decoration decoration
Stories

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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Addendum to Protective Order in SCO v. IBM
Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 12:16 PM EST

Here is a new document just filed, an addendum to the protective order in SCO v. IBM.

IBM will be handing over some AIX code in discovery, and some of it actually is proprietary code that belongs to Computer Associates, who wished to limit who on the SCO side gets to see its code. The parties have agreed that only SCO's outside lawyers, as opposed to Kevin or Heise, and any outside experts not affiliated with SCO may view it, not Darl and the gang, and they had to promise they won't use the code for any development purposes and will review only what is appropriately necessary in connection with the lawsuit.

Somebody doesn't altogether trust somebody not to grab some code, it appears, in order to improve their own products. After the "They took a license"/"No, we didn't" issue, you can't blame CA for wanting every little thing spelled out in black and white to make sure they know exactly what is agreed upon. The parties have agreed on these terms, so the judge signed the order, and it's signed by Judge Kimball, I note, not Judge Wells. The PDF is here.

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

Mark M. Bettilyon (Utah Bar No. 4798)
Cecilia M. Romero (Utah Bar No. 9570)
RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER
[address and telephone]

Attorneys for non-party, Computer Associates International, Inc.

___________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

_______________________________________

THE SCO GROUP,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant.

______________________________________

ADDENDUM TO STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Judge: Dale A. Kimball

Civil No. 2:03CV294

______________________________________

On September 15, 2003 the SCO Group ("SCO") and International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") agreed to the terms of a stipulated protective order.

In ongoing discovery, SCO has sought from IBM source code for the AIX and Dynix operating system (collectively "Source Code"). The Source Code contains, among other things, source code that is subject to third-party confidentiality obligations, including code for which IBM may owe obligations to Computer Associates International, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries and predecessors in interest ("Computer Associates"). Some of the Source Code that has been identified as being subject to such confidentiality obligations includes code developed by Locus Computing Corporation ("Locus") and code for the Dynix operating system developed by Interactive Systems Corporation ("Interactive"). The obligations of confidentiality owed to Computer Associates with regard to the aforementioned Source Code arise from a series of acquisitions and/or changes of control whereby Computer Associates became successor-in-interest to Locus and Interactive. IBM, Locus and Interactive, respectively, entered agreements that obligated IBM to maintain the confidentiality of the foregoing Source Code.

Computer Associates considers the Source Code to be highly confidential. Because of its confidentiality, and because of the competing business interests between SCO and Computer Associates, SCO has agreed that, with respect to any Source Code that is provided to SCO by IBM in this lawsuit, it shall be produced to SCO on an outside attorneys' eyes-only basis. Accordingly, the Source Code may be disclosed to SCO's outside counsel of record in this lawsuit, but shall not be disclosed to anyone else, including without limitation any of SCO's officers, directors or employees, including SCO's in-house counsel. Computer Associates has agreed that outside experts who are not otherwise affiliated with SCO and outside counsel may review the Source code. SCO further agrees that outside counsel and/or any experts who review the Source Code will not utilize this software for any development purposes, and will limit their review and use of the software to issues relevant to the present litigation.

Based upon the stipulation of counsel and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Stipulated Protective Order is amended as follows:

The Source Code, as defined above, may only be disclosed by IBM to SCO's outside counsel and its independent experts. SCO shall not provide said Source Code to SCO's officers or employees, including SCO's in-house counsel, nor use said source code for any purpose outside the context of the present litigation.

DATED this [5th] day of March, 2004

[Signature of Dale A. Kimball]
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
United States District Court Judge

APPROVED AS TO FORM
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
By [Signature of Brent O. Hatch]
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James

Attorneys for Plaintiff, The SCO Group

SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P.
By [Signature of Todd M. Shaughnessy]
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy

Attorneys For Defendant, International
Business Machines Corporation

RAY, QUINNEY & NEBEKER
By [Signature of Cecilia M. Romero]
Mark M. Bettilyon
Cecilia M. Romero

Attorneys for non-party, Computer Associates


  


Addendum to Protective Order in SCO v. IBM | 516 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Anonymous Posting - Discussion -
Authored by: Drizzx on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 12:41 PM EST
<p>I posted this deep in a previous thread, but as I cant even find my own
post I doubt anyone else will.</p>

