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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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 Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No "Infringing" Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness Account
Friday, February 06 2004 @ 03:57 PM EST

I have another eyewitness account. It's very detailed and the person tells me that wherever you see direct quotations, it's word for word. The notes are a bit choppy, due to the speed of creating them.

The big info is this: SCO has apparently dropped its trade secret claims against IBM and as for the copyright claim, it is melting. So far, according to IBM, SCO has shown not one line of "infringing code" and SCO, he said, "repeats their theory" that IBM put AIX code into Linux, and identified only 17 files and identified a few lines in those files.

How would that impact Linux end users, even if they could prove their legal theory?

(UPDATE: I have just heard from another eyewitness too, and he heard the same thing. He read to me the copyright infringement claim, and in fact it is only about IBM and only about their continuing to distribute AIX after the "termination" by SCO, not any prior copyright infringement.)

The other big news, to me, is that IBM seems not to want to drop the matter. My eyewitness says that they didn't ask for summary judgment. His impression was that they very much want to go forward. His impression also was that Marriott was very prepared and professional and that Heise looked amateurish in comparison. So that's two lawyers down. We'll see who shows up next time.

We'll have the Exhibits attached to the SCO Motion scanned and available by this afternoon or early evening and then we'll be able to confirm this news or clarify it.

Of course, SCO said they can identify millions or whatever if IBM will turn over the AIX code, all of it since the beginning of the world. But so far, it's 17 files. Count them. 17. And only a few lines. All related to their AIX-derivative code theory.

I'd say this was a very happy day. Of course, this is all coming in fast, and is subject to correction as we get more information, but I'm a happy girl so far. If any of you have some proof handy on HP contributions to Linux, that would be nice. Here are the notes. Excuse typos, if any.

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

Judge Wells, SCO v. IBM, Federal Courthouse, Rm 436, Friday 2/6/2004,
10:00 AM

Arrived to a packed courthouse (only holds about 30 people). I
recognized a few of the people, mainly in the back row (Blake
Stowell, Ralph Yarro). Attorneys for SCO included Mark Heise, Ryan
Tibbitts, and Brent Hatch. For IBM, attorneys were Dave Marriott and
Todd Shaughnessy.

At about 10:05, the attorneys were escorted to the judge's chambers
for a conference. During the ensuing minutes, Stowell was approached
by an AP reporter. She asked about the damages amount. Blake
indicated that it had been $3 billion, but "that was upped
yesterday", "amended yesterday to $5 billion", but it could be "much,
much more" because IBM continues to sell AIX.

The attorneys emerged about 10:30 AM, the judge followed shortly
after, and summarized what happened in the chambers, and that the
hearing would focus on two main areas:

1) request to go forward to hear arguments whether SCO complied with
the court order of 12/5, or if other action is required;

2) SCO motions for reciprocal discovery (from IBM).

Dave Marriott (IBM) went first: Said the "simple answer" is that SCO
has not complied, that the court ordered SCO to produce by 1/12, that
SCO has not provided all of the required documents, as shown by notes
from meetings and statements filed by IBM to the court yesterday.
Mr. Marriott claimed that about 40 "custodians" of SCO code were
supposed to be queried, but that documents from only about 1/2 (20 of
them) were provided to IBM.

The judge asked "If I find that they have not met their
requirements?", and Mr. Marriott asked that the judge order them to
do so by a specific date.

Mr. Marriott said SCO's complaint is that IBM took SysV code and put
it into Linux, but that in recent documents to the court:

1) SCO has abandoned that claim, and did not tie IBM acts to any
trade secret;
2) SCO failed to identify a single line of offending code;
3) that SCO then "repeats their theory" that IBM put AIX code into
Linux, and identified only 17 files and identified a few lines in
those files.

IBM asks in at least 7 places that SCO match Dynix code to SysV, and
SCO claims in their motion that IBM cannot give away their own (IBM)
code. Mr. Marriott asked, if the 17 files are not from SysV, then
IBM wants to know where they were derived from. Also quoted from
interrogatories #12 and #13, which is to identify what is in Linux
claimed by SCO, but SCO refuses to identify which, and SCO is
claiming that they may have additional rights which are also not
identified. SCO produced some invoices, but IBM contends they are
not enough. Mr. Marriott described as "Troubling" that SCO's CEO is
publicly saying "1 million" lines of code, and that IBM has a right
to know what they are and exactly where they are. He asked that SCO
be ordered to provide the information requested and tie it directly
to SysV and their derivatives.

Mark Heise stepped up next. Said that, as for compliance, last
hearing focused on interrogatories, and that SCO says they have
identified specific files. Claims that IBMs responses are:

1) "Not what we asked for " in questions
2) "Not applicable to the case" (NOTE: A number of people in the
back of the courtroom looked particularly puzzled at this point, and
looked to one another in a "Huh?" fashion)

"With respect to the overriding issue, that SCO failed to identify
line-for-line code copying", Heise claimed "that has not and is not
what the case is about". (Again, very surprised looks in the
audience).

Heise referred to the 1985 Agreement point 2.01, that "modifications
to SysV code must be treated as derivatives", and he claims that AIX
and Dynix are such derivatives. SCO feels that AIX and Dynix code
has been put into Linux, and that IBM admitted it publicly. Heise
made an analogy to "the first 10 rungs of a ladder", but the ladder
goes to step 20 now, and maybe step 16 has some issues with it.
Heise said that IBM "has not proven ownership of *their* code" and
that they must do so to show that it's OK to put it into Linux.
Heise gave a printout to the judge, and described it as showing
line-for-line ("in red") copying, and mentioned Async I/O and Scatter
Gather as two areas in question. Said they want IBM source code.
Judge said it is SCO's requirement to show: "this is about your
response, and compliance to the court order".

At that point, Heise said SCO cannot identify violations. The judge
said "The problem is, unless you identify those codes, then IBM is
not in a position to have a response. We're at an impasse, and the
case cannot continue with an impasse, that's why there was a court
order".

Heise went back to the ladder analogy, saying "maybe rung 15 to 16"
might be involved, but they cannot identify the lines because SCO
doesn't have derivative IBM code. Heise then made comment (which
drew some audible "Huh?" responses from the audience), that
"Arguments of the case aren't appropriate at discovery." Went on to
claim that they have identified 400 million lines of Unix code and
300 million lines of Linux code affected, but also admitted that SCO
has not submitted everything required by the court order.

The judge asked: "How much time do you need, and if I order a strict
compliance, what is a reasonable date?" Heise said he anticipates 2
weeks more are needed, but would like 4 weeks.

Mr. Marriott stepped up again. He said reason they haven't provided
AIX code (but noted they have given Dynix code) was because of the
court order and they do not wish to defy the order. But went on to
say the question is SysV code in Linux.

The judge then asked if it is IBM's opinion that SCO is
"substantially in compliance" with the order, and Mr. Marriott said
no, and the interrogatories 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 13 are examples of
shortcomings in the SCO responses, and that "the list goes on".
Judge said she would take that under advisement.

Judge then indicated that the hearing would proceed to the part about
motions by SCO to request discovery.

Heise spoke first: said "IBM hasn't provided AIX, and, prior to the
12/5 hearing, they had agreed to do so. Judge said that could be due
to the 12/5 ruling. Heise repeated that they had promised to give
such code before the 12/5 hearing and there is nothing from the
highest level of IBM execs either, but on 10/28 claims that IBM said
they would give a copy of Sam Palmisano's notes.

Went on to say that in terms of specifics to #2 and #3 (AIX and
Dynix), they have gotten nothing. Referred to the IBM CMVC (version
control) system, and that it would be easy for IBM to produce the
code, and that "they can get us the AIX code from one server". Also
said that "all contributions to Linux" are also known, and that IBM
admits to making a lot of contributions. Heise says the list of
contributors (which IBM provided) is not enough, and that IBM must
specify which persons gave which lines of code. He referred again to
Palmisano and a 10-page "move to Linux" document.

The judge then cut Heise short, and invited Mr. Marriott to speak.

Mr. Marriott said "SCO group has been handed 57 requests, and there
motion to compel addresses only 6". Said IBM gave info such as a
list of 8,000 people who worked on AIX and Dynix. Says SCO wants
every file in AIX, Dynix, and Linux made by IBM, because "SCO's
theory is that all code from AIX and Dynix inserted into Linux is
improper" yet SCO refers to only 17 files. Also pointed out that the
Linux source code is publicly available, and that SCO could compare
between their files and the Linux code directly, not by looking at
millions of lines of other code. Mr. Marriott also referred to a
Computer Associates decision as to how derived works are laid out
(Note: CA was sued by a Canopy company and Yarro was involved; it may
have been Altiris (?)).

