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
Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:00 PM EST

The order is in. She tells both sides to comply with discovery, but in the case of IBM, she specifically restricts the requirement that they provide AIX versions to the 232 offered by IBM's lawyer, David Marriott, at the last hearing on February 6. SCO must demonstrate a need for more if they want more. But they don't get every AIX version from the beginning, as they had repeatedly requested. SCO has 45 days to comply fully with IBM's discovery demands. Remember, that is what IBM asked for, that SCO be given a date to comply.

SCO has 45 days to identify "all specific lines of code" they allege IBM put into Linux from AIX or Dynix; identify and provide "with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to; provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties, and this is to include "where applicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released."

The previous discovery stay is lifted. IBM has 45 days to provide "the releases of AIX and Dynix consisting of 'about 232 products' as was represented by Mr. Marriott at the February 6, 2004 hearing." After that SCO can provide memoranda indicating "if and how these files support its position and how they are relevant." If they ask for more files, they are to explain reasons for such requests. Then the court "will consider ordering IBM to produce more code from AIX and Dynix."

What it all means in practical terms is that the court didn't buy SCO's argument that it needed all of AIX and Dynix and it specifically rejected its request that IBM *first* provide AIX and Dynix, so that after that SCO could find what it needed. Since, obviously, IBM is unlikely to provide its side of the discovery order until the 45th day, SCO, under the identical 45-day requirement, will have to provide its answers to discovery before it gets to look at any more AIX or Dynix.

SCO is granted one request: that IBM turn over discovery regarding top management, including Sam Palmisano. Also Judge Wells asks that IBM turn over any nonpublic contributions to Linux that it may have made. She will learn more about Linux as the case goes along, and I believe she will find there aren't any such. SCO asked for source logs. Wells says fine, within the limits of the discovery parameters, but SCO has to do the same for IBM. I don't remember IBM asking for source logs, but it is only fair.

She then asks both sides to explain how the new amended complaint impacts IBM's Motion to Strike. That's it. She would like the case to move forward, but she has done so in a way that is not a problem for IBM. SCO, on the other hand, has to provide what it told her at the hearing it can't provide without looking at all of AIX first. How they will do that remains to be seen.

We hope to have it transcribed soon. Here is the PDF from SCO's website. We should have a local copy soon, if you prefer to wait.

To refresh your memory, here is the transcript of SCO saying it is impossible for them to provide the discovery without getting AIX and Dynix first:

MR. HEISE: The reason I am maybe going more into the merits than I probably should in front of Your Honor is it directly ties into the adequacy of these interrogatory answers. The interrogatory answers detail exhaustively the contributions of AIX and Dynix that were made in there. There is no dispute about that.

They then in this letter that they wrote earlier this week said, Well, you didn't identify the line-for-line matching in every single place. There are two times when we did not do that in our answers to interrogatories. One is in table A of our interrogatories which we identified eight different files and we said the copying is complete throughout. We are not matching up the lines and I gave an example of that in the demonstrative aids when it says copying of Dynix slash into Linux, and you can see the red on the right is exactly the same as the red on the left, and that is line-for-line copying. So that is the one instance in our interrogatory answers where we admittedly said in there it is throughout. We are not identifying lines here.

The other place where we did not identify the line-for-line copying are for certain technologies known as Asychronous Input/Output and for Scatter Gather Input and Output. There is a very fundamental reason. Because to be able to do the line-for-line matching we need to have their source code. They have given us zero AIX and two CD's of Dynix.

THE COURT: But the requirement of the Court is that you provide those source codes.

MR. HEISE: I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding and let me explain why.

With respect to these other technologies that they have publicly acknowledged that they have contributed, they have laid out how it is that they have contributed it, and it was a part of AIX or Dynix, and what they are saying is, Show us the lines. That is the equivalent of saying I am not going to show you the book that contains all of these lines of code, therefore, all we can do is say it is from AIX or Dynix and you have said it is and we have identified how it is and why we believe it is in fact from AIX or Dynix. But to sit here and say to us when they have not given us their source code, and their source code is what is matched up --

THE COURT: This is about your response and compliance with the Court order.

MR. HEISE: I understand that.

We have given the technology based upon the information we have. The answers to interrogatories that they are complaining say, yes, but for those given technologies you have not identified the specific lines. What we have said in our answers to interrogatories is we can't identify those specific lines because it comes from your confidential code which we don't have access to yet.

THE COURT: Mr. Heise, this is the problem. The problem is that unless you identify those codes, which was required by the Court order --

MR. HEISE: Which we did.

THE COURT: -- then I.B.M. is not in a position necessarily to respond, the way I see it. So we are at an impasse and we can't be at an impasse and have the case remain at a standstill. That is why there is an order in place that SCO has been required to comply with, so that I might then address what IBM has to comply with.

MR. HEISE: But I'm trying to stay focussed on our compliance.

I guess maybe a way to explain it, is in the technologies that they have contributed, let's say in rungs 15 and 16, that is not from us. That is not our Unix System V code. That is AIX or Dynix. We don't have that source code to be able to identify the lines, because they are quibbling about the fact that we have not identified the lines of a couple of technologies. We don't have the source code for 15 and 16. They do.

If they give it to us we'll supplement if further, but in the absence of that it is literally impossible to identify the lines. We have identified the technology, we just cannot identify the lines because we don't have their derivative modification source code. That is why and that is what I am trying to get across.

THE COURT: Well, you have made your point, I am just not certain I agree with it.

The order shows she did not, in fact, agree with it.

And here is the discussion about the 232 files at the hearing:

If you look, Your Honor, at what we are willing to produce, it is a substantial amount of code. We either have produced or will produce three million pages of paper of source code. That isn't every conceivable iteration of these products. It is, however, about 232 products.

If I may approach?

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. MARRIOTT: Now, again, I think the production of this material is entirely uncalled for, Judge, but we are prepared to do it to put to rest this notion that somehow IBM is somehow hiding the ball with respect to the production of source code. This amounts to well over 100 million lines of source code and we are prepared to produce that. We said we were prepared to produce that in our opposition papers. This is the releases of AIX and Dynix and the released products during the relevant time periods that they are concerned about.

What we are not willing to do, Your Honor, is to produce every conceivable draft and iteration and version of this stuff that might exist in the files of the company that has more than 100,000 employees, with respect to products that were developed over decades, and as to which 8,000 different individuals worked on.

To state it, Your Honor, is to express its absurdity.

And here is the SCO request regarding upper management:

HEISE: The other critical deficiency in the production of documents and interrogatory answers is that there is nothing from any of the highest levels of the company.

As you saw when IBM was filing their Motion to Compel, they kept asking for Darl McBride, the CEO, Chris Sontag, senior vice president, all of the top key people and kind of working their way down the ladder.

What we have gotten from IBM is working its way up the ladder, despite the fact that on October 28th and other occasions I have spoken with representatives of IBM and said we want the documents and materials from Sam Palmisano, from Irving Wladawsky-Berger, the key executives that are intimately involved in the Linux project.

In our reply memo in support of this Motion to Compel, we in fact provided an article from the New York Times where Mr. Palmisano is identified as the leader of moving IBM into the Linux movement. Mr. Wladawsky-Berger is a core, critical person and they are not mentioned in any of their interrogatory answers and we have gotten no documents from them.


  


Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First | 424 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:02 PM EST
Tick-tock...

Thie lawyer's meters go into overdrive...

More delay.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:02 PM EST
Maybe it's just me, but didn't it take an awfully long time to issue what looks
like a simple decision?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Was this expected?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:03 PM EST
Was it reasonable to assume that IBM would have to provide this material
even though SCO hasn't complied? Is this the "One Last Chance" for
SCO
compliance before the "Or Else" kicks in.

Or, does IBM regard this as a change to finally put the entire thing to rest?

Completely.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A defeat for IBM?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:08 PM EST
This sounds a lot like the judge is siding with SCO. With all the BS that IBM
called SCO out on (the claim of "millions of lines of code" in public,
but none in the court) why is this judgement so lenient towards SCO? Is the fix
in?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: rakaz on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:09 PM EST
Order nr. 3 looks very important:
SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code from Unix System V from which IBM's contribution from AIX or Dynix are alleged to be derived.
Sounds to me like the Judge isn't buying SCO's interpretation of the the SysV contract that all of AIX is a derivative of SysV.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: odysseus on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:11 PM EST
"Also Judge Wells asks that IBM turn over any nonpublic contributions to
Linux that it may have made. She will learn more about Linux as the case goes
along, and I believe she will find there aren't any such."