<p>I have some concerns regarding the recent influx of readers / posters.
This site is an invaluable resource to the linux community, and the last thing
I want to see is the message threads being degraded to " <strong>
/.</strong> " levels.</p>

<p>I find im spending more and more time sifting through trolls, redundant
and off topic posts, and while comments that pose alternate opinions are good,
there is a difference between what is constructive what's not.</p>

<p><b>With that in mind...</b></p>

<p>PJ, is it possible to remove the ability to post anonymously? Or,
maybe even to be able to (as a personal prefrence) mask all anonymous posts? I
dont think there is any reason for anonymous acccounts as anything worth saying
should be worth putting a name behind. Creating an account is a minor
inconvenience, but its enough to stop a lot of your garden variety trolls from
expending the effort to post.</p>

<p>These are just my opinions; feel free to comment on them as you like..
If these ideas are not acceptable, does anyone have an alternate suggestion(s)
that might work? Groklaw is my homepage, and I'd like to see it continue to be
a reliable, informative source of information.</p>




[ Reply to This | # ]

URLs and Updates here
Authored by: HPNpilot on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 12:49 PM EST
Please place any links, corrections and updates here

[ Reply to This | # ]

Addendum to Protective Order in SCO v. IBM
Authored by: penhead on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 12:52 PM EST
Nice one. SCO doesn't even get to see what it claims to be its 'own code'. Note that this applies to all of IBM's source code, not just the parts that relate to CA's stuff.

I bet claiming CA as a Linux licensee didn't help them much after all :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Addendum to Protective Order in SCO v. IBM
Authored by: alextangent on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 01:03 PM EST
What's the significance of Kimball signing this order? Any?

--
An interested bystander

[ Reply to This | # ]

If Groklaw is so powerful...
Authored by: technoCon on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 01:11 PM EST
The fact that not all the sources in the SCO case are publicly available should
tell us something about the limits of our perceived value to IBM and CA. If
Groklaw was the 800-pound gorilla SCO is now insinuating, Big Blue would release
the maximum amount of source to waiting hordes of Open Source zealots. As it
turns out, IBM and CA both perceive greater value in keeping some things
proprietary. That's their right.

We're all best advised to keep in mind where our best interests lie and never
ever expect anyone to act in a sustained way that is counter to his best
interests. IBM finds its interests aligned with Open Source today, its interests
may lie elsewhere tomorrow.

There are 90 billion reasons why IBM may be smart to be betting on Open Source
and there are 30 billion reasons why Microsoft may be smart to be betting
against Open Source.

I believe Open Source is a great way to get things done. It is as American as a
barn-raising party, a PTA or a Farm Bureau. But sometimes the guys I root for
are on the wrong side of history (for instance, I'm a Puritan). Nevertheless, I
hope that open collaborative models prove superior. (Everybody saw the BBC story
today didn't they? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3537165.stm)

[ Reply to This | # ]

This order doesn't exclude Kevin or Heise
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 01:17 PM EST

PJ says "only SCO's outside lawyers, as opposed to Kevin or Heise"

Kimball says "only ... SCO's outside counsel ... not ... SCO's officers or employees, including SCO's in-house counsel".

Aren't Kevin McBride and Mark Heise both outside counsel and not SCO officers or employees? SCO's in-house counsel is Ryan Tibbits.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: looks like www.sco.com is back online
Authored by: belzecue on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 01:17 PM EST
... according to Netcraft, the old site is back live. Looks like they've built the moat around 205.158.14.114.ptr.us.xo.net

[ Reply to This | # ]

Seattle PI Story-Microsoft & Baystar
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 01:19 PM EST
This isn't strickly on topic, but the Saturday morning Seattle PI has a story on Microsoft's response to the SCO memo and Baystar allegations. It's at:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/163536_msftsco07.html

The PI also has a blog that mentions GrokLaw at:

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/001794.html

There's a place to make comments.

And a Seattle writer, Paul Andrews has a blog calling for better in-depth investigative reporting, noting:

Often this is the point stories like this simply die. No one is willing to do the grunt investigative work and time-consuming diligence needed to get to the real truth. There are lots of reasons, many having to do with the daily onslaught of inconsequentialities that keep paid journalists scrambling.