He said that SCO says HP and Sun complied, but that they figured it
out without reference to Solaris and HP-UX code, and "How could they
do it? And make public announcements about it?" when those companies
had not provided source code. Said SCO didn't rely on production of
millions of lines of their code, and so IBM should not have to do so,
but that IBM *is* (his emphasis) prepared to produce and has already
given SCO Dynix source code, but not AIX code because it would
violate the court order. Marriott said IBM is prepared to give 3
million pages of code covering 232 products, and that IBM is prepared
to produce those documents, but not every draft of every version of
every file because that involved hundreds of products and thousands
of people. Said IBM is not hiding anything, but that SCO requested
"every conceivable contribution to Linux and Open Source". Then said
that the OSDL shows such contributions are public knowledge and that
SCO can get it easily, and that they have already accessed files, and
so asking IBM to do so would be unduly burdensome. Said Rule 26(b)2
says discovery "shall be limited if available from other sources with
less burden", and he quoted several cases.

The judge asked: Assume I'm going to order IBM (Note: I think she
meant SCO) to deliver, how long would it take IBM to review the
material. Marriott said they would do so within 14 business days of
lifting the stay, but that for 100 million lines of code, it would
take months.

(Note: Marriott quoted "Litchfield v. Spielberg" at this point, but
didn't explain what it is or else I couldn't hear him).

Heise spoke again: said "IBM has spent the better part of the day
saying AIX and Dynix arent derivative works". Said IBM can't say
it's not SysV derivative, and that they won't give SCO the source
code so they can prove it. Said there are over 1000 files from AT&T
in AIX. Also, that "As for HP, there is a fundamental difference in
that they haven't said they are contributing to Linux". Heise said
IBM is obligated to answer what they provided to Linux, but SCO
cannot say which of those things are covered by agreements.

Mr. Marriott then noted that HP has contributed to Linux and that
public records confirm that.

  


SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No "Infringing" Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness Account | 284 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Pardon the dumb question...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:46 PM EST
But why would IBM not go for summary judgement? Isn't it what finishes this
matter the fastest?

[ Reply to This | # ]

If PJ's happy, we're all happy
Authored by: Scriptwriter on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:46 PM EST
:)

But I do have a question:

Let's say for the moment that it is correct that TSG has only identified
seventeen files, and only a few lines in those files. (I have no reason to doubt
this, it's just the basis of my question.) The deadline for production by TSG
has passed. Does that mean that, in those 100 million lines of code that IBM
says they will turn over, if they do find something that looks like
infringement, it is now inadmissable to this case? That would end the fishing
expedition.

I'm also curious as to why IBM wouldn't want to move to dismiss the case, but
I'm going to trust them in this matter. They've shown amply that they know what
they're doing. If it's the way to make sure these claims never happen again,
I'll wait until 2005, painful though it may be.

---
They'll take my copy of Linux when they pry it out of my cold, dead flippers.

irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No "Infringing" Linux Code: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: beast on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:46 PM EST
Notice the number of contributions to ia64.

cd /usr/src/kernel-source-2.4.24/
grep -ilr hp.com *

CREDITS
ChangeLog
Documentation/Configure.help
Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt
Documentation/mkdev_dyn.cciss
Documentation/rmdev_dyn.cciss
Documentation/filesystems/udf.txt
Documentation/ia64/efirtc.txt
Documentation/networking/README.sb1000
Documentation/networking/wavelan.txt
Documentation/parisc/registers
Documentation/Configure.help.orig
MAINTAINERS
MAINTAINERS.orig
arch/arm/mach-sa1100/badge4.c
arch/arm/mach-sa1100/sa1111-pcibuf.c
arch/ia64/boot/Makefile
arch/ia64/boot/bootloader.c
arch/ia64/Makefile
arch/ia64/dig/setup.c
arch/ia64/drivers/Makefile
arch/ia64/drivers/simeth.c
arch/ia64/drivers/simscsi.c
arch/ia64/drivers/simscsi.h
arch/ia64/drivers/simserial.c
arch/ia64/hp/sim/Makefile
arch/ia64/hp/sim/hpsim_console.c
arch/ia64/hp/sim/hpsim_irq.c
arch/ia64/hp/sim/hpsim_setup.c
arch/ia64/hp/sim/hpsim_ssc.h
arch/ia64/hp/common/Makefile
arch/ia64/hp/zx1/Makefile
arch/ia64/hp/zx1/hpzx1_misc.c
arch/ia64/ia32/binfmt_elf32.c
arch/ia64/ia32/ia32_ioctl.c
arch/ia64/ia32/ia32_ldt.c
arch/ia64/ia32/ia32_signal.c
arch/ia64/ia32/ia32_support.c
arch/ia64/ia32/ia32_traps.c
arch/ia64/ia32/sys_ia32.c
arch/ia64/kernel/acpi.c
arch/ia64/kernel/efi.c
arch/ia64/kernel/efi_stub.S
arch/ia64/kernel/entry.S
arch/ia64/kernel/fw-emu.c
arch/ia64/kernel/gate.S
arch/ia64/kernel/head.S
arch/ia64/kernel/init_task.c
arch/ia64/kernel/iosapic.c
arch/ia64/kernel/irq_ia64.c
arch/ia64/kernel/irq_lsapic.c
arch/ia64/kernel/ivt.S
arch/ia64/kernel/mca.c
arch/ia64/kernel/pal.S
arch/ia64/kernel/palinfo.c
arch/ia64/kernel/pci.c
arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c
arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon_generic.h
arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon_itanium.h
arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon_mckinley.h
arch/ia64/kernel/process.c
arch/ia64/kernel/ptrace.c
arch/ia64/kernel/sal.c
arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c
arch/ia64/kernel/semaphore.c
arch/ia64/kernel/setup.c
arch/ia64/kernel/signal.c
arch/ia64/kernel/smp.c
arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c
arch/ia64/kernel/sys_ia64.c
arch/ia64/kernel/time.c
arch/ia64/kernel/traps.c
arch/ia64/kernel/unaligned.c
arch/ia64/kernel/unwind.c
arch/ia64/kernel/unwind_decoder.c
arch/ia64/kernel/unwind_i.h
arch/ia64/lib/carta_random.S
arch/ia64/lib/checksum.c
arch/ia64/lib/clear_page.S
arch/ia64/lib/clear_user.S
arch/ia64/lib/copy_page.S
arch/ia64/lib/copy_page_mck.S
arch/ia64/lib/copy_user.S
arch/ia64/lib/csum_partial_copy.c
arch/ia64/lib/do_csum.S
arch/ia64/lib/flush.S
arch/ia64/lib/idiv32.S
arch/ia64/lib/idiv64.S
arch/ia64/lib/memcpy.S
arch/ia64/lib/strlen.S
arch/ia64/lib/strlen_user.S
arch/ia64/lib/strncpy_from_user.S
arch/ia64/lib/strnlen_user.S
arch/ia64/mm/extable.c
arch/ia64/mm/fault.c
arch/ia64/mm/init.c
arch/ia64/mm/tlb.c
arch/ia64/sn/fakeprom/fpromasm.S
arch/ia64/sn/fakeprom/fw-emu.c
arch/ia64/sn/kernel/sn_ivt.S
arch/ia64/tools/print_offsets.c
arch/parisc/kernel/ccio-rm-dma.c
arch/parisc/kernel/head64.S
arch/parisc/kernel/irq_smp.c
arch/parisc/kernel/real2.S
arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
arch/parisc/kernel/superio.c
arch/parisc/lib/bitops.c
arch/parisc/mm/extable.c
arch/x86_64/ia32/socket32.c
arch/x86_64/ia32/sys_ia32.c
drivers/char/efirtc.c
drivers/char/hcdp_serial.c
drivers/gsc/README.dino
drivers/hotplug/cpqphp_core.c
drivers/ide/pci/triflex.c
drivers/ide/pci/triflex.h
drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
drivers/net/acenic.c
drivers/net/eepro100.c
drivers/net/lance.c
drivers/net/pcnet32.c
drivers/net/wavelan.c
drivers/net/wavelan.p.h
drivers/net/irda/actisys.c
drivers/net/irda/irda-usb.c
drivers/net/irda/old_belkin.c
drivers/net/pcmcia/wavelan_cs.h
drivers/net/wireless/README
drivers/net/wireless/airo.c
drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c
drivers/net/wireless/orinoco_pci.c
drivers/pcmcia/sa1100_badge4.c
drivers/usb/serial/ir-usb.c
fs/udf/balloc.c
fs/udf/crc.c
fs/udf/dir.c
fs/udf/directory.c
fs/udf/file.c
fs/udf/fsync.c
fs/udf/ialloc.c
fs/udf/inode.c
fs/udf/lowlevel.c
fs/udf/misc.c
fs/udf/namei.c
fs/udf/partition.c
fs/udf/super.c
fs/udf/symlink.c
fs/udf/truncate.c
fs/udf/unicode.c
include/asm-arm/arch-sa1100/badge4.h
include/asm-ia64/a.out.h
include/asm-ia64/asmmacro.h
include/asm-ia64/atomic.h
include/asm-ia64/bitops.h
include/asm-ia64/break.h
include/asm-ia64/bugs.h
include/asm-ia64/byteorder.h
include/asm-ia64/cache.h
include/asm-ia64/checksum.h
include/asm-ia64/current.h
include/asm-ia64/delay.h
include/asm-ia64/div64.h
include/asm-ia64/dma.h
include/asm-ia64/elf.h
include/asm-ia64/errno.h
include/asm-ia64/fcntl.h
include/asm-ia64/fpu.h
include/asm-ia64/hardirq.h
include/asm-ia64/hw_irq.h
include/asm-ia64/intrinsics.h
include/asm-ia64/io.h
include/asm-ia64/ioctl.h
include/asm-ia64/ioctls.h
include/asm-ia64/irq.h
include/asm-ia64/keyboard.h
include/asm-ia64/kregs.h
include/asm-ia64/linux_logo.h
include/asm-ia64/machvec.h
include/asm-ia64/mca_asm.h
include/asm-ia64/mman.h
include/asm-ia64/mmu_context.h
include/asm-ia64/namei.h
include/asm-ia64/numa.h
include/asm-ia64/page.h
include/asm-ia64/pal.h
include/asm-ia64/param.h
include/asm-ia64/perfmon.h
include/asm-ia64/pgalloc.h
include/asm-ia64/pgtable.h
include/asm-ia64/poll.h
include/asm-ia64/posix_types.h
include/asm-ia64/processor.h
include/asm-ia64/ptrace.h
include/asm-ia64/ptrace_offsets.h
include/asm-ia64/resource.h
include/asm-ia64/rse.h
include/asm-ia64/sal.h
include/asm-ia64/scatterlist.h
include/asm-ia64/semaphore.h
include/asm-ia64/sigcontext.h
include/asm-ia64/siginfo.h
include/asm-ia64/signal.h
include/asm-ia64/smp.h
include/asm-ia64/socket.h
include/asm-ia64/sockios.h
include/asm-ia64/softirq.h
include/asm-ia64/spinlock.h
include/asm-ia64/stat.h
include/asm-ia64/statfs.h
include/asm-ia64/string.h
include/asm-ia64/system.h
include/asm-ia64/termbits.h
include/asm-ia64/termios.h
include/asm-ia64/timex.h
include/asm-ia64/types.h
include/asm-ia64/uaccess.h
include/asm-ia64/unaligned.h
include/asm-ia64/unistd.h
include/asm-ia64/unwind.h
include/asm-ia64/user.h
include/asm-ia64/vga.h
include/asm-parisc/div64.h
include/asm-parisc/spinlock_t.h
include/linux/acpi.h
include/linux/efi.h
include/linux/hcdp_serial.h
include/linux/rtc.h
include/linux/udf_fs.h
include/linux/udf_fs_i.h
include/linux/udf_fs_sb.h
include/linux/wireless.h
include/net/irda/irda-usb.h
include/net/irda/irda.h
include/net/irda/irlap.h
include/net/irda/irlap_event.h
include/net/irda/irlmp.h
include/net/irda/irlmp_event.h
include/net/irda/irmod.h
include/net/irda/timer.h
include/net/iw_handler.h
net/core/wireless.c
net/irda/af_irda.c
net/irda/irda_device.c
net/irda/iriap.c
net/irda/irlap.c
net/irda/irlap_event.c
net/irda/irlap_frame.c
net/irda/irlmp.c
net/irda/irlmp_event.c
net/irda/irlmp_frame.c
net/irda/irsyms.c
net/irda/irsysctl.c
net/irda/irttp.c
net/irda/qos.c
net/irda/timer.c
net/irda/irnet/irnet.h
net/irda/irnet/irnet_irda.c
net/irda/irnet/irnet_irda.h
net/irda/irnet/irnet_ppp.c
net/irda/irnet/irnet_ppp.h