I think this refers to a couple of things:

First, any code that IBM might have submitted to the Kernel maintainers to
propose being added, but was rejected and so never made it to a public tree, but
whose submission shows intent.

Secondly, any background materials, advice, discussions, etc by private e-mail
that IBM staffers may have had with kernel maintainers.

All this really just more of a fishing expidition to find some non-existant
smoking gun: "Dear Linus, here's that secret SCO secret IP we promised you,
Love IBM."

John.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:12 PM EST
"Also Judge Wells asks that IBM turn over any nonpublic contributions to
Linux that it may have made."

If both Linus and IBM say there is no such thing, I wonder where that leaves the
SCO Group.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: GaryO on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:14 PM EST
I really like #3 "SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code
from Unix System V from which IBM's contributions from AIX or Dynix are alleged
to be derived."
SCO's "16'th rung" argument isn't going to fly. They have to show
actual System V code in Linux - which they can't do.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: om1er on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:15 PM EST
Nasty

---
Are we there yet?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: rgmoore on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:15 PM EST

I wouldn't be surprised to see IBM produce discovery well before the 45 day limit. They are ready to produce, so the only reason to delay would be to inconvenience SCO. If they produce promptly, though, it will minimize any argument in favor of delay by SCO, and will put IBM in a better position if (as I would guess will be the case) SCO has failed to produce adequately at the end of the 45 days.

---
Behind every sleazy lawyer, there's a sleazy client.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:20 PM EST
Does "products" == "files"?

If not, then article is misleading...

[ Reply to This | # ]

No fishing allowed
Authored by: penhead on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:22 PM EST
Good deciscion - SCO doesn't get to go fishing, they have to come up with some other way to prove their "dervied code" point in discovery.

IBM is off the hook too. They probably had the 232 (or whatever) files ready at the february hearing.

What it means is that SCO will be asking for more time at the end of discovery to try to track IBM-s contributions to the aix code they handed over.

Oh, and since they have no clue about that, they probably won't be able to turn over any specific allegations in 45 day, and the case might end right there.

Either that or they will actually bring some meat to the table in discovery, unlikely as it seems. For now, SCO still haven't corroberated a single allegation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nice paper trail
Authored by: penhead on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:24 PM EST
three million pages of paper of source code should be fun to read, btw :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:28 PM EST
whats the bet that on day 45 when IBM hand over the source code, SCO go
"Judge, we need an extention so we can look over the code"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:33 PM EST
The best part about this is SCO may unwillingly hand over evidence that they
destributes the same code they claim breaches their IP under the GPL.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO has successfully delayed the case.
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:33 PM EST
The meeting on Discovery was in December. The judge gave SCO a month to produce
it's stuff. SCO didn't.

SCO now has a deadline which is almost 5 months after the meeting on Discovery
in December.

What do you want to bet that they will refuse to provide the evidence again?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: archivist on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:34 PM EST
Order no 5 to SCO forces them to admit what is GPL'D, hehe, which will of course
be all the ABI files. They just cannot lie about or ignore their own releases to
the public and the licenses the files were released under.

[ Reply to This | # ]

WOW - What a day!!!!!!
Authored by: ErichTheWebGuy on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:37 PM EST
I am sure most of you all have been keeping up with the day's events on the
Yahoo board. All I can say is - WOW! For all the waiting and nothing happening,
the floodgates sure did open today.

Judge Wells' ruling, the earnings statement, not one, but TWO new lawsuits, the
press seeming to finally catch on, etc. I'm dizzy!!!

It was soooo fun watching in real-time as SCO's stock tanked almost 15%. Maybe
tomorrow will be just as much fun?

---
Striving daily to be RFC-2550 compliant

[ Reply to This | # ]

45 days...
Authored by: N. on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:37 PM EST
SCO has 45 days to identify "all specific lines of code"
[...]
IBM has 45 days to provide "the releases of AIX and Dynix consisting of 'about 232 products'

Am I right in thinking that if IBM produces all it's info at the end of Day 45, SCO can't say "we can't do our discovery, we need more time to fish thru the provided info"?

---
N.
(Recent convert to Linux)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • 45 days... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:27 AM EST
OT: Ketchup effect?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:48 PM EST
Is it me, or do the SCO news always seem to come in bursts?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Non public contributions to Linux
Authored by: Scriptwriter on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:49 PM EST
OK, follow me on this. Judge Wells has ordered IBM to come through with any
non-public contributions they have made to Linux. Is it possible that this could
be as simple as explaining how the GPL *really* works (not how it works in The
Darl's Klein-bottle world view) and stating that this is like asking for kosher
ham?

Or is it possible that, if IBM has made any changes to the Linux kernel and kept
those changes within their own walls, that they would be forced to cough those
up too? I'm not sure what benefit that would have to TSG's case, since such
changes wouldn't be distributed. (I wondered about changes they might have made
for partners, but again, those would have to be distributed under the GPL, and
therefore would have to have the source code available.)

Off this particular topic, I wonder if IBM could use this as a way to document
(for instance) how stuff like JFS could have come from OS/2, into Linux and from
there into AIX, thereby completely negating the theory that IBM copied any of
the AIX code into Linux (rather, it was the other way around).

---
Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve
fronts.

irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:13 PM EST
Is it possible that when SCOX cannot turn over any line by line copying and with
some kind of decision over ABI files,that Linux may be in the clear, even though
there may still be a copyright dispute between SCOX and IBM?

This is a straight question. I've probably missed something obvious.

Brian S

[ Reply to This | # ]

Source Logs
Authored by: mandalay on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:16 PM EST
SCO source logs should be interesting when they produce it.
Which part of SCO source are we talking about? All of SCO products?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Just the first 45 days
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:20 PM EST
This is just the first installment, people. Wells has now shown that her
deadlines don't mean a whole lot.

SCO should be very encouraged. Lots and lots more time to file lots and lots
more lawsuits. Darl has a right to celebrate.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Deadline / Sanction / Fishing / GPL
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:25 PM EST
If SCO misses this dealine, there will certainly be sanctions regarding
admissibility of evidence and possibly even charges of contempt. So I seriously
doubt they will missi it.

What I expect SCO to do is to provide more ABI type stuff as a stalling tactic.
See, while IBM has to go around proving that all the stuff is either public
domain, Free-BSD, Minix, Posix standard, coincidental, etc., SCO will have time
to go on their fishing expedition through all the IBM code looking for something
that may have slipped through. If SCO can find a few things, no matter how
small, they at least have a reason to wave their hands in the air and the case
can move forward, albeit slowly.

While on that fishing expidition, they will also be desperately looking for an
excuse to get the judge to give them all AIX/Dynix code from day one, so that
they can make a case that certain current files actually did start out as Sys V
files. Even though only 5% of the original Sys V code may remain today, the
progression of the versions might demonstrate that the files are
"Derivative works" and therefore IBM is screwing them! :) I'm gonna
guess that if this happens, the court will set some threshold on what percentage
(or something) remains to determine if something is indeed derivative. But I am
certain that this is what SCO is hoping to do, as a number of people will get
scared during this process and possibly buy a license (or God forbid, settle a
court case).

As for the whole GPL thing, well SCO keeps making the case that they didn't sign
off on the proper permissions because they were ignorant their code being in the
kernel and therefore they aren't bound by the GPL. But they really have screwed
themselves for continuing to release it in any fashion once they made discovery
that "Their" copyrighted material was being violated. I would think
any attorney worth his salt could easily make a case that they gave their tacit
permission once that day of discovery passed and so were then bound by the GPL.
Of course SCO could try to claim damages for the time prior to discovery, but I
doubt that would fly very well. It would seem they would have to go after the
contributor, namely IBM, which is what they are already doing.

Their whole hope is clearly to find anything they can hang on to in order to
justify their current business model.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: JustFree on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:29 PM EST
"Also Judge Wells asks that IBM turn over any nonpublic contributions to
Linux that it may have made."

If IBM had contributed code to Linux, then they must reveal this to the court.
Not doing this would not make IBM look as though it is forth-right, IF AND ONLY
IF SCO can present to the court the IBM did. This put the pressure on SCO to
prove their case.

