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
Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaration - PDF and text
Wednesday, September 01 2004 @ 09:45 PM EDT

Here's SCO's attempt to shore up Christopher Sontag's credentials, Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Christopher Sontag, by Christopher Sontag, as well as Exhibit B, attached to it. Again, these are paper exhibits, scanned so you can read them, thanks to a volunteer. They are not available on Pacer.

As you may recall, Joan Thomas, in her Declaration, said it was obvious Mr. Sontag was not familiar with IBM's CMVC system. In response, Sontag says he took several introductory computer science courses, among other things, and he's read an IBM booklet about the system and his opinions are formed from information from unnamed "reliable sources". You think I'm exaggerating? Read it and you'll see he does say that. Of course, he also lists some resume items, but to me they don't establish expert knowledge of CMVC. His assertion is that it's not logical that CMVC works the way Thomas says it does, but since he doesn't claim to be an expert or to have any personal knowledge of the system, I can't see how his theorizing helps, when Ms. Thomas, who is an expert, says it actually does work the way he says it just can't.

He also doesn't point out what in the exhibit the judge should zero in on, which is really odd. It's attached but not explained. That is most unusual. The lawyers do their best, and I'm sure they aren't trying to lose, but was there no one on the planet that SCO could convince to testify on their behalf who really was an expert on CMVC? That tells us something fundamental, and I believe it tells the judge something too. There simply could not be a more lopsided battle of the "experts", when one side offers none. SCO keeps saying that they'll win once they get to a jury, but with what? This would have been the time for an expert to show up, and none has. That's how it looks to me.

Here is the Declaration as text, so you can make up your own mind. You'll notice Boies's partner, Robert Silver is listed on this document, as are the three musketeers from Andrews Kurth. They are competent lawyers, actually more than competent, so the feeble results reflect on what they have to work with. Of course, hiring so many lawyers may be how you can end up paying $7.3 million in a single quarter in legal fees, I'm thinking, should you care to try to equal SCO's feat.

One last thing: here is the story about SCO's first UK sale of a SCOSource license in the last quarter. *************************

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]

Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]

Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address, phone, fax]

Frederick S. Frei (admitted pro hac vice)
Aldo Noto (admitted pro hac vice)
John K. Harrop (admitted pro hac vice)
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-
Defendant,


vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-
Plaintiff.
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
SCO'S OPPOSITION TO IBM'S
MOTION TO STRIKE THE
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SONTAG


Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SONTAG

1. My name is Christopher Sontag, and I am a Senior Vice President of SCO. My office is located at Lindon, Utah. Unless otherwise noted or evident from its context, this affidavit is based on my personal knowledge and information available to me from reliable sources. To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the facts set forth herein are true and correct.

2. I submit this Declaration in support of SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff IBM's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Christopher Sontag, dated August 4, 2004.

3. I explain below why IBM's motion should not be granted.

4. On July 12, 2004, in support of its Rule 56(f) Motion, SCO submitted a Declaration of Christopher Sontag (the "Sontag Declaration").

5. The Sontag Declaration describes SCO's need for discovery related to IBM's Configuration Management Version Control (CMVC) system, how IBM's source files are likely stored in CMVC, and how those source files could be extracted.

6. The Sontag Declaration also disputes statements made by IBM's Joan Thomas, in a declaration executed on June 23, 2004 in support of IBM's Response to SCO's Memorandum Regarding Discovery (Thomas Declaration I) as to the level of effort that would be imposed on IBM were the court to require IBM to comply with SCO's discovery requests.

7. In a subsequent declaration (Thoms Declaration II), filed on August 4, 2004 in support of IBM's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Christopher Sontag, Ms. Thomas asserts that "The Sontag Declaration contains numerous factual errors . . . [and] Mr. Sontag does not have any personal knowledge of IBM's CMVC system."

8. In IBM's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Christopher Sontag, IBM asserts that "The Sontag Declaration contains no testimony at all . . . showing that Sontag has any personal knowledge of CMVC, or of revision control system tools generally . . . no information whatsoever about Mr. Sontag's responsibilities, training, education, or work history, much less information sufficient to qualify him as an expert in the fields of computer science, operating system development, revision control systems. . . . "

9. Much of the information as to my background and experience are matters of public record. I have attached as Exhibit A a true copy of my biographical statement from SCO's website.

10. I have a Bachelor's degree in Information Management from Brigham Young University. My computer science courses include IM 460 Advanced System Analysis and Design; IM 360 Systems Analysis; IM 437 Database and Information Systems; IM 433 Advanced Programming Language; IM 333 Microcomputer Programming; and IM 349 Information Systems Technology and Management.

11. I also took many other introductory CS and IM courses.

12. I have had experience in source control and source control management systems, similar to IBM's CMVC system.

13. From 1988 to 1995, I was employed by Novell, Inc. One of the positions that I filled at Novell during this time was director of Program Management. In that position I had overall responsibility for the development and release of the NetWare 4.0 product -- which involved over 500 software developers, testers and documentation writers. I was familiar with the source control system utilized by Novell for the NetWare product release and was responsible for implementing stringent source lock-down procedures using the source control system.

14. From 1996 until 2000 I served as Chief Technology Officer (TCO) of a company that I co-founded. As CTO I had overall responsibility for software development, technical strategy, intellectual property and information systems as well as general executive management. Also as CTO, I led the evaluation and selection process of the source control and source management system that was used by the development team.

15. The statements made in the Sontag Declaration are based on my experience as outlined above, reliable sources, and the numerous, publicly available documents, published by IBM, and related to CMVC, including "Did You Say CMVC," a true copy of excerpts of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. In fact, many of the statements in the Sontag Declaration cite to one or more published IBM documents.

16. The Sontag Declaration addresses rudimentary functions that any configuration management and version control should be capable of executing.

17. Any programmer would know that a configuration management and version control system could not function in a manner as described in the Thomas Declarations and still be a viable tool for managing a company's software. One key function of any version control system (e.g., CMVC) is to easily be able to extract prior versions of a software system. A number of reasons dictate the need for quick and simple access to prior versions of a software system, including the need to provide customers with a replacement version of the software should the customer's on-hand version become corrupted, and the need to efficiently make changes and revisions to the customer's software to correct "bugs" and to implement new features. In short, no company would tolerate a configuration management or version control system that was as difficult as Ms. Thomas asserts IBM's CMVC system is to use.

18. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

August 26, 2004

Lindon, Utah

__[signature]____
Christopher Sontag


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, The SCO Group, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SCO'S OPPOSITION TO IBM'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SONTAG was served on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation on this 26th day of August, 2004, by U.S. mail, postage prepaid to:

Alan L. Sullivan, Esq.
Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P.
[address]

Copy to:

Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]

Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff IBM Corp.

(signature)


  


Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaration - PDF and text | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaratio
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 01 2004 @ 11:39 PM EDT
Well.. I woudn't necessarily consider those to be "introductory
courses" (judging from the names, not the content.. I haven't taken them)

Not that it matters whatsoever. You can have a PhD in computer science and it
will tell you nothing of the particulars of how a certain piece of software
works.