---
Delay is the deadliest form of denial. - J. Northcote Parkinson

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No "Infringing" Linux Code: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: WhiteFang on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:46 PM EST
Surely that's not all! I wanted to hear details about whipping out HP's
published Linux contributions!!

Excellent. I hope you'll let us know who to thank for this report. It's great!

I've definitely become jaded about SCOX's pronouncements, but even I was
surprised today. $5 Billion indeed!

:-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No "Infringing" Linux Code: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:49 PM EST
"But so far, it's 17 lines. Count them. 17 lines."

You mean files, not lines, right?

[ Reply to This | # ]

HP & Debian
Authored by: xtifr on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:50 PM EST
Speaking as a member of the Debian project, I can say that there are fairly
strong ties between HP and Debian. HP supports the Debian project in a number
of ways, and several members of Debian (including former project leader Bdale
Garbee) are HP employees. I suspect that a quick note to one of the Debian
mailing lists (perhaps debian-project) might result in some interesting and
relevant information about HP's contributions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No "Infringing" Linux Code: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:51 PM EST
This farce has been an enormous waste of time and resources.
The only thing that would make it tolerable is turning SCO into an example of
what happens to thugs who pull stuff like this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No "Infringing" Linux Code: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: corran__horn on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:55 PM EST

Does anyone else feel like this is actually two cases: one in the courtroom, and one in SCO's mind?

I note that the SCO responses (as well as their public statements) seem to be made of non-sequeters, and most of the statments seem to assume other rules appily (at least to me, not being a lawyer (and IBM AFAICT)).

As a sidenote: I would love to help with the transcription if somebody needs help with it. (I want to actually hear the arguments made so that I can judge my above observation).

---
#INCLUDE IANAL.h

[ Reply to This | # ]

HP contributions to Linux
Authored by: robert on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:56 PM EST
Do you differentiate between HP staff contributing and HP itself?

HP email addresses in kernel 2.4.22 can be found in the following files:

MAINTAINERS
CREDITS
include/linux/hcdp_serial.h
drivers/net/acenic.c
drivers/char/hcdp_serial.c
drivers/ide/pci/triflex.h
drivers/ide/pci/triflex.c
drivers/hotplug/cpqphp_core.c
arch/ia64/hp/zx1/hpzx1_misc.c
arch/ia64/hp/zx1/Makefile
arch/ia64/hp/common/Makefile
arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c
arch/ia64/kernel/pci.c


Some examples:


HP (was COMPAQ) FIBRE CHANNEL 64-bit/66MHz PCI non-intelligent HBA
P: Stephen Cameron
M: arrays@hp.com
M: steve.cameron@hp.com
L: cpqfc-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
S: Odd Fixes

HP (was COMPAQ) SMART2 RAID DRIVER
P: Stephen Cameron
M: arrays@hp.com
M: steve.cameron@hp.com
L: cpqarray-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
S: Odd Fixes

HP (was COMPAQ) SMART CISS RAID DRIVER
P: Stephen Cameron
M: arrays@hp.com
M: steve.cameron@hp.com
L: cciss-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
S: Supported


From CREDITS:

N: Paul Bame
E: bame@debian.org
E: bame@puffin.external.hp.com
E: paul_bame@hp.com
W: http://www.parisc-linux.org
D: PA-RISC 32 and 64-bit early boot, firmware interface, interrupts, misc
S: MS42
S: Hewlett-Packard
S: 3404 E Harmony Rd
S: Fort Collins, CO 80525

Others:

/*
* linux/include/linux/hcdp_serial.h
*
* Copyright (C) 2002 Hewlett-Packard Co.
* Copyright (C) 2002 Khalid Aziz <khalid_aziz@hp.com>
*

drivers/net/acenic.c:

* Stephen Hack <stephen_hack@hp.com>: Fixed ace_set_mac_addr for
little
* endian systems.
* Val Henson <vhenson@esscom.com>: Reset Jumbo skb producer and
* rx producer index when
* flushing the Jumbo ring.
* Hans Grobler <grobh@sun.ac.za>: Memory leak fixes in the
* driver init path.
* Grant Grundler <grundler@cup.hp.com>: PCI write posting fixes.
*/


/*
* triflex.h
*
* Copyright (C) 2002 Hewlett-Packard Development Group, L.P.
* Author: Torben Mathiasen <torben.mathiasen@hp.com>
*

/*
* Misc. support for HP zx1 chipset support
*
* Copyright (C) 2002 Hewlett-Packard Co
* Copyright (C) 2002 Alex Williamson <alex_williamson@hp.com>
* Copyright (C) 2002 Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn_helgaas@hp.com>
*/


/*
* pci.c - Low-Level PCI Access in IA-64
*
* Derived from bios32.c of i386 tree.
* Copyright (C) 2002, 2003 Hewlett-Packard Co
* David Mosberger-Tang <davidm@hpl.hp.com>
* Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn_helgaas@hp.com>
*
* Note: Above list of copyright holders is incomplete...
*/

There is BAGS of this stuff....!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: ERBaller on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:56 PM EST
So let me get this straight. SCO is now saying that AIX and DYNIX are
derivatives of SysV code. Because of that, IBM can't contribute AIX or DYNIX
code to Linux. SCO thinks IBM HAS contributed AIX/DYNIX to Linux, but won't
know for sure until IBM gives SCO all AIX/DYNIX source code.