I don’t believe that IBM has done anything wrong. From SCO actions it appears
that they are shooting darts in the dark, just praying that they will hit
something.

It is humours that IBM and SCO both have 45 days to proved to the court what the
judge has requested. In 45 days IBM can produce the AIX files, and that all. I
wonder if Stowell or McBride will be red faced when the fateful day comes.

I still think SCO stock is over priced, and in 45 days it seem that it may
reflect its true value.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - even handed, but ...
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:30 PM EST
The order was even-handed: both IBM and SCOG were given 45 days to complete
discovery, and were required to submit affidavits detailing their efforts. Both
were ordered to file source logs, and to file briefs related to SCOG's new
claims.

However, the order to SCO says "fully comply ... with the court's previous
order", and goes on to order in detail the items that IBM had complained
had not been complied with, including information that will allow IBM to trace
specific lines of code that SCOG claims were copied from its code to AIX/Dynix
and from there to Linux.

The order to IBM is to produce the 232 products that IBM said it was prepared to
produce, IBM's non-public contributions to Linux, documents from IBM's employees
currently working on Linux, further responses to interrogatories two, five, and
eleven. SCOG wanted IBM to fully identify 7200 witnesses, but the court ordered
IBM and SCOG to agree on the most important 1000, and IBM to identify those.

I found it interesting that, in the middle of the order to IBM there were more
orders for SCOG, to use its best efforts to find the relevant information from
public Linux documents.

I think the Judge Wells is bending over backward to be seen as fair and to make
no ruling that could be successfully appealed. However, I think that IBM got
everything it wanted, and SCOG got what IBM was willing to give them. Since both
got 45 days, IBM does not have to provide any information to SCOG until the day
SCOG fully complies with the court order, but perhaps IBM will be generous in
providing SCOG more rope.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:33 PM EST
Don't forget, if SCO can't come up with something like a million lines of
infringing code, then they lose in their defense against the Lanthan Act etc
charges in IBM's counter suit. I wonder if IBM could go for a summary
judgement?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - The Point of No Return
Authored by: moogy on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:34 PM EST
IANAL, etc, but is this the future of this case?

Ok, so we have judge Wells ordering IBM to turn over the
discovery items that SCOG requested that she had formerly
stipulated that it depended upon SCOG fufilling their
own discovery needs first. ...and we have SCOG ordered
to fulfill their discovery, with specificity again, by
the 45 day deadline.

Assume that IBM fulfills their obligations and provides
SCOG what it has been ordered by the court to provide.

Can SCOG try to delay in any way, or ask for more time?
NO! The judge would have no possible way to 'take back'
what IBM had provided to SCOG. That discovery was already
dependant upon SCOG fulfilling theirs.

Can SCOG be incomplete in their discovery? NO! Again for
the same reason. There's no way to undo what has been done.

If SCOG fails to fulfill their discovery completely, the
case will get dismissed by the court, and with predjudice.
What else could the court do? Tell SCOG 'Ok, give that
stuff back to IBM and we'll give you more time or another
chance'. It's no good' as they say 'the cat's out of the
bag now' and you can't put it back.

---
Mike Tuxford - irc.fdfnet.net #Groklaw
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:41 PM EST
The real silver lining here is that SCO is being required to identify all code
in Linux they claim rights to, regardless of whether they accuse IBM
specifically of contributing it or not. While we might not get to see what is
produced, IBM will get to see it. For a time, IBM will know the truth about what
SCO thinks they know is in Linux and can dissect it all.

SCO now essentially has to show all their cards to IBM *before* IBM gives them
the AIX source code. Additionally, SCO has to justify to the court why they need
all versions of AIX in discovery, especially since this order seems to state
that SCO can't base their evidence on what they find in AIX (otherwise IBM would
be required to produce it first).

The guillotine is almost to the top.

-pooky

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - Looking forward to the answer to #5
Authored by: MyPersonalOpinio on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:42 PM EST
"SCO is to provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties. This is to include where applicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released."

I'm looking forward to reading about KMcB explaining "well, the conditions of release were the GPL but, your honor, we said that the GPL was inconstitutional...". Accredited reporters going there, please take a picture! (if it is allowed)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:50 PM EST
I suspect SCO may decide to defy the court and not document all the System V
code they believe is in the Linux kernel. Certainly SCO must know that the first
time they're forced to document and prove ownership of all the code in court and
some small part of it actually stands up to scrutiny, that code will be removed
from the kernel and replaced, and all ability for SCO to collect money for
licenses in the future is eliminated. If they keep secret some of the code they
claim ownership of each time they're forced to prove it in court, then they can
continue to threaten end users with lawsuits.

You'd think that would also be the case with the Linux licenses. If someone
demands that SCO document all the code being licensed, even under an NDA, then
that information is going to eventually leak to the kernel developers and
anything questionable will immediately be replaced, and SCO's royalty money and
any chance of avoiding or delaying bankruptcy quickly disappear.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Stumbles on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:53 PM EST
Hat's off to Judge Well's.

Just the same as it ever was.... show me the code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The SCO Gamble
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:04 PM EST
What I'm saying is that SCO will come up with plenty of specific lines like the
ABI stuff, even if they know it is all TOTAL BS. There is so much POSIX
crossover and public domain stuff out there that is the same, it will be easy
for them to find something that at first glance looks like is derived from Sys
V. This allows them to comply with the order. Then the onus is on IBM to
demonstrate that all this stuff is BS. SCO can claim that it was their
legitimate belief that all that code really was their copyrighted work.

Meanwhile, SCO gets time to go over the AIX code to look anything that permits
them to run to the judge say "OMG you honor, look what we found! Now you
have to compel IBM to turn over all their source so we can see what else they
did." If that happens, not only have they bought time, they might actually
find something, no matter how small, that did slip through. If they find
anything at all, then they get to run around saying "See, they copied our
stuff, pay up now!"

So SCO gets to comply with the discovery order without actually providing spit,
while at the same time, getting a chance to go on their fishing
expedition......

I have no doubt this is their real gamble. Reprehensible, but crafty.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM should turn over the AIX source tomorrow.
Authored by: HamonEggs on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:13 PM EST
What do we, the "open-source community" (or IBM for that
matter), have to gain by withholding this code until the
45th day. Is there something to hide? I would think the
court would be impressed with IBM's cooperation if they
complied with all the requested discovery items tomorrow.
Give SCO the time to thoroughly examine the code and STILL
find nothing.

But, I can see that would lead into SCO's next stall
tactic. At the next hearing, SCO would be explaining that
they STILL can't comply with discovery because they were
too busy combing through IBM's code and STILL can't find
the offending million line.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Contempt of court?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:29 PM EST
IANAL, and this may be a stupid question, but:

Isn't SCO in contempt of court for filing lawsuits against companies for using
"their" so-called "IP", given there is currently a case
before the court to decide whether or not there /was/ SCO-created material added
to Linux without SCO's permission?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Kai on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:31 PM EST
You think people should be required to not state SCO as being the "owner of UNIX" or "the owner of the UNIX operating system" which I've seen in many articles !

This article doesn't quote the same phrase but they're still inferring that SCO owns Unix - "is based on the Unix software it owns".

---
Another (Western) Australian who is interested.

[ Reply to This | # ]

232 Products
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:40 PM EST
I am still confused about the 232 products. There have certainly NOT been 232
releases of AIX and Dynix over the years, not even including mod levels. I am
amazed that the judge could have ordered this when Marriott never even explained
what he meant by it. Is there any documentation in the record as to what IBM is
talking about here (other than the 3 million "pages" comment, and what
exactly is a page!).

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • 232 Products - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:26 PM EST
  • 232 Products - Authored by: hdw on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 03:53 AM EST
IBM, just do it
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:41 PM EST
If I was on the IBM team, I'd deliver the 10 *million* pages or whatever.... on
crisp clean IBM white paper. Then let SCO try to run it thru their
"compare code" software. I would deliver paper and not machine
readable files...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Inverse common sesne
Authored by: Thomas An. on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:44 PM EST
It looks like the justice system is utilizing an --inverse common sense system--
in late years. The same system that helped Msoft emerge victorious and
unharmed.

Given the inverse formula (of recent times) we should expect the opposite of
what makes sense.

