decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

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


User Functions

Username:

Password:

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

No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
IBM's Addenda to Redacted Memo Re CC for Copyright Infringement
Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 02:26 AM EDT

Here's IBM's Addenda to Redacted Memorandum in Support of IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement (Eighth Counterclaim), which I believe wins the award for longest title yet in this case. It is basically just a cover sheet for filing all their exhibits, A through R, all of which appear to be code comparisons showing SCO code that IBM alleges is identical to their copyrighted code in Linux.

SCO has also filed a sealed ex parte motion for permission to file a supplemental memorandum regarding discovery, with two more declarations. The court clerk's notation looks like this:

8/19/04 245 SEALED Ex parte motion by SCO Grp for leave to file a supplemental memo re: discovery (tsh) [Entry date 08/22/04]

8/19/04 -- SEALED Proposed documents from SCO Grp entitled Supplemental Mmeorandum re: Discovery, Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans, and Declaration of Barbara L. Howe (tsh) [Entry date 08/22/04] [Edit date 08/22/04]




  


IBM's Addenda to Redacted Memo Re CC for Copyright Infringement | 392 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT Here...
Authored by: laitcg on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 02:42 AM EDT
A nice place to watch. :)

---
Slackware Tips & Tricks
http://members.cox.net/laitcg/slack.htm

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sealed ex parte motion by SCO?
Authored by: Peter Smith on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 02:42 AM EDT
Sealed?
I wonder if they are afraid of the scorn and ridicule that has greeted their
other disclosures.
No doubt they are anxious to avoid the very public investigation, analysis and
debunking that follows.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Go HERE
Authored by: Weeble on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 02:43 AM EDT
As if there is anything to be corrected.

---
MS Windows doesn't HAVE security holes--it IS a security hole.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trolls and Astroturfers Go HERE
Authored by: Weeble on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 02:44 AM EDT
A place just for your own slimy selves.

---
MS Windows doesn't HAVE security holes--it IS a security hole.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groaner Joke Threads Go HERE
Authored by: Weeble on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 02:48 AM EDT
What should they be about this time? Wombats maybe? I thought about badgers, but
one episode of "badger badger badger" on Groklaw was ENOUGH. (Search
for it if you're desperate for a funnybone flogging. ;)

---
MS Windows doesn't HAVE security holes--it IS a security hole.

[ Reply to This | # ]

code that IBM alleges is identical to their copyrighted code in Linux?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 02:50 AM EDT
Um, am I reading that right?

SCO took Linux code, that IBM created, and put it into SCO Unix? Is IBM
alleging that SCO stole Linux code and placed that into SCO Unix?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Legal definition of 'Ex Parte'
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 03:12 AM EDT
see for example <a
href=http://www.lectlaw.com//d-e.htm>http://www.lectlaw.com//d-e.htm</a>
;

[ Reply to This | # ]

Barbara L. Howe
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:42 AM EDT
Might it be <a
hef='http://www.geocities.com/howe_barb/howe_resume.html'>this</a>
Barbara L. Howe?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Barbara L. Howe Perpetuating the Lie
Authored by: Mark Levitt on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:59 AM EDT

If you look at Ms. Howe's resume here: http://www.geocities. com/howe_barb/howe_resume.html

You'll notice she states that she worked for The SCO Group/Caldera from 1996 to 2002.

She lists one of her tasks during her employment as working on Project Montery.

Now, we know that Project Montery was cancelled when Caldera bought the Santa Cruz UNIX business. IBM cancelled due to a change of control as was their right in the contract and Caldera was never involved in Project Montery.

We also know that Caldera did not acquire the UNIX business from Santa Cruz until 2001.

So, from 1996 until 20001, it seems that she actually was working for Santa Cruz Operation and is now helping to perpetuate the lie that Caldera is older than it is.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Addenda to Redacted Memo Re CC for Copyright Infringement
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 05:07 AM EDT
Is anybody going to bother to convert that pdf to text? I
can't see any information that isn't in the title.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jeremy O Evans - SCO lawyer?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 06:50 AM EDT
A JEREMY O EVANS works for HATCH JAMES & DODGE

See http://www.utahbar.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi?idsearch=10087

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO sealed declarations - "replacements" for stricken one?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 07:36 AM EDT
IANAL

Just wondering if these may be "replacements" for the item that IBM
asked to be stricken?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Addenda to Redacted Memo Re CC for Copyright Infringement
Authored by: nilsh on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 07:50 AM EDT
Do you need court permission to get a file sealed?