Seems to me SCO jumped the gun a bit and needs to prove that AIX/DYNIX really
are derivatives of SysV.

Either that, or SCO doesn't know what their claims against IBM are and just
watched their entire case go *poof* before their eyes. I think the *poof*
theory is the best one right now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:58 PM EST
"The other big news, to me, is that IBM seems not to want to drop the
matter. My eyewitness says that they didn't ask for summary judgment. His
impression was that they very much want to go forward."

I think IBM is being very smart here. If IBM does not utterly, totally, and
completely smash SCO, it will invite other failing companies with dubious IP
claims to sue IBM as an exit venture for the executives. This is why IBM cannot,
and in my opinion, will not settle with SCO; it would just produce more of the
same.

SCO is just running an extortion game here, and to give in would mark you as a
patsy for every other extortionist around.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:58 PM EST
Pretty straightforward arguments from SCO at this point: reinstitute slavery in
the United States, provide them the economic advantage gained from all
corporations and individuals working on anything resembling Unix on the basis of
a single sentence of a flawed licence (which has already been disclaimed in
court record). Same argument always presented, becoming clearer and clearer all
the time. As br3n rightly says pfffffttt!!

Dan O'Mara

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT new PACER info
Authored by: tintak on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:59 PM EST
WOW read this

http://pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv0029400000103.pdf

I got so excited I posted it in the wrong place!!


---
What shape should a weathervane be?

[ Reply to This | # ]

HP linux contributions
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:00 PM EST
First hit in Google, first try:

http://www.google.com/search?q=lkml+hp.com
LKML: mikem@beardog ...: Maintainers list update for HP

and a serach on HPs frontpage for "linux contributions" gives you:

The Linux Technologies project

The Linux Technologies project is tasked to perform systems research with the goal of creating technical leadership for HP's server and workstation products when coupled with the GNU/Linux operating system. Other project objectives include supporting HP's contribution to open source and encouraging the use of open source in research.

HP has been a leader in the effort to promote Linux on the Itanium architecture, and the Linux Technologies project has been at the forefront of the effort. A particular emphasis of the project is to perform research that enables Linux and Linux-based applications to fully exploit the Itanium architecture. software

Qprof: a set of profiling utilities
Libunwind: a portable and efficient API for call-chain introspection
Perfmon: providing access to the Itanium performance monitoring unit
Linux on Itanium was started here and the kernel continues to be maintained by HP
IA-64 simulator (ski)
A conservative garbage collector for C and C++
Userver: a micro web server for conducting experiments
Constructive reals calculator
Httperf: a tool for measuring web server performance
The Linux Technologies project is active in the Gelato federation

[ Reply to This | # ]

New IBM pacer document - Compliance
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:01 PM EST
Taken from Yahoo post

h++p://pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv0029400000103.pdf

IBM's Report on SCO's Compliance with the December 12th order

[ Reply to This | # ]

Never decreasing circles...
Authored by: Nick_UK on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:02 PM EST
back to the beginning again, as Linus and the kernel crew said last year...

"Show us the infridging code and we will REMOVE IT and rewrite it".

IBM are asking the same... "Show us!".

SCO will not (or can't).

I dunno.

Nick

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops ...Spin City
Authored by: lnx4me on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:03 PM EST
Weren't the SCO spin-meisters supposed to hold a news conference this afternoon?
Any word from that or are they going to cut their losses and fold for the day?

Bob

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO has very small trucks.....
Authored by: technomom on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:05 PM EST
From Pacer, IBM's Report on SCO's Compliance with Dec. 12 Order

http://pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv0029400000103.pdf

My favorite footnote regards SCO claiming "truckloads" of infringing
code while producing only 17 files. SCO must have very small trucks.

I envision IBM's legal department giggling hysterically to themselves when they
type this stuff up.

JoAnn

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:18 PM EST
Okay so they won't show those 17 files publicly because they would be bashed on
it as all the other examples they showed.

I believe they hope that IBM does not have such an in depth research team on
their hand as the Linux community.

Also if they can ask 5Billion for 17 files how much can the Linux community ask
for the complete Linux system they have distributed all those years (and still
are distributing) ?

I am hoping for a judge to stand up and tell them what utter crap their case is
and if they have a contract dispute why did they went through all the hassle
rather then point to the part in the contract, say "I believe dserivative
stands for xyz and IBM violated it, I want my 5 billion!"

I know I would loose patience with some one like SCO, but then I am not a judge
nor am I a lawyer, so what do I know ?

Also I think some one should tell the Judge more often about the huge amount of
source old SCO provided to Linux, so these 17 files might have come right out of
their labs with their blesssing. Just look at the fine analysisi here on Groklaw
about the ABI files
(http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040130235310123)


[ Reply to This | # ]

Contradiction
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:18 PM EST
1) "shown not one line of "infringing code" and SCO..."
2)" identified only 17 files and identified a few lines in those
files....."

Are there on aren't there infringing lines???????????

[ Reply to This | # ]

HP contribution
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:20 PM EST
"As for HP, there is a fundamental difference in
that they haven't said they are contributing to Linux".

If that quote is correct, it is clear from the context in which it was made that
the correct interpretation is:
"As for HP, there is a fundamental difference in
that they haven't said they are contributing HP-UX to Linux".

Nothing to go ballistic on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: sef on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:20 PM EST

Oh, my.

I'm in a bit much shock to say more than that, if this all means what I think it means.

Honestly, I didn't expect things to crumble that quickly!

[ Reply to This | # ]

HP's work
Authored by: darthaggie on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:21 PM EST
You can take a look at HP's Open Source activities. Of the ones listed, the IA-64 kernel port would be the most likely to gain TSG's notice. They're also doing a lot of stuff with clustering, a number of hardware drivers, as well as CUPS and general HP printing support.

And I'm pretty happy, too, if my reading of the tea leaves is right. TSG's case seems to be evaporating before their very eyes. I wonder, if Darl saw those millions of lines of code when he was out wandering across the salt flats?

Darl, I lived a number of years in Arizona. Those are called 'mirages' and are not real...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank you
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:24 PM EST
A summary thank you to all those who replies. It makes more sense now. :>

[ Reply to This | # ]

five billion or four?
Authored by: xtifr on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:24 PM EST
If SCOG is dropping the trade secrets claims, don't they have to stop asking for
the money for those claims? So, if one billion of their old three billion
claimed was based on trade secrets (IIRC), wouldn't they have to knock that one
billion off? Then, adding in two billion for their new claims, doesn't that
mean that their total claims at this point are four, not five, billion?

Or do changes in the charges only affect the claims in SCOG's favor? :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

300 million lines of code?
Authored by: cab15625 on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:29 PM EST
Sorry, I might be missing something but if Heise really did say that they can
identify 300 million lines of code then that's just crazy.

I'm no expert, but maybe an expert can confirm/refute my reasoning for me.

Go into my freshly downloaded and unpacked 2.6.2 kernel source, and run "du
-s" in the source tree. It tells me that the whole source tree takes up
216 megs (+change). If I understand things properly, that means that even if
the entire source tree was nothing but newlines, it would just get over 200
million lines. Is this right? Where did Heise get his numbers from?

This struck me as so wierd I had to get myself an account and make my first
post.

Cheers!

[ Reply to This | # ]

HP/Compaq/Digital Contributions
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:29 PM EST
Digital was a very early supporter of Linux (and Linus). maddog Hall got Linus over to the US about the time Linux was struggling to do SMP. As the story I heard goes, Linus gave a little talk about what he was thinking of doing and the SMP architect for Tru64 (er... Digital) Unix was in the audience and started telling maddog that Linus was going about it all wrong. maddog suggested he talked to Linus and they had a fruitful discussion about how to go about implementing SMP.