[ Reply to This | # ]

feable?
Authored by: ram on Wednesday, September 01 2004 @ 11:39 PM EDT
I suspect you meant to write "feeble", PJ. However, lawyers do get
paid, so maybe "feable" was somehow appropriate. Hah!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • feable? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 12:06 AM EDT
  • feable? - Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 08:02 AM EDT
Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaratio
Authored by: oldgreybeard on Wednesday, September 01 2004 @ 11:41 PM EDT
Maybe IBM can provide a dog and pony show before the judge, staring one CS, a
terminal, and CMVC. It could prove most interesting.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaratio
Authored by: haceaton on Wednesday, September 01 2004 @ 11:41 PM EDT

Since the declaration makes no attempt to delineate which part is based on personal knowledge, and which part is "reliable sources", won't the judge just have to strike it all as hearsay except for the IBM attachments?

TSG's legal work never ceases to amaze!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaration - PDF and text
Authored by: AG on Wednesday, September 01 2004 @ 11:41 PM EDT
.... likely ... should be ... reliable sources ... Who is he kidding? He is testifying on how things should work at IBM, not how things do work at IBM. And what little info he has, he won't say what the source is (but its reliable). Please Judge Kimball, make him go away.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaratio
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 01 2004 @ 11:42 PM EDT
In short, no company would tolerate a configuration management or version control system that was as difficult as Ms. Thomas asserts IBM's CMVC system is to use.
18. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. August 26, 2004

Seems like a risky declaration to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: Golem on Wednesday, September 01 2004 @ 11:45 PM EDT
If any

[ Reply to This | # ]

Error in the story IMHO
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 01 2004 @ 11:45 PM EDT
I believe there is an error in the story, or rather two:

(1) Joan Thomas of IBM appears to be testifying as a fact witness (and to be fair, possibly as an expert) witness. At least primarily though she appears to be a fact witness IMHO (although we haven't seen here declaration I think).

(2) SCO does not contend in their opposition to the motion to strike that Sontag is an expert witness, but rather put him forward as a fact witness
  • They say he could qualify as an expert in their opposition to the motion to strike, but they don't contend that he is qualified nor that they are attempting to qualify him as an expert. They seem to be intentionally murky about this.

  • SCO's defense (in opposition to motion to strike) of Sontag's initial declaration, is almost all on the basis that he is a fact witness, and he is offering what they say are "common sense" opinions on documents.


So in short, I believe the story is wrong to characterize this as a battle of the experts.

Sontag = SCO's fact witness, based on "reliable sources" (!!!) and "common sense" (!!!) readings of technical documents, etc.

Joan Thomas =- IBM's fact witness, based on personal knowledge.

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic here (N/T)
Authored by: Golem on Wednesday, September 01 2004 @ 11:47 PM EDT
No text

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaratio
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 01 2004 @ 11:48 PM EDT
Interesting. Over the last 15 years, I've worked as a software engineer for at
least 2 major corporations and some smaller companies that, in my opinion,
utilized source control configuration management systems that were even less
capable than what is claimed for CMVC.

In one case, the underlying system was in fact very capable, however, the
business process implemented on top of the purchased revision control system
invalidated many of the capabilities the system should have had.

I remember losing one entire Christmas Vacation to reconstructing the build
process and source file content for an image that was only 2 days out of date.
Even powerful revision control can be abused.

At the time, management considered this "normal". In the other
cases, management and the development organization simply failed to truly
understand what constituted configuration management.

I'm feel pretty fortunate that I now work for a company that has serious,
professional configuration management expertise both institutionally and in its
expert employees.

I wonder about this real world experience that Sontag is so sure is universal.
Based on the fact that SCO thought that some BSD licensed code in Linux
represented stolen code from "their" unix, you have to wonder how
capable their own revision control system is.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Key function of a version control system
Authored by: Golem on Wednesday, September 01 2004 @ 11:55 PM EDT
Sontag says that a key funtion is to be able to get out a release that a client
is running. But of course he fails to mention that IBM have all ready given all
212 versions released to SCO. What they are asking for is the unreleased
versions and the builds they were never built.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Astro-Dome
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 01 2004 @ 11:57 PM EDT
Home of Astro-Turf! (trollage here)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag's two most obvious errors
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 12:00 AM EDT
1. Sontag correctly states that one requirement of a source code control system
is that it be able to recreate "prior versions of a software system".
Indeed, it is likely that the 280-some releases of AIX that IBM provided to SCO
were generated by IBM's CMVC system.

But, what SCO is asking for is every version of every file that made up these
systems. Most of these revisions are not part of a "prior version of a
software system", they are intermediate, possibly non-functional,
iterations toward a version.

It's quite easy to see how IBM's CMVC could quickly produce all previous
releases of AIX, and still have it be an incredible burden to trace every
revision of every file.


2. Sontag is reading from IBM sales documents about their CMVC system.
Unfortunately for Christopher, the product CMVC that IBM sells is not in any way
the same as their internal system.


There are more errors, but these are, IMHO, the biggest ones.

Thad Beier

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reliable sources?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 12:09 AM EDT
I know nothing about the court system and declarations, but shouldn't Sontag
have to say who these "reliable sources" are? For all we know, the
"reliable sources" could be Darl and even Sontag himself, depending on
your idea of "reliable". The whole point of naming your sources is so
that they can be proven to be reliable. Why should the other party, and the
court, assume that these "reliable sources" are telling the truth, and
that they themselves are either experts or have personal knowledge of the
subject? How can you question someone, who remains unnamed, to determine their
validity? And it would be a really bad idea to base your declaration on
hearsay, I would think.

I find it most amusing that SCO's entire opposition is based on the fact that
Sontag simply doesn't believe that IBM would run their company that way. Not
that he has any proof, but he just doesn't believe it, because it isn't logical.
I have worked for numerous small computer companies who dealt in both computer
repair and programming. You know what? We had the crappiest computers you
could find, and no version control for the software. I had to manually maintain
separate versions of the software for the customers. My point here is that just
because IBM is probably the biggest computer company ever, and just because they
do wonders for their customers, doesn't mean that everything is perfect behind
the scenes. As has been mentioned here before, you build your business to be
successful. Often times that means cutting corners internally. And just
because you update something doesn't mean all of your old stuff is retro-fitted
to the new updates. Unless you have a valid reason (and for a business such as
IBM, that would be translated to "unless it is profitable"), you'll
leave the old stuff behind because you're just wasting your money messing around
with it. In my opinion, it is very likely that the older versions of AIX (such
as the very first version) are not even in CMVC. They almost certainly had
other management systems in place at that time (if they had any at all). What
would have been their motivation to put these old packages, which are no longer
used, into CMVC?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Short Introduction to Configuration Management
Authored by: emmenjay on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 12:15 AM EDT
Introduction

Having used Configuration Management (CM) software over a number of years, I think I understand why Mr Sontag thinks he's right - and why he's not.