Can the public appeal against sealing a document?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Addenda to Redacted Memo Re CC for Copyright Infringement
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT
>>>I've always worried about this (presumably American?) usage. If
someone could care less, then they presumably do care at least a little. The
British usage is that someone Couldn't care less, which seems to my (Welsh) ears
to make more sense.
Just a thought <<<<

This corruption of the phrase is found within the U.S. but it is not the norm
among the better educated.

I would hope that you would either not worry about this or worry about something
of consequence.

Don

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • could/couldn't care less - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 09:42 AM EDT
  • You forgot to mention... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 09:52 AM EDT
  • I worry - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 10:16 AM EDT
    • I worry - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 02:01 PM EDT
    • I worry - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 02:31 PM EDT
A resume for Barbara Howe
Authored by: micheal on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 09:36 AM EDT
Howe

"A position as a technical team lead or technical contributor on a Linux or Unix-oriented software development project."

"Former AT&T Bell Labs Distinguished Member of Technical Staff (DMTS)."

I could not find anything on Jeremy Evans.

---
LeRoy -
What a wonderful day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Implementing OpenLaw
Authored by: lifewish on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 09:54 AM EDT
It's a fun, if oft-suggested, thought. However, given that this is a private
blog, I'm not sure it would be fair to completely co-opt it.

It's interesting to ponder what a specialised OpenLaw site would do. Does anyone
have any ideas? My thoughts are:

- A review of legal systems, current and historical ("kernel
research")
- An attempt to create an open, international version of Lexis-Nexis by:
-- Retrieving docs from courthouses worldwide
-- Scanning them in
-- Transcribing them
- A forum for debate of legal issues

Of course, Groklaw has this already. It is, however, highly specialised towards
threats against Linux, and I feel it would be a waste of a wonderful defence
system to allow it to drift off topic.

Does anyone have thoughts about how a site like this could be brought to life?

---

------------------
"Diplomacy: the art of saying 'Nice doggy' until you can find a stick" - Wynn
Catlin

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOSource is in it's Death Throes?
Authored by: penfold on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 10:02 AM EDT
With all the twists and turns the case has taken, it is so easy to get lost in
the details.

One thing that occurred to me this morning is that SCOSource should never have
existed.

The claim that SCOX et al shouted in the press for so long, (and still maintain)
is that Unix IP is Linux. They have found their "precious" in Linux
and want to be compensated for the wrong. After many many months of discovery,
the claim actually appears to be that IBM contributed IBM developed code from
their version of Unix into Linux. Even SCOX (apparently) is not disputing that
it was IBM owned code. (Trade secrets were dropped, SCOX never claimed any
Trademark or patent violations, and the only copyright claim is related to
continuing to distribute AIX after the license was "terminated". That
is how the law defines "Intellectual Property".)

SCOX has been complaining about how "irrelevant" it is to point out
SysV code "with specifity" to their claims. How badly they need AIX
code to prove their claims, and how by refusing to give them all of the AIX
code, IBM is stalling the discovery process.

To my mind, that is like shouting "Fire" in a theatre because the
person behind you is smoking.

Now we know what SCOX's claims actually are, that IBM violated a contractual
Software license, I have to say that I cannot see claims against ANY third party
that the IBM claim touches.

IBM owns the code, plain and simple, it is theirs and they wanted to contribute
it to Linux. SCOX has a tenous (and very dubious) claim on IBM's right to
contribute that code via a 20 year old contract. But as I understand it, even if
SCOX were right (and even won!) their contract with IBM has ZERO impact on my
permission to use that code. That is strictly between me and IBM.

Afterall, I am not a party to the contract that SCOX used to ground this house
of cards. SCOX does not own the IBM's Linux copyrights, nor does their alleged
"easement" into IBM's control of the code have any bearing on me. I
have a license (the GPL) from the copyright holder (IBM) to the "IP"
in question (e.g. JFS, etc). IBM giveth, SCOX cannot taketh away. :)

SCOSource: The bell tolls for thee.