So for the time being we'll just have to wait and see whether any established news source commits the resources. Or if the story will just die in yakety-yak.

His blog is at:

http://paulandrews.typepad.com/paulandrews/2004/03/ he_sco_says_she.html

--Mike Perry, Seattle

http://www.InklingBooks.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

HOW FAR CAN ONE THROW SCOG???
Authored by: legal insanity on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 01:32 PM EST
Funny, isn't it, when CA files for a protection order against SCOG and not IBM.
I see that as saying we trust IBM, but we sure do not trust SCOG. Of course, who
can blame them, considering the license misrepresentation. Everyone knows SCOG
does not follow contracts, they sure haven't been following court orders. So I
can easily understand why CA would make this move.

---
Insanity Pleadings is the only Sensible Defense

[ Reply to This | # ]

Missing something....?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 01:35 PM EST
Perhaps I am missing a clue, but :
"SCO has to comply with discovery first!"

So either they complied fully, or they didn't.

Apparently the judge thinks SCO complied, why else would IBM start giving it's
own code and opening a new fishing expidition for SCO?

Patrick

[ Reply to This | # ]

Addendum to Protective Order in SCO v. IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 01:44 PM EST
Moderation of posts would help. More informational posts could be moderated up.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Addendum to Protective Order in SCO v. IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 01:48 PM EST
So what does this do to SCO's theory of derivative works? Can they now claim
that the CA source integrated with AIX is SCO IP?

[ Reply to This | # ]

alternative: sticky OT topics?
Authored by: soronlin on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 01:59 PM EST
Most of the noise comes from OT posts. Maybe if a topic could be created that
stuck to the headlines screen, rather than disappearing after 48 hours, where
people could post such messages the noise in the in-topic areas could be kept
down.

There are problems to be solved, for example the number of comments would keep
rising, but possibly there could be a selectable time filter on them.
Interesting threads could be promoted to topics in their own right, and
transient messages could be moderated out or deleted automatically after a set
period.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - Way OT! SCO website picture
Authored by: geoff lane on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 02:13 PM EST
Have a look at the "flower girl" image in the home page of www.thescogroup.com.

I see a little pointer icon in the top right corner.

It's part of the image, and it's also in the same image from www.sco.com.

I know it's a trivial thing but it's yet another sloppy thing done by a sloppy company.

[ Reply to This | # ]

DMB and his word
Authored by: phrostie on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 02:35 PM EST
ok, let me get this straight.
one of the most unethical companies in recent history is beeing given code that
they claim they already own but promised not to look at it?

is this a contiuation of the Who's on First routine with the addition of a new
runner named "i won't look".

---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu

[ Reply to This | # ]

The whole www.sco.com thing...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 02:38 PM EST
Anyone considered the fact that they were too inept to change a good chunk of
their press releases (even the lawsuits vs AZ and DC) and left www.sco.com as
their address, that they had to bring the old one back up?

Netcraft says:
The site www.sco.com is running Apache on unknown

Any bets their masking and unknown = linux?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What If... ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 02:47 PM EST
What if all this manuevering in the SCO v. IBM case is just so SCO could get
their hands on the AIX code? AIX is far superior to SCO's offerings, so perhaps
SCO thinks they are entitled to the AIX code and want to integrate it into their
OS's?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Addendum to Protective Order in SCO v. IBM
Authored by: Thomas An. on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 02:51 PM EST
"...proprietary code that belongs to Computer Associates, who wished to
limit who on the SCO side gets to see its code"

Limit ? The request is mostly based on trust ?
I trully doubt the enforcibility of this request.

Just being realistic...CA should consider the code gone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another major nail in SCO's coffin?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 02:59 PM EST
May-August 2003 - SCO runs to the press saying they had these 3 teams of experts
do all this analysis, and their case is really strong based on this analysis.


December 2003 - Court tells SCO to produce all the documents that SCO has,
including the analysis of the code


January 2004 - SCO produces an entirely *new* analysis, apparently generated
during December-January entirely by SCO employees/contractors.