In this case, the tables should begin to slowly turn in favor of SCO with the
real possibility of a victory in the end.

As for the present 45 day deadline. We should expect SCO to miss the deadline by
a few weeks and still be forgiven.

--

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO spin
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:51 PM EST
What really makes me sick is that tomorrow,
McBride, or Stowell, or Sontag is going to
get up and say:

'finally, this case is moving
forward and IBM has been ordered to give us
the AIX source.'

and will the media buy it? Let's hope not this
time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • SCO spin - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:59 AM EST
Judge Wells is bending over backwards
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:54 PM EST
>>The order is in. She tells both sides to comply with discovery<<

AGAIN!?

Scox is orderd to comply with discovery *again* ?? Is this the 4th or 5th time?
I guess when scox doesn't comply the judge will yet again order scox to comply.

Way back, there was a poster on yahoo who kept insisting that ibm could not
expect justice in Utah, because the judge and everybody else was Mormon. I used
to think the guy was nuts, now I'm begining to wonder.

>>SCO has 45 days to comply fully with IBM's discovery demands.<<

Yet *another* 45 days? It's been over a year, and scox still hasn't produced a
shred of real evidence. This in spite of numerous court orders for scox to
produce such evidence. I guess when the 45 days are up, scox gets another
extension.

>>The previous discovery stay is lifted. IBM has 45 days to provide
"the releases of AIX and Dynix consisting of "about 232 products"
as was represented by Mr. Marriott at the February 6, 2004 hearing. After that
SCO can provide memoranda indicating "if and how these files support its
position and how they are relevant."<<

Absolutely no progress since Dec 5th. NOTHING WHAT-SO-EVER. In fact, now the
case is even further behind. How long will it take scox to examine those files?
How many more times will scox be able to delay, saying "these files only
give us reason to request more files."

Why should IBM provide anything, if scox can't even prove that they have grounds
for filing the lawsuit in the first place. Scox blantantly disregards a direct
court order, and the court rewards scox. Judge must be part of the Mormon
mafia.

This is overwhelmingly positive for scox. It is now obvious that scox can drag
this out as long as scox cares to do so, way past April 2005, if scox choses to
do so. Scox can always say: "we changed our minds again, instead of suing
ibm for this, we are now suing ibm for that."

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think Judge Wells' is trying to separate derivative into two meanings
Authored by: thorpie on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:01 PM EST
It appears to me that Judge Wells is trying to define derivative. Derivative is
the word being argued about. Judge Wells has split the definition into two.
Firstly there is what I will call "non derivation", that is new
processes developed wholely within IBM which were contributed to Linux. No
argument on the facts are needed in this case, IBM admits contributing it, it is
simply a matter of legal interpretation whether the contract permitted IBM to do
this.
The second derivative is where a method or process is improved from an existing
code base. This does not have to be line for line copying. It could be deemed
derivative if the code base was used as the basis for development. It is this
second definition she appears to be asking SCO to clarify. What code within
System V was used as a basis to develop code contributed to Linux. And she has
asked SCO to do this without AIX/Dynix source. The AIX/Dynix source will be
provided only after the identification of specific code allegedly used as the
base. The AIX/Dynix source code can only be used to confirm their allegations.
If their allegations are true the AIX/Dynix source code will provide linkage
between System V and Linux code. She seems to be saying that no further code
areas can be identified after they receive the code on 17 th April. Of course
SCO will still try to claim as broad a swathe of code as possible so that when
they see the AIX/Dynix source they can still effectively fish.
So the code in question is being whittled away. Firstly we have the admission
that there was no directly copied System V code. Secondly we identify and
isolate any code (if any) within the standard definition of derivative. This
can be dealt with separately to the third. Thirdly we are left with the
contract interpretation of what IBM can do with their “wholely newly developed
processes”.
IANAL, but this makes sense to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did anyone think?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:02 PM EST
Maybe SCO wants that source code so it could copy it into their binary products.
Closed source. Since IBM and SCO were once working together on Project Moneray,
a project that soured, and IBM went on to develope those new technologies
without SCO , SCO had no choice but to sue to steal IBM's "IP", [which
according to SCO include concepts,] to put in their closed binary products.

Now don't get me wrong I'm not talkin' about verbatim copying, but fuctionality
copying since they apparently can't develope it in house.

And everyone know that you can't copyright concepts, ideas, and intangible's.

Let's face it their current actions, lies, misrepresentation of facts, use of
open source software while not abiding by the GPL, use of IBM's patented
technology, really make me believe that the SCO group wouldn't think twice about
stealing IP. The same principles that they are trying to litigate other into
believing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I doubt it is the code that is important.
Authored by: WayneStPaul on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:22 PM EST
I doubt it is the lines of code that IBM wants to see. It will be the
explanation of how they derived from SCOG's Intellectual property, and to a
lesser extent who placed that code into Linux. It will become a great game of
Clue, where SCOG will be naming programmers who put lines of UNIX code into
Linux, and probably IBM responding ‘Nope, you still got it wrong. Here is where
that code really came from.’

Of course the difficulty in showing the derivation is why SCOG does not want to
provide lines of code. They have learned that showing derivation from System 5
takes far more than waving their hands.

SCOG needs to have an analysis similar to Warren Toomey's that shows
infringement. Of course that was what the MIT people did, right?

So in 45 days IBM will see these some sort of analysis from SCO, probably mostly
of the ABI files, that show they are derived works. By that time the UNIX
Heritage Society will have completed their detailed analysis of half? maybe
more of the files so there will be two competing experts reaching different
conclusions on the same files. In any case IBM will come up with there own
experts that show that they are not derived from System 5. IANAL, but I
believe that those experts will then need to testify in front of the Jury or
Judge (depends upon who tries the case), and the decision is made.

I don’t think there will be a summary judgment, simply because I believe that
the SCOG will find some expert that makes some sort of case for a derivation
theory. I doubt that it will be credible to anyone here, but I don’t see the
judge not allowing SCOG to try to convince a jury that the code is theirs. Of
course given the choice between an expert like Warren Toomey who has a simple
explanation of how the files came from somewhere else, and whatever smoke and
mirrors that SCOG comes up with, I doubt that the jury will decide for the smoke
and mirrors.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this a way around the defense fund?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:27 PM EST
So, if the defense fund is for defending linux users for issues with the Linux
IP, that doesn't help them in a contract fight with SCO. If SCO is claiming
they miss used the Libraries that they had previously licensed from SCO, then
they are on their own, aren't they?

DanW

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO WINS!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:33 PM EST
SCO's winning strategy is DELAY. SCO WINS!!!

SCO is purely a stock pump and dump swindle and the longer they can delay the
inevitable, the more money they make. Winning means collecting $$$, not victory
in some lawsuit.

They have zero chance of winning the lawsuit and they know it.

SCO's other bet is to be bought out by someone who has more money than brains.
Highly unlikely considering the high profile this case enjoys: someone would
have to be an idiot not to come across the finer points with nothing more than a
google search.

SCO WINS!!! Darl and the boys keep dumping their stock, collecting millions,
literally, and the rest of us sitting here with nothing, fuming.

I'm so envious. I want a company to tank while suing the world. I want to make
millions without making anything but threats. I want to be set for life by
exploiting those who know 1000 times more than I know. Bwahahahahahahaha! ha!

I can't dream, can't I? Oh well, back to pushing the broom.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: drh on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:35 PM EST
It looks like Judge Wells has covered just about all the
bases with this decision. I foresee a few problems, but
mostly with the amount of materials expected to be
produced.

SCO does not get to go first, but they are going to get
their discovery request granted. BOTH parties have been
given 45 days to comply so as not to drag out the case.

SCO must provide specifics or they will not be allowed to
continue and their discovery will be useless.

SCO MUST identify the lines and/or files they believe are
being infringed in both AIX and Linux. This is a win for
IBM, but a much bigger win for Linux. This ruling will
also have the side effect of threatening the two lawsuits
SCO filed yesterday when/if the Open Source community
provides evidence to the defendants of those lawsuits that
disproves SCOs claims.

SCO must show who has seen their code, and under what
conditions. This will include any code released under a
BSD license or the GPL. Big win here for IBM, bigger for
Linux, and again a threat to the other lawsuits.

