|
|
| Declarations of Chris Sontag and Todd M. Shaughnessy |
 |
|
Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:26 AM EDT
|
Here are the Declaration of Chris Sontag and the Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy, along with a certificate of service. These were required from the parties according to the judge's order.
Sontag says they reviewed the AIX and Dynix code IBM donated to Linux, and identified some more lines of code. They told IBM there were gaps in the code and asked IBM for "the missing" code, and IBM suggested they ask the judge for it, which Sontag says they will do. He claims the AIX and Dynix/ptx kernels are "in their entirety" modifications and derivative works based on UNIX System V, and he relates how SCO worked itself to the bone to fulfill their duties in discovery. They have also identified instances of "nonliteral copying", which Sontag defines as "structures, sequences and organization of UNIX System V that appear in Linux." Again, they tell the judge they need all versions of AIX from day one to the present, so that seems to indicate they are not happy with their fishing results so far. It sounds like slim pickings. They are just sure they could do better if IBM would turn over more code. IBM says they have complied fully with the order. They didn't even wait for the 45 days to run out before turning over the code. SCO had it all by March 9. Now there's confidence.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: revoltn on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:52 AM EDT |
| :( Nothing here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DBLR on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:01 AM EDT |
PJ,
"structures, sequences andn organization
Should be "structures, sequences and organization
Charles
---
Some Lawyers are just like bananas, they are all crooked, yellow and slimy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Harry Clayton on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:15 AM EDT |
They have also identified instances of "nonliteral copying",
which Sontag defines as "structures, sequences and organization of UNIX System V
that appear in Linux."
What portion of copyright law
protects: structures, sequences and organization?
These people are not
really this ignorant, are they?
I don't see any patents listed in their
claims.
I hope that Wells and Kimball find this amusing. I'm certain the
Marriott will have a chuckle or two. ---
Linux: There is no infringing
code. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Chris needs serious IP law lessons. - Authored by: Juggler9 on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:31 AM EDT
- Chris needs serious IP law lessons. - Authored by: inode_buddha on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:38 AM EDT
- Chris needs serious IP law lessons. - Authored by: bonzai on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:56 AM EDT
- Chris needs serious IP law lessons. - Authored by: Harry Clayton on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:56 AM EDT
- Chris needs serious IP law lessons. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 03:40 AM EDT
- Chris needs serious IP law lessons. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:46 AM EDT
- Chris needs serious IP law lessons. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 05:13 AM EDT
- Chris needs serious IP law lessons. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 05:32 AM EDT
- Chris needs serious IP law lessons. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 05:39 AM EDT
- Sontag knows IP; he's just bluffing - Authored by: mk270 on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 06:18 AM EDT
- Chris needs serious IP law lessons. - Authored by: markhb on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 09:51 AM EDT
- Chris needs serious IP law lessons. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 10:02 AM EDT
- The music gambit - confusing and tripping up a jury - Authored by: moogy on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 10:17 AM EDT
- Chris needs serious IP law lessons. - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:22 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:19 AM EDT |
I'm not sure whether to believe this statement from Chris
Sontag:
"{..] Moreover, as the deadline approached, SCO had
to transfer engineers off of product development to provide further
assistance to ensure that SCO timely complied with the Court's order
[..]"
According to this statement, SCO is doing product
development (yeah right). It really sounds like SCO is whining to garner the
appearance that they are being detracted from their core business.
What
they are forgetting is the many statements by Darl McBride over the past few
months that SCO had the code ready for their case, but they weren't going
to reveal the code in public for various reasons. Among those reasons
were:
1) Linux programmers would remove the code before they could
show their code in court (forgetting there are hundreds of archive sources that
can't be changed)
2) They didn't want to try their case in
public.
3) They had confidential agreements in place, and they didn't
want to violate those agreements.
It sounds like Darl McBride's
declarations were all lies. They didn't have the code ready, as many suspected,
and all the press conferences, statements media interviews were for the benefit
of SCOX's stock price. The case of stock manipulation couldn't be more clear,
IMHO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not to mention Blepp's magical briefcase - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 03:21 AM EDT
- Chris Sontag's statement - Authored by: junklight on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:03 AM EDT
- Chris Sontag's statement - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 05:45 AM EDT
- Chris Sontag's statement - Authored by: cmcnabb on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 06:49 AM EDT
- Chris Sontag's statement - Authored by: _Arthur on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:49 AM EDT
- Then they must be really irritated about Baystar - Authored by: jaydee on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:50 AM EDT
- It's hard to move developers that you have already fired... - Authored by: MikeA on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 09:45 AM EDT
- The Magic Nature of evidence - Authored by: moogy on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:57 AM EDT
- Chris Sontag's statement - Authored by: frk3 on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:53 PM EDT
- Chris Sontag's statement - Authored by: PJ on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:37 PM EDT
- Chris Sontag's statement - Authored by: stuart_b on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:44 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: jkondis on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:21 AM EDT |
"[4] Besides production of documents since the date of the Order, SCO has
also produced a dozen CDs containing source code requested by IBM. Thus, to
date, SCO has produced 58 CDs of source code representing over 400 million lines
of UNIX code and approximately 300 million lines of Linux code."
Good Lord! Where did 300 million "lines of Linux code" come from?
And seriously, 400 million lines of UNIX?
Can you *imagine* what that would have been like if they simply wrote .tiffs of
scanned printouts onto CDRoms? That would be like a full freight truck full of
CDs, not to mention all those dead trees!
---
Don't steal. Microsoft hates competition.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Harry Clayton on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:23 AM EDT |
---
Linux: There is no infringing code.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BlueSmurf on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:28 AM EDT |
IBM:
On March 4, 2004, IBM produced the bulk of the releases of AIX
and Dynix..., and on March 9, 2004, IBM completed its production of all such
source code.
SCO:
Shortly after March 24, 2004, which
is when IBM provided the limited source code it was required to provide to SCO
in the requested format, SCO electronically reviewed...