Why Mr Sontag Thinks He's Right

Configuration Management (CM), a.k.a. Version Control (VC), has been around for many years now. While different systems have different bells and whistles, the general feature set has become well accepted. i.e. most modern systems work in much the same way.
Every change to a file is recorded. For any given file, you can trace its entire history.
At any significant event (such as a release) you can tag all of the files involved with a named tag - e.g. "AIX-Version-234-Build-567".
Having done that, it is relatively easy to extract all of the files for a given release, by asking for all the files with the appropriate tag.

Why Mr Sontag is Probably Wrong

The key word in the previous section is modern.
Modern systems work this way, and current practices dictate these procedures. But it was not always so.
Early versions of AIX date back to the mid '80s. CM was a much less mature discipline then. I don't know whether early versions of IBM's CMVC software supported tagging in its modern form. It is quite feasible that they did not.
If not, you would need to manually determine what version of each file is needed, then manually extract it. That would be a truly mammoth task.
If IBM claimed that extracting a recent AIX release was a huge task, then I would be a little sceptical. If they claim it about ancient versions, I would not be surprised at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another good quote for IBM from vnunet article.
Authored by: mossc on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 12:15 AM EDT
When it was launched in the UK, SCO said that by purchasing the licence,
customers are "properly compensating SCO for the Unix source code,
derivative Unix code and other Unix-related intellectual property and copyrights
owned by SCO as it is currently found in Linux".

I am sure that if TSG doesn't yet have evidence of copyrights owned by SCO"
in linux they will be sending a correction to the author.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaratio
Authored by: rweiler on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 12:22 AM EDT
Well, I have a gazillion hours of CS courses, was a developer on Sun's NSE
product, and to a much lesser extend Teamware, and a source control
administrator for various companies using SCCS, RCS, MKS Source Integrity, CVS,
Perforce, Bitkeeper, and Visual Source Safe, and I haven't got a clue how CMVC
works except that it apparently is based on SCCS. Of course, unlike Sontag, I've
never had the benefit of reading IBM's marketing literature.

---
Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from
being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush

[ Reply to This | # ]

This Could Have Been Filed By IBM!
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 12:22 AM EDT
<<10. I have a Bachelor's degree in Information Management from Brigham
Young University. My computer science courses include IM 460 Advanced System
Analysis and Design; IM 360 Systems Analysis; IM 437 Database and Information
Systems; IM 433 Advanced Programming Language; IM 333 Microcomputer Programming;
and IM 349 Information Systems Technology and Management.
11. I also took many other introductory CS and IM courses.>>

That sounds like something IBM would say about Sontag to mock him!

<<17. Any programmer would know...>>

So he's a programmer now??? Can he even write "hello world"?

<<...that a configuration management and version control system could not
function in a manner as described in the Thomas Declarations and still be a
viable tool for managing a company's software. One key function of any version
control system (e.g., CMVC) is to easily be able to extract prior versions of a
software system. A number of reasons dictate the need for quick and simple
access to prior versions of a software system, including the need to provide
customers with a replacement version of the software should the customer's
on-hand version become corrupted, and the need to efficiently make changes and
revisions to the customer's software to correct "bugs" and to
implement new features. In short, no company would tolerate a configuration
management or version control system that was as difficult as Ms. Thomas asserts
IBM's CMVC system is to use.>>

I can't decide if Sontag is dense, intentionally trying to mislead of both...IBM
had no trouble supplying all commercial versions of the software to do as he
says, which SCO has already received. They're specifically asking for every bit
and piece of code that didn't make it into commercial versions, so it seems like
his declaration was counterproductive at best...all IBM has to quote Sontag's
declaration and say that's exactly what the CMVC did and exactly what already
got.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Large Corps and CM
Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 12:23 AM EDT
I was employed by a major defense contractor (which shall remain nameless) for
many years.

On one project (lasting 5 years), we used absolutely NO CM software whatsoever.
Our tools were diff, and a well-defined submission process. Upon a release, the
authoritative source tree was backed up to tape, and labelled as such.

Mr. Sontag is wrong about his bit about "In short, no company would
tolerate a configuration management or version control system that was as
difficult as Ms. Thomas asserts IBM's CMVC system is to use."


---
The only reason we retain the rights we have is because people *JUST LIKE US*
died to preserve those rights.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaratio
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 12:37 AM EDT
It's horrible that he would disgrace the name of Brigham Young University by
saying that he attended it. =(

[ Reply to This | # ]

Required attachment
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 12:48 AM EDT
Well obviously he must have attached a statement verifying:

"I stayed at a Holiday Inn"

OG

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's just sad
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 01:09 AM EDT
His education is spartan at best. He probably didn't get good grades either or
he would have said so. He was fired from Novell, tanked his own business now
he's helping SCO down the drain too. What kind of CV is that? I wonder what
company he'll plague next? Burger King?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaration - PDF and text
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 01:20 AM EDT
It looks like he graduated from BYU with a degree in Information Management in
1988

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaratio
Authored by: jim Reiter on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 01:32 AM EDT



McBS, says it all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's pretty hard to understand...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 01:33 AM EDT
...how or why "the best IP law firm in the country - probably the
world" would submit drivel like this to court of law and expect it to be
taken seriously! It also speaks volumes about the competence of the management
team that continues to support them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaratio
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 01:37 AM EDT
1. My name is not Chris.

2. I have read a great many Groklaw articles.

3. I have read court documents, attached as Exhbit A

4. I have met many lawyers.

5. I worked at a company with many lawyers once.

6. I read a UNIX book once.

7. I have used Operating Systems not dissimilar from both AIX and OpenServer.

8. The sky is blue.

9. From 1963 to 2004, I have been outdoors many, many times and can provide personal knowledge that the sky is in fact blue.

10. It is my opinion that SCO has no legal grounds whatsoever in their claims.

11. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

There. That should settle it then, no?

cheers
-andy

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - all "likely's", "should be's", here!
Authored by: Totosplatz on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 01:41 AM EDT

5. The Sontag Declaration describes SCO's need for discovery related to IBM's Configuration Management Version Control (CMVC) system, how IBM's source files are likely stored in CMVC, and how those source files could be extracted.

16. The Sontag Declaration addresses rudimentary functions that any configuration management and version control should be capable of executing.

More or less admits he has no actual, hard-nuts clue! Someone get a cluestick!

---
All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Face value judgement is against SCO
Authored by: Whiplash on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 01:53 AM EDT
The Judge can only judge both declarations on face value. Both Thomas and Sontag
are under threat of perjury.

If Sontag says: "It makes no common sense to work that way" and Thomas
says: "Well thats the way it works", then unless Sontag can PROVE
otherwise, they are out of luck.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag has experience with CM & SCC systems, but ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 01:54 AM EDT

couldn't name one.

H@ns

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Well... - Authored by: Tomas on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 09:39 PM EDT
Real lawyers and Quatermass Help
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 02:02 AM EDT
How do you read a document that begins with "To the best of my knowledge,
information and belief, the facts set forth herein are true and correct"
and ends with "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct"?

