|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:18 PM EST |
| The link doesn't work :( [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: roxyb on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:19 PM EST |
| Is the Irish Linux group supposed to have something?
Roland Buresund
---
--
I'm Still Standing...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:22 PM EST |
The link took me here
http://www.linux.ie/newsitem.php?n=510
instead of to the transcript. Could be user error, but am sending this feedback
in case the link is wrong.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:22 PM EST |
| http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/Doc-104-transcript.pdf [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:22 PM EST |
| Maybe the link was posted by the blind Groklaw reader... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:23 PM EST |
And you thought getting Slashdotted was something. Wait till you get Groklawed.
:)
The linked site is crawling for me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:24 PM EST |
| How do we split up the pages so we don't all transcribe the same ones??? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Splitting up the pages - Authored by: PJ on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:31 PM EST
- Splitting up the pages - Authored by: SkArcher on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:32 PM EST
- Splitting up the pages - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:41 PM EST
- Splitting up the pages - Authored by: mragreeable on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:41 PM EST
- Splitting up the pages - Authored by: cleverly on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:45 PM EST
- Splitting up the pages - Authored by: fjaffe on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:46 PM EST
- Splitting up the pages - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:49 PM EST
- Splitting up the pages 4-10 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:53 PM EST
- Splitting up the pages - Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:55 PM EST
- Pages 23-24 (NT) - Authored by: tgf on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:05 PM EST
- Page 27 - Authored by: snorpus on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:11 PM EST
- Pages 21-22 - Authored by: Stephen on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:13 PM EST
- Page 28 - Authored by: snorpus on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:21 PM EST
- Pages 25 and 29 - Authored by: Stephen on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:32 PM EST
- page 36 (NT) - Authored by: tgf on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:38 PM EST
- Page 30 - Authored by: snorpus on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:06 PM EST
- did pages 3-10 line3 - Authored by: cricketjeff on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:17 PM EST
- Splitting up the pages - Authored by: plex on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:24 PM EST
- Splitting up the pages--page 37 - Authored by: Ted Powell on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:44 PM EST
- Transcript as text posted in seperate message - Authored by: arreaux on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:52 PM EST
- PGDP - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:15 PM EST
- PGDP - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:27 PM EST
- PGDP - Authored by: Xenographic on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:28 PM EST
- PGDP - Authored by: inode_buddha on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:35 PM EST
- Done 21-31 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:50 PM EST
- p41 - Authored by: plex on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:41 PM EST
- p. 42 - Authored by: plex on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:56 PM EST
- p. 43 - Authored by: plex on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:07 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: mac586 on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:26 PM EST |
| Here is the link from tuxrocks for the
transcript
Thank You Frank! Now off to do some reading. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:38 PM EST |
SCO says IBM kept on releasing AIX after they told them that their AIX lisence
was revoked, but SCO kept on releasing linux under the GPL despite being in
violation of it (because they were asking for $). Look at the hypocritical
quote from SCO:
-
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&a
mp;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=92090 -
<<Gregory Blepp, Vice President SCOsource, told
us: 'The trade secret claim was an initial
option, however, based on evidence and the
ways in which the case has developed it has
become a clear copyright violation. The US
Supreme Court states that whenever a licence
is used, for which the party is no longer
under contract, it is considered a copyright
violation.'>>
All of you Linux developers out there, remember to use this quote when you sue
SCO for contributing to distribute Linux after they were in violation of the
GPL.
It's amusing how, every time SCO tries to pump, they manage to say things which
are stupid enough that they will be quoted in opposing litigation almost
immediately. Too bad for them that they seem to have no "Plan B" which
allows them to quit babbling. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: arreaux on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:46 PM EST |
Transcript as text in next post as a reply. Just a quick OCR.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: snorpus on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:51 PM EST |
| I'll start at 26.
---
73/88 de KQ3T [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:57 PM EST |
| I'll do 41 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: snorpus on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:02 PM EST |
There is that New York Times article that was
attached to our reply memo, it
identifies and there was a ten
page report that he and Mr. Wladawsky-Berger
and a couple of
others put together in deciding whether I.B.M. should
shift
gears and go to Linux. We don't have that ten page report and
it
is a critical document. Those are the things that we have
asked for. We
have had specific conversatioins with Christine
Arena at Cravath asking
specifically for Mr. Palmisano stuff,
for Mr. Wladawsky-Berger, Paul Horn,
Nick Bowen, those
peoples' information. We have not gotten
it.
Throughout these they have not provided the contact
information so
that we would not be able to locate these
people, and that is just clearly
information that needs to be
put in there.