January 2004 - IBM asks where is your other analysis from May-August 2003 ?


4 February 2004 - Mark Heise, SCO's lawyers, says in a letter to IBM - oh that
analysis. We do NOT intend to use it at trial. We do NOT even intend to use it
at trial to defend ourselves on Lanham Act charges in your countersuit (saying
our claims in mid 2003 were false) - therefore we do not need to produce it.

Come on people, you have to wonder about this? Isn't that a just a little odd?

The only analysis that SCO has produced in the post December 2003 one, made by
their employees.

The other supposed analysis, from mid 2003, is not worthy, to be used even in
SCO's defense from counterclaims (despite Darl and others asserting at the time
just how strong it was).



March 2004 - This ruling

- You can do an analysis, but you can't use your employees/contractors to do
it.

Now, if, the expert analysis from last year, never actually took place, and if
there are no experts .... you've got to wonder what SCO can do to keep going.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Boies's address - Armonk, NY
Authored by: Kevin on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 03:35 PM EST
Beacuse of the recent smear campaign against PJ,
Boies's office address in Armonk, New York just
leapt out of the page at me as I was scrolling
through the PDF. He's even nearer IBM's offices
than PJ! Assuming that she lives where McBride,
Stowell and Enderle say - I wouldn't assume that
they'd tell the truth about even anything that
simple.

Say, you don't suppose that he's also in the pay
of IBM and secretly sabotaging SCO's case, do you?
(Or rather, you don't suppose that SCO will start
claiming that at some time in the future, do you?)

Personally, my only connection with IBM is that I
applied for a job at Watson Labs in 1991. The
HR department moved so slowly that I'd taken another
job before IBM got around to inviting me for an
interview. Uh, yeah, and I've done a bunch of programming
on PC-DOS, MS-DOS and Windows. So no, IBM didn't pay
me to say this. Although I'm probably mentally
tainted by having read the PC-DOS manuals.



---
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!)

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is Locus?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 03:37 PM EST
http://webpages.charter.net/ohlandl/AIX_1-3/AIX_Origions.html

Actually (ahem!) it was my company, Locus Computing Corp. that was developing
AIX/386 ("Stetson"), which because AIX/PS/2 and AIX/370 and created
TCF (transparent computing facility, which was LOcally Cooperative Unix Systems,
or LOCUS) before IBM renamed it.


http://fmg-www.cs.ucla.edu/fmg-members/popek/

Prior to his CTO role at Platinum, Dr. Popek was founder and chairman of Locus
Computing Corporation. Locus has been one of the significant suppliers of
technology and services to the Unix systems community, including Digital, SCO,
Novell, Pyramid, Tandem, and others. Locus built major portions of IBM's AIX
systems on its mainframe and PC hardware. It has provided the primary means in
the industry by which Windows software is run on Intel Unix systems, and has
built one of the leading electronic cash systems for the Internet. Dr. Popek
contributed significantly to each of these programs.


http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38235.htm

It's dawned on Computer Associates that IBM pays it royalties for the SMP
technology in AIX, IBM's version of Unix, because of the work done long ago by
Unix icon Locus Computing Corporation.
CA says it owns the Locus IP by virtue of its huge $3.5 billion cash purchase of
Platinum technology Inc in 2000. See, Platinum had bought Locus in a stock swap
in, oh, 1995.

Now, of course, the SCO Group has made a big megillah about the SMP facilities
that found their way into Linux. It claims that IBM ripped the widgetry out of
Sequent's Dynix version of Unix, which SCO alleges it had dibs on, and threw it
over the wall to Linux to make Linux enterprise-fit.

SCO's claim has made CA, not exactly what you'd call a SCO booster these days,
curious about whether Sequent's SMP functionality also originated with Locus.
It's got its fingers crossed and its investigators out hoping to foil the
Anti-Linux in its tracks.


http://www.hsinfosystems.com/biographies/RSchulz.html

Member of 10-20 person team designing and building the Locus (AIX) transparent,
distributed UNIX system. Designed and implemented protocols supporting networks
of mixed processors with process migration and remote program execution on a
local-area network. Designed and implemented transparent remote terminal (tty)
access and network-wide UNIX signals. Added compatibility with AT&T System V
Release 2 APIs, libraries, file formats, commands and object files.

http://www.snowmoose.com/afperry/resume.html

April 1989 to December 1990
Consultant to Locus Computing Corporation
Braintec, Irvine, CA
Worked fixing bugs to reduce the bug backlog for AIX 1.2. Fixed bugs in every
area of the system, from command line applications to kernel code. Worked on AIX
1.2 POSIX conversion effort.