It would seem that the declaration attests to the best of his knowledge,
information and belief, not the "facts" that he sets forth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I feel sorry for this guy
Authored by: gibodean on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 02:08 AM EDT
I would be really surprised if it was Mr Sontag's choice to submit these
declarations. I imagine that he has been pressured into it by Darl and buddies.
I mean, he must know how much of a fool he looks.

He must know he has no clue about what he's talking about, and could even have
been fighting with the other guys about how much stupid stuff he has to put in
there. He should have quit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaratio
Authored by: Rhys Weatherley on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 02:20 AM EDT
"17. Any programmer would know that a configuration management and version control system could not function in a manner as described in the Thomas Declarations and still be a viable tool for managing a company's software. One key function of any version control system (e.g., CMVC) is to easily be able to extract prior versions of a software system."

Well, I'm "any programmer". This statement is only correct about recent versions of a piece of software. Beyond a particular point, you stop supporting older versions and encourage the user to upgrade because it is simply too much hassle.

So, while Chris may be correct about the last 4-5 versions of AIX, the idea that IBM needs to do this for 1980's-era versions of AIX is plain nonsense. At the most, they have a snapshot of older AIX versions on tape (which they've supplied already).

"In short, no company would tolerate a configuration management or version control system that was as difficult as Ms. Thomas asserts IBM's CMVC system is to use."

Since ordinary developers do not normally need to perform the operations that Chris posits, the lack of such operations would not impede their ability to do their jobs. On the few occasions when programmers need to look at older versions, they look at the snapshots.

But all this is a smokescreen from Chris. It is only appropriate to ask for intermediate versions once you have identified that "infringing element X was added between AIX version 123 and AIX version 124 to file foo.c". Only then would it be appropriate to investigate how foo.c evolved between those two versions, and only for that file.

SCO must show that there is a real problem before performing any further discovery to determine the scope of the problem. You already have everything you need to do that Chris.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this a joke?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 02:22 AM EDT
I don't get it. It reads like a joke. I had to go back and check... I though I
was reading a satire.

I perused the exhibit B. From what I can tell, this his strongest direct
relationship to CMVC. It only hurts Sontag's credibility to claim this and even
to attach it to the document.

Perhaps I give Sontag and legal team too much credit, but what are they up to?
I can't imagine they are so out of touch with reality that they don't realize
this. Is this like that last gasping breath in a battle to the death, where the
bad guy claims he will have his vengeance... and then dies?

This wouldn't even make a good battle scene in a movie!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Playing for the judge
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 02:32 AM EDT
I'm glad the so called "expert" Sontag doesn't work for me: I don't
need another janitor.

After IBM beat SCOG up with SCOGs own words, they probably figured that if they
put **something** from IBM about CMVC into the record, the judge will fall for
it. He might well do so: SCOG left out dozens of pages, quoted out of context,
and failed to show how this manual does anything to help their case, which seems
to be exactly the kind of inane behavior that judges like to see in
"creative" lawyers. If this judge is looking for an "out"
so that he can quietly buckle to the pressures of a certain Senator, who knows
if he'll buy the SCOG garbage?

But the CMVC ad pages don't do anything to help SCOG. No technical
"meat" at all. For that, the judge will need a lesson in version
control in general, CMVC in particular, and SCOG errors on top of that; a lazy
judge will throw up his hands, because they just aren't trained for such things
(if they were, they'd get a real job instead of making everybody else's lives
miserable with delay after delay while they pretend they're the experts on
everything, a far too common trait of judges (especially in Utah, it seems).

Even in the few pages shown though, nothing helps SCOG. It doesn't point out
how time consuming it will be to recreate every intermediate file EVEN IF it was
tagged (and not all file changes are tagged), and EVEN IF there are no sandbox
or "temporary copy" issues (and there certainly are). For example, a
"typical" version control system for source code starts with a base
file, then, if a change is made to a line, the system keeps track of the
"old, deleted" line, and the "new, replacement" line of
text, even if just one extremely minor change is made. SCOG won't settle for
just the list of changes, you can be sure, so SOMEBODY is going to have to sit
down, find the change list for EVERY changed file, print a copy of the original
file, apply a "delta", print another copy, apply the next
"delta", print another copy, etc., perhaps for THOUSANDS of changes
spanning a decade or more.

Not all systems work that way. Some allow the concept of "key" files
and "intermediates". For those, the system may (according to some
rule) keep the original, and then a series of small changes, and then an
entirely fresh new copy with ALL changes applied after some point, perhaps
revision 0.1 : this approach improves performance when run on slow systems (and
any system from 10 years ago probably counts as VERY slow by todays measure, so
such optimizations were common). Going backward from there can be very tough.

There are other possible approaches. For example, instead of keeping an entire
line of code, it is possible to use "offset / length" mechanisms, ie.
"this change starts at byte #38,352 and runs for 217 bytes, and consists of
xxxxxx" types of systems. These can be handy for large binary files: since
binary files aren't organized by lines, you can't just + and - a few lines here
and there; some really inefficient (for storage) and primitive systems just copy
an entirely new binary file EVERY time a change is made, even if it is hundreds
of megabytes long and only ONE byte changes. Which mechanism does CMVC use?
Sontag doesn't say, and probably doesn't know; he doesn't even point out that
the CMVC pages seem to indicate that CMVC can do both "text" (easy)
and "binary" (hard) change management.

None of this takes into account change sets either, groups of files potentially
across thousands of directories, hundreds of servers, tens of thousands of
files, and billions of lines of code. Sontag apparently thinks he can just jump
in, after having a few classes at a second-rate compsci college, and spot all
the things they claim they need in billions of lines, just by eyeball, if IBM
will just kill all the forests for them (SCOG has as much as admitted they don't
know how to use automated tools, and it shows: their original code dump to IBM
was scanned pages, remember?)

Lame. Feeble. Call it what you want, but Sontag doesn't know shirt from
shinola and it shows. Not even a complete buffoon could dream up his sworn
"testimony". If he worked for me he'd have taken a long walk to the
woodshed long ago.

But judges aren't very bright in such matters, and have a tendency to just waltz
by when they don't understand something.

So Sontag's lame little story just might work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's the REAL plan?
Authored by: StLawrence on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 02:57 AM EDT
Obviously, there must be more going on here than we realize.

Maybe Darl & Co are planning to be able to sue Boise & Co for
incompetent representation?

Or Boise & Co are hoping to sue Darl & Co for gross stupidity?

Or perhaps the whole thing is an elaborate new reality TV show
that we won't find out about until next season...

Wheels within wheels...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag does not understand the complexity of large codebases.
Authored by: Mark Levitt on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 03:06 AM EDT
Or, he's being deliberately obtuse.

First, he is mixing up "versions", which I presume to mean
tagged/released builds (that IBM has already given them), and every change made
to every file, which is what they are asking for.

But, the real problem is that he might no a bit about CM systems, but there a
many different ways to use a CM system.

Yes, in a small project involving a few developers over a short time, you should
be able to extract each revision of every file. In a small project, there may be
only one branch. Each developer works on a file, and you could go back through
that one branch pulling each file revision and know it was an earlier version of
that code.

