banking and financial industries -- by law or by shareholder demand, these organizations will require indemnification.'"

Of course, like Nostradamus, Ms. DiDio is frequently wrong, but what if, just what if, she is here spilling the beans and letting us in on the inside scoop? What if the plan is to try to force Linux to indemnify? It makes sense, considering the intense push to try to create FUD about this issue, that they would next start to lobby the government to try to force it to happen. If she is right about other "copycat" lawsuits, it's more than ever vital that this issue be settled here and now, once and for all.

I think it would be very helpful to collect instances where GNU/Linux software was able to solve security issues more quickly than proprietary, for example. I know it can't be hard to find such instances. It also shouldn't be hard to demonstrate that SystemV is behind-the-times code that isn't keeping up in comparison to Linux, I'm guessing. So, let's get to work and collect all the technical reasons why it's important to be able to update and tweak your software and why it's a technical advantage to have the freedom to do this and all the technical reasons a person would legitimately prefer Linux, including quotations from those who made the switch, giving their reasons for having done so. Security is the Word of the Day, so let's speak their language, shall we?

Here, then, is the document, so you can see for yourself the outrageous claim in context.

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

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
(address, phone, etc.)
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Bank of America Tower, Ste. 2800
(address, phone, etc.

Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
THE SCO GROUP,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES


Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK

Judge: Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Brooke C. Wells

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), hereby files this Supplemental Response to Interrogatories No. 1 through 8 of Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and states as follows:

Based upon the discussions with IBM, which clarified the information sought by IBM, SCO hereby files its revised and supplemental answers to interrogatories.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

SCO hereby incorporates by reference all of its General Objections set out in Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for the Production of Documents (the "Plaintiff's Responses"). All of SCO's original General Objections are incorporated into the following Specific Objections and Responses as if fully set forth therein. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, SCO's revised and supplemental responses to IBM's First Set of Interrogatories are made to the best of SCO's present knowledge, information and belief. As such, SCO reserves the right to further supplement or amend its answers as discovery or further investigation may reveal.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND REVISED RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Please identify, with specificity (by product, file and line of code, where appropriate) all of the alleged trade secrets and any confidential or proprietary information that plaintiff alleges or contends IBM misappropriated or misused, including but not limited to as alleged in ¶ 105 of the Complaint.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

In addition to the General Objections set forth in Plaintiff's Responses, SCO notes that it still has not received responsive discovery from IBM that would allow it to fully answer this question because part of this information is peculiarly within the knowledge of IBM. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Plaintiff supplements and revises its response to this Interrogatory No. 1 and states that the information IBM (and separately, Sequent) agreed to maintain as confidential or proprietary for SCO and/or trade secrets includes, without limitation, UNIX software design methods for creation and modification of software based on UNIX System V, including those developed in AIX and Dynix. These UNIX methods include ways to modify IBM's version of UNIX known as AIX and Sequent's version of UNIX known as Dynix/ptx. The UNIX methods include those inherent in and learned through access to the System V source code licensed to IBM and/or Sequent and those developed by IBM and/or Sequent in creating derivative works and modifications based on UNIX System V pursuant to licensing agreements with SCO's predecessors and SCO and those that IBM and/or Sequent agreed to maintain in confidence for SCO's predecessors and SCO, in addition to UnixWare code and methods provided to IBM separately. Without limitation, the methods include technical UNIX categories, such as multiprocessor locking and unlocking methods, methods for avoiding locking requirements, methods for implementing filing systems, de-bugging methods, methods for implementing and improving processor scalability, methods for implementing and improving processor reliability, methods for implementing and improving processor accessibility, methods for implementing and improving scheduling systems, methods for implementating and improving memory management, methods for implementing and improving threading and multi-threading, and methods for implementing and improving general system functionality based on UNIX technology. Source code files identified by SCO thus far which are responsive to Interrogatory No. 1 and part of which include information (including methods) that IBM was required to maintain as confidential or proprietary pursuant to contract with SCO and/or which constitute trade secrets misused by IBM are found within LINUX 2.4 and/or Linux 2.5 kernels under the following source file headings[1]:

[1] Please note that the "flattened" file listings identified below use periods (.) instead of slashes (/) to define sub-directories. Therefore, a listing such as net.socket.c translates into net/socket.c wherever the source for Linux resides. Note also that the last ".c" or ".h" is not replaced by a slash.

arch.i386.kernel.i8259.c
arch.i386.kernel.timers.timer_tsc.c
arch.i386.mach-default.topology.c
arch.i386.mach-pc9800.topology.c
arch.i386.mm.discontig.c
arch.ia64.kernel.perfmon.c
arch.ppc.64.kernel.htab.c
arch.ppc.64.kernel.ioctl32.c
arch.ppc.64.kernel.iSeries_irq.c
arch.ppc.64.kernel.iSeries_setup.c
arch.ppc.64.kernel.ppc_ksyms.c
arch.ppc.64.kernel.prom.c
arch.ppc.64.kernel.pSeries_htab.c
arch.ppc.64.kernel.setup.c
arch.ppc.64.kernel.signal32.c
arch.ppc.64.kernel.smp.c
arch.ppc.64.kernel.sys_ppc32.c
arch.ppc.64.kernel.time.c
arch.ppc.64.kernel.xics.c
arch.ppc64.mm.init.c
arch.ppc64.mm.numa.c
arch.ppc.platforms.4xx.oak_setup.c
arch.ppc.platforms.4xx.sycamore.c
arch.ppc.platforms.4xx.walnut.c
arch.ppc.platforms.ev64260_setup.c
arch.ppc.platforms.pmac_pic.c
arch.ppc.platforms.sandpoint_setup.c
arch.ppc.syslib.prom_init.c
arch.s390.kernel.compat_linux.c
arch.s390.kernel.compat_signal.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.e820.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.traps.c
fs.cifs.cifssmb.c
fs.compat.c
fs.jfs.acl.c
fs.jfs.endian24.h
fs.jfs.file.c
fs.jfs.inode.c
fs.jfs.jfs_acl.h
fs.jfs.jfs_btree.h
fs.jfs.jfs_debug.c
fs.jfs.jfs_debug.h
fs.jfs.jfs_defrags.h
fs.jfs.jfs_dinode.h
fs.jfs.jfs_dmap.c
fs.jfs.jfs_dmap.h
fs.jfs.jfs_dtree.c
fs.jfs.jfs_dtree.h
fs.jfs.jfs_extent.c
fs.jfs.jfs_extent.h
fs.jfs.jfs_filsys.h
fs.jfs.jfs_imap.c
fs.jfs.jfs_imap.h
fs.jfs.jfs_incore.h
fs.jfs.jfs_inode.c
fs.jfs.jfs_inode.h
fs.jfs.jfs_lock.h
fs.jfs.jfs_logmgr.c
fs.jfs.jfs_logmgr.h
fs.jfs.jfs_metapage.c
fs.jfs.jfs_metapage.h
fs.jfs.jfs_mount.c
fs.jfs.jfs_superblock.h
fs.jfs.jfs_txnmgr.c
fs.jfs.jfs_txnmgr.h
fs.jfs.jfs_types.h
fs.jfs.jfs_umount.c
fs.jfs.jfs_unicode.c
fs.jfs.jfs_unicode.h
fs.jfs.jfs_uniupr.c
fs.jfs.jfs_xattr.h
fs.jfs.jfs_xtree.c
fs.jfs.jfs_xtree.h
fs.jfs.namei.c
fs.jfs.resize.c
fs.jfs.super.c
fs.jfs.xattr.c
include.asm-i386.mach-numaq.mach_mpparse.h
include.asm-i386.mach-summit.mach_mpparse.h
include.asm-i386.mmzone.h
include.asm-i386.mpspec.h
include.asm-ppc64.mmu.h
include.asm-ppc64.mmzone.h
include.asm-ppc64.paca.h
include.asm-ppc64.ppcdebug.h
include.asm-s390.thread_info.h
include.linux.ibmtr.h
include.linux.rcupdate.h
ipc.util.h
kernel.compat.c
kernel.pid.c
kernel.rcupdate.c
arch.i386.kernel.dmi_scan.c
arch.i386.kernel.mca.c
arch.i386.kernel.setup.c
arch.i386.kernel.traps.c
arch.s390.kernel.process.c
arch.s390.kernel.ptrace.c
arch.s390.kernel.setup.c
arch.s390.kernel.signal.c
arch.s390.kernel.smp.c
arch.s390.kernel.sys_s390.c
arch.s390.kernel.time.c
arch.s390.kernel.traps.c
arch.s390.lib.delay.c
arch.s390.mm.fault.c
arch.s390.mm.init.c
fs.namei.c
include.asm-s390.atomic.h
include.asm-s390.bitops.h
include.asm-s390.lowcore.h
include.asm-s390.sigp.h
include.asm-s390.smp.h
ipc.util.c
kernel.module.c