Did SCO
really wait over two weeks to begin reviewing the code? Or was there a problem
with the "requested format"?
I also like the fact that SCO refers to what
IBM called hundreds of millions of lines of code for over 232 products, as
"limited source code".
IBM's document is professional and to the point.
They did as they were told, and as they had promised.
SCO documents have
an air of "Look, see what we did, they didn't do hardly anything". We had to
pull extra people to the job (read: we can't project manage well). Things were
missing (IBM and the Judge told them what they were getting in February) and we
were upset that IBM told us that wouldn't be getting these missing pieces. In
other words, to me, SCO's reads like a very childish document.
IANAL.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:32 AM EDT |
"They have also identified instances of "nonliteral copying",
which Sontag defines as "structures, sequences andn organization of UNIX
System V that appear in Linux."" PJ
Allegations are cheap. However, once Chris Sontag identifies with specificity
the code at issue, we can go over it.
""He [Chris Sontag] claims the AIX and Dynix/ptx kernels are "in
their entirety" modifications and derivative works based on UNIX System
V" PJ
That piece of brown stuff must be coming from Chris Sontag (and SCOG's)
questionable interpretation of the AT&T contract. An allegation based on
nothing more than a questionable interpretation is hardly the basis for
discovery requests.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- So no discovery needed! - Authored by: chicken on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:47 AM EDT
- Sue me Mom! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 03:34 AM EDT
- Declarations of Chris Sontag and Todd M. Shaughnessy - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 05:58 AM EDT
- "It's copying, Judge, but not as we know it!" NT - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT
- Declarations of Chris Sontag and Todd M. Shaughnessy - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:08 AM EDT
- Just Rleased: Fnord sues Dodge, GM, Nissan... - Authored by: farrellj on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:13 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:42 AM EDT |
Its absolutely incredible. They defy the court order AGAIN. Sontag admits they
didn't identify line numbers for most files because of their obscure "non-
literal" copying theory. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:43 AM EDT |
Been over the chris sontag one.
1)
yes I am the guy who I claim I am.
2)
This piece of paper exists because I have to tell the court how SCOg is
complying with the courtorder that says hand over your stuff to IBM.
3)
Sontag admits that SCO has finally complied with the request for all e-mail of
the involved people (on the SCOg side).
4)
SCOg handed over 400 million lines of UNIX, 300 million lines of Linux to IBM.
300 million lines of Linux? That is 50X the size of the current kernel in code.
I wonder if they haven't done exactly that, shove all the different versions of
the kernel to IBM in addition to their own code.
5)
SCOg undertook significant effort to comply with the order. Meaning yes we tried
but failed. Or IMO we need more delay.
SCOg got the code that IBM was prepared to give them. Then they wanted more and
IBM told them to ask the judge (the judge specified that SCO had to do this in
the order).
A claim that entire files are copied almost verbatim from Dynix to Linux (didn't
they claim no verbatim copying from the SCOg property?).
6)
Remark that AIX & Dynix are modifications of SYS V but even so SCOg decided
to scan for additions.
Next the comment that it took way to long to get the source code (IBM gave it
when they said they could, in 14 working days), that it takes long to specify
all lines of code copied (uhm they later on claim to just flag entire files due
to the lack of copying), the claim that IBM refuses to give anything besides
what the courtorder specifies (smart move IMO since the order specifies that
SCOg has to ask the judge for anything else). And for these reasons it should be
expected that more copying can be found.
Next the request again that IBM hand over everything including the kitchen sink
AND the spare parts to maintain it. This time I read the reason as that the
current versions of Dynix/AIX don't look really like SYS V anymore and SCOg
would like to be able to prove that both still are.
7)
Claim that SCOg identified copied lines in their january filings.
Then Sontag flogs the dead horse of non-literal copying again, so they just
flagged whole files.
Note that Sontag claims that ONLY the non-literal copying is specified as coming
from SYS V. The only literal copying comes from Dynix/AIX so far. He never says
anything about literal copying from SYS V to Linux through Dynix/AIX.
8)
SCOg handed IBM a list of who has access to the SYS V code besides IBM
9)
a whine about how much it manpower it took to comply with the courtorder. Uhm
didn't they just admit in 5 that they didn't comply fully?
Also why only now that they are putting this much manpower on it? Couldn't they
have done it earlier?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:58 AM EDT |
with this whole "non-literal" copying concept, especially in light of
standards such as POSIX and ANSI C. So, I'm off to peruse the Oxford Unabridged
to check out the implications of that phrase.
---
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." --
Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 03:28 AM EDT |
Judge Wells ordered SCO to "identify all specific lines of code from Unix
System V from which IBM's contributions from AIX or Dynix are alleged to be
derived."
To a reasonable person this means something like, "Here, the lines 19
through 354 in the file fs/jfs/xxx.c that IBM contributed, are in fact adapted
code from lines 38 through 201 in SysV file src/fs/yyy.c."
According to Sontag's declaration, SCO didn't even try to do anything like that.
Instead, it is saying, "Here, AIX contains original SysV code in lines 45
through 93 in file bos/src/zzz.c, so AIX is 'necessarily' derived from
those."
It's a shameless category error. No one asked SCO what AIX was derived from,
but what IBM's contributions from AIX were derived from. Equating the two is
like saying that since the United States has a border with Canada, and Texas is
in the United States, then Texas has a border with Canada.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 03:30 AM EDT |
I thought the judge said not to do that. They would have to hire contractors
because SCO's management and employees are IBM's competitors. Did SCO just
admit they directly disobeyed a court order?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rakaz on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:01 AM EDT |
| I’ve been going over this a couple of times and keep coming to the same
conclusion. There is something weird going on here.
IBM says it send the
bulk of its source code on March 4th. The remaining code was send on March
9th:
On March 4, 2004, IBM produced the bulk of the releases of AIX
and Dynix ordered by the Court to be produced in Section II.1 of the Order, and
on March 9, 2004, IBM completed its production of all such source
code.