Now, in a bigger development environment, with multiple releases and the need to
maintain older software, you most likely have more than one branch. When you
ship a version of the software, you do not just carry on making changes to that
branch for the next version. If you did, you would have no way to fix bugs for
your current customers and add new code for the next version.

So, we have at least two branches to go through. But wait, there's more.

If your a smart development manager, you need to maximize your resources
(programmers). So, toward the end of one project, when your done adding features
and are focusing on fixing bugs, you need lots of programmers to fix as many
bugs as fast as possible. However, at a certian point, near when you're ready to
ship, the bugs drop off. The remaining are probably hard bugs that need some
time to fix, but you probably have more programmers than bugs as some point.

Rather than have your expensive programmers sitting idle and getting bored, you
move them off to work on the next version of the software (the one after the one
your about to release). What does that mean? Well, yes, a *third* source branch.
You don't want the work on the follow-up release to interfere with getting the
next release out. And, you still need a maintenance branch for the next
release.

OK. We're up to three branches of code. Each branch has a file with a revision
history. And SCO is right, any CM system should be able to pull the revision for
each file. But, and this is the big one, how do you know whether the version of
one file in one branch is related to the version of that file in another branch?
Sure, they might have the same name, and you might know from working on them,
but the CM system may not store the information for each file across multiple
branches. Only very recent CM systems do that, and badly at best.

Also, keep in mind that we aren't talking about just three branches. If we
assume every release is going to involve three branches, multiply that time the
number of AIX releases and you get 283*3 = 849.

But, that's not even the final story. We know from IBM's declarations that AIX
is not in a single source tree at all. This makes sense. After all, AIX is made
up of many parts: a kernel, system libraries, system tools, applications, etc.

So, AIX might come with a DNS server, or web server, or their WebSphere
application. Each of those subcomponents may be stored in their own source
branches. Each time those are released, there are three branches...etc, etc,
etc.

To summarize, Sontag might be right if he was talking about a small class
project size development with one or two people. But a software development
project of the size and complexity of AIX is qualitatively different. It doesn't
just scale up in side, it has to be done differently lest it fall over.

By the way, nothing in a college course is going to teach you that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Version extraction != requesed
Authored by: corran__horn on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 03:07 AM EDT

Note how sontag doesn't deny anything, only insists that versions (which would in this case be the releases, which were already produced) are easy to extract. It doesn't say that it is even possible to extract anything in between those versions.

One key function of any version control system (e.g., CMVC) is to easily be able to extract prior versions of a software system. A number of reasons dictate the need for quick and simple access to prior versions of a software system, including the need to provide customers with a replacement version of the software should the customer's on-hand version become corrupted, and the need to efficiently make changes and revisions to the customer's software to correct "bugs" and to implement new features. In short, no company would tolerate a configuration management or version control system that was as difficult as Ms. Thomas asserts IBM's CMVC system is to use.

I would point out that what he does say is correct, a version control system should do this or it would be pretty useless. It may only hold the current version, but in a large scale operation it would need to deal with multiple levels of the source, or it would be difficult be random.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - possible new product space emerges!
Authored by: Totosplatz on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 03:20 AM EDT

Well I don't know abou the rest of you, but I'm filing for a patent!

In order to provide the proper "litigation support model" of software development, the thing to do is automagically generate a new "tag" each time anyone checks in anything! And tag everything, naturally! Piece of pound cake! Then the Mr Sontags of the world can in fact have all the "intermediate releases" they so desire. Better bring a dump truck to hold all the DVD's, though!

Maybe I'll take a cat-nap now... hey, no fair patenting my "idea" whilst I'm napping! And no fair being a party pooper and claiming someone already does this - I'm telling you now I absolutely don't believe it! And don't even think about telling me this is a fly-by-night stooopid notion!

---
All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaratio
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 03:34 AM EDT
come on! where are his programming credentials! this is a current list of
courses for someone gaining a BS in computer science from a accredited
university.

1. Students with no previous programming
experience.
CSC 130, 230, 261, 312 (1-hour course), 330,
339, 340, 553, 561, 562.
12 hours CSC electives: any CSC course at
the 500 level (except 553, 561, 562)
or PHY 512 or 513. 1. Students with equivalent of 1 semester
programming experience.
CSC 231, 261, 312 (1-hour course), 330,
339, 340, 553, 561, 562.
12 hours CSC electives: any CSC course at
the 500 level (except 553, 561, 562)
or PHY 512 or 513.

with these courses under your belt its probable your knowledgeable of various
programming environments. This Sontag Cat knows that Novell had some sort of
program revision control application...perhaps he can remember the name of the
application Novell used and the name of the engineer he needed to put a request
to in order to personally oversee a pressing need. Other than that, My guess is
that Sontag is clueless when it comes to finding his way around a dedicated
application platform and my guess is you can't get more complicated than the
application that IBM has in house. Those of us who have worked at technical
companies like IBM can see how someone like Sontag may feel they have complete
understanding of how something like a revision content management application
works...but if they truly did understand then why do they need to go to the head
software engineer when they need something? Sontag is a blowhard who is good at
bullshitting and thats about it

[ Reply to This | # ]

AAARRRGH
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 03:46 AM EDT
He's taken some "introductory computer courses."

This idiot's salary is over ten times mine! What the heck is wrong with the
world?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections: Since no one has started a thread yet
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 03:55 AM EDT
To begin with, there should be a <p> between the last paragraph of the
analysis and the *s.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What versions has IBM already given?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 04:05 AM EDT
I keep on seeing comments that assert that IBM has already given copies of every
historical release version of AIX and that SCO is now asking for the inbetween
versions, which I suppose really means the inbetween versions of all the
individual files.

My question is, can someone point me to any article whether on this site or some
other site that detail what IBM has already given, is it really every historical
release version of AIX or a subset or just the most recent?

I know it's bogus either way, but still...

Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

While on the subject of source control ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 04:10 AM EDT
... it is worth reminding everyone that, early last year, SCOG had to go outside
to request a copy of some old SYSV (released) source that they did not have a
copy of.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This would be of use to Sontag.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 04:25 AM EDT
Was this resource referenced by SCOG in their submissions?Link

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaration - PDF and text
Authored by: MikeA on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 04:51 AM EDT
"My computer science courses include IM 460 Advanced System Analysis and Design; IM 360 Systems Analysis; IM 437 Database and Information Systems; IM 433 Advanced Programming Language; IM 333 Microcomputer Programming; and IM 349 Information Systems Technology and Management."

Any chance we can dig up his grades from those courses?

---
"You need some facts to win in a court of law, thou doofus." - The Knights of Armonk (Translation by PJ)

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm not an expert
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 04:52 AM EDT
I've used RCS so I understand a little. :)

What about, for example, between released versions X and Y someone created a new
file with some code in. During the development period between releases that
code was scrapped. So pulling out a list of files for build X doesn't show it.
Pulling out a list of files for build Y doesn't show it. My understanding is
that SCO will still want it.