SCO does not contend that the entire source code in all files identified above contains proprietary and confidential information and/or trade secrets. Rather, information (including code and methods) that IBM agreed to maintain as confidential is interspersed through parts of each identified file. Discovery is required to identify the ways and extent to which IBM improperly used confidential and proprietary information and/or trade secrets in creating the source code that is contained in each of the above files. In addition, source code files identified by SCO thus far which may be further responsive to Interrogatory No. I and which may, on information and belief, include information (including methods) that IBM was required to maintain as confidential or proprietary pursuant to contract with SCO and/or which constitute trade secrets misused by IBM are found within Linux 2.4 and/or Linux 2.5 kernels under the following source file headings:

arch.arm.mach-arc.small_page.c
arch.arm.mach-integrator.cpu.c
arch.cris.kernel.irq.c
arch.cris.kernel.process.c
arch.cris.kernel.ptrace.c
arch.cris.kernel.setup.c
arch.cris.kernel.signal.c
arch.cris.kernel.sys_cris.c
arch.cris.mm.init.c
arch.h8300.kernel.process.c
arch.h8300.kernel.ptrace.c
arch.h8300.kernel.sys_h8300.c
arch.i386.kernel.acpi.boot.c
arch.i386.kernel.acpi.sleep.c
arch.i386.kernel.apic.c
arch.i386.kernel.cpu.common.c
arch.i386.kernel.cpu.cpufreq.gx-suspmod.c
arch.i386.kernel.cpu.cpufreq.p4-clockmod.c
arch.i386.kernel.cpu.intel.c
arch.i386.kernel.cpu.mcheck.k7.c
arch.i386.kernel.cpu.mcheck.mce.c
arch.i386.kernel.cpu.mcheck.non-fatal.c
arch.i386.kernel.cpu.mcheck.p4.c
arch.i386.kernel.cpu.mcheck.p5.c
arch.i386.kernel.cpu.mcheck.p6.c
arch.i386.kernel.cpu.mtrr.main.c
arch.i386.kernel.cpu.proc.c
arch.i386.kernel.mpparse.c
arch.i386.kernel.nmi.c
arch.i386.kernel.reboot.c
arch.i386.kernel.smpboot.c
arch.i386.kernel.sysenter.c
arch.i386.kernel.timers.timer_pit.c
arch.i386.mach-default.setup.c
arch.i386.mach-pc9800.setup.c
arch.i386.mach-visws.mpparse.c
arch.i386.mach-visws.reboot.c
arch.i386.mach-visws.setup.c
arch.i386.mach-visws.traps.c
arch.i386.mach-voyager.voyager_basic.c
arch.i386.mach-voyager.voyager_cat.c
arch.i386.mach-voyager.voyager_smp.c
arch.i386.rnm.pgtable.c
arch.i386.oprofile.nmi_int.c
arch.i386.oprofile.op_model_p4.c
arch.i386.pci.common.c
arch.i386.pci.numa.c
arch.i386.pci.irq.c
arch.ia64.ia32.ia32_ldt.c
arch.ia64.ia32.ia32_signal.c
arch.ia64.ia32.sys_ia32.c
arch.ia64.kernel.acpi.c
arch.ia64.kernel.efivars.c
arch.ia64.kernel.ia64_ksyms.c
arch.ia64.kernel.iosapic.c
arch.ia64.kernel.irq.c
arch.ia64.kernel.irq_ia64. c
arch.ia64.kernel.mca.c
arch.ia64.kernel.palinfo.c
arch.ia64.kernel.process.c
arch.ia64.kernel.sal.c
arch.ia64.kernel.setup.c
arch.ia64.kernel.signal.c
arch.ia64.kernel.smpboot.c
arch.ia64.kernel.smp.c
arch.ia64.kernel.sys_ia64.c
arch.ia64.kernel.time.c
arch.ia64.kernel.unwind.c
arch.ia64.mm.numa.c
arch.ia64.mm.tlb.c
arch.ia64.pci.pci.c
arch.ia64.sn.io.alienlist.c
arch.ia64.sn.io.sgi_io_init. c
arch.ia64.sn.io.sn1.huberror.c
arch.ia64.sn.io.sn1.ml_SN_intr.c
arch.ia64.sn.io.sn2.bte_error.c
arch.ia64.sn.io.sn2.geo_op.c
arch.ia64.sn.io.sn2.ml_SN_intr.c
arch.ia64.sn.io.sn2.sgi_io_init.c
arch.ia64.sn.io.sn2.shub.c
arch.ia64.sn.io.sn2.shuberror.c
arch.ia64.sn.io.sn2.shubio.c
arch.ia64.sn.kernel.llsc4.c
arch.ia64.sn.kernel.mca.c
arch.ia64.sn.kernel.sn1.error.c
arch.ia64.sn.kernel.sn1.sn1_smp.c
arch.ia64.sn.kernel.sn1.synergy.c
arch.ia64.sn.kernel.sn2.sn2_smp.c
arch.m68knommu.kernel.process.c
arch.m68knommu.kernel.ptrace.c
arch.m68knommu.kernel.sys_m68k.c
arch.mips64.kernel.proc.c
arch.mips64.kernel.ptrace.c
arch.mips64.kernel.signaI32.c
arch.mips64.kernel.signal.c
arch.mips64.kernel.smp.c
arch.mips64.kernel.syscall.c
arch.mips64.kernel.traps.c
arch.mips64.kernel.unaligned.c
arch.mips64.math-emu.cp1emu.c
arch.mips64.mips-boards.generic.printf.c
arch.mips64.mm.fault.c
arch.mips64.mm.umap.c
arch.mips64.sgi-ip22.ip22-int.c
arch.mips64.sgi-ip27.ip27-init.c
arch.mips64.sgi-ip27.ip27-irq.c
arch.mips64.sgi-ip27.ip27-klnuma.c
arch.mips64.sgi-ip27.ip27-memory.c
arch.mips64.sgi-ip27.ip27-nmi.c
arch.mips64.sgi-ip27.ip27-reset.c
arch.mips64.sgi-ip27.ip27-setup.c
arch.mips.kernel.old-irq.c
arch.mips.kernel.smp.c
arch.mips.math-emu.cp1emu.c
arch.mips.mips-boards.generic.printf.c
arch.ppc64.kernel.idle.c
arch.ppc64.kernel.irq.c
arch.ppc64.kernel.open_pic.c
arch.ppc64.kernel.process.c
arch.ppc64.kernel.ptrace32.c
arch.ppc64.kernel.ptrace.c
arch.ppc64.kernel.semaphore.c
arch.ppc64.kernel.signal.c
arch.ppc64.kernel.syscalls.c
arch.ppc64.kernel.XmPciLpEvent.c
arch.ppc64.xmon.xmon.c
arch.ppc.kernel.semaphore.c
arch.ppc.kernel.temp.c
arch.ppc.mm.4xx_mmu.c
arch.ppc.mm.cachemap.c
arch.ppc.mm.mmu_context.c
arch.ppc.mm.tlb.c
arch.ppc.platforms.4xx.ibmnp4051.c
arch.ppc.platforms.chrp_smp.c
arch.ppc.platforms.gemini_setup.c
arch.ppc.platforms.mcpn765_setup.c
arch.ppc.platforms.mvme5100_setup.c
arch.ppc.platforms.pmac_feature.c
arch.ppc.platforms.pmac_setup.c
arch.ppc.platforms.pmac_smp.c
arch.ppc.syslib.gt64260_common.c
arch.ppc.syslib.open_pic.c
arch.ppc.syslib.ppc4xx_setup.c
arch.ppc.syslib.prom.c
arch.sh.kernel.irq.c
arch.sh.kernel.pci_st40.c
arch.sh.kernel.ptrace.c
arch.sh.kernel.setup.c
arch.sh.kernel.sh_ksyms.c
arch.sh.kernel.signal.c
arch.sh.kernel.sys_sh.c
arch.sh.kernel.time.c
arch.sh.kernel.traps.c
arch.sh.mm.fault.c
arch.sh.mm.init.c
arch.um.kernel.irq.c
arch.um.kernel.ksyms.c
arch.um.kernel.smp.c
arch.um.kernel.tt.process_kern.c
arch.um.kernel.tt.tracer.c
arch.um.kernel.um_arch.c
arch.um.kernel.user_util.c
arch.um.sys-i386.sysrq.c
arch.um.sys-ppc.sysrq.c
arch.v850.kernel.irq.c
arch.v850.kernel.process.c
arch.v850.kernel.signal.c
arch.v850.kernel.syscalls.c
arch.x86_64.ia32.ia32_ioctl.c
arch.x86_64.ia32.ia32_signal.c
arch.x86_64.ia32.sys_ia32.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.acpi.boot.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.acpi.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.apic.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.bluesmoke.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.cpuid.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.head64.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.i8259.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.io_apic.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.ioport.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.irq.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.ldt.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.mpparse.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.msr.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.nmi.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.process.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.ptrace.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.reboot.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.setup64.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.setup.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.signal.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.smpboot.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.smp.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.sys_x86_64.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.time.c
arch.x86_64.kernel.x8664_ksyms.c
arch.x86_64.lib.delay.c
arch.x86_64.mm.fault.c
arch.x86_64.mm.init.c
arch.x86_64.mm.k8topology.c
arch.x86_64.mm.numa.c
arch.x86_64.pci.common.c
arch.x86_64.pci.irq.c
fs.autofs4.root.c