Many citations here:
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:RItdekxr-NAJ:citeseer.nj.nec.com/context/3131
1/0+Locus+Computing+AIX&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[ Reply to This | # ]

quality in journalism!
Authored by: Budgreen on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 03:59 PM EST
from this link http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&pr ev=/search%3Fq%3Dscox%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8&q=stocks:S COX+ SCO Group is a software company whose products enable the development, deployment and management of Linux specialized servers and Internet access devices that simplify computing. IBM makes computers, storage products and software. I wonder how much research was done here? I would imagine it would have been accurate about a year ago.

---
Hutz: Well, your Honor, we've got plenty of hersay and conjecture, those are *kinds* of evidence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some Geeklog suggestions...
Authored by: chrisbrown on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 05:16 PM EST

I agree with not doing away with AC's, but there are some other problems Groklaw's been having of late that could be addressed.

Drop dynamic generation, Under heavy loads Groklaw/Geeklog becomes pathetically slugish. Perhaps a system of static pages generated every 5 minutes ala /. might improve performance.

Stories Only Page, Perhaps the link from the Headlines Only page should go to a static Story Only page without comments (with a further link to comments). This would help enormously for those with limited bandwidth or who don't care about comments. This would further reduce demands on the PHP/MySQL backend.

I recognize these are "technical" issues rather than Groklaw policy issues, but this week Groklaw's been getting pretty hammered.

PJ, don't let the trolls and/or message noise get you down. Your site has been immensly important to me in understanding not just the SCO/IBM/RedHat/Novell/etc lawsuits, but also legal issues not normally dealt with by we technologists & developers. Unfortunately it's becoming critical that we understand them in our daily work. Along those lines, I'm impressed by ESR/GNU's forsight in making the legal CYA an important part of their development efforts. I'm sure that forsight will be proven instrumental in defending lawsuits and GPL contributions in the coming years.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Addendum to Protective Order in SCO v. IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 05:30 PM EST
What happened with the March 5th deadline on the Novell case? Just wondering.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who is Interactive?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 05:51 PM EST
Is this the same interactive SUN bought a long time ago? Or, is it some other
comapny?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Remember conjecture is free.
Authored by: JustFree on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 05:59 PM EST
I have made posts anonymously, before posting as “JustFree”. This is a forum for
people with a common interest. There are people who just want privacy, which is
good. This should be allowed. What made me change my mind is trust. There maybe
people that thinks Groklaw is pro-Linux, anti-SCO. I don't think this is the
case. We gather information that we read about, hear on the news or from another
source, and use our independent minds. Writing things that are false, and have
been proven false is just shameful.

I would not say being a Devil's Advocate is bad. Writing comments that have no
place in reality is just wrong. Using word that clump members of Groklaw
(including anonymous posters), is what a troll is. “Trying to make false claims
about linux[sic]. ... But then trolls aren't about thinking are they.”,

SCO vs IBM is the best think that has happened in the computer industry. We have
learned a lot in the past year. This lasted court document demonstrates this
clearly. IBM contracts out to another company to develop some code, or integrate
their technology into IBM software. The two companies sign a contract, and we
find out that the courts respect that contract. This is very good knowledge for
people who are concerned about the legal issues surrounding software
development.

We all have an invested interest in Linux, Unix, Opensource, software standards,
GPL and the list goes on. I came here because everyone does some research before
they write something. They don't take a stand on a particular issue and twist
the facts to support their point. People are asking questions and writing about
them.

Disagreements like those between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr (about quantum
mechanics), is always good. Einstein and Bohr used facts that they knew to be
true. It is always frustrating reading comments/replies that seem to be posted
by individuals who pretend to be objective. Mistakes are understandably, but
fallacies are not.