SCO claims they received the code on March 24,
2004:
As to item 2, shortly after March 24, 2004, which is when IBM
provided the limited source code it was required to provide to SCO in the
requested format, SCO electronically reviewed the pertinent source code from AIX
and Dynix/ptx that IBM contributed to Linux.
Heise also tells us
this:
Moreover, when SCO indicated gaps existed in the source code
produced and asked IBM to voluntarily provide the missing information, IBM
refused to do so voluntarily and indicated that SCO instead should file a
memorandum with the Court setting forth the need for the additional source code,
which SCO intends to do.
We know why it took so long for IBM to
produce the source code in the first place. They had to ask third-parties
permission to disclose the source code to SCO and discovery was halted by the
judge. The first part is interesting because as a result of this an addendum to
the protective order was executed:
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.
This all leads me to
a number of questions. First of all, why is SCO reviewing the source code that
IBM provided to SCO’s outside counsel. Isn’t this specifically forbidden
according to the protective order?
Only SCO’s outside counsel and its
independent experts may review the code. They were not allowed to provide the
source code to SCO employees and officers. In his declaration Sontag
specifically said they had to transfer engineers to work on the analysis. SCO
engineers that worked on “new product development”. Are SCO deliberately
ignoring the Protective order?
Or did Boies audit the code and remove the
code protected by the protective order from the source code? It would explain
the delay when the code was delivered to SCO’s counsel and when SCO received it
from their counsel. Are those the gaps SCO is talking about? And if this is the
case, they know why they did not get those pieces of code and why is SCO now
complaining? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cybervegan on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:34 AM EDT |
A few verses from this old Green Day song sprang to mind when I read Sontag's
affadavit:
---------------
"Do you have the time
to listen to me whine
about nothing and everything
at once.
"I am one of those
melodramatic fools
Neurotic to the bone
No doubt about it.
"Sometimes I give myself the creeps.
Sometimes my mind plays tricks on me.
It all keeps adding up
- I think I'm cracking up
"Or am I just paranoid ?
I don't know"
- from Green Day: "Basket Case" (apologies for any inaccuracies - this
is from memory).
----------------------
Just seems to fit rather well (even unaltered)... ;-)
-cybervegan
---
I wish I never had taken this dare
I wasn't quite prepared
doll me up in my bad luck
I'll meet you there -- verse 2, "Doll" by Foo Fighters[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Basket Case - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 08:09 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: orlanz on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:54 AM EDT |
Because I think they were right in saying there was lots (maybe not millions) of
code that was the same in Linux and SysV. But so far, we all figured out it was
completely ligit.
Now, did they find illegal code or just more similar or xeroxed code?
I wouldn't be surprised if AIX, and Dyrix have lots of code that is in SysV.
They all have a common ancestry... Sys III or the AT&T code?
Also, does it matter if parts of AIX or Dyrix are derivatives of SysV? Isn't
the important part whether or not the parts that made it into Linux are illegal
derivatives? How long before we get to that stuff?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: xtifr on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 05:15 AM EDT |
"Although the court gave IBM a deadline of 45 days from the date of the
Order to produce this source code, IBM produced this source code immediately to
provide SCO time to evaluate the code and take it into account in answering
IBM's discovery requests."
Ha! I knew it! At the time of the order, there was a lot of speculation that
IBM would wait until the last moment to provide the code, so that SCOG wouldn't
have any opportunity to go on a fishing trip. I didn't believe that--I said
that IBM would provide the code as soon as they possibly could, and let SCOG do
all the fishing they wanted. IBM wants it to be absolutely clear that SCOG's
claims are utterly without merit, and will bend over backwards to help SCOG make
its claims, just so that there will be no lingering doubts in anyones' minds
when this is all over.
I got it right, and I think there's some people here who owe me some money!
Payment will only be accepted in chocolate coins or used Linux CDs; no SCOG
stock certificates, please! :)
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 06:02 AM EDT |
It looks like SCO has failed once again to connect all the right dots to make
their case, but are doing their best to handwave this omission. The logical map
they need to show is something like this, where either branch A or branch B can
be directly traced through the code:
(A) Unix --> IBM AIX -->
Linux
(B) Unix --> IBM Contribs --> Linux
SCO needs to show either
a direct path of code copying from Unix System V through IBM AIX to Linux, or a
direct path of code copying from Unix System V through other IBM contributions
to Linux. Instead they seem to only be able to show the obvious, that there is a
direct link from System V to AIX (obvious because IBM licensed System V in order
to develop AIX) and a direct link between certain IBM contributions and Linux
(which IBM readily admits). They seem to be unable to show either the link from
AIX to Linux, or the link from System V to other IBM contributions. The
resulting map of what SCO is able to show then looks something like
this:
(A) Unix --> IBM AIX
(B) IBM Contribs --> Linux
To cover
up the lack of a direct connection between AIX and Linux, they have invented the
concept of "non-literal copying" of structures, sequences, and organizations. To
cover up the lack of direct copying from System V to other IBM contributions,
they have created their own definition of derivative works of System V, which
lumps together any code IBM ever distributed with AIX. Without these contrived
connections, SCO cannot show any path for improper code copying from Unix to
Linux.
It is irrelevant that SCO might be able to show millions of lines of
identical code between Unix System V and AIX, or between similar IBM
contributions to AIX and Linux. Let's hope the judge picks up on the glaring
holes in SCO's logic and puts a quick end to this charade. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
This may be wildly speculative, but that never stopped me before. :)
If the execs of SCO feel like they've milked as much as they can from the stock
pumping, then what better excuse could they have for taking the money and
running than to have Baystar publicly call for a change in management? Would
that explain that incident?
Would this leave everyone battling an empty husk while Darl and cohorts are
basking in the Bahamas?
---
Can you trust your computer?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:08 AM EDT |
SCO claimed several times that there are millions of lines of codes copied to
Linux by IBM. By pure logic, to justify that statement at least they have to
have the following things:
1. Their own code which parts were copied from
2. The version of Linux containing the code
3. Proof that IBM made the copying
4. The lines which were copied
I am not a lawyer but an IT professional, so could anyone explain me, how a
company dare to go to court without having all these above?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tintak on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:12 AM EDT |
Is it usual for Declarations to be attested to in different ways?