fs.devfs.base.c
fs.hugetlbfs.inode.c
fs.intermezzo.intermezzo_fs.h
fs.jbd.journal.c
fs.jfs.symlink.c
fs.mbcache.c
fs.nfsd.nfs4xhdr.c
fs.ntfs.ntfs.h
fs.proc.proc_misc.c
fs.ramfs.inode.c
fs.reiserfs.do_balan.c
fs.reiserfs.fix_node.c
fs.xfs.support.spin.h
include.asm-arm.thread_info.h
include.asm-arm.arch-sa1100.memory.h
include.asm-cris.delay.h
include.asm-cris.hardirq.h
include.asm-cris.pgtable.h
include.asm-cris.semaphore-helper.h
include.asm-cris.smp_lock.h
include.asm-cris.timex.h
include.asm-generic.percpu.h
include.asm-generic.tlb.h
include.asm-h8300.hardirq.h
include.asm-h8300.semaphore-helper.h
include.asm-h8300.spinlock.h
include.asm-i386.hw_irq.h
include.asm-i386.io_apic.h
include.asm-i386.mach-default.do_timer.h
include.asm-i386.mach-default.entry_arch.h
include.asm-i386.mach-default.irq_vectors.h
include.asm-i386.mach-numaq.mach_apic.h
include.asm-i386.mach-pc9800.do_timer.h
include.asm-i386.mach-pc9800.irq_vectors.h
include.asm-i386.mach-visws.do_timer.h
include.asm-i386.mach-visws.entry_arch.h
include.asm-i386.mach-visws.irq_vectors.h
include.asm-i386.thread_info.h
include.asm-i386.tlbflush.h
include.asm-ia64.acpi.h
include.asm-ia64.hw_irq.h
include.asm-ia64.mmzone.h
include.asm-ia64.nodedata.h
include.asm-ia64.numa.h
include.asm-ia64.smp.h
include.asm-ia64.sn.leds.h
include.asm-ia64.sn.nodepda.h
include.asm-ia64.sn.pda.h
include.asm-ia64.sn.sn_cpuid.h
include.asm-ia64.sn.types.h
include.asm-ia64.spinlock.h
include.asm-ia64.system.h
include.asm-ia64.topology.h
include.asm-m68knommu.atomic.h
include.asm-m68knommu.hardirq.h
include.asm-m68knommu.semaphore-helper.h
include.asm-mips64.hardirq.h
include.asm-mips64.mmzone.h
include.asm-mips64.processor.h
include.asm-mips64.semaphore-helper.h
include.asm-mips64.sgiarcs.h
include.asm-mips64.sn.sn0.arch.h
include.asm-mips64.sn.types.h
include.asm-mips64.spinlock.h
include.asm-mips64.timex.h
include.asm-ppc64.memory.h
include.asm-ppc64.pgtable.h
include.asm-ppc64.smp.h
include.asm-ppc.cacheflush.h
include.asm-ppc.gt64260.h
include.asm-ppc.pmac_feature.h
include.asm-s390.tlbflush.h
include.asm-sh.hardirq.h
include.asm-sh.pgtable.h
include.asm-sh.semaphore-helper.h
include.asm-sh.semaphore.h
include.asm-sh.spinlock.h
include.asm-sh.system.h
include.asm-v850.atomic.h
include.asm-v850.hardirq.h
include.asm-v850.percpu.h
include.asm-x86_64.e820.h
include.asm-x86_64.fixmap.h
include.asm-x86_64.hw_irq.h
include.asm-x86_64.io_apic.h
include.asm-x86_64.irq.h
include.asm-x86_64.mmzone.h
include.asm-x86_64.mpspec.h
include.asm-x86_64.semaphore.h
include.asm-x86_64.smp.h
include.asm-x86_64.spinlock.h
include.asm-x86_64.system.h
include.asm-x86_64.thread_info.h
include.asm-x86_64.tlbflush.h
include.linux.jbd.h
include.linux.mmzoneh
include.linux.netfilter_ipv4.lockhelp.h
include.linux.percpu_counter.h
include.linux.ppp_channel.h
include.linux.reiserfs_fs.h
include.linux.seqlock.h
include.linux.threads.h
include.linux.vermagic.h
include.net.atmclip.h
kernel.cpu.c
kernel.cpufreq.c
kernel.pm.c
kernel.posix-timers.c
kernel.suspend.c
kernel.timer.c
lib.idr.c
mm.page-writeback.c
net.atm.clip.c
net.atm.pppoatm.c
net.bridge.br_if.c
net.bridge.br_private.h
net.bridge.netfilter.ebtables.c
net.decnet.dn_fib.c
net.decnet.dn_route.c
net.ipv4.netfilter.ipchains_core.c
net.ipv4.netfilter.ip_conntrack_proto_icmp.c
net.ipv4.netfilter.ip_tables.c
net.ipv4.netfilter.ipt_limit.c
net.ipv6.netfilter.ip6_tables.c
net.ipv6.netfilter.ip6t_limit.c
net.sched.sch_ingress.c
arch.arm.kernel.irq.c
arch.arm.kernel.ptrace.c
arch.arm.kernel.signal.c
arch.arm.kernel.time.c
arch.arm.mm.init.c
arch.i386.kernel.apm.c
arch.i386.kernel.cpuid.c
arch.i386.kernel.i386_ksyms.c
arch.i386.kernel.io_apic.c
arch.i386.kernel.ioport.c
arch.i386.kernel.irq.c
arch.i386.kernel.ldt.c
arch.i386.kernel.msr.c
arch.i386.kernel.process.c
arch.i386.kernel.ptrace.c
arch.i386.kernel.signal.c
arch.i386.kernel.smp.c
arch.i386.kernel.sys_i386.c
arch.i386.kernel.time.c
arch.i386.kernel.vm86.c
arch.i386.lib.delay.c
arch.i386.mm.fault.c
arch.m68k.kernel.process.c
arch.m68k.kernel.ptrace.c
arch.m68k.kernel.sys_m68k.c
arch.mips.kernel.ipc.c
arch.mips.kernel.irixioctl.c
arch.mips.kernel.irixsig.c
arch.mips.kernel.irq.c
arch.mips.kernel.ptrace.c
arch.mips.kernel.signal.c
arch.mips.kernel.syscall.c
arch.mips.kernel.sysirix.c
arch.mips.kernel.sysmips.c
arch.mips.kernel.time.c
arch.mips.kernel.traps.c
arch.mips.kernel.unaligned.c
arch.mips.mm.fault.c
arch.mips.sgi.kernel.indy_int.c
arch.mips.sni.io.c
arch.ppc.kernel.idle.c
arch.ppc.kernel.irq.c
arch.ppc.kernel.ppc_ksyms.c
arch.ppc.kernel.ppc-stub.c
arch.ppc.kernel.process.c
arch.ppc.kernel.ptrace.c
arch.ppc.kernel.setup.c
arch.ppc.kernel.signal.c
arch.ppc.kernel.smp.c
arch.ppc.kernel.syscalls.c
arch.ppc.kernel.time.c
arch.ppc.lib.locks.c
arch.ppc.mm.init.c
arch.ppc.xmon.xmon.c
arch.s390.kernel.s390_ksyms.c
fs.binfmt_elf.c
fs.buffer.c
fs.dcache.c
fs.dquot.c
fs.inode.c
fs.lockd.svc.c
fs.ncpfs.ioctl.c
fs.nfsd.nfssvc.c
fs.proc.array.c
fs.proc.base.c
include.asm-arm.atomic.h
include.asm-arm.smp.h
include.asm-arm.spinlock.h
include.asm-arm.system.h
include.asm-i386.bugs.h
include.asm-i386.desc.h
include.asm-i386.fixmap.h
include.asm-i386.semaphore.h
include.asm-i386.smp.h
include.asm-i386.spinlock.h
include.asm-i386.system.h
include.asm-i386.timex.h
include.asm-m68k.atomic.h
include.asm-m68k.semaphore-helper.h
include.asm-m68k.spinlock.h
include.asm-mips.atomic.h
include.asm-mips.bitops.h
include.asm-mips.hardirq.h
include.asm-mips.semaphore.h
include.asm-mips.semaphore-helper.h
include.asm-mips.sgiarcs.h
include.asm-mips.spinlock.h
include.asm-mips.system.h
include.asm-mips.timex.h
include.asm-ppc.bitops.h
include.asm-ppc.hardirq.h
include.asm-ppc.mmu_context.h
include.asm-ppc.pgtable.h
include.asm-ppc.smp.h
include.asm-ppc.timex.h
include.linux.fs.h
include.linux.genhd.h
include.linux.interrupt.h
include.linux.kernel_stat.h
include.linux.list.h
include.linux.sched.h
include.linux.smp.h
include.linux.spinlock.h
include.linux.timer.h
include.linux.wanpipe.h
include.linux.wanrouter.h
include.net.sock.h
init.main.c
ipc.sem.c
ipc.shm.c
kernel.acct.c
kernel.exit.c
kernel.itimer.c
kernel.panic.c
kernel.printk.c
kernel.sched.c
kernel.signal.c
kernel.sys.c
kernel.time.c
mm.filemap.c
mm.memory.c
mm.mprotect.c
mm.slab.c
mm.swap_state.c
mm.vmalloc.c
net.core.neighbour.c
net.ipv4.devinit.c
net.ipv4.icmp.c
net.ipv4.ip_fragment.c
net.ipv4.route.c
net.ipv4.tcp_ipv4.c
net.ipv6.reassembly.c
net.ipv6.tcp_ipv6.c
net.irda.af_irda.c
net.irda.irqueue.c
net.netlink.af_netlink.c
net.sched.cls_api.c
net.sched.sch_api.c
net.socket.c
net.sunrpc.sched.c
net.sunrpc.svcsock.c
net.unix.af_unix.c
net.x25.af_x25.c
Again, plaintiff does not contend that all of the source code contained in all of the identified files constitutes information that IBM was required to maintain as confidential or proprietary and/or constitutes trade secrets. Plaintiff contends that information IBM should have kept confidential was or may have been improperly used or incorporated in the above files. Plaintiff needs to complete discovery of IBM to determine with particularity the specific ways in which the above-referenced files were created by IBM and its agents, contractors and partners, the methods used in creating such files, and the relationship of such methods to UNIX technology protected under confidentiality agreement with SCO. SCO will therefore provide additional supplements to this interrogatory answer as discovery progresses.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