I wonder if they can start to see that IBM's source control might, just might,
not function they way they expect. Pulling releases is easy. Pulling all
development code for a project doesn't seem so easy, especially if the system
holds code for many different projects.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaratio
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 05:19 AM EDT
The declaration from Chris Sontag was about that IBM was wrong about the burder
to deliver the AIX source SCO requisted. IBM argued that it was diffecult in to
know wich sources belonged to AIX in their CMVC. So I think it is not about
knowing what CMVC system can do, but how it is used by IBM. So far i didn't
read any information that Chris Sontag has any knowledge about that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OpenCM: a modern version control system that does not follow Sontag's assumptions
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 05:21 AM EDT

There is at least one modern configuration management system that does not follows Sontag's assumptions. It is OpenCM http://www.opencm.org. The sytem is still early stages of development and currently is the system is subject to major redesign. Design documents are available at this link.

The system uses cryptographical names for files in the repository. Therefore it is not possible to determine file path and directoty path by accessing only file record in repository.

An interesting thing is that the system does not follows Sontag's assumptions because of its very strong focus on repository security and integrity. Another interesting thing is that user accessible interface is not extremly different from cvs one (see manual). So I think that it is not possible to judge about CM system by public interface alone. I have not had access to CMCV documents referenced by Sontag, but it is quite unusual of public materials for closed source configuration management system to discuss the internal architecture.

Therefore Sontag does not seems to know the state of art in area of cofiguration management system.

The intersting side note is that the primary designer of the system Jonothan Shapiro has worked at IBM during some period. But I do not know whether it relevant to OpenCM or not. It possible that he has not be been exposed CMVC at all. IBM is a quite large company and I doubt that all divisitions of IBM use CMCV for storing source code (and I have a personal knowledge that CVS is used at least for some projects at IBM).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wookie Alert
Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 05:36 AM EDT
this is all the issue is.
to distract and draw out for more time.where is the original code that provides
the basis of even needing more code?
the magistrate judge said specificity.
where is it?


---
br3n

irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw
Mike "Moogy" Tuxford, 1951-2004. Rest in peace.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Totally agree - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 02:29 PM EDT
Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaration - PDF and text
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 05:46 AM EDT
First.
It seems to me that Sontags degree is a business degree
not a technical one. That is, he is taught to tell
administrators to set upan SCM and he yells at the
administrators or programmers when they fail to do
use the system correctly. Usually he won't notice if they
don't use the system correctly unless something goes wrong.
Another way of saying this that he trained as a PHB.

Second.
Every place that I worked that required some use of SCM
had a periodic build. Some had regression tests that the
build had to pass, others simply required the code to
compile. When they had a version that compiled, they would
tag it.

I should think that IBM should be able to retreive any such
intermediate builds. At worst they retrieve the version
of every file checked in before midnight of build day.

So what is it that's too hard to retreive? And what is it
that SCO is asking for.

[ Reply to This | # ]

just prove it...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 06:24 AM EDT
Not that it would prove anything of CMVC, but their argument would hold much
better if they could present a similar set of info for their UnixWare.. every
version, plus every change, note etc. Just go pull it all out of *their* version
control system, as an example of how easy it should be.

Maybe they could, and it may prove nothing of CMVC's capabilities, but it would
at least demonstrate they can do what they say is 'common sense' for a company
to be able to do.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaration - PDF and text
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 06:26 AM EDT

Mr. Sontag's opinions aren't worth the paper they are written on, even if on sworn court papers, IMHO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Any programmer would know ..."
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 06:41 AM EDT

that being asked to provide RCS source for one particular version of one product is not the same as being asked to provide all source and all diffs for many version of multiple products composed of multiple modules.

Just for starters - what's a 'version', in the context of SCO's demand for 'every version' including unreleased versions? Do they limit that to internally tagged versions? Or every single diff for every commit to every area? Perhaps Mr Sontag could give his expert opinion on that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is their case management doing?
Authored by: elderlycynic on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 07:26 AM EDT
His qualifications are not impressive, but are relevant, and
SCO's current requests are feasible, if excessive. But why on
earth did they produce the original, OBVIOUSLY flawed, versions?

And, as someone said, he STILL hasn't said what he is claiming
as certain knowledge (and why), what is his personal experience, and what is
indirect (and why it should be trusted).

As other people have pointed out, it is lawyers' business to
ensure that court documents are written according to the rules.
Well, as someone involved in procurements (not a dissimilar task),
it is MY job to ensure that any facts are double-checked and
to check that what I am asking for is reasonable. Even when I
am an acknowledged expert, I get someone else to check for my
mistakes.

Why did SCO do none of this? Because they assuredly didn't.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doesn't 17 hand it to IBM on a plate?
Authored by: k9 on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 07:31 AM EDT
By referring to "customers". It would, indeed, be surprising if IBM
couldn't produce stuff they'd actually shipped to customers. So perhaps we can
now expect a further Thomas Declaration, saying something like :

1. As stated in the latest Sontag Declaration at 17, it is important to be able
to produce the source code of any version of AIX ever supplied to a customer. As
operated in the ordinary course of business, this is one of the main functions
of CMVC.

2. There are 232 such versions. In connection with this case, I was asked to
extract all of these. I understand that they have been supplied to SCO pursuant
to Judge Wells's order.

This is relevant to the "ordinary course of business" criterion, which
is referred to in other SCO filings. For a CMS, the OCoB is (a) long-term
checkpointing stuff you've actually shipped, and (b) short-term checkpointing of
daily builds, releases to unit test, partial test builds etc. The point being
that, even if SCO had the direct access to CMVC as operated in the OCoB that
they request, they couldn't do better.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Missing the Point
Authored by: tredman on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 08:19 AM EDT
You know, if these court procedings were Groklaw, I would think that all of this
noise about source control and configuration management would be marked with a
very large, very bold "OT".

It doesn't matter what CMVC can or cannot do. It's just one more distraction
from SCOX in an effort to delay the case. What they're asking for is completely
above and beyond what they're entitled to, and I'd go so far as to say that the
information they've already received, in the form of AIX and Dynix source code,
is already more than they should have gotten.

Once you determine that the original interpretation of the AT&T contracts
and ammendments state that IBM owns their own code and can do with it what they
wish, then everything that's not Linux or System V is completely irrelevent.

The whole thing has been one blatant move by SCOX to act like they're in charge
and steering the trial. I'm sure they probably believe that Judges Kimball and
Wells are just there as passive observers.

Tim

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • En principe, oui. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 05:52 PM EDT
Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaration - PDF and text
Authored by: MrWob on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 09:03 AM EDT
I'm not an attorney and I don't play one on "Law and Order." Would it
be possible that SCO does not want to win, but set themselves up to run this
through the appeals process for the next xxx years? Can SCO appeal on the
grounds they had incompetent council?

The only other think I can think of is: SCO is grasping at straws and being
ambiguous because they have nothing or SCO wants this to let this to live in the
appeals courts hoping IBM will settle because of the cost of littagation.

Later, Dive / Fly / Ride / Sail Safe
-Rob
"Young man, success comes in can, failure comes in can't."
Adm Grace Hopper to a young MrWob, 1978

[ Reply to This | # ]

Compromise
Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT
SCOX says that producing everything since 1984 should be easy.
IBM says that it's expensive and burdensome.