Digital swallowed by Compaq.... then Compaq swallowed by HP. I'd say that HP/Compaq/Digital DNA is significantly embedded in Linux. And has anyone explored the whole Open Software Foundation effort and its relationship with all of this?? How can SCO say HP is OK with them but IBM is not?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:30 PM EST
I had to go back to the top, but the poster just listed all the files in the
Linux Kernel 2.4.24 source that contained code that likely came from HP. This is
to display the stupidity of the statement by SCO that HP doesn't contribute to
Linux.

Viv

[ Reply to This | # ]

A few lines * many builds = millions of lines
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:32 PM EST
Of course, SCO said they can identify millions or whatever if IBM will turn over the AIX code, all of it since the beginning of the world. But so far, it's 17 files. Count them. 17. And only a few lines. All related to their AIX-derivative code theory.

Multiply these few lines by the number of internal AIX development builds they want IBM to provide them for discovery and it could add up to "millions of lines".

Lines X-Y in version 0.0.1 are ours.
Same in 0.0.2.
Same in 0.0.3.
ad lib.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:34 PM EST
Hi PJ

What would the chances be of seeing if you could get an interview with the IBM
lawyers at the end of this - it would be really interesting to hear their
viewpoints, how much help Groklaw gave them, where they started smiling at what
was happening etc. It would be really interesting to hear things from their
perspective.

Then again... finding out how TSG's lawyers felt to have every argument so
elegantly dissected and shot out from under them would also be a delight. I know
it has been for me lurking here. I'm still astounded at the work of the
community.

Something for the book perhaps?

RCM (uk)

I should register, next time I post I probably will..

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim - but now seeking $5 Billion ??
Authored by: Totosplatz on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:34 PM EST
What's this all about then?

<http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5154719.html>

SCO claim reaches $5 billion, By David Becker, CNET News.com, February 6, 2004,
12:14 PM PT

"Linux antagonist SCO Group is set to add $2 billion to its legal claim
against computing giant IBM while changing the scope of the suit."

Round and round it goes...


---
All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

HOT OFF THE PRESS -- needs proofreading
Authored by: rand on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:34 PM EST

SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P.
Alan L Sullivan (3152)
Todd M Shayughnessy (6651)
[Address]
[Phone]
[Fax]

CRAVATH, SWAIN & MOORE LLP
Evan R.Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[Address]
[Phone]
[Fax]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MCAHINES CORPORATION
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff

IBM'S REPORT ON SCO'S
COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S
DECEMBER 12, 2003 ORDER
Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate judge Brooke Wells

Defendant/Counterclai -Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation
("IBM") respectfuilly submits this report on SCO's compliance with the
Court's December 12, 2003 Order granting IBM's motions to compel.

Report on SCO's Compliance With the Court's order

On December 12, 2003, the Court directed SCOto "respond fully and in
detail" to IBM's Interrogatory Nos. 1-9, and 12 and 13, and to
"produce all equested documents" in IBM's document requests by January
12, 2003.

On january 12, 2003, SCO served its Revised Supplemental Response to IBM's First
and Second Set of Interrogatories (the "Revised Response", attached
hereto as Exhibit 1). In the accompanying "Notice of Compiance With Court
order of December 12, 2003", which was filed with the Court, SCO
represented that it had "responded fully and in detail to Interrogatories
1-9, 12 and 13...based on the information in SCO's possession" and had
"produced all the non-privileged responsive documents requested by
IBM" with the exception of certain files that would be promptly produced.

Despite these representations, however, SCO in fact failed to comply with the
Court's order in numerous respects [1] the most important ow which are addressed
below.

First, contrary to its representations to the Court on January 12, 2004, SCO now
admits that it has in fact not produced numerous catagories of non=privleged
responsive docuemnts. In a letter dated January 30, 2004, (a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit 2), IBM identified for SCO numerous catagories of
responsive documents that it believed SCO had yet to produce (at 3-5). SCO
responded to IBM by letter late last night ( a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit 3) concluding that it had indeed failed to produce numerous
responssive documents, and committing to doing so at an unspecified time in the
future (at 5-10).

Second, in response to the Court's Order, SCO abandons any claim that IBM
misappropiated its trade secrets, concedes that SCO has no evidence that IBM
improperly disclosed UNIX System V code, and acknowleges that SCO's contract
case is grounded solely on the popisiton that IBM improperly disclosed portions
of IBM's own AIX and Dynix products, which SCO claims to be derivitives of UNIX
System V. [2] The primary problem with the Revised Response, however, is that:
(1) SCO refuses to disclose from what lines of UNIX System V code thest alleged
contributions are supposed to derive, which it must know to allege the
contributions were improper, and (2) a number of the allegedly improper
contributions are not disclosed witeh adequate particularity (e.g. SCO claims
IBM improperly disclosed "MP" but does not specify the files or liones
of code allegedly 'dumped" into Linux, or the files and lines of Linux in
which they are supposedly found. [3] SCO also failes properly to identify and
describe all of the materials in Linux to which it claims to have rights and
whether, when, to whom, and under what circumstances and terms it ever
distributed those materials.

Morover, there remains a significant disparity between the information in the
Revised Response and SCO's public statements about its alleged evidence. Int he
final analysis, SCO has indentified no more than appoximately 3,700 lines of
code in 17 AIX or Dynix files that IBM is alleged improperly to have
contiributed to Linux. (A list of the files we believe SCO has identified in
its Revised Response is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.) Yet, speaking at harvard
law School earlier this week, SCO's CEO, Darl mcBride, stated that:

"...[T]here is roughly a million lines of code that tie into contributions
that IBM has made and that's subject to litigation that's going on. We have
basically supplied that. in fact, that is going to be the subject of a hearing
that comes up Friday..." (empahsis added.)

(a rough draft of this protion of the transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit
5). If the "million lines fo code" in fact exist, then SCO has not
complied with the Court's December 12 ordere and shoule be required immediately
to do so. If, as SCO hints (but does not say), none of the allegedly improper
disclosures made by IBM (or any of the other code in Linux to which SCO calims
to have rights) derive from Unix System V, SCO should unequivocally say so, as
that concession would eliminate much of our concern about the Revised Response.

DATED this 5th day of February, 2004,

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
__(sig: Todd Shaughnessy)__
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy

CRAVATH, SWAIN & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott

Attourneys for Defandant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

Of counsel:

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Donald J. Rosenberg
Alec S. Berman
[Address]
[Phone]

Attorneys for Defandant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff international
Business Machines Corporation

[1] As we previously informed the Court, SCO did not provide all of the
information it was orddereed to produce by te January 12, 2004 deadline. For
example, although SCO served IBM with some supplemental information on january
12, it continued to produce additional matereials until january 28,
neccessitating the postponement of the hearing scheduled for January 23. IBM
does not take issue in this report with SCO's delay in producing the information
it has now produced.

[2] in contrast to its public statements that IBM has improperly contributed
"truckloads" of code to Linux, SCO identifies parts of only 17 AIX or
Dynix files ( out of many thousands that make up thses programs) that IBm is
alleged to have imprdoperly contributed to Linux..Contrary to the Court's order,
SCO declines to identify by line all of the code that is alleges IBM misused.
it continues to indentify whole files, though it does not allege that IBM
misused the entire file.

[3] SCO produced voluminous exhibits in connection with its Revised Response.
However, these amrteials are essentially nothing more than print outs of various
files of code, including from Linux in particular. These printouts were not
called for by the Court's Order and do not compensate for the deficiencies
described herein.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 5th day of February, 2004, a true and correct copy
of the foregoing IBM'S REPORT ON SCO'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S DECEMBER 12,
2003 ORDER was hand delivereed to the following:

Brent O. Hatch
mark F. James
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]

Kevin McBride
[address]

and sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following:

Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOISE, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

__(sig; Todd Shaunessy)__









---
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly an aircraft...they were the first
to LAND an aircraft. (IANAL and whatever)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:38 PM EST
I think there is little point in pointing out where and how much Hp contibuted.
The fact is, they have and SCO has not reviewed their code but passed it as
safe.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The request for the AIX code seems premature
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:40 PM EST
Before the judge rules on SCO's request to see all of the AIX code, shouldn't
there first be a ruling on whether that code is even relevant?

SCO claims that their contract for Project Monterey denies IBM the right to
contribute any AIX code to Linux. But SCO's claim appears to ignore an addendum
to the contract that clarified the issue, ensuring that IBM had that right.