For each alleged trade secret of any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to interrogatory No. 1, please identify: (a) all persons who have or have had rights to the alleged trade secret or confidential or proprietary information; (b) the nature and source of the rights; and (c) all efforts by any persons to maintain the secrecy or confidentiality of the alleged trade secrets and any confidential or proprietary information.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

In addition to the General Objections set forth in Plaintiff's Responses, SCO notes that it still has not received responsive discovery from IBM that would allow it to fully answer this question because part of this information is peculiarly within the knowledge of IBM. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Plaintiff supplements its response to this Interrogatory No. 2 and states that persons who have or have had rights to the information that IBM was required to maintain as confidential or proprietary and/or constitutes trade secrets, as contained in the above source files, include IBM and Sequent and their respective employees, contractors and agents and some customers. SCO required that such information be maintained in confidence pursuant to the Software Agreements and Sublicensing Agreements with IBM and Sequent, together with related agreements.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, please identify all persons to whom the alleged trade secret or confidential or proprietary information is known or has been disclosed and describe, in detail, the circumstances under which it became known or was disclosed, including but not limited to: (a) the date on which the alleged trade secret or confidential or proprietary information was disclosed or became known to such persons; (b) the specific terms on which the information was disclosed or became known, such as pursuant to a confidentiality agreement; (c) all documents or agreements relating to the disclosure; and (d) all places or locations where the alleged trade secret or confidential or proprietary information may be found or accessed.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

In addition to the General Objections set forth in Plaintiff's Responses, SCO notes that discovery is in preliminary stages and it has not yet received responsive discovery from IBM that would allow it to fully answer this question because part of this information is peculiarly within the knowledge of IBM. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Plaintiff supplements its response to this Interrogatory No. 3 and states that because IBM posted the protected materials publicly, including in the Linux 2.4 kernel and above, it is impossible to identify all persons to whom the protected materials have been disclosed. Nonetheless, in addition to the information provided in SCO's revised and supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 2, employees of SCO and its predecessors have had access to part of the trade secrets, confidential and/or proprietary information. This would include but not be limited to engineers, persons who were involved in Project Gemini and persons who were involved in Project Monterey, which are more specifically identified in SCO's revised and supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 10 served on IBM on October 10, 2003. IBM and other personnel involved in Project Monterey, who were not employees of SCO or its predecessors, also would have had access to part of the trade secrets, confidential and/or proprietary information.

Despite IBM's failure to provide the necessary discovery, SCO is currently aware of the following persons at IBM in which part of the confidential or proprietary and/or trade secrets was known or had been disclosed.