Me, I propose a compromise that should be acceptable to all parties.

  1. SCOX proposes a maximum amount that this should cost IBM.
  2. If the Court agrees that this amount is not excessive, IBM puts it up on retainer.
  3. Both parties agree to a trusted third party which can be allowed to work in IBM's facilities.
  4. The third party is given the job of producing what SCOX asks for.
  5. If IBM's retainer is exhausted, SCOX is ordered by the Court to pick up the remainder of the tab, whatever it takes.
I suspect that IBM would agree to this, and the Court should accept it as fair. It takes SCOX at their word on all counts.

I wonder what would happen if IBM were to propose this to the Court?

[ Reply to This | # ]

companies that buy SCOSource licenses....
Authored by: Latesigner on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 09:23 AM EDT
Are they just wimps or are they fools?
There is no way that these guys bought licenses on any rational basis after the
fall of last year so what's going on here ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I am impressed at the deviousness of TSG...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 10:07 AM EDT
TSG methodically keeps asking for more and more SW information from
IBM...source files, programmer notes, design information, project plans,
email, every bit. Eventually, IBM must say that they cannot produce any
more. Then, with great flourish, TSG lawyers shout you're lying and we have
tons of proof. And then, TSG lawyers solemnly ask their great rhetorical
question to poison all IBM's evidence, "If you refuse to produce X, how
can the jury believe any of IBM's evidence or expert testimony."

This debating technique is old and well used. It was used against Ronald
Reagan when he could not recall where he was a 2 PM on some date that
was years previous to the questioning.

This is illogical and meant to create the illusion of intentional deceit. It
works when the victim is caught flat footed with no reply. In the hands
of theatrical lawyers, it can cast a pall of doubt on the whole body of
very solid evidence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting what he did not say
Authored by: Scorpio on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 10:25 AM EDT
Notice he did not testify "and I know how the system works at SCO" ?

Maybe that is his excuse for keeping IBM copyrighted code in his system? Oh, I
forgot. The GPL only applies to other companies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh my god! he read a booklet! we have to believe him!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 10:41 AM EDT
I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist...

in SCO's defence I say "DOH!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Too many problems to list
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 11:26 AM EDT
I've probably missed a few, there are so many...

GENERAL

(i) SCO's offering him as a fact witness, not expert witness, see this and this, yet his declaration is filled with opinion...

(ii) He doesn't anywhere state that he has personal knowledge of CMVC (he just opines it might work like this...)

(iii) He doesn't anywhere state that he has personal knowledge of how AIX is stored in CMVC (he just opines it might work like this...)

SPECIFIC

1. My name is Christopher Sontag, and I am a Senior Vice President of SCO. My office is located at Lindon, Utah. Unless otherwise noted or evident from its context, this affidavit is based on my personal knowledge and information available to me from reliable sources. To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the facts set forth herein are true and correct.
(iv) reliable sources = hearsay
(v) information and belief = opinion - see point (i) (vi) information and belief = he's not declaring as to facts, just as to his beliefs.
3. I explain below why IBM's motion should not be granted.
(vii) Legal conclusion
5. The Sontag Declaration describes SCO's need for discovery related to IBM's Configuration Management Version Control (CMVC) system, how IBM's source files are likely stored in CMVC, and how those source files could be extracted.
(viii) likely = opinion - see point (i)
(ix) likely = opinion not based on rational perception of the witness
12. I have had experience in source control and source control management systems, similar to IBM's CMVC system.
(x) Even if true, he admits he doesn't have experience in CMVC, i.e. opinion not based on perception of the witness
15. The statements made in the Sontag Declaration are based on my experience as outlined above, reliable sources, and the numerous, publicly available documents, published by IBM, and related to CMVC, including "Did You Say CMVC," a true copy of excerpts of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. In fact, many of the statements in the Sontag Declaration cite to one or more published IBM documents.
(xi) based on my experience = opinion - see point (i)
(xii) reliable sources = hearsay
16. The Sontag Declaration addresses rudimentary functions that any configuration management and version control should be capable of executing.
(xiii) based on my experience = opinion - see point (i)
17. Any programmer would know that a configuration management and version control system could not function in a manner as described in the Thomas Declarations and still be a viable tool for managing a company's software. One key function of any version control system (e.g., CMVC) is to easily be able to extract prior versions of a software system. A number of reasons dictate the need for quick and simple access to prior versions of a software system, including the need to provide customers with a replacement version of the software should the customer's on-hand version become corrupted, and the need to efficiently make changes and revisions to the customer's software to correct "bugs" and to implement new features. In short, no company would tolerate a configuration management or version control system that was as difficult as Ms. Thomas asserts IBM's CMVC system is to use.
(xiv) "would know" = opinion, see point (i)
(xv) "no company would" = opinion, see point (i)
18. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
(xvi) Undermined completely, by paragraph (i). See points (iv) to (vi)


Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Still no testimony
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 11:41 AM EDT
" Any programmer would know that a configuration management and version
control system could not function in a manner as described in the Thomas
Declarations and still be a viable tool for managing a company's software. One
key function of any version control system (e.g., CMVC) is to easily be able to
extract prior versions of a software system. A number of reasons dictate the
need for quick and simple access to prior versions of a software system,
including the need to provide customers with a replacement version of the
software should the customer's on-hand version become corrupted, and the need to
efficiently make changes and revisions to the customer's software to correct
"bugs" and to implement new features. In short, no company would
tolerate a configuration management or version control system that was as
difficult as Ms. Thomas asserts IBM's CMVC system is to use."

This "expert" is just making wild guesses. It's like an automotive
experts saying that it would be unlikely for anyone to ever make a car with 6
wheels, or for any vehicle to have just 2 wheels. Real experts would instead
provide real-life evidence to support their statement, and show examples of
monobikes, 18-wheelers, and beyond.

But their statement would still be meaningless unless they could make an
accurate statement about the exact make and model in question. Too bad that
this case probably will never see a jury. It would have been great
entertainment to see IBM's lawyers drill the jokers from SCO, interrupted by
Boies intense hand-wawing.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Missing each others points
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 12:00 PM EDT
I keep hearing Sontag talk about being able to pull every version of a
program/system as a critical part of any version control system. SCO has
received every version of AIX and the rest.

I hear IBM (Joan Thomas) say that they cannot pull intermediate versions of a
given product with any ease.

The two are not connecting on meaning. I leave you to speculate on whether it
is deliberate.

Sontag seems to be saying that full versions of any system is what version
control is designed to do. Thomas seems to be saying that only versions of
files tagged for production releases are associated with a product. Both
statements can be correct based on my (limited) use of version control software.
(I have only used three different VC systems, all on PC's that were networked.)
Sontag's implied conclusion that all associated files are available in
intermediate form seems to be the weak link in the logic chain. There is
nothing to support that step. Sontag's experience does not indicate that he has
ever worked on more that a single system, so for him, every intermediate file is
associated with that system.