Sontag swore before a Notary Public that:-
"The above signed Christopher S. Sontag, being duly sworn upon oath,
deposes and says that he has read the above and that the information contained
therein is true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief."
Todd M. Shaughnessy simply said:-
"I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct."
The second method seems more straightforward to me.
---
'it is literally impossible' for SCO to itself provide
direct proof' Mark J. Heise 02/06/04[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:42 AM EDT |
Item 9 says they took engineers off development to look at this stuff
Didn't they sign a protective order(with regard to CA) saying they wouldn't use
their own engineers for this task?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:54 AM EDT |
| http://www.sltrib.com/2004/apr/04232004/business/159867.asp [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: YKYBHTLW... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:55 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 08:31 AM EDT |
Did the Judge not tell them to provide the code in question "with specificity"
and Sontag returns with "non-literal" ???
Thesaurus:
Entry:
literal
Function: adjective
Definition: exact
Synonyms:
accurate, actual, apparent, authentic, bona fide, close, critical, faithful,
genuine, gospel, methodical, natural, not figurative, ordinary, plain, real,
scrupulous, simple, strict, true, undeviating, unerring, unexaggerated,
unvarnished, usual, veracious, verbal, verbatim, veritable,
written
Concept: specificity
Source: Roget's Interactive
Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group,
LLC. All rights reserved.
So it would appear that they have spit in
the courts face.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 08:38 AM EDT |
Shouldn't we be hearing something today from Autozone as they got an extension
to today to reply?
Also does anyone know about the D-C case?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT:Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 12:22 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: BlueSmurf on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 08:39 AM EDT |
If IBM wanted to, they could have waited until the last day of the 45 days to
produce the code. They had told the judge in February, they could produce it
within 14 days. So when the restraining order was lifted, they did as they
promised. SCO was to show with specificity the lines of code that they claimed
were copied, but not from AIX/Dynix, within the 45 days. SCO was to file
additional memoranda concerning the AIX/Dynix, and how the AIX/Dynix code
supported SCO's case.
1) It looks as if they didn't do the specificity well enough for the original
Unix code, based on the filing. We won't know until we get a look at what SCO
submitted. If I were the judge, I'd be pissed. Based on what the judge asked
for, I could swear the court wanted more detail (specificity) about the copying
of the Unix code.
2) If the AIX/Dynix specificity is in the same format as the Unix document, I'd
be even madder, because now I have even more "vague junk".
3) Now I understand what Baystar is upset about. What Baystar wanted was for
SCO to use all its resources to try to win this case. Instead SCO appears to be
in the position of not even complying with the specificity that the court
ordered on even the code it claims ownership to.
4) I can understand why SCO tried to complete the analysis of the AIX/Dynix
code. They once said they could do it in a weekend, and they don't want to
appear to be excessively delaying the case (ha-ha). But if it were me, and
IANAL, I would have pulled out all of the stops to make sure the code I
(allegedly) owned was as detailed in the copying as the court ordered. And,
then I would have used that format as a template for the AIX/Dynix code (which
was supposed to be done by independent , non-SCO, contractors). Of course, if
you can't prove copying, line-by-line, then you would tend to produce a document
that isn't very specific.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 08:53 AM EDT |
| http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/04/22.14.shtml
Another IP
litigation company:
"Forgent Networks acquired the original developers of
JPEG, San Jose-based Compression Labs Inc., in 1997. Before that, Forgent was
primarily known as a maker of video conferencing hardware under the name Video
Telecom, or VTel. After continuing declining revenues, the company
changed its name and management in August 2001. It was then that the company
became a video technology firm focusing on software and patents. Its portfolio
includes nearly 50 patents. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 10:13 AM EDT |
| So SCO should belong to MIT by SCO's logic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 10:46 AM EDT |
After dressing to $6.15, SCO's share price rocketed back to almost $9.00
yesterday morning an hour after opening. This probably has to do with the
general market rally that happened yesterday. IANAFA (I am not a financial
analyst), but SCO's value is back down to $8.15 as of 10:45 AM, and may continue
dropping if the market corrects itself from yesterday.
Anybody concur or disagree?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:18 AM EDT |
The affidavit does not appear to state that SCOG did this. The court order
said:
--------------------------------------
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.
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.
--------------------------------------
If IBM finds that SCOG did not fully comply with this order, then IBM should
move for sanctions, including dismissal of all SCOG's claims related to the
failure to comply. IBM and the judge have given SCOG every chance and multiple
extensions of time to comply with last December's compel order. It is time to
lower the boom.
IBM's arguments in favor of its motion should detail the history of SCOG's
public statements, court filings, oral statements in court, and other delaying
tactics, and should list in detail the questions that SCOG failed to fully
answer, with, to the best of IBM's knowlege and belief, the answers that SCOG
knew or should have known.
IBM should ask the court for oral arguments in which SCOG will have to justify
SCOG's public statements that a million lines of SCOG's code are illegally in
Linux by pointing out specific statements identifying those lines in the
discovery sent to IBM .
On the off chance that SCOG did fully comply, IBM can now proceed to tear SCOG's
case apart.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
| "SCO had to transfer engineers off of product development to provide
further assistance to ensure that SCO timely complied with the Court's
order"
Addendum to
Protective Order in SCO v. IBM
From the looks of this it is a "BFL" bald
face lie. No sco employee's coud see the code because of a confidentiallity
agreement with CA. So I htink the lawers told them you have no case that is why
C. Scumbag did the Declaration. No infringement no case. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
And how it applies to computer code?
I can see a global search-and-replace of all the variable names as creating an
infringing non-literal copy - that's basically like translating a book from one
dialect of English to another or doing a near-faithful remake of a movie.