Remember conjecture is free.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Addendum to Protective Order in SCO v. IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 06:04 PM EST
I understand that it may not be posted, but at least somebody should know if
they actually filed the memorandum?

If they did not, what does it mean?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Order should be no suprise.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 06:38 PM EST
1) There is proprietary code in UNIX. That is why Caldera did not open source it
as soon as they bought it. Side not they did not go out and buy UNIX, they
bought the marketing channel, and Novell forced them to take UNIX as part of the
deal.
We should expect both sides to have code only external people will see.
2) We should expect much more code to be kept secret between the two companies.
3) Keep in mind the blanket protective order (not this addendum) just gives the
default initial state of documents. It just lets both sides present evidence
without worrying about what is protected, or constantly asking the judge for
protection of each doc. I expect most of the code in dispute will be made
public, especially anything that has ever been on a web site (for viewing, not
use!). Including anything that has ever touched Linux, which is all we are
worried about.

My guess is that the CA code is very small.

Someone posted a comment saying this would undermine Groklaw, but I believe the
only code that will be protected in the end will be small and unrelated to most
of our work.
Dennis

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO in Spain: getting rich on the backs of the poor
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 06:49 PM EST
I haven't been able to get SCO's mission to Spain out of my mind. Even after all
this time, after all I've seen on Groklaw, the sheer sleaziness of this one is
breathtaking.

The Extremadura project is trying to bring computer technology to those who
otherwise could not afford it. There are projects like it all over the world,
including here in the U.S.

What kind of men would send Gregory Blepp on a mission like this? What kind of
man is Gregory Blepp that he would accept such a mission?

I see only two possible outcomes from this person's mission to Spain:

(1) Poor people, especially poor children, will be deprived of the technology
they need to escape poverty.

(2) Spanish taxpayers will subsidize SCO's licenses, to the rich benefit of SCO
shareholders and executives.

The only remaining question I have of SCO is: Do you have even an ounce of
humanity left?

[ Reply to This | # ]

New SCO advertising campaign, by Steve Ballmer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 06:59 PM EST
I was just visiting this site:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/12/193116/281

Which is talking about "Improving the quality of open source through
appreciation".

The author probably has no influence on what advertising is shown along with the
article, but the site certainly does.

The embedded ad reads (it rotates, so it may not always be there):

------ start

" ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: Steve Ballmer

Make your Linux installation legal

For too long, Linux hobbyists have played 'fast and loose' with SCO's
intellectual property. For only $699 per 1 CPU server, you can come back to the
right side of the law. Don't make us come after your asses.
comments (1)
active | buy ad

ADVERTISEMENT "

------- end

And the link takes you to this SCO page:

http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html

To see the ad without rotation, go here:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/3/4/161827/7131

I have no way to verify if it's really Ballmer, on the owners of Kuro5hin can
tell us what the check said.

FYI

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: In defense of anonymous posting
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 07:26 PM EST

The various posts about the merits of anonymous posting triggered a memory from my American history classes. A google search turned up this interesting page regarding the usefulness of anonymous speech. The originating server is mangling the output but the text is readable and relevant, IMO.

Link to article

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kernaghan and Ritchie
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 09:08 PM EST
Kernaghan and Ritchie should sue SCO claiming UNIX is a derivative of their C
language! By SCO'S logic they would be right!

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: The IBM counterclaim - good or bad
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 09:37 PM EST
Apologies for the simplistic heading but, I was wondering what approach we (or
PJ) plan to take with regard to the patent claims in the IBM countersuit.

While IBM are the good guys in the context of SCO vs IBM, the whole idea of
software patents being used in this way is not something I would like to see
encouraged. I understand that anyone lucky enough to have any kind of legal
instrument which could be used to (metaphorocally speaking) smash SCO's teeth
down their throat is going to find the urge to employ it very hard to resist.
However ...


... I would like to see groklaw taking a critical look at those patent claims at
some stage. I think the best interest of open software is served by fighting to
limit the extent of software patents wherever these are raised in court.

(Anonymous and proud)

[ Reply to This | # ]

re: Addendum to Protective Order in SCO v. IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 10:06 PM EST
Ms Jones,

How about a line of Groklaw sites?
  • Groklife - open ended discussion about life
  • Grokhealth - discussion regarding health
  • Grokbusiness - discussion about business in the new foss world
  • Grokphilosophy - (well, you get the idea....)
  • Grok.....