IBM must provide the code mentioned in open court, NOT the
code that SCO requested. While not a win for IBM, not a
loss either, especially considering that IBM was willing
to provide it in the first place. I did notice that IBM
mentioned that they had millions of pages of code, which
means it is indeed in paper form. I see this as one of the
problems, how on earth is this much paper going to be
moved around? (And will this case eventually set a record
for largest number of documents produced in a single
lawsuit?)

IBM must provide a list of 1000 witnesses. While less than
the 7200 originally mentioned, it still counts as a loss
for IBM who probably wanted only about 30-50 key people to
testify. The list including top executives is normal.
Again there is an amount problem, in that it will take
just over 3 years to get 1000 witnesses through the
system.

Both parties must provide source logs. This is important,
and indicates just how much Judge Wells does not want a
retrial. I was under the impression this was a requirement
in any court case, but I appear to be mistaken. In the
long run, it will provide valuable information to Unix
historians to help prevent this type of lawsuit in the
future.

Both parties have to provide arguments for/against certain
Affirmative Defenses. I will have to look back, but I
think at least one of these covers SCO's refusal to accept
the GPL as a valid license. If so, the GPL may finally
have it's day in court.

Overall, other than the volume of paper and number of
witnesses, I do not think Judge Wells could have made a
better decision. The wait was worth it.


---
Just another day...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - Big win for SCO, and M$FT
Authored by: be2weenthelines on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:42 PM EST
I hate to say it, but I think Judge Wells' ruling is a big win for SCO. Not
that I expect them to come up with anything significant (i.e. will stand up in
court if/when it gets to trial) from discovery, but because of the further delay
in resolving the issues. I think the judge ruling that SCO has made "good
faith" efforts to comply with discovery (even though they couldn't locate
their directors in timely fashion with the company's future at stake during the
last round of discovery), lifting the stay order, and compelling discovery from
IBM will cause people to re-evaluate the likelihood of SCO's success. 45 days
is a relatively long time for a business that depends on Linux. I think there's
a real risk we will see more companies caving in to the SCOundrels extortionate
licensing demands a la EV1.

And even if the impact has been minimal to this point, I expect the ongoing
lawsuit is going to have current and prospective Linux using businesses think
twice about the litigation risk of deploying Linux. So I guess M$FT is also a
big winner today. Very disappointing. Combined with the unconsionable delay in
the Red Hat case, very, very disappointing.

be2

be2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Quality research at Rueters. Read the last paragraph first...
Authored by: JuliusRex on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:43 PM EST
Reuters has created another <sarcasm> well researched "news"
story </sarcasm> for the pr heap. Earlier when I read it the quote read:

"Unix is a 35-year-old software system used in many big-business
operations. SCO Group claims key patents covering Unix."

Read it here:

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=marketsNews&storyID=449
0847

Now the latest version I see from yahoo. They have amended it to read:

"Unix is a 35-year-old software system used in many big-business
operations. Last year, SCO upset the industry's rapid shift to Linux, a
13-year-old variant of Unix, by alleging that key parts of Linux infringed on
its copyrighted intellectual property."

Now the article is rife with misinformation, that was just a sample. There were
four other contributor to this article, but the funniest part of this is with
these five rocket scientists editing this article and providing research, nobody
checked that Judge Brooke Wells is NOT A MAN. The quote here for your
enjoyment:

"In his latest ruling, Judge Brooke Wells of the U.S. Federal District
Court Central Division, District of Utah,"

This is just too well researched an article to ignore...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:45 PM EST
"Also Judge Wells asks that IBM turn over any nonpublic contributions to
Linux that it may have made. She will learn more about Linux as the case goes
along, and I believe she will find there aren't any such."

PJ, I think you are being unfair to the judge. Why assume that she thinks
anything will actually be handed over by IBM in regard to this? She may well
just be doing this because she realizes that it won't result in any response at
all. Its just more rope for SCO to hang themselves with. After all, why not
give them every thing she reasonably can. They won't be able to make a case one
way or the other. I would expect thats pretty obvious to her at this point, and
it gives them less they can appeal on.

DanW

[ Reply to This | # ]

Inspired copyright claims?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:57 PM EST
People have commented that based on previous court precedents source code has to be shown to be literal line by line copying to be copyright infringement.

Other copyrights for creative works such as books and music have less stringent copy requirements. Often times works that are "inspired" by another artist can be declared derivative even if no sampling or direct copying took place.

It is unprecedented, but looking at 232 versions of AIX there are probably a few things that might be cast as something "inspired" by Unix copyrighted material. Even worse is that if these look similar in the early versions, it may be more compelling that IBM took 230 odd attempts to obfuscate and try and hide the real source of the material.

Yes, I realize that "inspired" copyright claims are unprecedented in source code copyright cases, but would seem to be why SCO hired such a crack team of David Boies and the fellow who got parking tickets thrown out of constitutional grounds to be their legal team.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Preventing more SCO delays?
Authored by: bap on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:00 PM EST
OK, so a lot of people are guessing that SCO will try to delay yet again once
this new 45 day window ends. I think most everybody agrees that the best
(only?) way they could attempt this is to say that they need more time to go
over the IBM code that they're now going to get. Well in reading through the
transcripts it sounds like IBM has been prepared to turn over all this code for
quite some time. So if IBM turns it over, say, tomorrow, then that gives SCO
about 6 weeks to study it. So wouldn't it be in IBM's best interest to turn it
over ASAP, and wouldn't it also pretty much shoot down any attempt of SCO to get
another extension based on this code? Of course if IBM waited 44 days to turn
it over then SCO could have a valid reason for wanting another delay... Or am I
way off base?

-Bruce

IANAL and all that stuff...

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM 10 Working Days?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:30 PM EST
I realize that IBM was given the same 45 days to comply just as SCO was, but
back in the previous hearing they claimed that they were prepared to produce
the 232 versions of AIX in 10 business days.

Would it hurt them if they waited until the last of the 45 days to hand over all

232 versions instead of doing so in the first 14? Would it be a black mark to
hand out six versions of AIX per day over the 45 day period? What about the
earliest and latest versions on day 1 and the other 230 on day 45?

So far they've been willing to give SCO as much rope as possible even
ignoring areas they might be able to terminate the case, but if they decide to
wait the full 45 days will SCO be able to claim obstruction or have any other
grounds for an unexpected delay or appeal?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Polar Weasel on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:14 AM EST
I've been letting this percolate in my hindbrain as I spent the evening with my
family, so I haven't spent the time to read everyone else's posts. What I have
to say may be neither original nor correct, but here goes.

This is a great ruling.

By requiring SCOG to " ... provide and identify all specific lines of code
from Unix System V from which IBM's contributions from AIX and Dynix are alleged
to be derived" and " ... provide and identify with specificity all
lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to", she is saying she doesn't
agree with SCOG's assertion that AIX and DYNIX are derivative works to which
SCOG has any claim of ownership or control.

Furthermore, by requiring IBM to furnish the 232 versions of AIX and DYNIX
(referring to case law which states that "Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter
involved in the pending action...."), she is granting SCOG's discovery
request *without lending any credibility to their derived works claim*.

Granting SCOG's discovery request lessens the potential of an appeal, but doing
it by referring to case law pertinent to discovery rules in general means this
is done without condoning SCOG's main argument.

It's almost an aside to note that IBM had already agreed to supply exactly the
232 AIX/DYNIX versions the judge asked them to supply. The number
"232" comes directly from IBM's statements in court.

Finally, requiring SCOG to " ... provide and identify with specificity the
lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties. This is to include where
appplicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date
and under what circumstances such code was released" indicates that Judge
Wells is cognizant (1) that SCOG distributed Linux under the GPL, and (2) what
this means.

I think we're about to see the GPL become a very important factor in IBM's favor
in this case, regardless of the specific "Intellectual Property"
claims (patents, trade secrets, copyright, et. al.) made by SCOG.

A shallow interpretation of this ruling might indicate that it was favorable to
SCOG, so I fully expect their stock price to go up by $1 or so tomorrow. In the
longer view, however, I think IBM's lawyers will be very happy with this ruling.
I can't find the exact text in the Groklaw quote database, but Mr. Marriott
once said something to the effect of "be patient -- we're doing this the
right way". I believe him.

Another quiet, purposeful step on the road leading to SCOG's eventual doom.