At what point, if any, does the structure itself become copyrightable, and how
do you prove it wasn't independently created or that it wasn't derived from a
different, non-copyrighted source?
Or, to put it another way, if Romeo and Juliet were written today, could someone
write West Side Story tomorrow and not be infringing, assuming there was no
common ancestor?
Will someone well-versed in the relevant law please reply? Thanks.
-davidwr.geo at yahoo.com[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nealywilly on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
I just googled for - structure sequence organization infringe - and came up with
the following from the 8th parent level hit.
http://www.gesmer.com/publications/softcopy/19.php
Excerpting paragraph 4 (of 13):
The trial court awarded CAI $364,000 in damages for the admittedly infringing
program. However, the trial judge held that Altai's clean room version of the
program did not infringe CAI copyrights. As we noted in our January, 1992 issue,
the trial judge rejected the 1987 landmark holding in Whelan v. Jaslow , which
held that copyright law protected the "structure, sequence and
organization" of a program. The trial judge also held that the
"behavior" of a program cannot be the subject of copyright protection,
since behavior is akin to a "process," "system" or
"method of operation," all of which are excluded from copyright
protection.
Excerpting paragraph 7 (of 13):
The Second Circuit went on to posit a new, three-part test. First, the allegedly
infringed program must be broken down into its constituent structural parts.
Second, the program must be stripped of all elements which are dictated by
efficiencies, external factors (such as compatibility requirements, design
standards and accepted programming practices) and public domain elements. A
"core" of protectible expression may remain. In terms of a work's
copyright value, "this is the golden nugget." This "nugget"
must be compared against the allegedly infringing program (which is not
subjected to the "stripping" process), to determine whether the
defendant has copied any part of this protected expression.
My Question (based on the latter paragraph, now referred to as the Altai test):
Is there a "core" of protectible expression left in SVRX?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dracoverdi on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:50 AM EDT |
I'm constantly amazed at SCO's technical prowess. Did anybody else notice that
the list of people they collected documents from is sorted by FIRST NAME! That's
the default in Outlook address books but certainly not a very meaningful way of
sorting for legal purposes. CUT, PASTE, this is real hard! It reminds me of the
pointy-haired boss trying to fly the plane with his laptop.
---
Pizza is an acceptable breakfast.
Just think of it as a large pepperoni danish[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:51 AM EDT |
If I translate "Harry Potter" into Klingon and publish it, I will get
nailed.
What if I take some assembly code written for an x86 and re-write it to run on a
68000? The posts here lead me to think I wouldn't be infringing on copyright.
I don't understand the difference. Is there a particular case that set a
precident for this?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:17 PM EDT |
I think I just figured it out. The SCOG people are making "figure of
speech" arguments. "Linux is like Sys V Unix" is a simile.
Since copyright law was originally created to protect literature, making
literary arguments instead of legal arguments makes perfect sense.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: moogy on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:25 PM EDT |
"Since we are talking here about a lack of evidence, IBM could make
a motion and say there is no evidence citing SCO's disclosures or
lack therof."
Yes, that is exactly what I am expecting from IBM. The hint for me
was from something Judge Wells said, but I can't find it right now,
relating to IBM going over SCOG's discovery after it's completed
and determing if it's acceptable to IBM or not..
I admit that I have filled in some blanks and assume that IBM will
contest the content of the evidence so that such nonsense can
never be presented to a jury. The old TV game of waiting for a
lawyer to stand up and say "I object your honor!" and then sitting
back and smiling because they know it's already influenced the
jury is something that IBM will surely try to avoid.
---
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: KentWA on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
| They get better all the time and the message is begining to get out. The Fool.com has an interesting article on
SCOX.
The group owns rights to a version of Unix
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dr.Dubious DDQ on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
They've been saying repeatedly that this case isn't
about "copyright", yet
they keep bringing up
copyright-like issues. Except now it's "non-literal"
copying.
Now I get it! They are demonstrating that IBM has
plainly committed a gross violation of SCO's
Resemblerights!
I'm sure we're all very familiar
with the limitations and potentially harsh
penalties
associated with US Resembleright law, as clearly codified
in....
Uh, I can't seem to find it in the law right now, but
I'm sure if we had
Congress send us a copy of every draft
of every bill they've ever debated that
we'd find it in
there somewhere. After all, if it's NOT in there, what
have
we paid those billions of tax dollars for?... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nico on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
The order only refers to code produced during discovery. TSG already has
some versions of AIX from "Project Monterey". "Project Monterey" was a joint
project with oldSCO and IBM. IBM pulled out of the project as part of their
move to Linux.
TSG asked for all of the AIX code versions that they
didn't already have as discovery.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
http://www.forbes.com/business/free_forbes/2004/0419/088.html
"Another obstacle is new uncertainty over who, if anyone, owns Linux.
Utah-based SCO Group has sued IBM, AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler for using Linux
in violation of SCO's patents on the related Unix operating system."
I count three separate errors in those few lines.
1) We know who owns Linux, the question is who owns SYSV UNIX
2) SCO didn't sue IBM, AutoZone, or DaimlerChrysler over using Linux.
3) Linux isn't in violation of SCO's patents because they don't exist.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
I wonder if TSG's attorneys know something the rest of us don't?
I find it strange the a Court Order requiring attorneys on both sides to (see
section III of Doc. # 109.2) provide the court with an affidavit with percise
requirements was not provide by TSG attorneys. Apparently, IBM's attorneys had
no similiar misgivings.
Instead, the TSG attorney's provided the court with a deposition of one Cris
Sontag, a TSG corporate officer. It will be intersting to see how the judge
reacts to this.
I guess TSG attorneys are affraid of prejury.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
Haven't had time to make it through all of the comments, so others may have
already mentioned this, and if so, I apologize for the repeat.
Anyway, jsyk, copyright law has long recognized protection of 'non-literal'
expressive elements in copyrightable subject matter, including computer
software. The early seminal case on this is Whelan Asso. v. Jaslow Dental Lab.