Maybe you could start 'Groklife' now to offload non-legal (but important) discussion about the Microsoft/SCO case? Just a thought....

Anonymous

[ Reply to This | # ]

CA - Canopy bad blood
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 11:12 PM EST

CA may well have stated that their code was highly confidential simply to irk SCO.

Recall the recent legal action between Center7 (a Canopy investment) and CA which lead to a $40m settlement to Center7.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Canopy - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 07 2004 @ 12:02 AM EST
% Look for the GNU label %
Authored by: kurt555gs on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 11:39 PM EST
The more I read Groklaw, the more I see why IBM and any other smart company
wants to embrace GNU/GPL software.

All these different agreements, secrets, with different vendors having minor
peices of code in a software product, would make the whole just a mess to sell,
support and service.

How nice it would be if it were GPL. No fear of an SCO in the future taking
over some minor company with 3 lines of code and having this whole "All
your code belongs to us" scheme play out all over again.

It really seems that if you are not M$, you, no matter how large and powerfull
your company is, can afford to NOT use anything other than FOSS software with
GPL being the license of choice.

This whole thing will eventually settle it's self out. I look for not only IBM,
but other companies that have encumbered code with bits and peices of outside
software RUN to linux and GPL.

The only dark cloud I see on the horizon is that M$ has probably patented
"Software" or something as broad and will put the grips on Linux that
way.

But, untill then, its time to sing the GNU/GPL song:

Sung to the tune of the old Ladies, Garment Workers Union song:

% Look for, the GPL label %

PS. Great response to that Enderle person PJ, keep the high road.

I am glad Groklaw is here.

Cheers


---

* Kurt *

[ Reply to This | # ]

Addendum to Protective Order in SCO v. IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 11:40 PM EST
The fact is that CA owns the code,
so if IBM provide the code for Linux,
how come is SCO involve with IBM insted of CA, in court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Humor
Authored by: RDH on Sunday, March 07 2004 @ 03:28 AM EST
One could only wish...

This is satire. If the concept is foreign to you, or if you are completely devoid of a sense of humor, please do not read any further. Satire is intended to poke fun at an issue or otherwise make a person think about the issue in a different light. Anyone who takes this as the literal truth needs to stay away from satire.

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

Enderle End Game

Scud News Service
7 March 2004

Seattle, Washington – It was announced today that IT columnist Robert Enderle was attacked and eaten by his computer. It appears as if a security hole in his operating system allowed for remote control to initiate the attack.

The lethal assault was carried out while Mr. Enderle was surfing the Internet for pictures of penguins. The reason for his activity is unknown, but the remains of his hard drive was found to contain several thousand pictures of penguins upon which he had crudely drawn mustaches with a simple paint program.

One witness to the event stated Mr. Enderle's last words were intriguing: “Ah! The Beast of Redmond!”

Funeral services for Mr. Enderle will be held on Tuesday. Those wishing to attend the service must sign an agreement wherein they will not disclose the contents of the eulogy. If attendees wish to participate in the wake following the service, then an upgrade cost of $399.00 (USD) will be applied.

(CL) 2004 RDH, Ltd.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Addendum to Protective Order in SCO v. IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 07 2004 @ 04:07 AM EST
From WikiPedia:
a troll is a person who posts messages that create controversy or an angry
response without adding content to the discussion.


This entire sub-tree is based on a troll. I'm anonymous because i don't like
registering on every forum, too many passwords and cookies, also i wouldn't like
to get spam and viruses. PJ can remove a thread easily while keeping the
benefits of anonymous posting. Btw, i guess she can see which IP belongs to
which person so really off-topic people could be still banned. It is possible to
register in different names. A name wouldn't solve anything.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: McBride's latest wild-west analogy
Authored by: belzecue on Sunday, March 07 2004 @ 04:58 AM EST
The latest McBride taunt:

McBride has done battle before. He compares his fight with Linux supporters to when his family caught thieves stealing cattle from their ranch in Utah.