The final point is more of a
housekeeping matter,
and that is in the production that we have received to
date,
we will get a C.D. and it will say there are two documents on
it.
The two documents will be 4,000 pages long. Clearly that
is not the case.
When S.C.O. has been producing C.D.'s it has
identified where each document
begins and ends. We have asked
them, you have to identify where the
documents begin and end.
Put a source log with the C.D. Otherwise it is
impossible to
know how these documents were kept in the ordinary course
of
business as is required under Rule 34(b).
Certainly on some documents
you can figure it out
.... continues on page 27...
---
73/88
de KQ3T [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Page 26 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 10:08 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Filter on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:18 PM EST |
| I've got 41 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:22 PM EST |
I am about half way through the transcript, and it seems that the primary issue
on the discovery is that IBM wants SCO to identify if, and if so how, any of the
code that SCO has stated were taken from AIX and Dynix and put into Linux were
derived from System V. SCO doesn't want to admit that this code isn't
derivative, but neither will they provide evidence that it is.
DanW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Stephen on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:31 PM EST |
As of the moment, posts in this thread have spoken for the following pages:
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
26 27 28
30 31 32 33 34 35
37
41
44 45
1-15 (with a delay of a day or so)
If you wish to contribute, pick one that isn't in the list.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Too late - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:42 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:35 PM EST |
Seems like SCO's whole case depends on 1) proving they own system V source code,
and 2) their interpretation of the contract agreement. Their theory is that the
contract is written to make system V a tar baby, and that anything that touches
"their" "ten rungs of the ladder" becomes theirs. SCO
obviously did not bring up any of the side agreements where IBM retains rights
to their own contributions. And IBM did not fully argue against SCO's theory
since this hearing was to talk about discovery rather than merits. I'm guessing
that IBM wants to wait and force SCO to produce their best shot on SCO's
definition of "derivative" before blasting them out of the water. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: gdeinsta on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:37 PM EST |
| -- [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Filter on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:42 PM EST |
| p 41 done - may be a repost, ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:43 PM EST |
Is typing still needed? There is a post above from arreaux that contains the
transcript as text.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:47 PM EST |
Computer Associates v. Altai
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/altai.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: koa on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:57 PM EST |
What?
Was this a typo? Have I passed through a membrane into an
alternate reality?
This
Graph shows the
estimated kernel growth has topped out at around 3.5M lines of
code.
Did I misunderstand his statement? Someone please enlighten
me....
---
...move along...nothing to see here... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: newbee on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:57 PM EST |
| The link is here
I
post the text in child.
JAN [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:59 PM EST |
http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/Doc-103-3.pdf
SCO has 3 Linux licenses - Computer Associates and two others (page 5)
Darl McBride rarely sends email (page 8)
SCO doesn't have the source code for UNIX versions upto and including System IV
(page 9)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:03 PM EST |
The OCR is running while I am am sending this note.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:22 PM EST |
I just finished reading the whole thing... and one thing that I found
particuarly
striking is the use of prior cases by Mr. Mariott and utter lack of prior cases
provided by Mr. Heise.
Other than the ever growing stack of facts against SCO, does this show
weakness in their case or attempts at discovery with IBM? Are they
purposefully not using prior cases? Any thoughts?
--andy richter[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:26 PM EST |
What I personally find so confusing is when the SCO lawyers propose that not all
of IBM's contributions to Linux are public.
They actually phrase this as a sort of "what a ridiculous notion"
sentence... as if it's preposterous to propose that absolutely everything IBM
contributed is actually public.
Do they actually not understand the fundamental reason linux exists and works?
The public nature is inherent in the license Linux is distributed under.
Though, I assume, since they consider the GPL unenforceable and not applicable,
perhaps they forget that everyone else in the world believes in it. I certainly
don't need to have a court test all the licenses I agree to. If I didn't agree
with them, I wouldn't... AGREE TO THEM in the first place. Pretty simple, there.
You can't make an agreement with a person and then claim it invalid since a
court hasn't tested it. It's insane.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:27 PM EST |
Reading Marriott's opening statement, it's pretty obvious that IBM is going to
litigate SCO into the stone ages. IBM is so certain of their case, that they
aren't going to ask for the case to be dismissed. They're going to press SCO to
admit in court that they dont' have a case.
I get the feeling that there isn't going to be a quick resolution to this
matter. IBM is going for a complete and total smack-down, and if that means a
jury trial...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: DeadWatch on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:29 PM EST |
Hummm, I wonder. Just had an interesing thought for a quick web-application.
Specifically designed to enable organization for transcription sets.