-Polar Weasel

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO will provide garbage
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:30 AM EST
and then pin their hopes on finding a smoking gun in the AIX/Dynix code. I'm
sure SCO will have no problem complying with the letter of the law; they will
provide a whack of garbage that is common code (posix headers and the like).
Then they will go to town on the IBM code and justifiably delay the case for
years while they scrutinize the code.

This is going to take a ***long*** time...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is it really 45 days??
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:31 AM EST
Maybe I'm just too much a computer programmer, but if I were
reading the order as code, I would say that there were
specific deadlines attached only to three specific items
in it:

SCO 1) To fully comply within 45 days of the entry of this order with the
corut's previous order dated December 12, 2003.

IBM 1) To provide the releases of AIX and Dynix... The releases are to be
provided within 45 days of the entry of this order.

Both Parties) Both SCO and IBM are to file additional memoranda... Because this
is IBM's motion, IBM is to file its intial memoranda with the Court within 60
days of the entry of this order. SCO will then have 15 days to respond to IBM's
filing. IBM will have 7 days following SCO's response to file a reply.

All of the other things are ORDERED but no deadline is attached to them.

PJ, you program in Legalese (don't paras sometimes write
briefs as well as research them?), so maybe you can tell me
if deadlines apply to all subsequent items until overridden by new ones?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Subversion
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:38 AM EST
These requests for discovery from both sides seem to be played out tit-for-
tat. If IBM is required to show something, SCO is required to show something
as well.

Of course if IBM wants to be bastards about what they've been told to comply
with, they could wait 45 days and produce eighteen-wheelers loaded with
source code printed out in octal.

Others have been debating whether they should produce their code early or
not (SCO still gets discovery time with it even if it's on day 45), but they
really
should think about setting an example of producing the code in a pristine
workable form such as a subversion repository ( http://subversion.tigris.org )

In terms of this case it sets an example for showing code derivation.
Subversion is pretty darn good at illuminating the line by line similarities
which would be all the more convincing if SCO had to produce their
comparisons in a similar manner (and of course could not do it). In the future
it could set a court precedence for becoming the standard tool for such
disputes.

On the down side, SCO would of course play up a press release that IBM has
stooped to a new level of subversion in their code copying. Oh well,
nevermind.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • IBM's Subversion - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:00 AM EST
what about the truth?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:43 AM EST
What IF the judge had gone along with SCO's request and demanded that IBM
provided all of the AIX source code, and every revision, etc.. Ignoring the
technical feasibility of this due to the size of IBM and the number and nature
of the revisions, etcetera, and ignoring the legal technicalities surrounding
burden of proof on SCO's part. Suppose SCO were allowed to go fishing in the
AIX source code like it wants to.

Could SCO then show that AIX is indeed a derivative work of ... whatever code it
is that SCO says it owns? If so, would they not then have a case against IBM?

The truth of whether or not IBM released unauthorized code into the public
domain seems to depend on this issue of derivative work. If this is accurate,
then the trial could very well sway in SCO's favor if they can convince the
court that relevent AIX code, after they receive it from IBM, is a derivative
work, and such code is now in Linux.

Or will it be too late for them to use the AIX code at the end of 45 days, if
thats when IBM forks it over?




[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: titancbl on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:45 AM EST

I hope that IBM files for a summary judgement after this latest order is fulfilled. I think that SCO is just trying to make it it to trial (where they will play the Boies card), which is exactly what I am afraid of - a jury trial. Call me cynical, but I don't trust my fellow Americans' ability to identify invalid arguments. How long has it been since LOGIC was completely removed from public school curriculums? It would not be exaggerating to say that 85 to 90 percent of the arguments I hear on a daily basis (friends, TV, newspapers, books) each contain at least one Informal Logical Fallacy. Look at OJ Simpson trial...


Jonny: "They framed him cause they do not like black people - they hate black people, this man is a racist - do you think they handled this investigation fairly? They all hate black people, the same black people they used to keep as slaves ."

Jury: "Hmmmm good point - those bastards..."

The 'Chubaka' defense is funny because it is true... An overwelming majorty of Americans feel right at home with Informal Logical Fallacies. SCO can appeal to pity "Big bad IBM acted like our friend cause we had somthing they needed 'unix on intel', but then they took advantage of us by taking our hard earned IP and giving it to those dirty "open source" communists who are incidently making our intellectual property available to terrorists. How else could Linux make the jump to an enterprise level operating system? With the work of a bunch of people who are not even getting payed for their contributions? When is the last time you worked for free?" The facts don't matter. Juries buy this type of invalid rhetoric every day and award insane amounts of money to people with frivolous lawsuits.


Sigh... Oh Well, I guess they really needed that Social Science class, right?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: yy2bggggs on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:50 AM EST
"Since, obviously, IBM is unlikely to provide its side of the discovery order until the 45th day, SCO, under the identical 45-day requirement, will have to provide its answers to discovery before it gets to look at any more AIX or Dynix." I'm confused... why would IBM wait that late? I conceive that IBM would want to deliver within 14 business days exactly as they stated on 6 February, for two reasons... first, that's what IBM said, and second, from what I can gather they would actually want to give SCO a little time to look at it. Or am I missing something technical here in the process?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The UNIX SYS V codebase is a terribly tangled mess!
Authored by: bsduser on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:56 AM EST
I know that this is old, but it might be relevant. This is the first time that I
have seen this interview with Dr Warren Toomey. Here is his direct quote,
"It is very difficult to trace origins now. There is an awful lot of
non-AT&T and non-SCO code in Sys V. There is a lot of BSD code there,".
Now it appears that SCO is doing the same thing that they are claiming IBM has
done to them!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/09/1062902037394.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: wharris on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:44 AM EST

Also Judge Wells asks that IBM turn over any nonpublic contributions to Linux that it may have made. She will learn more about Linux as the case goes along, and I believe she will find there aren't any such.

I am not a lawyer, but I have a different impression of this part of the order. Judge Wells has shown ample understanding of software issues (for example, she clearly understands the significance of SCO scanning in PDFs of printed source code). I think the exchange went something like this:


SCO: Furthurmore, we need to see all of IBM's contributions to Linux.
IBM: Your Honor, Linux is an open system. There are public archives already available to SCO with this information.
SCO: Yes, but we need to know IBM's non-public contributions to Linux.
Audience: Snort!
IBM: (boggle)
Judge (boggle)
Audience whisper: Linus and IBM meeting in a dark alleyway
Judge (bangs gavel)
Judge Well, I think it is safe to say that if IBM has made any secret contributions to Open Source Linux, SCO is entitled to know what they are. IBM, I hereby order you to inform SCO of any and all non-public Linux contributions you have made.
IBM: We'll get right on it!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:55 AM EST
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/43911.htm

this story posted seems to ME does not highlight the SCO
must comply part .

the title"Breaking News: IBM CEO Ordered to Turn Over
Linux Secrets to SCO"

Whats up with this ? Comming from linuxworld ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 03:30 AM EST
According to the order, if IBM wait 45 days before supplying the code, then SCO
would be forced to identify any infringing lines in those 232 products in
separate memoranda to the court, rather than just including them in their no
doubt long and obfuscated responses ordered in I. 1 to 5.

This looks like a huge requirement - for each of the possibly thousands of files
making up these 232 products, SCO must provide details to the court explaining
how they are relevant to their case. Ouch.

So, IBM's options look like:
1) Supply the 232 products ASAP, impress the court with their timeliness, and
give SCO the chance to include references to this code in their own responses;
or,
2) Supply SCO with the code at the end of the 45 days, and as a result require
SCO to "...provide additional memoranda to this Court indicating if and how
these files support its position and how they are relevant."

I'd choose (2).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - annotated
Authored by: LionKuntz on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:22 AM EST
The Court having heard argument, having read the parties' memoranda, having considered relevant case law, and finding good cause shown, hereby enters the following Orders:

I. SCO

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant is hereby ORDERED:

1. To fully comply within 45 days of the entry of this order with the court's previous order dated December 12, 2003. This is to include those items that SCO had difficulty in obtaining prior to the Court's previously ordered deadline of January 12, 2004.

2. As previously ordered, SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code that IBM is alleged to have contributed to Linux from either AIX or Dynix. This is to include all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time.

3. SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code from Unix System V from which IBM's contributions from AIX and Dynix are alleged to be derived.