(797 F.2d 1222 - 1986). Whelan specifically discusses protection of a program's
"structure, sequence and organization". Later significant cases,
include Computer Asso. v. Altai (982 F.2d 693 - 1992) and Gates Rubber v. Bando
American (9 F.3d 823 - 1993). The latter 2 cases and numerous others following
them have defined (and refined) the test used to determine whether non-literal
copying is infringing--the test is referred to as the
"Abstraction/Filtration/Comparison" test. If you look at various
courts' description and implementation of this test, you will realize
<again> what a tough hurdle SCO is going to have to prove its case. For a
very recent look at the state of this principle, look at i-Systems v. Softwares
(Slip Copy, D.Minn, March 29, 2004). This case quotes extensively from most of
the major cases on this topic and gives a good summary of the test and where it
stands today.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:44 PM EDT |
This is the first I've seen anything of the case mentioned on CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/biztech/04/23/sco.investment.ap/index.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ujay on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
| cnet has this
story
In April, a three-judge panel
in a Munich court granted Welte's request for a preliminary injunction to stop
distribution of the product without complying with the GPL. Specifically, the
court forbade Sitecom's German subsidiary from distributing the netfilter
software without attaching the GPL text and the netfilter source code free of
royalties.
Gonna keep my eye on this
one
---
Programmer: A biological system designed to convert coffee and
cheesies into code [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
| "Because some of this copying involves non-literal copying (i.e structures,
sequences and organization of Unix System V that appear in
Linux)"
Anybody know what is the legal IP status of "structures,
sequences and organization of Unix System V"? Is it trade secrets? is it
copywrited? is it patented?
Oh, you say it is none of these, but rather a
new category of IP that SCO has invented. I wonder how that will play in court? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 06:50 PM EDT |
I wonder if the the lines of code they identify as allegedly infringing add up
to a million. If not, they are in trouble already.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: KevinR on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
The newSCO board granted some new options to each other at the closing price on
the 20th April. That was $7.18. They do not start to vest for a year.
Duff, Scousen, Yarro, Mott, Campbell, Iacobucci and Ramondi each get 15,000
shares. BUT the new guy Bert Young is listed as getting 150,000. This could be
a typo (in 2 places though), but if not its a heck of a lot of gravy. I guess
SCO really have to incentify their new employees. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:28 PM EDT |
This part stands out the most for me:
From Item 6:
"Of course, for the continuing investigation to be meaningful..."
What investigation? Didn't Darl say something about millions of lines of code
identified?
Why a continuing investigation? If they had the evidence they were supposed to
have had when they initially brought the suit against IBM, why do they need this
code from IBM and continue to investigate?
To me this statement simply proves that they had no real evidence to begin with,
and are using the judge's discovery order for a fishing expedition.
-Brent[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 08:13 PM EDT |
The order said SCO had to specify the lines of code in Linux that they claim are
infringing, but they didn't do that.
Is IBM going to complain to the judge about this? My guess is it won't. I think
IBM will just let it stand as it is, and submit a motion to dismiss based on the
fact that SCO has failed to produce the sort of evidence needed, and ditto
submit a motion for summary judgement for its countersuit claims on the same
grounds. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 08:42 PM EDT |
It looks like SCO is trying to angle this into a derivative work because SCO
attempted to revoke IBM's Unix license that was entered into before SCO's time
and of which Novell not SCO has authority. SCO is quite right that AIX is a
derivative of SCO Unix, but SCO is wholly wrong that they have any authority to
revoke IBM's license.
The more SCO goes into this, the more credibility they give Linux. Prior to this
case I thought Linux was a derivative of Unix and it wouldn't have surprised me
if there was a few lines of unauthorized code in Linux, but this case has only
gone on to show how that Linux was developed legitimately and that there's
checks-and-balances preventing the insertion of unauthorized code.
The more SCO keeps on going with their crazy legal arguments and outlandish
statements, the more they help Linux. I think it's especially helpful and ironic
that SCO is only suing ex-customers for contract violations/derivate works for
their own code, yet SCO claims that it is actually open source viral! All SCO is
showing is that if you ever do business with a proprietary software company,
they can sue you 20+ years later.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: icebarron on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 09:12 PM EDT |
Check out the news at yahoo on cyber warefare...talking about pure
weapons grade tools...
Participants huddled around computers in this
olive-green, camouflage-shrouded training room aren't too concerned with science
fiction apocalypse scenarios. The cadets rely on widely available network
defenses based on Linux (news - web sites) software, the same automated tools in
the arsenal of any company network manager.
Do you think
Willy Gates and Co are seething over this one? Eh? Hmmm...
Dan
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 09:14 PM EDT |
There's a new Motley
Fool article on the SCO lawsuits. Interesting points are that they actually
get the point that UNIX is a family of operating systems, rather than a signle
operating system, and also this sentence:
Knowledgeable IP
litigators have told me they think SCO has less than a 10% chance of prevailing
in its cases, and even then, the courts' remedies would likely be a rewrite of
the offending Linux code, not a cash windfall for
SCO. ---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute,
but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nadams on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
I've written a simple little PERL script that attempts to predict when SCOX common stock will be worthless
based on the last closing price and % decline (assumed to be constant). Here is
the output from today:
$ ./worthless.pl 4.85 7.85
scox
worthless: Type './worthless.pl' for copyright & usage
information.
worthless: At the current slide (-4.85% / per day) SCOX will be
WORTHLESS in approxiamately 135 business days!
The script is, of
course, GPL licensed. Email me if you would like a copy: nadams (at) ieee.org [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Glenn on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 09:45 PM EDT |
This whole line of reasoning by the SCOG is irrelevant, except for their
assertation that AIX and Dynix/ptx both are almost entirely derived from Unix
System V.
IBM asked them for any code from Sys V that the SCOG purports that it owns
and that IBM has donated improperly to Linux. The only way that the SCOG has any
remote chance of winning anything is if (repeated ad nauseum) the Court or a
jury agrees with the SCOG that the SCOG has the contractural right to control
any bit of code or algorithm that was ever introduced into AIX or Dynix/ptx.