How it would work:
PJ (or someone she authorizes to) adds a pdf to be transcribed to the webapp via
upload.
Webapp runs 'pdfinfo' and greps for page count.
It's listed on the main page of the webapp as one that's waiting to be
completed.
Inside that view will be a listing of all pages actively claimed, a button to
claim to do more, and a button to submit a full ocr.
On submission of a claimed page, it will break it down into the 'he said / she
said' sets, and 'reformat' so every page is standardized.
It will also run spellcheck on thm just to make sure, and provide a message if
there were errors detected, with an option to fix or ignore (sometimes, i know,
spellcheck is a dummy). Upon recieving a complete set of pages, it will process
them into one, and provide a 'preview'. If there are any full document ocr's
uploaded as well, it will compare between them, to ensure correctness.
Because it can break it down line by line, it can show a single preview, with
the conflicting entries just one over another, colored so as to draw attention.
Then when PJ or whoever is ready, they go through and do a 'preview commit' type
deal, where they can select which 'conflicting' line to go with.
After that, the commit will file a single entry into a .txt file with the same
name as the .pdf, and junk all the data in the database related to that pdf,
save that it has been processed and is available...
Just a thought. Looks like you guys got this pretty quick, but then, it'd also
provide a nice base (maybe store the txt of the file in the DB, as well) so have
all pdf-to-text converted files available for search. Only real hook would be
the court headers, but maybe that could be part of the initial pdf upload...
just so the parser doesn't have to know how to deal with those.
If it sounds like it'd help, let me know, and I'll start work on it.
Just trying to find a way to give back in my area of abilities.
Jacob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Xenographic on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:32 PM EST |
Interestingly, I noticed about two errors in the transcript (which I would
imagine would show up in any copy we make of it). I forget one, but it was just
a misspelled word. The other was that they called Darl McBride 'Dan' for some
reason? If that's a common nickname for Darl, I haven't heard it...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:33 PM EST |
Granted that SCO doesn't have a thing today to show that any code from System5
is in Linux. Does SCO really have broad rights to AIX under the AT&T
contract if AIX is classified as a Unix derivative? Can such rights cover
patents and copyrights not registered directly with SCO? It's scary if true amd
IBM was very stupid to agree to such agreement.
I predict that the judge will give SCO another month to complete their
unfinished work as they begged for. And for IBM, this is hard to predict if the
judge would order IBM to provide the AIX source code (assuming that he rules
that AIX is a Unix derivative). The IBM lawyer (Marriott) mentioned law cases
and decisions by other courts which I don't understand. Can someone clear the
cloud and explain why these mentioned cases are so important in plain english?
and how can they be applied to this case?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What if? - Authored by: toolboxnz on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:48 PM EST
- Ask Harlan - Authored by: jdg on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:57 PM EST
- Not if - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:57 PM EST
- What if? - Authored by: Philip Stephens on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:19 PM EST
- Key part - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:45 PM EST
- What if? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 12:23 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: scoro on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:48 PM EST |
| NT [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Page 11 - Authored by: scoro on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:50 PM EST
- Page 12 - Authored by: scoro on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:54 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: tichael on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:52 PM EST |
Maybe I am reading too much into it, but it sounded to me like Heisse was
setting up grounds for appeal already. I thought he was already disagreeing
with the conduct of the court and its interpretations.
During his first turn talking to the court, he was interrupted 6 times. Count
how many times Marriott was interrupted by the judge.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:56 PM EST |
I don't know where to send this.
Pages 41, 42, 43 and 44.
violation of the agreement. But until we see what it is that
they are acknowledging and that they must under the rules of
discovery, then we are entitled to that information. But they
don't get to just say some of this may be public and
therefore, we don't have an obligation to respond.
They have got all of these versions and iterations
on a central server. They make it available to all of their
employees. I fail to understand how it can be on a central
server at I.B.M. available to all I.B.M. employees to track
all versions and all iterations of A.I.X., but we can't have
access to that in their responses to litigation. It is not
what the rules provide. They have got easy access. There has
been no affidavit or other evidence of the allegedly
burdensome nature of this. In fact, this document belies such
an argument.
As a result we are clearly entitled to the
information that we have asked for, and particularly the
contributions and the source code that they have agreed to
give us, and they have to have these employees identify which
employees made which contributions to this, so that when
discovery progresses we don't look at a list of 300 or 8,000
and have to guess which ones we should start with.
Thank you very much for your time, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Marriott?