Paragraphs 2 & 3: SCO, beginning now, without receipt from IBM of anything before 45 days from now, must identify what is theirs specifically, that they presently know about, that moved from AIX or Dynix to Linux. The judge is asking to see on what evidence they made their lawsuit. What did they know when the suit was filed.

SCO is ordered to identify all specific lines of code in Linux in dispute. What did they know before discovery? On what basis did they file the complaint.



4. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to.

5. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties. This is to include where appplicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released.

There is no wiggle-room. SCO, known to the judge as a creator of distributions of Linux, is presumed totally familiar with Linux source code. It should be able to recognize its own "private property".

Further, SCO is known to the judge to have distributed Linux. IBM asked for, and got word-for-word, this order: SCO must identify every line of Linux code it distributed, who the customers were, and what the distribution licence was. There is no wiggle-room. There are two cases: SCO's orginal case, and IBM's countersuit. This order particularly pertains to IBM's discovery rights in its countersuit.



II. IBM In light of what the court considers SCO's good faith efforts to comply with the Court's prior order, the Court lifts the discovery stay it previously imposed.

Unlike partisans for one side or the other, SCO is given the benefit of the doubts over its Christmas Holiday failures. The judge is staying out of the case merits, as we expect any judge to do.



[snip citations]

Based on the Court's decision to lift the discovery stay and because relevance should be construed broadly at the discovery stage, IBM is hereby ORDERED:

1. To provide the releases of AIX and Dynix consisting of "about 232 products" as was represented by Mr. Marriott at the February 6, 2004 hearing. The releases are to be provided within 45 days of the entry of this order. Following the production, SCO is to provide additional memoranda to the Court indicating if and how these files support its position and how they are relevant. The memorandum is to include with specificity, and to the extent possible, identification of additional files SCO requests and the reasons for such requests. The court will then consider ordering IBM to produce more code from AIX and Dynix. See American Medical Systems, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 1999 WL 562738, p. 2-3 (ordering a party to first "procure relevant documents" and then reconsidering the discoverey request for the production of more documents).

Because IBM was generously willing, and unprotesting, about release of the "232 products", the judge gave them to SCO. At any time after production SCO can use them in additional memoranudum, providing incentive for IBM to delay as long as possible, but IBM is bound to their initial 10 working days claim at the earlier hearing, so it does not look "in good faith" for them to delay longer. This gives SCO plenty of time to pour through them and craft responses.

SCO can rush back with the "15th rung of the ladder" from AIX/DYNIX, or the "smoking gun" if it finds it, and SCO can ask for the rest it had asked for. It can ask -- no promises made.



2. Pursuant to Rule 26(b), SCO should use its best efforts to obtain discovery from the Linux contributions that are known to the public, including those contributions publically known to be made by IBM. IBM, however, is ordered to provide SCO any and all non-public contributions it has made to Linux.

SCO has been told the "Open Source" is "Open" -- go look. IBM is told "if Open Source is not as completely Open as advertised, than you better come clean before I find out about it from someplace else".



3. IBM is to provide documents and materials generated by, and in possession of employees that have been and that are currently involved in the Linux project.[1] IBM is to include materials and documents form executives including inter alia, Sam Palisano and Irving Wladawsky-Berger. Such materials and documents are to include any reports, materials or documents from IBM's "Ambitious Linux Strategy." Steve Lohr, A Mainstream Giant Goes Countercultural; I.B.M.'s Embrace of Linux Is a Bet That It Is the Software of the Future, N.Y. Times, March 20, 2000, Business/Financial Desk. The Court finds these materials are relevant because they may contain information regarding the use or alleged misuse of source code by IBM in its contributions to Linux.

Judge is saying "I'd like to read these, fetch me copies. Oh, and xerox copies for SCO too."



5. IBM is ordered to provide further responses to SCO's interrogatory numbers two, five, and eleven. These responses are to include relevant information from all sources including top level management.

6. SCO seeks the proper indentification of approximately 7,200 potential witness[es] identified by IBM. IBM in its memoranda suggested that the parties might be able to reach some sort of agreement as to the most important prospective trial witnesses and then IBM would provide the full contact information for these individulas. The Court orders IBM to properly identify a representative sample of the potential witnesses that is to include a 1000 of the most important prospective trial witnesses as agreed upon by SCO and IBM. Following the production of this information, the Court will consider the need for the proper identification of additional witnesses.

SCO is given this "gift" of one last chance to make a case, if it cannot make one based on open source and its own source code. This is a "show of impartiality", because the judge has informed herself of what the GPL is by now. The order to show lines SCO published in its own Linux distribution is self-evident that the judge is looking for some out-of-the-blue "Butterfield revelation" to make this case interesting. [Butterfield was the Nixon aide who mentioned during congressional hearings, that the president had a secret taping system in the Oval Office -- the famous "Watergate Tapes" that nobody knew about. Somebody blurting out incriminating evidence like that in depositions is what SCO is hoping for, as well as probably a truly bored judge.]



III. Both parties

At the hearing on February 6, 2004, SCO represented that IBM failed to provide source logs that identify how documents were kept in the ordinary course of business pursuant to Rule 34(b). The Court orders both SCO and IBM to provide source logs according to Rule 34(b) for those materials produced in discovery.

Both SCO and IBM are to provide to the court an affidavit detailing their respective efforts in complying with this order. Those affidavits should also contain a statement that the respective answers and materials provided are given to the best of each parties' knowlege and are complete, detailed and thorough.

Affivadits are sworn under oath, and false statements are criminal perjury. Judge is telling the parties, don't play games: there's prison-time ahead for game players. The stakes are high (billions of dollars) -- lawyers too will be more than disbarred for hanky panky.



In light of the Court's order granting SCO's motion to file an amended complaint, and IBM's answer to SCO's second amended complaint, the Court hereby orders:

Purely procedural matter. SCO added copyright violations. IBM posed no objections. Judge added the copyright issue.



Both SCO and IBM are to file additional memoranda with the Court addressing the impact, if any, of the second amended complaint and IBM's subsequent answer on IBM's Motion to Strike the 5th, 15th, and 19th Affirmative Defenses asserted by the SCO Group in its Answers to IBM's Amended Counterclaims. Because this is IBM's motion, IBM is to file its intial memoranda with the Court within 60 days of the entry of this order. SCO will then have 15 days to respond to IBM's filing. IBM will have 7 days following SCO's response to file a reply. Following the additional briefing, the Court will contact the parties to schedule a hearing regarding IBM's motion to strike SCO's affirmative defenses.

IBM countersued SCO. SCO made defences. IBM asked the court to strike these specified defences, having to do with copyrights. SCO added copyrights in its amended complaint, which IBM did not oppose. Judge asks IBM does it still have the original objections, or does IBM want to rewrite them to take into account the new copyright complaints of SCO.



[1] Although not part of SCO's official written motion, SCO raised these discovery issues at oral argument and also alleged in its written memoranda that IBM failed to adequately respond to interrogatories and document requests that are the subject of these discovery items.

Dated this _3rd_ day of March, 2004.

BY THE COURT:

__[sig: Brooke C. Wells]__
BROOKE C. WELLS
United States Magistrate Judge

"[1]" This is a footnote that goes with order numbered 3 to IBM above.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:51 AM EST
Those are public, they just aren't in the source tree, but they are available on
the internet.

DanW

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO releasing GPL'd linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:56 AM EST

SCO are going to have to admit they have been and still are giving away linux under the GPL. I really like this comment on Slashdot. Reproduced here, although the bad reflowing is my fault not the original posters:
JonL

Here's what I sent:


From:
[me]
To: support@sco.com,sales@sco.com,legal@sco.com
CC:
webmaster@sco.com
Subject: Code release

Due to recent court orders requiring
SCO to provide information regarding release of code...

"SCO is to provide and
identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other
parties. This is to include where applicable
the conditions of release, to whom
the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was
released."

I'm writing to let you know that you released the following code to
me:

Code: Linux 2.4 Kernel Source
Conditions: GNU GPL
Date:
2/11/2004
Circumstances: Public HTTP Server

Please be sure to include this in
your filing and feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or
concerns.

Thank you,

[me]

P.S. I went to www.sco.com to try and find the
proper addressee for this message, but the site seemed to be down. I'd like to
offer my consulting
services for your global website deployment strategy needs
to keep this from happening in the future. Let me know if you're
interested.


How's that sound?