This issue can be settled just by looking at the contract, without the need for
IBM to provide the AIX code. Thus, the judge could avoid a discovery step that
is long, expensive, and potentially risky for IBM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Trillian Project: HP,Intel,SGI,IBM and Old SCO and Caldera
Authored by: NZheretic on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:41 PM EST
Written back in 13 Jun 2003 ...
So, how did Linux become so capable of scaling beyond the heights of the old UNIXs. More importantly, who helped put what where?
http://twiki .iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/TrillianProject

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • ADD to timeline? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:44 PM EST
SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:42 PM EST
"Went on to claim that they have identified 400 million lines of Unix code
and 300 million lines of Linux code affected"

From what understand, Linux doesnt even have 300 million lines of code. Ive
believe its more like 2 or 3 million lines of code. Its code base is much
smaller than most programs. I remember hearing the netscape browser,
pre-mozilla was around 10 to 15 million lines of code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Register : US markets warm to Linux makers over SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:48 PM EST
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/66/35409.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Report on Compliance: BRUTAL
Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:49 PM EST
It's short, well written, and it's brutal!

They compare the public statements of Darl at Harvard (millions of lines of
code) with the paltry 17 files and maximum 3700 lines of code identified in
discovery. Amnd they want to know where the heck the other 996300 lines are,m
because they weren't in what SCO handed over.

And they continue to repeat that SCO is not identifying anything with
specificity ...


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO wins again . . .
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:50 PM EST
The trend is against SCO, doo-dah, doo-dah.

As long as there is no judgment against SCO, SCO wins.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"CA was sued by a Canopy company ... ; it may have been Altiris (?)"
Authored by: anwaya on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:56 PM EST
If this is CA v. Altria, then I'm with Marriott all the way...

If, by some infinitessimally slim chance, SCO has a single - or even seventeen -
substantiated claims of copying, Marriott's going to use CA v. Altria to
eliminate them.

Love it. Love it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: prayforwind on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:05 PM EST
PJ, you're getting famous! See this inquirer article.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Litchfield v. Spielberg
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:11 PM EST
I did some googling for Litchfield v speilberg and I think that it related to
the need to specifically identify infringing works and for them to be similar
enough for a lay person to be able to notice (hey, IANAL) this was all based on
alleged copying of a song for the et theme by the way. I couldn't work out which
way the court case went, though I think that Litchfield lost.

IBM guy seemed to mention this after the request for multiple versions of the
same code.

Are they related in some way or is this just a coincidence ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: SCO's (Caldera's) contributions to Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:17 PM EST

Just found something that might be worth some additional research - according to Caldera's Website (Google's Cache) (Web Archive Cache - assuming it's there, but the site is really slow right now), SCO (as Caldera) supported early SMP development efforts by providing hardware to the SMP development team.

I was actually looking to see if there was a really easy way to identify what IBM's contributions to the Linux Kernel were.

Isn't one of SCO's contentions/allegations that the SMP kernel support couldn't have been developed without misappropriated code from SysV? If this is in fact the case, then they provide support to that effort, and isn't it possible that in addition to the hardware support, they provided technical information as well about how to improve the SMP code, given that they were supporting that development effort through other means as well?

Just a thought.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness
Authored by: cricketjeff on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:21 PM EST
Noting the continuous flow of new lawyers in the SCO camp the whole purpose is
becoming clear...
It's a company initiative to help the Utah legal community by providing a
training programme for lawyers of limited ability.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: juhl on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:30 PM EST
If any of you have some proof handy on HP contributions to Linux, that would be nice
Well, I don't know if it counts as proof, but a quick search at http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/ turns up quite a few mails including patches to Linux from people with email addresses belonging to HP. Such as : http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0304.2/0120.html http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0207.2/0198.html http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0209.3/1240.html http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0211.0/0278.html http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0102.3/0558.html Agreed, these are small contributions of bugfixes, documentation updates etc, but it certainly makes it look like HP has people involved in Linux development and contributing code (and the 5 examples above are just that, examples, there's a bunch of stuff from HP in the archives). Also, if you take a look at the CREDITS file in the kernel source you'll see several HP employees being credited for various work... Sure, these people may have been working in their own time from home, but they used company email adresses without any statements that they where working independently from HP, so that suggests (to me at least) that they where doing some of the work on company time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Importance of "Litchfield v. Spielberg"
Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:33 PM EST
"Litchfield v. Spielberg" (yes, that Spielberg, who was used over E.T.
by someone who claimed her work had been ripped off.

Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352 (C.A.9 (Cal.) 1984

The importance is that Litchfield was claiming ET was a "derivative"
of her play/screenplay and the court decided that The general rule for
infringement in derivative work cases is that the alleged unauthorized
derivative does not infringe unless it is substantially similar to the
original.


"Under 17 U.S.C. section 106(2), the holder of a copyright has he exclusive
right to prepare derivative works based upon his copyrighted work. In this
circuit a work is derivative "only if it would be considered an infringing
work if the material which it had derived from a prior work had been taken
without the consent of the copyright proprietor of the prior work."
Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1354 (9th Cir. 1984) (emphasis in
original), citing United States v. Taxe, 540 F.2d 961, 965 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1976).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Derivative Works in Question
Authored by: ebresie on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:36 PM EST
I think this has been discussed previously but I guess this very much depends on
what they consider derivative works...

I seem to recall (can someone dig through and find the post in question) one of
IBM's past agreement indicated they had the rights for all derivated works
developed and owned by IBM. I believe it indicated that this did not cover pure
SysV code put into IBM's Unix versions.

And now for the conspiracy theorist in me...

As for the item regarding not focusing on HP...Is it possible since they
indicated "that SCO says HP and Sun complied, but that they figured it out
without reference to Solaris and HP-UX code" that this could identify HP as
the other unnamed large company licensing from TSG with HP avoiding mentioning
to prevent bad press over HPs Linux business. SCO did buy a license and did not
get focused on by SCO...

I'm sure that's not the case though...

[ Reply to This | # ]

With all the legal activities ...
Authored by: dkpatrick on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:37 PM EST
Where does this leave the threatened action against Linux users? If there is no
IP involved, are any of SCO's threats to sue Linux users still valid? Can Linux
users rest easy since the current position appears to be a suit against IBM for
their actions?

I'm just losing track of all the threads ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

This could be the CA case
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:37 PM EST
http://digital-law-online.info/cases/20PQ2D1641.htm

This could be the CA case Marriott cited. I'm just starting to read it, but I
did find the term "derivative works" early on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How long does a derivative stays derivative?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:42 PM EST
Hi all and PJ in paricular

I am following this from peaceful Sweden, and there is , at least, one point I
dont get about derivative work. If, as SCO claims, the alleged AIX code
contributed to Linux, differs so much from the Unix code that SCO claims
ownership to, that it cannot be recognised without access to the intermediary
stages, is it then still a derivative? Is it not so that IBM has provided so
much added value to the code that it can be considered, morally and legally, an
original IBM work?

The American judicial system keeps puzzeling me, so please inform me on this.

B.t.w. I discussed th SCO case with a colleague of mine today, he is an
Irishman, an when I mentioned McBride, he said "McBride, That is a rebel, a
good old Irish rebel. in the 1918(?) uprising in Dublin the McBrides took a very
active part. I believe 4 of them was beheaded by the courts afterwards."
Is there any chance of an encore?

Bye Ulf

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:20 PM EST
IANAL.

If (when) SCO loses, they can always sue their legal counsel for misleading them
into thinking that they (SCO) had a case.

lvteacher

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Question
Authored by: Ed Holt on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:34 PM EST
Hi PJ. Great site. I have been reading for since last summer and this is my
first post.

I wonder how SCOx changing horses in mid stream will effect the Redhat law suit?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:41 PM EST
Why not go for summary judgement? Easy. Because summary judgement does *not*
destroy your enemy.

If you get involved in civil litigation, you go for the juglar. You do your
very best to destroy, utterly and completely, your opponent.

Take no quarter and draw no quarter.

krp

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • give no quarter? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:12 PM EST
Chicken and egg
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:59 PM EST
Now, maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't SCO revoke IBM's Unix licence on the basis
of trade secret violations, as alleged in the original lawsuit? If there are no
trade secret violations, how can they now demand $5G for copyright infringement
based on continued AIX distribution, when the cause for suspending the licence
was invalid in the first place?

The above is not taking into account Novell at all...