IBM - US Authors

[30 names and/or email addresses]

IBM - German Authors

[24 names and/or email addresses]

IBM - Australian Authors

[2 names and email addresses]

IBM-Other

[15 names and/or email addresses]

IBM - Austin Office (JFS)

[3 names and/or email addresses]

IBM - Corporation Copyrights (May be some repetition from above)

[22 names and/or email addresses], IBM Corporation

The following persons likely have knowledge, although their names do not appear in the Linux code base. Upon receipt of discovery from IBM, SCO will be better able to definitively state whether these individuals have the requisite knowledge

[62 names and/or email addresses]

Finally, Plaintiff cannot know the extent of all such disclosures because they were made by virtue of IBM's improper contributions into Linux. At such time as IBM responds to SCO's discovery requests with respect to source code and identifies those persons to whom IBM has delivered source code, SCO will be better able to supplement this response, if needed

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, please describe, in detail, each instance in which plaintiff alleges or contends that IBM misappropriated or misused the alleged trade secret or confidential or proprietary information, including but not limited to: (a) the date of the alleged misuse or misappropriation; (b) all persons involved in any way in the alleged misuse or misappropriation; (c) the specific manner in which IBM is alleged to have engaged in misuse or misappropriation; and (d) with respect to any code or method plaintiff alleges or contends that IBM misappropriated or misused, the location of each portion of such code or method in any product, such as AIX, in Linux, in open source, or in the public domain.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4

In addition to the General Objections set forth in Plaintiff's Responses, SCO notes that discovery is in its preliminary stages and it has not yet received responsive discovery from IBM that would allow it to fully answer this question because part of this information is peculiarly within the knowledge of IBM, and or its agents, partners, contractors and others, including Linus Torvalds and/or the Open Source Development Laboratory ("OSDL"). Subject to and without waiving these objections, Plaintiff supplements its response to this Interrogatory No. 4 and states that IBM misappropriated and misused the trade secrets and/or confidential and proprietary information of Plaintiff each time it made contributions to Linux of source code or methods based on, derived from or developed in UNIX System V, AIX and/or Dynix. Plaintiff does not have specific dates, persons contributing or the manner in which contributions were made and will not have this information until IBM produces such information. At this time, however the persons identified in the revised and supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 3 likely would have been involved in the public dissemination of this confidential material.

IBM additionally misappropriated and misused the trade secrets and/or confidential and proprietary information of Plaintiff through Project Monterey. Many of those involved are listed in the relevant category on the list of witnesses provided to IBM by SCO in its supplemental and revised response to Interrogatory No. 10 served on October 10, 2003. The roles those individuals and others played and the manner and dates of their involvement will be determined once IBM provides the necessary information in discovery.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, please identify: (a) all agreements relating to the alleged trade secret or confidential or proprietary information including but not limited to the parties to and the terms of the agreements; and (b) all copyrights and patents relating to the alleged trade secret or confidential or proprietary information including but not limited to the owners, licensors, licensees, assignors or assignees of those copyrights or patents.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

In addition to the General Objections set forth in Plaintiff's Responses, Plaintiff supplements its response to this Interrogatory No. 5 by reference to response to Interrogatories No. 2 and 3. Additionally, pursuant to Rule 33(d), copyrights to UNIX System V and UnixWare and related copyrights will be produced by Plaintiff in the ordinary course of the rolling production under the pending First Request for Production of Documents propounded by IBM to Plaintiff. Additionally, copyrights related to the confidential and proprietary information and/or trade secret information identified in Interrogatory No. 1 are in the possession of IBM and Sequent, in that the authority of IBM and Sequent to obtain copyrights in AIX, Dynix and other software products that are based on, or are modifications of UNIX System V, was constrained by the scope of license granted by Plaintiff.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

For each line of source or object code and each method identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, please identify: (a) the origin of the code or method, including when, where and by whom the code or method was created; and (b) all products in which, in whole or in part, the code or method is included or on which, in whole or in part, the code or method is based.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

In addition to the General Objections set forth in Plaintiff's Responses, SCO notes that discovery is in preliminary stages and SCO has not yet received responsive discovery from IBM that would allow it to fully answer this question because part of this information is peculiarly within the knowledge of IBM, such as the modifications and derivative works created by IBM that were to be treated as the original Software Product as that term is defined in the Software Agreement or Sublicensing Agreement. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Plaintiff supplements its response to this Interrogatory No. 6 and states that the origin of the code and/or method identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above is one of UNIX System V, UnixWare, AIX, Dynix or related code or code developed therein or modifications thereof.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Please describe, in detail, each instance in which plaintiff alleges that IBM engaged in unfair competition, including but not limited to: (a) the dates on which IBM allegedly engaged in any unfair competition; (b) all persons involved in the alleged unfair competition; and (c) the specific manner in which IBM is alleged to have engaged in unfair competition including but not limited to as alleged in ¶ 118 of the Complaint.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

In addition to the General Objections set forth in Plaintiff's Responses, SCO notes that discovery is in preliminary stages and SCO has not yet received responsive discovery from IBM that would allow it to fully answer this question because part of this information is peculiarly within the knowledge of IBM. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Plaintiff supplements its response to this Interrogatory No. 7 and states that:

Plaintiff [sic] wrongfully and with the intent of improperly competing with and influencing competition in the market for UNIX software on Intel-based processors induced Plaintiff to postpone final steps of development and marketing of 32-bit UNIX software for Intel processors. This was done at a time when Plaintiff held dominant market power for UNIX-based software on Intel processors. IBM made and continued to make investments in development of Linux, and secretly advanced and promoted development of Linux without disclosing such activities to SCO, during and at a time when IBM was under a duty to deal fairly with and disclose such competing activities to SCO pursuant to its contractual obligations to SCO under Project Monterey and otherwise.

In addition, IBM, through Karen Smith and others has induced or attempted to induce others in the software industry, including but not limited to Hewlett Packard and Intel, from doing business with SCO from and after the LinuxWorld trade show held during January 2003.

In addition, IBM has unfairly competed with SCO by acts that include, but are not limited to, improper use of the Software Products and modifications and derivative works of the Software Products in a manner exceeding the scope of the license. Such acts include, but are not limited to, contributions of the modifications and derivative works to Linus Torvalds and/or others in the open source community.

In addition, IBM has unfairly competed with SCO by acts that include, but are not limited to, entering a conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade with others in the Linux development and distribution business, pursuant to the GPL, to artificially restrain prices below natural levels for the purposes of destroying competition in the operating systems market for UNIX software on Intel machines, and to improperly gain advantage and extract profits from customers through inducing customers to unnecessarily switch operating systems from UNIX to Linux, without any technological benefit for customers, solely to gain additional services work for IBM and license middleware to customers in lieu of operating system software. In other words, Linux adds no technology advantage to customers - its only advantage is that it is purportedly "free" for customers. If Linux is not distributed at a zero price point, customers will not switch to Linux and therefore will not purchase related IBM services or middleware. By artificially restraining the price of Linux to zero, which price is very substantially below the actual development cost contributed by IBM and others, IBM induces customers to switch to Linux. This is, among other things, unfair competition.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Please identify all agreements with which plaintiff alleges IBM interfered and describe, in detail, each instance in which plaintiff alleges or contends that IBM interfered with those agreements, including but not limited to: (a) the date of the alleged interference; (b) all persons involved in the alleged interference; (c) the specific manner in which IBM is alleged to have interfered with the agreement; (d) the specific actions, if any, that IBM induced or encouraged plaintiff's customers or licensees to take; (e) the specific action, if any, that plaintiff's customer or licensee took as a result of the actions allegedly induced or encouraged by IBM; and (f) the specific trade secret or confidential or proprietary information, if any, involved in the alleged interference.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

In addition to the General Objections set forth in Plaintiff's Responses, SCO notes that discovery is in preliminary stages and SCO has not yet received responsive discovery from IBM that would allow it to fully answer this question because part of this information is peculiarly within the knowledge of IBM. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Plaintiff supplements and revises its response to this Interrogatory No. 8 and states, on information and belief, at various times from 2000 to the present, IBM has induced or attempted to induce breach of agreements between SCO and some of its customers by assisting and/or performing services in switch from UnixWare to Linux that involved or would involve breach of SCO's software agreements through improper use of shared libraries for use on Linux of various applications designed for UnixWare. Customers that IBM has contacted for such improper purposes include Sherwin Williams, Auto Zone, Target, Krogers, Advanced Auto, Shaw's Supermarkets, State of Maine (Department of Labor), Eckerds, and Safeway.

In addition, IBM, through Karen Smith and Daniel Frye and possibly others, approached certain of SCO's partners during LinuxWorld in January 2003 to induce such partners to stop doing business with SCO, including Hewlett Packard, Intel and Computer Associates. SCO's own investigation into this matter is continuing, and additional information will be provided as it becomes available, including up receiving such information from IBM.