MR. MARIOTT: May I briefly respond, Your
Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
MR. MARIOTT: I don't think, Your Honor that we
have suggested this morning that we are giving them no source
code. What we have said is we are going to give them hundred
of millions of line of source code. So I think it is
inaccurate to say or suggest that they should somehow figure
this out without the production of and source coed.
As to the notion that H.P. is somehow different,
Your Honor, is it a matter of public record that what H.P. makes
significant contributions to Linux. Under Mr. Heise's theory,
Your Honor, there is absolutely no way that he could know
whether these contributions were proper or improper or from
their Unix product or not, unless under his theory he had all
of their source code. SO it is impossible to distinguish H.P.
under some notion that somehow they are not making
contributions to Linux. It simply is not true and there
would be no way under his theory for him to know whether or
not the contribution was a problem unless he had the millions
of lines of source code which he has not been provided, which
he didn't tell you he has been provided but which we have said
we are willing to provide to them.
The C.M.V.C. database, Your Honor, is not a database
that can simply be produced, Your Honor, and turned over. IT
is not a database that concerns solely A.I.X. code. It
concerns code well beyond the A.I.X code base.
Moreover, the notion that somehow we are unallowed
to content that it would be burdensome for us to comply with
these requests because we have not submitted an affidavit is
entirely inconsistent with the law that governs in this
circuit.
I would refer the Court to the Aikens decision at
217 F.R.D 533, the Bradley decision at 2001 WestLaw, 1249339,
and the Pulsecard case at 1996 Westlaw, 397567. Affidavits
are not required, Your Honor, to show over breadth or undue
burden where the details are provided in the briefs or that
the over breadth is obvious.
I would submit to Your Honor that asking us to
produce what would amount to a billion lines of code, if we
were to produce every conceivable iteration, is on its face
overly burdensome.
Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Counsel, while it is somewhat unusual
in a discovery matter to take something under advisement, I
think that based upon the somewhat complex nature of the
requests that I will issue a written order as to both of the
issues before the Court. We'll try to do so within the next
week.
Mr. Marriott?
MR MARRIOTT: May I inquire, Your Honor, you had
asked whether I could have someone prepare a summary of our --
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MARRIOTT: It is not very pretty, and if I
might, we have I just didn't bring a prettier version of
this which I would be happy to send to you this afternoon, or
I can hand you this.
THE COURT: I am happy to take that, but if you'll
give that to Ms., Pehrson she can make a copy of that for Mr.
Heise and for me.
MR. HEISE: The only thing I was going to suggest,
is their criticisms and our responses are laid out in the
letters of January 3rd and February 4.
THE COURT: I understand that. All right.
With that we'll be in recess on this matter and we
will get that order our as quickly as possible.
Thank you.
(Proceedings concluded.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mnuttall on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:58 PM EST |
[IBM] to [SCO]
lawyers
SCO still fails to identify _any_ files or lines of
code in its own UNIX System V product that IBM is alleged to has misappropriated
or misused.
To paraphrase the [SCO] to [IBM]
lawyers' response: "AIX contains over 1000 files that have attribution to
AT&T" ... It is clear that AIX is a modification or derivate of UNIX System
V ... IBM broke its Agreements.
In the letters and in Court, IBM try to
pin SCO down: Do you allege that IBM has directly copied your System V code into
Linux? In the end, SCO must say, No. Then it's down to contracts alone: were
IBM's contributions to Linux derivate works of System V? And, did IBM have the
right to make those contributions? IBM's lawyers are clearly steering the case
in that direction.
All that irritates me, is that SCO get to see the AIX
source code and waste IBM's time in the interim, which I don't see they have any
right to do. Anyway on balance, this was a good day. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:04 PM EST |
Hummm... I have seen this line of reasoning posted before and the more I think
about it the more it makes sense to me.
It may be possible that IBM knew a challenge would arrive, and they like this
particular challenger because they are so far out of line, and have been so
spectacular at blowing their case up, and up and up (like an overstretched
balloon). IBM has been fairly silent in the press. Maybe the are thinking lets
take our time with this case and stomp them into the dirt bad enough to dissuade
any follow up challengers. Maybe that is why they didn't ask for summary
judgement right now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM lawyers stomp - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:15 PM EST
- IBM lawyers stomp - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 12:44 AM EST
- IBM lawyers stomp - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 09:58 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:24 PM EST |
So, when the judge asked for IBM's suggetion on what should be done in light of
SCO's failure to produce discovery, IBM said "give them some more rope, er,
I mean time." Was this like asking for an order for SCO to put on a nice
pretty braided necktie?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: LionKuntz on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:25 PM EST |
In brief: SCOG argued that IBM once contracted with a
predecessor in interest (AT&T) that mods by IBM to the UNIX
SYS V are part of the UNIX SYS V, and that nothing from UNIX SYS
V can be used, even newly invented technology absent from the version of
SYS V contracted for, except under that contract.