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Contrast in Competency
Authored by: the_flatlander on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:08 PM EST
So then the SCOundrels' lawyer is like:
Mark Heise stepped up next. Said that, as for compliance, last hearing focused on interrogatories, and that SCO says they have identified specific files. Claims that IBMs responses are:

1) "Not what we asked for " in questions

2) "Not applicable to the case"

And IBM's Lawyer is all like: "Haven't they noticed we are suing them?"

The SCOundrels have been feeding the SCOol-Aid to their legal team, too. That may not have been the best idea. Or maybe it just indicates that there are using some very potent canabis. I'm told that that has an impact on the memory; clearly the SCOundrels' lawyer forgot that IBM has also filed a suit, and that that does have some relevency in the court. (A wee little bit, maybe.)

The Flatlander

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what the "witness" was trying to recount.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A court order is not really a big deal?
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:09 PM EST
From the article
"With respect to the overriding issue, that SCO failed to identify line-for-line code copying", Heise claimed "that has not and is not what the case is about". (Again, very surprised looks in the audience)..... The judge asked: "How much time do you need, and if I order a strict compliance, what is a reasonable date?" Heise said he anticipates 2 weeks more are needed, but would like 4 weeks.

It sounds to me like you can make a half-assed attempt at meeting a court order, and if someone calls you on ignoring parts of the order, you can just say "that's not what the case is about." Then the worst that can happen is the judge might issue another order, a sort of "I mean it this time" order??

Am I getting this correctly?

[ Reply to This | # ]

HP contributions
Authored by: cricketjeff on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:11 PM EST
I am currently fighting the kernel, whoops building a kernel for my son's laptop, specifically trying to make it drive his wireless network card. While doing this I was directed to This page which isn't in the parts of the kernel directly related to this case but is clear evidence of HP involvement. A swift grep of a kernel source tree (specifically the debian 2.4.24 package) reveals a large number of hp.com email addresses, a particularly relevant person would appear to be David Mosberger-Tang in the credits file he gives his hp.com address if IA64 related and another address for anything else. A look at his HP Labs homepage or better this subpage would seem to fairly effectively nail HP as contributing to enterprise quality Linux! I hope this is of more use than my usual postings.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Australia and the ACCC
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:57 PM EST
From: infocentre <infocentre@ACCC.GOV.AU>
To: ....
Subject: SCO Group
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:01:34 +1100
Dear Mr xxx,

Thank you for your email of 21 January 2004 to the Australian Competition &
Consumer Commission (the ACCC) regarding SCO Group.

This matter raises a number of complex issues involving the interaction of
intellectual property rights and the provisions of the Trade Practices Act that
cover misleading and deceptive conduct. At this stage the matter is being
evaluated by the ACCC and a decision has not been made as to what, if any,
further action might be taken.

You may be contacted at a later date in relation to this issue.

Yours sincerely,
Davin
ACCC Infocentre
1300 302 502

-----Original Message-----
From: ...
Sent: Wednesday, 21 January 2004 8:52 PM
To: infocentre
Subject: Website complaint

... address deleted ...

21st January 2004

SCO Linux License

SCO

SCO Australia has offered for sale Linux Licenses at a price of $999 per Server.
To date SCO has produced NO evidence of any SCO source in the Linux software,
they have made claims in the press however all claims have been disproven
http://www.groklaw.net for all details.

According to this URL: http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html
"derivative work of the UNIX operating system. These customers unknowingly
received illegal copies of SCO property and many are running critical business
applications on Linux." This has never been proven.

"The Linux distributors are unable to do so because of the terms and
conditions in the General Public License (GPL)." This is false, Novell
(SUSE) and Sun offers this indemnity.

The complainant is not a small business.
The provider is not a small business.
The provider is not an online business.
The provider is not a franchise.
_________________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT: This email from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(ACCC), and any attachments to it, contain information that is confidential and
may also be the subject of legal professional or other privilege. If you are not
the intended recipient, you must not review, copy, disseminate, disclose to
others or take action in reliance of, any material contained within this email.
If you have received this email in error, please let the ACCC know by reply
email to the sender informing them of the mistake and delete all copies from
your computer system.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOundrels' Lawyer shows flaws in Mind-Control Technique
Authored by: the_flatlander on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:58 PM EST
At that point, Heise said SCO cannot identify violations. The judge said "The problem is, unless you identify those codes, then IBM is not in a position to have a response. We're at an impasse, and the case cannot continue with an impasse, that's why there was a court order".
Maybe it is just the influence of our reporter. (Bless their heart!) But does this sound more than a little bit like Judge Judy? And why didn't the SCOundrels' lawyer start pleading for mercy right there? Was it not obvious to him that when the judge starts explaning, as to a child, why she gave an order you are in way too deep?

The Flatlander

Persistence is futile, you will be annihilated!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO can't count
Authored by: chris_bloke on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:59 PM EST

As I wrote on my website SCO can't count the number of lines in the kernel if the above report of saying 300 million lines of Linux code is affected (and, IIRC, they've said this is just the kernel, unless they've moved the goalposts again).

Basically there are a maximum of around 5 million lines of code in 2.6.2, which means SCO is out by a factor of 50. However, that figure of 50 is suspiciously near the number of production releases since 2.0.0. Maybe they're not including the 2.5 and 2.3 releases (as 2.5 had 75 different versions). Who knows ? Only SCO, and not even the court can persuade them to say..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why IBM did not go for summary judgement
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:16 PM EST
An IBM insider told me that IBM told their lawyers "if there is anything
besides rubble left of SCO when this case ends, you did not do your job well
enough".

If IBM wanted to end this quick, they could have bought SCO right in the
beginning.

Ending this quickly is not their concern right now, and why would it? The polls
show that the Linux sales have not decreased in the slightest. IBM has the deep
pockets to spend years on this case. SCO uses the time by making ever more
ridiculous claims and looking like complete fools in the process. Remember that
SCO makes next to no money, so the longer this process takes, the more likely it
is that SCO runs out of money.

It is fairly obvious that if IBM gets the case dismissed, SCO will fold
instantly and will not have the cash to reimburse IBM for their expenditures.

IBM can not expect any money from SCO if they win quickly, so they might as well
have fun and drag this out a little. The more slow and painful SCO's death by
starvation is, the more of a deterrant this case will be for future other
companies thinking about sueing IBM. I think IBM handles this very well.
That's why all the bottom feeders sue Microsoft all the time normally, and not
IBM. Because it is suicidal to piss on IBM's shoes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:28 PM EST

Went on to claim that they have identified 400 million lines of Unix code and 300 million lines of Linux code affected, but also admitted that SCO has not submitted everything required by the court order.

Ummm... wait a second. 300 million lines?!? Let's do a little math here.

In a typical Linux kernel distribution (I'm using 2.4.22 from Slackware 9.1 here), there are by actual count 15,731 lines in all the files (including header files, C source, asm files, and even Doc files and other non-code files such as Makefiles). If for the sake of argument one takes that as a representative number of lines in a kernel (this is not true, since earlier kernels will be less complex, but assume it is for argument's sake), this means that it would take approximately 300M / 15734 == approx. 19,000 kernel versions to satisfy this figure. There are by actual count from www.kernel.org only 165 kernels in the combined 2.3/2.4/2.5/2.6 kernel trees combined. This does not take into account kernels with unchanged files and kernels that simply undergo nomenclature changes going (for example) from 2.4.x to 2.5.x when a development tree forks.

Did SCO just commit perjury?

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Theory on why SCO is doing this
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:50 PM EST
I have a theory on why SCO is doing this. Unsuprisingly my theory leads straight to Redmond WA. Seriously. I think MS is behind all this. There is no way SCO can think that they will win this case. There is no way SCO can think they will be paid $699 per Linux processor, there is no way SCO can think they can stop the advance of FOSS. So why do this? There is nothing in it for them. Well there is everything in it for MS.

You see, what MS fears the most, is not that the world will eventually go open source, they can deal with that. Whatever, Redhat or the other FOSS vendors can do, MS can also do and they have more resources, more customers and more clout in the marketplace. MS's problem is not a slow movement to FOSS, it is a sudden movement to FOSS. This is what can destroy MS. If a large part of the market suddenly went FOSS in say a year, MS would be unable to respond. It would lose huge chunks of its business and just as important, it would have to give up its high margins, just to keep the rest. This is the nightmare scenario for MS. Its not very likely, but it is possible and it is catastrophic. They have to guard against it.

Here is where SCO comes in. SCO's job is to keep pouring cold water in the FOSS cauldron, to keep it from coming to a boil. To slow down the market reaction and give MS time to adapt, time to come up with a plan. SCO's actions are nothing but a continuation of the abuse heaped on Linux by MS execs, they are meant to make Linux less attractive in IT decision makers eyes. MS hopes this will prevent a cataclysmic switching event, where most people move to FOSS in a short time. So long as that does not happen, MS can use its clout and FUD to keep its customers in line and its margins high.And eventually join FOSS if it can't fight it.