DATED this 23rd day of October, 2003.
As to Objections: By: [signature of Brent O. Hatch]
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
As to Responses: ________________________
Christopher S. Sontag
Sr. Vice President
Operating Systems Division
The SCO Group, Inc.
STATE OF UTAH

County of Utah

The above signed Christopher S. Sontag, being duly sworn upon oath, deposes and says that he has read the above responses to discovery requests and that the responses contained therein are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.


Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
(address, contact info)
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
(address, contact info)

Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
THE SCO GROUP,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,

vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION, a
New York corporation,

Defendant.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES


Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK

Judge: Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Brooke C. Wells

I hereby certify that the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES was served by Hand Delivery or by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 23rd day of October, 2003 to the following:

By Hand Delivery:

Alan L Sullivan, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
(address, contact info)

By U.S. Mail:

Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
Cravath, Swaint & Moore LLP
(address, contact info)
Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
(address, contact info, etc.)
By: [signature of Brent O. Hatch
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE


  


SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories | 169 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
find /usr/src/linux -print | sed s///./g
Authored by: jobsagoodun on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 03:26 AM EST
Darl sure must've took some time doing all those ls's and turning all those
slashes into dots...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Answers to IBM's 1st Interrogatories - Needs to be Edited
Authored by: Alex on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 03:44 AM EST

"INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Please describe, in detail, each instance in which plaintiff alleges taht IBM
engaged in unfair"

should be "that IBM engaged in unfair"


Also see the paragraph immediately below:

"Plaintiff supplements its response to this Interrogatory No. 7 and states
taht:"

should be "states that:"


editing aside, it looks like SCO is finally giving up some real information. (I
guess if you're going on a fishing expedition, you need to put some bait on the
hook.)

I noticed a couple of things that were very interesting. First, SCO has avoided
mentioning "Project Trillian" in both their responses, despite the
fact that IBM was involved, and despite the fact that Project Trillian would
have been a perfect setting for a tech transfer to Linux. Interestingly enough,
Caldera was also involved in Project Trillian. This would suggest that IBM
should make inquiries into Trillian and find out what Caldera did/said there.
(Someone must have notes from the meetings, and e-mails have to be available.)

I also note a reference to "Project Gemini." I don't see any
SCO/IBM projects by that name, though Project Gemini was apparenly the
"next generation" project at SCO during the mid-nineties. You can
find a reference here:

http://stage.caldera.com/investor/annual_reports/annual/textsite/textunix.html

and here

http://x86.ddj.com/news/1998/news072798.htm

and here:

http://www.tarantella.com/investor/info/reports/pdf/sco97ar.pdf

Though oddly, there's no implication that IBM was involved.

PJ, I'll try to find some time to compare the Hellwig stuff with that file
list.

Lastly, note the file list. I see lots of references to other chip architectures
and stuff that looks like 64 bit code. Any kernel mavens out there?

Alex

---
Destroying SCO one bozon at a time

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Answers to IBM's 1st Interrogatories - Needs to be Edited
Authored by: Alex on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 03:55 AM EST

Another question comes to mind. What's the difference between a salesman
saying, "You should switch to our system, it's cheaper and better,"
and "restraint of trade?"

Alex

---
Destroying SCO one bozon at a time

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Answers to IBM's 1st Interrogatories - Needs to be Edited
Authored by: John Douglas on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 04:43 AM EST
Most of this is fishing but in amoungst the 'how can we say what IBM has done
wrong are the following:

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4

'IBM additionally misappropriated and misused the trade secrets and/or
confidential and proprietary information of Plaintiff through Project
Monterey.'

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

'..or would involve breach of SCO's software agreements through improper use
of shared libraries for use on Linux of various applications designed for
UnixWare.'

Could these be SCO's Trojan horse?

---
As a Safety Critcal/Firmware Engineer, everything I do is automatically
incorrect until proven otherwise. (The one aspect of my work that my wife
understands).

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 05:39 AM EST
"to artificially restrain prices below natural levels"

Yeah, right. The natural price - sale value - of something that can be
infinitely reduplicated at ->0 cost can and should be zero.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: hugorune on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 05:39 AM EST
Plaintiff contends that information IBM should have kept confidential was or may have been improperly used or incorporated in the above files. Plaintiff needs to complete discovery of IBM to determine with particularity the specific ways in which the above-referenced files were created by IBM and its agents, contractors and partners, the methods used in creating such files, and the relationship of such methods to UNIX technology protected under confidentiality agreement with SCO. SCO will therefore provide additional supplements to this interrogatory answer as discovery progresses.

Insn't this pretty much an admission that they have no basis for their lawsuit and are engaged in a fishing expedition?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's hypocrisy and unclean hands - they just can't win
Authored by: Grim Reaper on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 06:06 AM EST
I hope the judge can see through the hypocrisy of SCO's allegations on pages 30
and 31. SCO is also guilty of unclean hands. They willingly distrubuted
"free" GNU/Linux until they concocted their scam to defraud IBM out
of billions of dollars. They are still distributing Linux, and they are still
distributing "free" software bundled with their operatings systems.
They are willfully engaged in the very acts they are accusing IBM of.

"In addition, IBM has unfairly competed with SCO by acts that include,
but are not limited to, entering a conspiracy and combination in restraint of
trade with others in the Linux development and distribution business, pursuant
to the GPL, to artificially restrain prices below natural levels for the
purposes of destroying competition in the operating systems market for UNIX
software on Intel machines, and to improperly gain advantage and extract profits
from customers through inducing customers to unnecessarily switch operating
systems from UNIX to Linux ..."

---
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10); R.I.P. -
SCO Group, 2005/08/29

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • CONSPIRACY! - Authored by: arch_dude on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 10:27 AM EST
    • CONSPIRACY! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 11:20 AM EST
    • CONSPIRACY! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 01:53 PM EST
SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 06:11 AM EST
As far as i understand SCO has information wich can answers IBM quastions. But
it refuses because it cant five a full answer.

Is this necesary? Does IBM questions ask to give SCO the information it allready
knows?

If your ask for examples

'In wich files is SCO now aware of wich containts infringments of SCO's IP'


differs from

'In wich files containts infringments of SCO IP'

In the first question sco can't argue that it needs more information from IBM,
in the second question they can.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: DrStupid on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 06:22 AM EST
Thought I'd pick a chunk of files at random...

include.asm-mips.atomic.h

include.asm-mips.bitops.h

include.asm-mips.hardirq.h

include.asm-mips.semaphore.h

include.asm-mips.semaphore-helper.h

include.asm-mips.sgiarcs.h

include.asm-mips.spinlock.h

include.asm-mips.system.h

include.asm-mips.timex.h

well, going to /usr/src/linux/include/asm-mips, there are over a 100 files. So
why these ones in particular?

Well,

grep -l SMP *h gives

atomic.h

bitops.h

cache.h

delay.h

hardirq.h

mmu_context.h

pgalloc.h

processor.h

semaphore-helper.h

semaphore.h

sgiarcs.h

smp.h

smplock.h

spinlock.h

stackframe.h

system.h

timex.h

So on the face of it, SCO are doing something like grepping for SMP.

btw, timex.h (for example) was written first in 1998.

This quick experiment shows that we may be able to concoct a "grep
-l" statement that replicates TSG's list quite easily.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: SCO activity?
Authored by: roxyb on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 06:23 AM EST
Is anyone except me having a barrage of SCO machines accessing their web-pages? Seems a bit odd, but it started about two weeks ago. Before that, I was only seeing the usual mix of NT/98/W2K with some odd HPUX thrown in.

Sigh, just tell me that I am becoming abnormaly paranoid and I'll go crawl under a rock again...

Roland Buresund

---
--
I'm Still Standing...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Didio's comment
Authored by: John Allsup on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 06:32 AM EST
<blockquote>
"'You would have to be Nostradamus to know how all this would end,'
Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio told NewsFactor. . . .