I actually downloaded the code last month after
discussing the ramifications of the SCO fiaSCO with one of my customers. The
solution we came up with is that once I downloaded the code and distributed my
"derivative work" of said code to the customer, we were both covered and could
no longer be the targets of any SCO lawsuit(s).

--
-- Gun
P.S. Good computer
equipment cheap, at real auctions

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS Smoking Gun found in SCO Memo!!! -
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:18 AM EST
The timing is as perfect as SCO's.

Consider that like this:
Everybody knew when SCO's earnings were due out. [If not to the day
and hour at least to the month.]

SCO timed their latest fiasco to coincide with those dates.

It would not be unreasonable for anyone who had access to the type
of e-mail as the latest Halloween document to know about SCO's
planed escapade. Knowing that it would not be unthinkable to time a
counter response to coincide and negate SCO's lies.

Also consider this document says somethings else that is not
immediate apparent. That is that SCO does not have control over
who has copies of SCO's past e-mail. Also, it is a very indirect way
of communicating to both SCO and MS that somebody outside of
the inter circle of SCO and MS can prove the connection between MS
and SCO in a court of law.

As originally posted on Yahoo SCOX board posting # 103052

Pencil Nebula

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:32 AM EST
Indeed.

Now a document withOUT any spelling errors, now THAT would be suspicious (imho,
no irony intended). Forgeries in documents are often discovered just *because*
they are an improvement over the original document or does not include the
mistakes made in said or similar documents.

Now I'm just a hobbyist on this, but could we please have someone with good
knowledge of (historical) criticism elaborate on this?

It would be good to discuss the authenticity of documents first before we go
into any wild theories (fun as they may be, and I must admit I cannot always
resist them...)

[ Reply to This | # ]

'We're just like the RIAA,' says SCO
Authored by: bete noire on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:55 AM EST
Just a side note that there's an article on The Register in which SCO reveals who they most wish to emulate:

http://www.theregister. co.uk/content/4/36007.html

Maybe they're hoping to get charter membership in the new Enemies Of Freedom organization?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:13 AM EST
The SCO Group is having close to zero success on getting the discovery that it
asked for, and it must comply with the original discovery order in all details
or its compliance will become an issue in Judge Wells' mind. IBM had stated as
far back as December that it was willing to disclose the 3 million lines of code
of its 232 Dynix/AIX products, so it's not as if complying with judge Wells'
order was any skin off its nose. Thus, I fail to see how Judge Well's order is
in any way a defeat for IBM.

Those of us who are irked over the fact that judge Wells ordered IBM to fork
over the code for the 232 products should consider that the sooner IBM turns
over this code, the less wiggle room the SCO Group has for delaying games.

At this point, there is a probably an even chance that the SCO Group will end up
dropping its copyrights violations allegations and fall back solely on its
contract term violations allegations.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Spin the wheel of Justice [Reeves and Mortimer]
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:17 AM EST
Reminds me of a UK TV show [Reeves and Mortimer's Big Night Out IIRC], years and
years ago.

One day they had a big lottery style wheel which they spun and where ever it
settled, that was the verdict. This predates the SCO model of Justice by many
years, so before you ask, it was Vic Reeves' idea, or maybe Bob Mortimer's
idea.

As I write this, I remind myself that their catch phrase was actually "That
was MY idea {Vic, Bob}". Uncanny.

vl

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: HTML Rant
Authored by: moogy on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:50 AM EST
What html, or other conditions cause my mozilla browser to
force a display width that's very wide. That is, wider than
the viewable tabbed window.

It is extremely annoying to have to try to read this way
constantly moving left/right for every line read.

What can I do to control this on the user end?

---
Mike Tuxford - irc.fdfnet.net #Groklaw
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi

[ Reply to This | # ]

All that code!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:19 AM EST
How is SCO going to review all that code? Perhaps they
can contract to MS for code reviewers. The reviewers would
operate under a RWYSA (Remember What You See Agreement).
Man, this is going to take forever.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS Superfunding SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:21 AM EST
CITIZENS OF GROKLAW! READ THIS!

Microsoft is secretly supefunding SCO.

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

New DiDio Quote: SCO's actions suicide
Authored by: seeks2know on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:54 AM EST

What is the world coming to?

In an article today, the Salt Lake Tribune says:

Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio said SCO has created "a crazy situation. "It's either a bold bet-the-company move [to add lawsuits] or a suicide gambit," she added. "Right now, the majority of the industry views it as the latter."

A semi-logical comment from Ms. DiDio... Huh???

---
"The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold."
-- Aristotle

[ Reply to This | # ]

We can fight incorrect media coverage!
Authored by: Shaeun on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:44 AM EST
I went to Reuters.com and used thier 'contact us' system to ask them why they
were putting out such badly researched stories. I suggest everyone who sees a
story about these cases which is incorrect do the same. If we posted links to
those stories, and everyone complained about them.. Objective coverage would
eventually ensue. Especially if we could get one news group to do an article on
the lack of objectivity of another...

It's just a thought, don't flame me too hard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't miss this!
Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:05 PM EST
The below should be of interest here. In summary, put section I, nos. 1-5 together with the affidavit at the end, and SCO is in a tight spot!

If you read the Order, Judge Wells specifically orders SCO to comply with a few of IBM's discovery requests, and puts the text of those requests in her order. To me, that gives them a little more weight. SCO MUST answer these. I like the fact that the Judge caught that SCO didn't answer these clearly.
5. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity the lines of code SCO distributed to other parties. This is to include where applicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released.

Also included in this list is, loosely paraphrased, all lines of code IBM supposedly contributed, all lines of code from which AIX or Dynix are alleged to be derived, and ALL lines of code in Linux TSG claims rights to.

At the end of the document, under section III, the Judge orders the following:
Both SCO and IBM are to provide to the Court an affidavit detailing the respective efforts in complying with this order. These affidavits should also contain a statement that the respective answers are materials provided are given to the best of each parties' knowledge and are complete, detailed, and thorough.
I can see IBM's lawyers at work here. Trying to make sure that SCO answers their most damning discovery questions, and making them sign an affidavit that it is true and complete.

If the GPL is valid, the answer to #5, plus the affidavit, is a very powerful combination. But all of the answers gain quite a bit of weight due to this. I find this Judges' order a very good thing for IBM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not a blatant victory for either side
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:26 PM EST
Groklaw is trumpetting this as a victory for IBM, when in fact this is simply a
continuation of discovery. The court decided that SCO acted in good faith, and
demands that they continue producing; meanwhile, it asks that IBM resume
producing.

Also, the writeup above claims that IBM will wait until the 45th day to hand
over all AIX and Dynix source. Aside from the blatantly obvious contempt of
court proceeding which would immediately follow, there's the issue that the
judge requests that IBM and SCO work together on the AIX issue. IBM can't do
that if it doesn't start handing over AIX source immediately, as it said that it
can do. Therefore, this is what the judge expects. It's what I expect, too; I'm
morally certain that IBM will either file something demanding that SCO clarify
its legal position on derivative works (and I think now is not the time for
that), or they'll immediately produce all the revisions of AIX that they said
they could.

Now, if only SCO's claims within Linux could be public... Then we could fix the
real System V ones, and laugh at the AIX ones.

-Billy

[ Reply to This | # ]

What the heck is up with Computerworld?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:18 PM EST
I just read the Computerworld version of this story. They make it sound like
the judge is siding with SCO and that IBM is getting itself slapped around. Am
I missing something, or are they part of the anti-Linux FUD machine?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: veeruns on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:30 PM EST
Hi,
I dont knw much about lawsuits or anything, but sco has been dancing around the
bush for sometime and getting away with it, this is my question is there any way
like suing sco to force them produce the evidence or stop suing linux users ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX, IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 10:35 PM EST
and microsucks sits back and laughs at all the fud they have brought to bare!

[ Reply to This | # ]

What A Real slam dunk would look like
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 11:52 AM EST
10 days to get all the lines with specificity.
That was how long IBM claimed it would take them
to deliver. SCO has been cliaming millions of lines,
if so they should have been ready for this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The SEC is listening!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 11:37 AM EST
Look Here!

http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/04/03/08/0457259.shtml

Doesn't mean anything WILL happen, but at least it shows they are not ignoring
it completely.
I paticularly liked the comment, "We've gotten a -lot- of them."
refering to the complaints.

[ 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 )