"We brought those guys to justice," he said. "It's very similar to what we are dealing with here."

Some of the oldies:

MCBRIDE: It's actually a very old concept. You go back to the wild west days, when you had a hard time finding people, you put a bounty out and then people would bring them in. We;re on a new digital frontier now. It's very difficult to track these people down.
[Note: McBride repeated the above wild west 'bounty' theme during his Harvard speech]
...
McBride: So there are these kind of issues that at one level you say, Well, big deal. One guy got bugged at home. I think what you see here though, is there's a new frontier out there. And if you look at the digital age and what's going on right now, I view this as a digital frontier. And if you look back at the western frontier, there was a period of time when there was a lot of lawlessness. A lot of the things we're talking about here is just outright lawlessness.

Yup. McBride = Sherrif, FOSS community = bank robbers. Has he pitched the movie rights yet? Oh, that's right. No chance of that. He wants to sue Dreamworks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Will this hold up Windows LongHorn?
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Sunday, March 07 2004 @ 06:37 AM EST
Hmmm,
The SCO Group will not exist in a month or so, then what happens to the
protection agreement then?

We now know who is funding the FUD, so I wonder if some AIX code will not
"slip" into Longhorn.

I believe Microsoft is the real reason SCO wants the AIX code.

I hope this protection will protect IBM and CA from a very predatory company.

---
Litigation is no sustituite for Innovation.
Say No to SCO.
IMHO IANAL IAALINUXGEEK

[ Reply to This | # ]

Addendum to Protective Order in SCO v. IBM
Authored by: minkwe on Sunday, March 07 2004 @ 08:01 AM EST
According to SCOs theory, SysV now belongs to Computer Associates!

Even if they win in their alternate universe, they will still lose.

---
Just my 0.02€ contribution to the floccinaucinihilipilification of SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic - MS Longhorn
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 07 2004 @ 08:27 AM EST
Given the massive delay on releasing Longhorn,
is it possible that longhorn is a new OS
from Microsoft.

Given that NT/Win2K/Win2003 have a common petigree
(PC VMS from DEC).

Is it possible that Longhorn is a direct decendant
of BSD/Linux ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT : Userfriendly humor
Authored by: PeteS on Sunday, March 07 2004 @ 08:39 AM EST
New Card

Hilarious

---
Today's subliminal thought is:

[ Reply to This | # ]

Killing Software Patents?
Authored by: Mike Calder on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:37 AM EST
Maybe getting off topic, but we have to make a start somewhere...

I'm totally against software patents, and I'd like to suggest a possible way of
killing them that would be quick and easy.

I must declare an interest; I run a small software house, and I think that
conventional copyright gives me quite enough protection as a creator of new
stuff. I make most of my work available as open source, but I do charge
commercial users a licence fee - that puts food on the table. I also hold
"real" UK patents (sailing rigs), but I did that just to prove I'm a
"real inventor", and have no intention of making any money from them.
Put me in the "knowledge should be free, but I expect reward for work
done" camp.

"Real" patents (in the UK) must be an invention (not a discovery),
novel, not obvious, have a practical application, and be previously unpublished.
Most of the ones I've seen fail dismally on one or more of these.

Now IANAL, and different legal codes have different rules (patents maybe more
than most), but as I see it it is hard to justify
<strong>any</strong> IP under any code if there is prior description
by someone else.

So how about a website whose sole job is to provide a searchable database of
ideas? Allow anyone to add a two or three line description of an idea, add it
to the database with a timestamp. If every open source developer added a few
descriptions each month, or every time they came up with a neat idea, we'd soon
end up with a resource that could be used to block potential monopolists. OK,
we'd need an initial drive to set up a base, as well.

Any comments?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Addendum to Protective Order in SCO v. IBM
Authored by: Superbiskit on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 04:49 PM EST
I can easily see CA's point, and agree with it.

What I cannot see, is how a third-party's code could possibly be relevant to the case.

If I understand the Causes, SCOG alleges that IBM released code that was owned/copyrighted by someone whose rights SCOG subsequently acquired; or that IBM misappropriated SCOG code it got to see from a joint project. Code that CA developed and packaged for inclusion in/with AIX simply cannot be in either category.

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.07 seconds