My only question is: Is this a point of law or a fact in dispute? In other
words, who will make that ruling? It seems that IBM is banking on the judge and
angling for a summary judgement on that aspect of the case. And then there goes
the SCOG's house of cards.
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 10:22 PM EDT |
Item 5: They identified code from AIX or Dynix, or that looks like code from AIX
or Dynix, that IBM contributed to Linux
"SCO electronically reviewed the pertinent source code from AIX and
Dynix/ptx that IBM contributed to Linux. In addition to the items previously
identified," [i.e. stuff in Linux that matches AIX or Dynix, but which they
didn't propose any match to System V] "SCO identified additional specific
lines of code that it could currently identify." ... "In addition,
although Table A of SCO's 70-page January response SCO noted that entire files
were copied almost verbatim from Dynix/ptx into Linux, which made the
identification of specific lines redundant and unnecessary. SCO nonetheless has
specifically identified those lines of code contributed by IBM from
Dynix/ptx."
In other words, they have lines of code, and perhaps entire files, from AIX and
Dynix, which they think matches something in Linux.
Item 6: They say they found some AT&T code in AIX and Dynix/ptx, and they
identified that. They claim this makes the whole of AIX and Dynix/ptx derivative
works or modifications. However they don't even try to make a claim that those
lines match up with any of the items from item 5.
If you read the last sentence, the tell you straight out this is what they did
and intend to do. They simply want to show AIX and Dynix/ptx contain some
AT&T contain. Huh!
They never ever go near saying the things they have or will identify in
AIX/Dynix, match up to the other things (AIX/Dynix code in Linux) that they
identify in response to item 5.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 10:31 PM EDT |
| Any military officer now in a decision making role who fails to react
effectively to the threat posed by the combination of Microsoft's reliance on
obscurity for its operating-system security and communist China's access to the
code eventually could be charged with dereliction of duty.
Here is the
lowdown [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: _Arthur on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 10:43 PM EDT |
The Economist has an article on Desktop Linux
"More balls through Windows"
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2594309
[...]
Today, almost 94% of all PCs in the world run on Windows, while slightly more
than 3%—mostly in creative industries and universities—use Apple's
Macintosh system. Fewer than 3% use Linux. By the end of the decade, Linux's
share could grow to 7-10%, reckons Mr Gillen, displacing Macs as the main
alternative.
[...]
They cite several reasons why. First, the quality of Linux—which like other
open-source software is developed by a community of volunteers who share
their work freely—has been rising steadily. Linux PCs are no longer just for
geeks. Second, Microsoft itself looks temporarily chastened, if not weak.
[...]
On the other hand, despite improvements Linux faces real obstacles. It can
still be a nightmare for home users to install and, unless bought as part of a
commercial package such as Sun's, it does not come with a help-desk. Worse,
there are still too few applications.
[...]
Very good article.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Doubtful numbers - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:32 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Night Flyer on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:26 PM EDT |
From Christopher S. Sontag, to the Honorable Dale A. Kimball (and IBM):
3. "After receiving this Court Order, SCO located documents that were
inadvertently not produced in response to IBM's earlier requests, ... Because
the company uses a variety of different e-mail servers ... As a result SCO has
produced approximatley 183,000 pages of additional documents since the date of
the Order and SCO continues to review for any additional documents."
OOPS! Sorry judge we (the world's computer specialists and consultants to
corporate users everywhere), ummm we forgot that we had more than one server.
Gee... these computer things are so complicated.
Editorial Note:
Who would buy software and services from a corporation that doesn't know what
was on which of its home servers? Imagine if MacDonalds didn't know which
SCO-UNIX server had the recipe for a Big Mac? Imagine if Daimler Chrysler
didn't know which engines went with which vehicle because it didn't know it had
information on more than one server.
I see a credibility gap here.
Yah I know, it is some of the FUD and part of the delay tactics... But it
doesn't make me want to buy a service contract from SCO.
--------------------------------------
My Clan Motto: Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:46 PM EDT |
Every grade school student knows whether they are guilty of "copyright
infringement" when they turn in their work. Sometimes, teachers allow
students to work together but each is expected to obey the rules. Usually,
each part has a single problem or task, so each student should apply
similar methods. The teacher is looking to see whether each student used
a correct method and got the correct result. Also, the teacher is looking
for cheating.
A homework assignment consists of many independent parts/problems
which stand alone. There are correct and incorrect solutions. There is
the opportunity for extra credit.
If one part/problem has been illegally copied, that has no bearing on the
other parts. And, each student knows whether they cheated.
That is the crux of copyright infringement applied to software at the level
of functions and data types. Any jurist could understand that.
Read my lips... There is no viable theory of non-literal copying. Either you
copied or you didn't. BTW, we have evidence IBM *did not" look when it
should not and that TSG *has* looked when it should not. Imagine TSG
telling their lies to their school teachers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skuggi on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 12:01 AM EDT |
Here is an interresting article abut a firm holding about 40 patents and how it
is going to use them.
More reasons to ditch JPEG and switch to PNG.
AND ofcourse PNG is much better.
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3345021
-Skuggi.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 12:37 AM EDT |
As seen on the Yahoo! SCOX message board:
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&a
mp;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=126885
AutoZone moved for a stay and a change of venue today. The
images are not on PACER, but should be by Monday or Tuesday.
...
Doc #: 9 Date Filled: 4/23/2004 Status: EOD:
Docket Type: MOTION/DISPOSITIVE Docket Title: TRANSFER Judge:
Caption:
MOTION to transfer venue obo D (m) (DISPO:
Doc #: 10 Date Filled: 4/23/2004 Status: EOD:
Docket Type: MOTION/NON DISPOSITIVE Docket Title: Judge:
Caption:
MOTION to stay or i/t/a for a more definite statemnt obo D (m)(FILED
SEPARATELY DUE TO
SIZE) (DISPO:
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 12:41 AM EDT |
As seen on the Yahoo! SCOX message board:
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&a
mp;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=126862&thr=126862&cur=126862&
dir=d
Last Thursday, in addition to receiving BayStar's redemption
demand, SCO was also served with Daimler's answer to SCO's
complaint and a motion for summary disposition.