IBM replied
that IBM internal inventions may be used in SYS V and elsewhere
because this is IBM's inventions, not SCOG's, Not
AT&T's.
SCOG argued that internal inventions used in
AIX or DYNIX are SCOGs (or at least SCOG's right to
suppress for further distribution).
SCOG's argument is a contract
imposes "serfdom" where the fruits of the labors of the serf belong to the
master. SCOG puts themselves in the place of the master, demanding to see
all the fruits (source code of all version of AIX & DYNIX) because
distribution of these fruits to Linux makes Linux a serf in turn.
This is the justification for demanding licences from
Linux.
SCOG has pretty well admited that it has no code other
than 17 header files at issue, unless the serfdom theory is accepted by the
court.
All the arguments are a tug of war over the issue of serfdom, where
IBM tried to modernize an obsolescent operating system but hedged its
bets by jointly scattering the new technologies it invented in the up-and-coming
operating system.
SCOG wants to rummage around IBM's files to
see how new inventions get made, since they obviously don't know. They want
every draft, every version, of AIX, even though they have already every
line of SYS V licenced to IBM. The million lines of code in Linux
is SCOG's property invented by their serf IBM.
IBM
knows what SCOG is up to and is not giving SCOG help in
establishing a new serfdom.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: grouch on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:35 PM EST |
| PJ:
"I received a lovely email from a blind Groklaw reader, who thanks all
of us for transcribing. He can't read PDFs."
I'm ashamed to say I had not
thought about those web standards dealing with accessibility issues.
It would
probably help blind Groklaw readers and those who use text-only rendering
agents, if table summaries were included.
11.4 Table
rendering by non-visual user agents
There's a checklist available, too.
I did a quick cursory look at it and I *think* Groklaw pages are mostly
compliant. I bet there are people who read Groklaw regularly who have to deal
with such a checklist, though.
Checklist of Checkpoints
for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:56 PM EST |
Just totally out of left field for a bit, it appears to me from the transcript
that SCO is desperate for IBM source code for reasons other than copyright
violation. The HP/Sun argument is clearly blown out of the water by IBM's
counsel, so exhaustive code archives for discovery purposes really makes no
sense.
The only reason for exhaustive code archives that DOES make sense is if you were
going to USE it. IE, if AIX/Dynix is derivative of SysV then SCO really owns it
and can use it. And from what I've heard about SCO code, they'd want to use it!
That would make the whole case a desperate codegrab using Linux as an excuse.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 12:04 AM EST |
| Beginning on page 11, line 13, we have a claim sensible enough to be argued
about and refuted. I don't say it's correct, but it's at least
coherent.
Their previous yammerings have been, in Wolfgang Pauli's
famous phrase, "not even wrong"
They claim that section 2.01 of the 1985
AT&T-IBM license agreement requires that IBM's derivative works (AIX and
Dynix) of SYSV "are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE
PRODUCT."
This is the source of the rights they claim, and the reason they
need a complete genealogy of AIX and Dynix is so that they can determine what is
a derivative work and thus considered "part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT"
(which TSG owns) under those terms.
The big problem for TSG, of course, is
the side
letter amending and clarifying the original contract, particularly " 2.
Regarding Section 2.01, we agree that modifications and derivative works
prepared by or for you are owned by you. However, ownership of any portion or
portions of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS included in any such modification or derivative
work remains with us."
But in any case, it's something that IBM can get to
work on. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 12:33 AM EST |
see http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/Doc-103-3.pdf
p. 6, #6
"The code comparisons performed by consultants retained by SCO." These
documents were created by consulting experts who have not been designated to
testify in this case. As a result, such documents are protected from disclosure
under Rule 26(b)(4).
If that is the problem, certainly IBM will be able to get them designated to
testify. I myself suspect the code comparisons were never done.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 01:23 AM EST |
We've had buckets and ladders. That leaves quite a bit of stuff before we've got
the 'discovery of the universe'! What might the next metaphorical item be? 'It's
like a sandwich your Honor. We demand the crusts be removed, while IBM insists
that it is their lunch.'
Thanks again,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: maroberts on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 05:29 AM EST |
At some point in the US legal system, someone must type up these transscripts
before they become PDF files. Is there any way of either
a) picking up the raw files
or
b) campaigning for a change in the way transcripts from cases are available?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Transcripts - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 08:09 PM EST
|