So what does this mean for the FOSS community? It means that, even if the SCO baloney is thoroughly exposed and defeated another ridiculous suit will probably be brought, by someone else. It means we can expect to be fought on every conceivable basis, patents, copyrights, DMCA, export regulations, national security etc. The SCO case is the beginning not the end. We better create some good weapons/allies to defend ourselves with. MS has 50 billion in the bank.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Have I undersood this correctly?
Authored by: hardcode57 on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:01 PM EST
I'd like to be clear about what SCO are claiming.

It seems to me, reading this and previous articles, that what they are saying is
that when IBM adds code to AIX and releases it, their additions become the
property of SCO as the licensors, and that therefore any subsequent use of such
code violates the license. Therefore, from their standpoint, there does not need
to be any code co-existant in _their_ souce code and Linux for IBM to have
violated their IP.

Have I got that right?



[ Reply to This | # ]

Are SCO really saying...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:38 PM EST
...That, as AIX is a "derivative" of SYSV, then *everything* in AIX is
theirs, and thus cannot be contributed to Linux?

This may be why they insist on seeing the AIX code (not the publicly available
Linux code). Not because parts of SYSV may have ended up in Linux, but because
they think some of AIX (non-SYSV parts especially) are now in Linux.

So, it all boils down to their fsck'ed up idea of what comprises a
"derivative" work.

Steven P.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:50 PM EST
This seems a detailed, accurate and complete summary accounting of proceedings.
Wish I had as much space to report all the permutations . . . but congrats.
Bob Mims
The Salt Lake Tribune

[ Reply to This | # ]

Press Coverage
Authored by: ErichTheWebGuy on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 12:10 AM EST
A quick search of Google news:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf -8&safe=off&num=30&newsclusterurl=http://www.internetnews.com/dev-ne ws/article.php/3309821

reveals that almost all of the media report something similar to:

"SCO adds another claim to its lawsuit, aks for another $2 billion."

Nothing about the DROPPED claims or the stammering unprofessional SCO lawyers, save a few news outlets. Yet another example of the press (mostly) willingly being spoonfed by Darl and his evil henchmen...

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Press Coverage - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 05:36 AM EST
SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: pooky on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 12:16 AM EST
"His impression also was that Marriott was very prepared and professional
and that Heise looked amateurish in comparison."

I doubt Heise is an amateurish lawyer, its hard to look like your in command
when you have been dealt a terrible hand. Hesise is making do with what he has,
its weak and it shows.

As for IBM continuing, I still say they will see it through to a point where SCO
has no grounds to appeal the decision against them. This is why they will not
simply ask for summary judgement against SCO, that leaves too much room for SCO
to re-think it's strategy and fire another lawsuit off at IBM.

-pooky

---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 06:21 AM EST
The SCO Group needs to take heroic measures to produce the infringing code and
save their legal case. As an Open Source fellow who hates the SCO Group's guts,
I am not a total bastard so I will provide the following helpful suggestion: it
is time for the SCO Group's entire top management team led by Darl McBride to
step into the bathroom, sit on the stool and produce some infringing code!

[ Reply to This | # ]

So SCO's theory is
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 09:56 AM EST
SCO are basicly saying that,

IBM took SysV (A), and some of their own work (B), and put it together to make
AIX (C).

IBM also took some of B and put it in Linux. SCO are claiming that this is
illegal, and need the code to B to prove it.

The theory is that because SCO own SysV, AIX is a derivative work, so anything
else that AIX derives from is also owned by SCO. Its sort of infecting upwards.


It doesn't make sense in the physical world at all - it would be like a car
radio manufacturer suing the engine manufacturer for allowing a competitor to
use the design of their carbueretter - on the basis that the engine had been
used in the same car as one of the radios.

If derivation could infect upwards, as SCO seem to suggest, then everythin would
very quickly be owned by everyone at the same time - as conversly surely the
person that wrote IBM's bit (B above) would also claim ownership of SysV.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I thought that IBM's AIX license said that SCO had no claims over SysV derivative work
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 01:03 PM EST
I have seen a specific license agreement quoted that IBM had a free and clear
right to develop with SysV Unix. So it should not matter whether AIX is
considered derived from SysV or not, right? Is SCO pretending that agreement
does not exist?

[ Reply to This | # ]

300 million lines... where?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 07:14 PM EST
And where are these 300 million lines of Linux code affected?
I can only find 4677267 lines of C code in Linux v2.4.23 (of which 595495 lines
are blank). 11065 files.

If I'm going to include all the assembler source files as well, it's still only
4905244 lines (of which 623482 are blank). 11599 files.


Here's the PERL script I wrote for this result. Note that
lines that contain nothing but spaces and tabs aren't blank
for it's purposes, but that's easy to fix. (Note: I ran this from the
/usr/src/linux-2.4.23 directory.)

#!/usr/bin/perl

# Usage:
# C files:
# find . -name '*.[ch]' | (this program's name)
# C and assembler files:
# find . -name '*.[chSs]' | (this program's name)

$|=1; $lines=0; $blank=0; $files=0;
while (<STDIN>) {
chomp($_); next unless (-r $_); open(IN, "< $_"); $files++;
while (<IN>) {
$lines++; $blank++ if ($_ =~ m'^[rn]+$'o);
print "r$blank/$lines ($files)";
} close(IN);
}

print "r$blank blank lines of $lines lines ".
"total in $files filesn";

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 07:26 PM EST

Ok, please pardon my legal ignorance, but I'm confused.

“SCO has apparently dropped its trade secret claims against IBM”

Does this mean that they have dropped the charges that code was illegaly contributed to linux? It would seem that at one point it looks that way and yet later on down the road they continue to press the issue anyway. Or is that IBM demanding that they prove it anyway just out of general principal?

I had a hard time following what was going on and who was saying what. Entirely my own fault I'm sure. Can anyone clarify this for me?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Howto find the infringing code
Authored by: technoCon on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 09:44 PM EST
(Don't mind me; I took the LSAT today and am feeling punchy.) IANAL, but I have
studied mathematics.

Take the number of lines of Linux code Mr. McBride says were stolen from SCO. I
think it was many millions of lines, but let's be conservative and say it's only
a million. Then take the number of files SCO claims contains pirated code. I've
heard 17. Thus over a million lines of code have been packed into 17 files. (To
simplify arithmetic, let's use 20 files.) Thus at least one of those files must
be over 1000000/20 = 50,000 lines.

You may complain that this figure should be much larger, but I'm just using it
as a lower bound.

There can't be all that many files of source code in the Linux kernel that are
more than 50,000 lines long. My copy of Linux comes with this little utility
called wc (c)2002 Free Software Foundation. A programmer could run wc -l *.c in
all the kernel source directories and find at least one of the source files that
SCO is all on about. (I'd be much obliged if some shell hack say how long the
the longest *.c (and *.h) file is in Linux.)

smiles and cheers,

steve

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 07:18 AM EST
There's something strange about all this (hehe, well there are many strange
things, but here's one more). SCO wants money from IBM because they continue to
sell AIX despite SCOs order to stop. But according to the APA between SCO and
Novell (4.16 b):
<code>
(b) Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify or waive
any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent of
Seller. In addition, at Seller's sole discretion and direction, Buyer shall
amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or shall assign any rights
to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by
Seller. In the event that Buyer shall fail to take any such action concerning
the SVRX Licenses as required herein, Seller shall be authorized, and hereby is
granted, the rights to take any action on Buyer's own behalf.
</code>
And as far as I remember Novell told IBM they can continue to sell AIX. What the
heck is SCO talking about?

/ep

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness Account
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 08:24 AM EST
Since SCO has dropped their trade secret claim, doesn't that weaken their
justification for keeping specific evidence of infringing code secret?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Drops Trade Secret Claim and Shows No &quot;Infringing&quot; Linux Code So Far: Eyewitness
Authored by: jmc on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 10:45 AM EST

Shouldn't someone remind SCO to change their web page http://www.thescogroup.com/ibmlaws uit/ to stop talking about misappropriation of trade secrets?

Also the web page talks about all filings and they don't look very "all" to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Virality
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 08:54 AM EST
One interesting point is that TSG do show some consistency after all. To SysV
code they obviously attribute the same kind of "virality" they accused
the GPL of. Any code that ever touches SysV code (or that ever touches any code
that ever touched any SysV code and so on) belongs to them.

[ 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 )