A hearing has already been scheduled, but I don't know what
the date is.
A copy of the docket is here:
http://csua.berkeley.edu/~alpetrof/sco
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 02:57 AM EDT |
Ok, an idea.
We all know that if SCO includes any (alleged) literal copying in the discovery
(line-by-line, with specificity, as ordered), IBM will ask the judge to make it
public. This is almost a no-brainer, since there is no reason to keep secret
any information which is freely available all over the world. If it was
literally copied, then the (alleged) system V code could be shown also, because
it's not a secret, and disclosure doesn't violate copyright.
Non-literal copying though... well theres something else.
No line by line specificity, whole files identified, so if you make the Linux
code public, Linus and Bruce can't argue against SCO's claims without seeing the
SCO code.
And because it's "non-literal" copying, SCO can say "there is
information in our SysV files that can't be made public."
See, it's the perfect FUD tool for SCO. Secret allegations against Open Source
without showing any code. You show Linux code, but without a SysV reference you
can't tell if there's any infringing structure etc.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 06:48 AM EDT |
If the whole of any Unix is a non-literal copy or derivative work of SCO's
(Novell's) particular Unix, how come it couldn't equally well be a non-literal
copy or derivative work of ancestral public domain Unixes?
If you can create a new copyright version of a public domain work which can be
used to prevent anyone else doing the same, what would be the point of public
domain works?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 08:42 AM EDT |
What we all study after SCO goes to its timely demise. Sorry for changing the
subject for a moment. If you'all think SCO is a threat to linux, deeper up the
line is another threat Government imposed port blocking. Homeland security with
the help of the industry now block ports involved with remote computer access
and many more. Ck with your provider to see which ports are being blocked. Linux
is a language we all can learn but if we can't port it off the computer it
limits it. Just curious, what are the implications and how far can they go.
Sorry again for the interrupt but since everyone around here loves research,this
is something one can do while taking a break from Darl and crew. I have learned
more about law and linux on this site in the last 3 months than I learned in my
52 years. thanks [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 09:51 AM EDT |
Okay, kids, let's do a little math here.
Chris Sontag swore that
SCO had produced "approximately 300 million lines of Linux code" in discovery.
For the sake of argument, let's take the 2.4.22 kernel as typical (since that's
the one I happen to have the source to at the moment :). By actual count, there
are 5,382,053 lines in that source tree. (This is including documentation,
Makefiles, and other non-source files, but let that be for now.) If that is
typical, then it would take approximately 55 complete kernel source trees (call
it 50) to make 300 million lines of code.
Checking www.kernel.org, we
find that the 2.4 and 2.6 trees taken together comprise 33 released versions of
the kernel tree (2.4.0 through 2.4.26, and 2.6.0 through 2.6.5) as of this
writing.
I find it difficult to comprehend where TSG got 300 million
lines of Linux code to provide in discovery.
---
"When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 09:54 AM EDT |
IBM says they have complied fully with the order. They didn't
even wait for the 45 days to run out before turning over the code. SCO had it
all by March 9.
Funny how Sontag says that they didn't
get IBM's material until March 24th. Who's lying?
---
"When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: archonix on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 09:56 AM EDT |
| Just read a short story on The Inquirer. It's
basically a rumour, and the guy says as much, but the story goes IBM is planning
a big round of layoffs, maybe up to six figures (100,000?). It sounds awfully
high to me... Anything to do with anything at all? Redundancies on that scale
usually means that a company is planning on closing off part of its operations,
or has hit dire financial straights in some way. Now I would suspect, if
this is more than a rumour, that IBM is closing down some part of its operation.
They're certainly healthy enough in the financial aspect. Perhaps they're
going to dump new AIX and Unix-related work altogether?
Remember, just a
rumour. ---
The only money being made here is by Sue, Grabbit and Rune. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: codswallop on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:05 PM EDT |
I have a question that hasn't been addressed here and I don't have the resources
or training to answer.
SCO is a successor in interest to the ATT agreements, but not to the copyrights.
These are license agreements that control IBM's rights under copyright.
Clearly Novell and IBM remain bound by the license, or else there would be no
basis for one to charge or the other defend against infringement. Does this
imply that there may be portions of the agreements that SCO doesn't have
standing to litigate without Novell?
The APA seems to transfer some supervisory rights to Santa Cruz, who seems to
have transferred them to SCO, but not the title to the copyrights. How much does
this matter?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Christian on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
Mr Sontag's No. 7 (in part):
SCO's engineers and consultants have
identified lines of code in the the Linux kernel to which SCO claims rights in
addition to those previously identified... Because some of this copying involves
non-literal copying (i.e., structures, sequences and organization of UNIX System
V that appear in Linux), many of the files are identified in their
entirety....
This is not going to make a judge happy. IBM and the
judge have been asking for specificity for quite a while now. If SCOG wants to
argue copying of structures and so on, they have to declare for each structure
(or whatever) exactly what it is, where it is in their code, and where it is in
Linux. Case law that has been linked to in the past seems to be very clear on
this. SCOG has to describe with specificity each copyrightable aspect that they
are alleging has been misused. Reading between the lines of Sontag's statement,
it does not seem like SCOG has done this; they have merely claimed that certain
files infringe.
I wonder what the response from the judge will be. She could
order yet another round of discovery. Or maybe this will be bumped to the trial
judge who will start throwing out pieces of SCOG's case because they have failed
to support them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 11:12 PM EDT |
From what i have seen and been told is that "most" ISPs will not do
any type of blocking " for your protection" because that will put them
in the position of having to protect you all the time and be responible for it.
kinda like "you were blocking ports to protect me, but they got in another
way......."
Most ISPs will sell you a pipe, monitor it, and then whack you if something you
send out violates your TOS.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