And this is the question that I would like a journalist to ask SCOX: Why should
anyone, anywhere, ever consider purchasing a SCOSource binary only license from
SCOX to IBM's Coprighted Intellectual Property?

What in the AT&T contracts and copyright law gives SCOX even the right to
sell it? (As I recall, it has to be specifically stated, right?) The APA gives
oldSCO the right to sell Unix licenses, but SCOX only claims that IBM's license
prevents IBM from publicly disclosing the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and it's dirivatives.
One has to seriously wonder who is stealing whose IP?

Furthermore, now that Microsoft and Sun have purchased said license, will they
be including IBM's IP into their own products under a SCOSource license?

Hey, is that another counter claim for IBM?

Did I miss anything?

---
The worth of man is determined by the battle between good and evil in the mans
subconcious.The Evil within is so strong that the way to win is to deny it
battle

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic but SCO was mentioned
Authored by: irieiam on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 12:30 PM EDT
I wasn't sure where to post this but:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/technology/24soft.html

That is an MS and UN disagreement that mentions the FUD from SCOG/IBM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pretenderle at it again ... nice compliment!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 01:15 PM EDT
Rob Enderle, a former IBM business development manager who now is a technology
analyst, sees Palmisano as reluctant to leave behind his past in sales even now
that he's chairman and CEO.

"I don't really think he has actually stepped up to the entire job,"
Enderle said.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/TechNews/TechInvestor/2004/08/20/594121.html


[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - USPTO
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 01:59 PM EDT
Here is a link to an article from Forbes from June 2002, in the author Gary L.
Reback which shows that the USPTO's patent award system is a corrupt operation:

http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044_2.html

I note two interesting quotes from Gary Reback's article:

(1) "This change in patent policy [from a eluctance toexpand patent
protection] came largely from the USPTO and the courts, rather than
Congress."

(2) "The USPTO realized that the fees from granting and maintaining patents
created that rarest of American institutions--a government profit center. In
fact, the USPTO started openly advocating that its performance be measured by
the amount that it contributed to the public coffers"

Read Gary Reback's blurb at the end of the article: the man apparently knows
whereof he speaks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Not so fast! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 02:58 PM EDT
OT MS Patents SUDO (su)
Authored by: bsm2003 on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 02:25 PM EDT
USPTO Page

Two Stories Here

[ Reply to This | # ]

Going out on a limb - - The Judge will deny this
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 02:28 PM EDT
RE:

8/19/04 245 SEALED Ex parte motion by SCO Grp for leave to file a supplemental
memo re: discovery (tsh) [Entry date 08/22/04]

The Judge will deny this. He has denied the SCO fishing expedition repeatedly.
Unless it contains references to specific code, he will deny it as cumulative,
untimely, repetitious, and irrelevant. He will tell them they can present the
argument at oral argument if it is so new and substantive.

The judge also feels abused by this SCO tactic that disregards his previous
rulings. He to would like an answer to the question: "On the basis of
what lines of code did you file this suit?"

I doubt they will say anything dramatically new. Substituting another authority
for what the judge has already ruled to be irrelevant won't get SCO anywhere.

"Ex parte" means one-sided or away from the other party. A party may
ask to approach the bench alone, or without the other party. So you say
"May I approach the bench ex parte." You may not want to reveal a
privilege or secret to the other party but need to discuss something with the
judge. Same with a motion asking something from the judge that doesn't involve
the other party.

If the judge denies this, it will be a further indication of his overall
attitude, and impatience, with SCO. IBM will probably say let it in.

---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Addenda to Redacted Memo Re CC for Copyright Infringement
Authored by: jim Reiter on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 02:37 PM EDT
I do not remember ever seeing a purchase agreement, exhibits, etc. between
Santa Cruz Operations, Inc. and Caldera. If Caldera cannot product a purchase
agreement, they have nothing.

I have no idea what Caldera/TSG owns, if anything.

I do know one thing, if I wanted to prove ownership, I would start with "my
purchase agreement" and work backwards to the AT&T/Novell purchase
agreement, establishing ownership at every step.

Apparently TSG cannot do this. Interesting.

Does anyone know where the purchase agreement, exhibits, etc. between Santa Cruz
Operations, Inc. and Caldera is(are)?

[ 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 )