"'But even if SCO were to settle with IBM tomorrow, there could likely be
copycat lawsuits filed,' DiDio noted. . . . 'Government organizations, the
healthcare , banking and financial industries -- by law or by shareholder
demand, these organizations will require indemnification.'"
</blockquote>
This viewpoint is why, in my opinion, it is important that this case is not
settled, but has a conclusive decision made on the part of the judge. The
question of when indemnification is required can only be answered well if we all
know where we stand. For this we require a decision, justification, and for the
law (i.e. the courts) to set out its position with respect to these issues.

There are (at least these) two things that are important: one is the arguments
for and against free software as to where the law should stand (as noted in the
above article.) The other is the view of the courts, as to where the law
actually does stand.

Just a thought.

John.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: aet on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 06:35 AM EST
Link to original PDF file is broken, this link should work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: Mark_Edwards on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 06:55 AM EST
> If Linux is not distributed at a zero price point, customers will not
switch to Linux and therefore will not purchase related IBM services or
middleware. By artificially restraining the price of Linux to zero, which price
is very substantially below the actual development cost contributed by IBM and
others, IBM induces customers to switch to Linux. This is, among other things,
unfair competition."

Just out of interest wouldn't the judge just look at this paragraph and realise
that SCO/Caldera did exactly the same for 8 (or so) years?

Also wouldn't be ironic if IBM produced all the Microsoft
"sponsered" documentation/analysis showing how Linux costs more than
Microsoft when deploying within a company!?!

Mark.

..... now to wait for SCO's next comic^H^H^H^H^H filing to appear :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Proof of Linux superiority to UNIX (esp. SCO)
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 06:57 AM EST
I think that the security aspects are only part of the issue. We all know Linux is technologically superior to SCO SVR3 and SVR4 based products. Here is an attempt at some sources that might have an objective weighting to those not in the know.

System performance is governed by hardware as well as software, so we really need to focus on common hardware platforms.

So: Go to the TOP500 super computers and look at how Linux compares with SCO UNIX, or Solaris x86 on the same platform. http://www.top500.org

Go to the SPEC web site and look at how Linux compares with SCO UNIX et al. on the web server benchmark. http://www.spec.org/web99/results/

Go to the TPC web site and look at how Linux compares with SCO UNIX at the various OLAP and other dataprocessing benchmarks. http://www.tpc.org/

Clue: SCO UNIXWARE does not even figure.

And for the database benchmarks, Windows dominates the results for the intel platform. Even more so when you consider the price performance ratio.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 07:13 AM EST
In addition, IBM has unfairly competed ... unfair competition.

When it is hard to compeet or able to sell your products for a low price isn't
unfair.
IBM made a tactical decision to use Linux. SCO and other had the same change to
do the same. If the don't do that or are not capable doing the same,then it is
their problem.
The price of the OS isn't the biggest IT Cost and the only reason to buy linux.
So they had enough opurinity to make a competing product. If that isn't
possible because SCo is to small or has a ancient products than thats SCO
problem.
Anyone more arguments?

Ciao J.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: PRaabjerg on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 07:56 AM EST
A few practical bits regarding the filelist:

I just took a few minutes and had the filelist converted to something Unix
systems can actually understand:
http://staaland.users.whitehat.dk/SCO_filelist.txt

And thus, I also discovered a few errors in it:
arch.ia64.kernel.irq_ia64. c should be
arch.ia64.kernel.irq_ia64.c
arch.ia64.sn.io.sgi_io_init. c should be
arch.ia64.sn.io.sgi_io_init. c
include.linux.mmzoneh should be
include.linux.mmzone.h

I tried grepping a bit through the files for fun (in the 2.6.0-test4 kernel,
since that's the one I had readily available). Some of the files seemed to be
non-existant in that kernel-version. But of the lot that did exist, I could find
only about 60-70 with actual "IBM" or "International Business
Machines" copyright notices.
Make of this what you want. I am not a lawyer nor an educated coder. So I may
have made mistakes, and I'm not even sure if this would be of any significance
at all :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ransom Love Back In Linux With Progeny
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 08:01 AM EST
h++p://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1379282,00.asp

I bet McBride must be sweating like a pig, 'cause Ransom Love as a witness for
IBM could seriously screw with his scam

[ Reply to This | # ]

Artifically lowered the price...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 08:03 AM EST
How can IBM be said to have artificially lowered the price of a Linux
distribution?

a) They do not make or sell a linux distribution, this is the job of
Novell/SuSe, Mandrake and RedHat.

b) If 'artificially lowering' means substantially lowering the cost of a
product below market-value to exclude others from the market, then IBM are
surely not guildy of that crime: The standard price for a complete Linux distro
is zero. Redhat, Mandrake, Slakware, Gentoo, Debian can all be obtained without
payment. The fact that old SCO over-priced their Linux is evidenced by the fact
that few people used it in preference to free distros.

Sal

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 08:09 AM EST

"In other words, Linux adds no technology advantage to
customers..."

USB Support, anyone? Large Volume Support? Advanced graphics support?

Lying scoundrels.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 08:22 AM EST
Am I understanding the response to Interrogatory #2 correctly? SCO is saying
that the trade secrets IBM improperly revealed belonged to IBM? The court is
supposed to believe that IBM entered into an agreement with SCO where IBM
promised to not reveal IBM's own trade secrets? Have they included any such
agreement in their filings?

I'm starting to agree with the poster in another thread who theorized that
SCO's dance towards destruction is just a huge piece of performance art, rather
than an actual attempt to win a case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's use of SAMBA, etc... = unfair because it's free?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 08:38 AM EST
Ask SCO about their use of many of the Open Source applications that they are
"competing with"?

AND their previous history concerning their LINUX distribution as well!

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT a joke
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 09:53 AM EST
when reading

"If Linux is not distributed at a zero price point, customers will not
switch to Linux"

I Thought

"Even if sco unix is distributed at a zero price point, customers will not
switch to sco unix"

ciao
J

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 10:11 AM EST
It is me, or does this completely lack a few things that are absolutely required
for this discovery to truly have the information that is required for this case
to go forward.

In particular:

1. The exact kernel version for each of the files that they are claiming here.

2. The methods and lines of code that they claim to own.

3. Their exact claim to rights that they have for each item claimed in 2.

How can things go forward without that? Or am I missing something?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM does not own Linux
Authored by: kev on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 10:26 AM EST
If Linux is not distributed at a zero price point, customers will not switch to Linux and therefore will not purchase related IBM services or middleware. By artificially restraining the price of Linux to zero, which price is very substantially below the actual development cost contributed by IBM and others, IBM induces customers to switch to Linux.
SCO seems to think that Linux is a product of IBM that can be disposed of as IBM chooses - as if Linux were a kind of Internet Explorer and IBM were Microsoft, fixing its price to zero to blow Netscape out of the water. This is obviously false. IBM has no control over the Linux "price tag". The second IBM started charging $2000 per server for Linux licenses, another company could come along and charge half that for the same thing, and so on. This is not "restraining the price of Linux to zero" - it is simple economics.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 10:46 AM EST
Linux was free long before old SCO existed and old SCO also expended a certain
ammount of effort improving Linux. Many of those benefits were ploughed back
into Linux.

The key diference between what SCO and IBM did is a matter of scale. SCO seem to
be arguing that it is anti-competitive to donate large significant quantities of
(non-infringing) work and reap profits, wheras SCO imply it is perfectly okay to
donate smaller quantities of work and make a pathetic loss.

In abolute terms, IBMs donation to Linux was the greater, however in relative
terms (relative to the size of the company), Calderra's was the greater. On
this scale Calderra gave more of itself and owed more of its sucsess to the
sucsess of linux.

* Does SCO's argument imply that it is wrong for a bigger company to under-cut
a smaller company's offering? Surely it is okay for a smaller-company to
undercut a bigger company. What about when an individual or a non-corporate body
does for free what a company charges for, is that unfair competition?

* What legally is the diference between Microsoft undercutting Netscape and
forcing them out of the browser market and the case that SCO describes? The
obvious diference is that Netscape could never sell and modify Internet Explorer
whereas there is nothing preventing SCO (other than their obstenate selves) from
continuing to distribute a commercial Linux distribution.

* Since IBM do not control pricing for Linux or even own a Linux distribution,
IBM might be right to say that this argument is merely irrelevant as the people
who set the price are the collective of developers who chose to donate their
work into Linux under the GNU license?

* Are there any other examples of things that used to cost a lot of money but
are now available nearly-free? Examples from the non-computing woruld would
illustrate how bizarre SCO's statement is.

* Does the fact that a comodity once had a non-zero value mean that it must
never be provided at a zero-value by a bigger company?

* This is an example of the correct functioning of a capitolist society (and not
unfair treatment). Over time we should expect the value of all comodity products
to tend to zero.

sal

[ Reply to This | # ]

Solving security issues
Authored by: rjamestaylor on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 10:48 AM EST
not specifically GNU/Linux, but here's an example of a real security hole in Closed Source going un-exposed (to corporate users, that is) for sixx years and then being discovered once the same product was opened: Follow the Slashdot article's links to CERT, etc., sources.

Another example is the discovery and time-to-patch an SSL certificate handling flaw in both Internet Explorer and KDE's Konqueror. (Same article has links to similar feats with Mozilla and Apache).

Again, not specifically GNU/Linux, but definitely Open Source treating its users better than closed source alternatives.


---
SCO delenda est! Salt their fields!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 10:51 AM EST

``In other words, Linux adds no technology advantage to customers - its only advantage is that it is purportedly 'free' for customers. If Linux is not distributed at a zero price point, customers will not switch to Linux and therefore will not purchase related IBM services or middleware. By artificially restraining the price of Linux to zero, which price is very substantially below the actual development cost contributed by IBM and others, IBM induces customers to switch to Linux. This is, among other things, unfair competition.''

Horse hockey! Most of the people I know running Linux have purchased boxed distributions. This means that they spent a minimum of about US$50 for their software. I have occasionally splurged and spent the extra money for the `Professional' edition of a distribution. Aside from (perhaps) college students, very few people are blessed with the bandwidth to allow them to download five or six ISO images to avoid paying for their Linux software. OK, US$50 is less than the US$1000 or so that SCO likes to charge for software. My heart bleeds for SCO, the poor souls.

Hey SCO! If you want to complain about someone giving away their software and gaining an unfair advantage, talk to your buddies up in Washington state. I'll bet they have a different view on that than you do.

I suppose SCO wants all software to cost the same so that we'll only be judging it solely on its technical merits.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What possible reason...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 10:58 AM EST

... could exist for it to be necessary to replace slashes with dots? Other than wasting time, that is. There are slashes elsewhere in the document that didn't have to be replaced. Perhaps they thought they'd be confusing to the judge.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Public money
Authored by: freeio on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 11:34 AM EST
Very true. However, the BSD license especially seem rigged to allow the
taxpayers to buy the same code over and over. That is why I release all my
designs under GPL instead.

---
TRVTH

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oops - supposed to be posted elsewhere
Authored by: freeio on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 12:11 PM EST
So sorry, the parent was an answer to a different question. I don't know how
it ended up appended where it is.

---
TRVTH

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 01:24 PM EST
>and to improperly gain advantage and extract profits from >customers
through inducing customers to unnecessarily >switch operating systems from
UNIX to Linux, without any >technological benefit for customers, solely to
gain >additional

This has to be my favorite part! Is this not a description of SCO's licensing
gambit!???

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 01:30 PM EST

SCO's supplemental response to interrogatory 7 includes this gem, "IBM has unfairly competed ... to artificially restrain prices below natural levels for the purposes of destroying competition in the operating systems market[.]"

Several years ago and slightly different facts and this might have been written, "Microsoft has unfairly competed to artificially restrain prices below natural levels for the purposes of destroying competition in the web browser market."

Of course IBM is trying to bring prices for operating systems down. But there is nothing artificial today about the natural level of prices for operating systems being zero! Today, the natural price level for web browsers is zero, too. $700 or $1,400 is an unnatural price for an operating system. We live in a different world.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 02:44 PM EST

Two issues that I haven't seen mentioned yet:

  • IBM doesn't distribute Linux. They will, however, arrange for you to buy a copy from SuSE or RedHat.
  • IBM does contribute changes that improve Linux support for IBM hardware. This is a long-standing tradition in the hardware business. Intel helps MS and anybody else (including Linux) support their chips, video card manufacturers provide free drivers, etc. Nokia provides free development kits for their phones. It's not quite the same thing, but video game makers and razer-blade manufacturers also sell their consoles and razers at below cost in order to create a market for games and blades, respectively. It's not illegal unless you're using it to extend a monopoly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 04:52 PM EST
"In addition, IBM has unfairly competed with SCO by acts that include, but
are not limited to, entering a conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade
with others in the Linux development and distribution business"

Must be a heck of a grand conspiracy to destroy the market for Unix operating
systems.

Cherry-picked output from:

find /usr/src/linux-2.6.0-test9 -name \*.c -exec grep Copyright \{\} \; |
sed 's/^.*Copyright//' | sort | uniq

Western Digital Corp
Seagate
Hewlett-Packard Co.
NVIDIA, Corporation
United States Government
Digital Equipment Corporation
Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.
Tekram Technology Co., Ltd.
Transmeta Corporation
Cirrus Logic Corporation
Compaq Computer Corporation
Red Hat Software Inc
Creative Labs, Inc.
Nortel Networks
Silicon Graphics, Inc.
SuSE GmbH
MontaVista Software Inc.
Dell Inc.
VA Linux Systems, Inc.
The Regents of the University of California
VIA Technologies, Inc.
Cisco, Inc.
3ware Inc.
Intel Corporation
Promise Technology, Inc.
Adaptec Inc.
Toshiba Corporation
Conectiva, Inc.
TurboLinux, Inc.
Networks Associates Technology, Inc.
Nokia, Inc.
Matrox Graphics Inc.
NEC Corporation
TiVo Inc.
VERITAS Software Corporation
Oracle Corporation.
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Advanced Micro Devices
Open Source Development Lab
Unisys Corporation.
SiS, Inc.
The Weather Channel, Inc.
Caldera, Inc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

No technological benefits?
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 02:25 AM EST
Doesn't Linux (on Intel x86 systems) support a larger variety of hardware than
SCO? Linux has a million and one device drivers for pretty much every type of
device you can imagine; does OpenServer and/or UnixWare have that many device
drivers?

[ Reply to This | # ]

No Technical Advantage
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 07:07 AM EST
If Linux offers 'no technical advantage' compared to SCO Unix, then by
defenition even after IBM's contribution to the Linux Kernel the Linux family
is not a better product than SCO Unix.

If this is the case then surely any percived injuries can have nothing to do
with IBM's alleged infringment, and code contributed to the Linux kernel?

Either one of the following statements must be true:

1. IBM's donation did in part cause Linux to have a technical advantage over
OpenServer, UnixWare and that technical superiority was the cause of SCO's
decline... or

2. IBM's donation did not cause Linux to have a technical advantage over SCO
products and SCO's failure had nothing to do with the code or function of
Linux.

Either SCO's products are inferior or SCO merely failed to market superior
products (and cannot blame Linux)... one of these statements must be true if we
take SCO's words on face-value.

Sal

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: nexex on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 04:07 PM EST

Sun's security patches are MIA -- Open Letter to Sun - Sun security team is lagging behind

---
Darl McBride indique que la majorité silencieuse est en faveur de SCO prenant leur travail et les chargeant.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Supplemental Answers to IBM's 1st Set of Interrogatories
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 06:35 AM EST

That list of files is utter rubbish. A lot of the PowerPC files, for example, have nothing whatsoever to do with IBM (other than that they run on machines based on a processor architecture that IBM helped to define).

How on Earth can SCO possibly justify a claim that things like the Sandpoint or PowerMac PIC files can possibly contain anything over which they have any rights? It's just rubbish, plain and simple.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

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