Am I missing something? Is this customary in legal filings?

-- Alma

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration --No Dispute
Authored by: rand on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 12:06 PM EDT
p 1-6 just repeat stuff from the first declaration.

7. In a subsequent declaration (Thoms Declaration II), filed on August 4, 2004
in support of IBM's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Christopher Sontag, Ms.
Thomas asserts that "The Sontag Declaration contains numerous factual
errors . . . [and] Mr. Sontag does not have any personal knowledge of IBM's CMVC
system."

The first point is never directly answered at all ("There are no factual
errors because..."). The second point is CONFIRMED later on! I have to
wonder why he brought them up at all.

8. [...] "The Sontag Declaration contains no testimony at all...showing
that Sontag has any personal knowledge of CMVC..."

Another point not disputed, in fact confirmed.



---
Eat a toad for breakfast -- it makes the rest of the day seem so much easier
(Chinese (I'm told) proverb) (IANAL and so forth and so on)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Devil's Advocate
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 12:38 PM EDT

Sontag is a muttonhead who doesn't have nearly the qualifications to go up against Thomas, but there is one section of the exhibit SCO provided that supports their point:

1.4.1.3 File Change Control and History
CMVC ensures that an audit trail is maintained for every file by identifying for any file change: when the change occured, who was responsible, and why the file was modified. If problem tracking is in place, CMVC ensures that all file changes identify the authorizing defect or feature, and that no file changes are allowed without such authorization.

That sounds like exactly what SCO wants. I wish IBM would better explain why it's so difficult to pull the (completely unwarranted and unnecessary) information SCO is whining about, like that the AIX code for older, obsolete revisions aren't in the same repository and don't match up with the newer stuff, and would therefore have to be put back together by hand, things of that nature. Simply saying that Sontag is a buffoon, while true, is no better than Sontag saying pointing and saying "yes they can, because I took Visual Basic in college once!". Now, SCO has no basis for requesting the AIX code in the first place, and they never did. What is in AIX has nothing to do with what is in SysV or in Linux. Still, I'd hate for IBM to end up with a lot of busy work just because they didn't do a good job of explaining why CMVC isn't going to automate the process as easily as Sontag claims it could. Well, that, and I'm kinda interested in the kind of resources and planning it'd take to pull that off, myself. :-)

Paul C.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaratio
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 05:17 PM EDT
Novell was (is still?) a big Continuus user when it comes to software cm
systems. Although he doesn't specifically reference it in his Novell
experience, I wouldn't be surprised if this is what he was alluding to.

For a Continuus reference see
http://www.telelogic.com/products/synergy/index.cfm

They were bought out by Telelogic about 3-4 years ago and the Continuus/CM
product was relabled CM/Synergy and then just Synergy. Novell was one of the
big reasons that Continuus developed the Task Based CM methodology which goes a
step beyond simple version control and release management. Similar TBCM
functionality is now present in Rational's ClearCase and a few other high end
products.

I was a Continuus employee from about 97 up until shortly after the buyout. I'm
an ex-client, did sales and also professional services so I know Continuus/CM
inside and out. At one point I had a customer who was an ex-IBM CM person with
experience in CMVC who eventually picked up Continuus for another company he was
currently working for.

From what I gathered from working with him, CMVC was basic version control with
some additional metadata for release management.

It's possible Sonntag may have had much higher expectations of what a software
CM system could do. Continuus/CM would be able to handle all aspects of
parallel development and the TBCM would be able to track all of the file changes
necessary for a particular task... a rather daunting challenge for a basic
version control system.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The one thing I agree with SCO on
Authored by: GLJason on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 05:51 PM EDT
I don't think it would be that hard to get SCO what they are wanting (which is not exactly what they are asking for). Take a look at an IBM document on CMVC. Look at the diagram on page 8 (PDF page 30). Clearly there IS a root node in a "family" (AIX has about 30 families). It is linked to components and releases. Components and releases are linked to files. See numbered page 9 (PDF page 31):
CMVC ensures that an audit trail is maintained that explains, for every CMVC file, who modified the file, when it was changed, and why. CMVC provides traceability forward from the defect or feature to all releases in which is is resolved, and backward from the specific version of, or set of changes in a given file to the defect or feature that is related to the file.
So like I said before, you have all the files in the 232 versions you have already given, just trace their history back. You have all releases, look for any file in any release and trace them back. THIS would not be very hard. That is not what SCO is asking for and IBM isn't offering anything. I think it is what SCO wants, but they aren't smart enough to ask for it that way. The way they are asking for it would technically be very difficult and IBM is targetting their specific request, not the intent of their request. I think this is very sneaky on IBM's part. They say there isn't a root directory named "AIX". Of course not, the information for CMVC is stored in an RDBMS on about 8 servers. The 30 or so families are on those 8 servers and could be queried.

Any recorded version of a file can be extracted for reference purposes. The version specified can be either the current version, the version current at a given date, or the version associated with a particular version ID.
And from my extensive use of RDBMS, I can say that it wouldn't be hard to query those versions unless their table layouts are mind-numbingly stupid. However, they appear to trumpet CMVC as easy to use and easy to design custom tools for so I highly doubt that is the case.

And on page 20 (PDF page 42)

Additionally, [customers] use CMVC control product documentation, departmental procedures, design specifications, charts and drawings, test cases and results, and various binary file formats, such as electronic publishing internal format document files, online product information images, and application executables.
Page 97 (75 in the PDF) has information about IBM's use of CMVC in creating and maintaining AIX. they have 8 servers and about 30 families. The largest server maintaining AIX controls more than 500,000 files, organized in about 1800 components. More than 3,000 active users work with this one family on this one single server.

It seems like IBM has AIX segregated from othat code that may be in CMVC by the server, or at least by the family. They should be able to pull the history for those families fairly easily since their interface (SQL and TCP/IP commands are two ways) is so extensible and easy to program tools for.

IBM appears to have done this already to get the "about 232" versions of AIX they have supplied. There are several specific things that I think SCO should ask for and make IBM explain why each one would be difficult. If it would be easy to get information back to a certain date or version, but not all the way back to 1984, they should say how far back they could get the data easily for.

  1. Histories of the files in current releases of AIX already provided back until their history is no longer stored in CMVC.
  2. Extra fields and notes in CMVC for the releases they have supplied and for the ones they could supply in response to #1
  3. Any documentation pertaining to the files in #1 and #2 that may be in CMVC and related to any releases or files.
The battle right now would be like a person going to a library and requesting the complete works of Isaac Asimov. Then the library tells them that would be a time-consuming task and take months to do. The reason is that they are missing a few of his lesser known works and would need to find them somewhere. However, they are refusing the request for that reason but they could in fact give the customer all the books they have fairly easily.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The whole thing is a "look at the wookie" exercise
Authored by: kh on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 07:00 PM EDT
SCO haven't shown why code that is owned, copyrighted and based on
patents owned by IBM should be part of the discovery anyway.

Of what relevance is it to the case?


---
43 - for those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe
and everything.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaratio
Authored by: jccooper on Thursday, September 02 2004 @ 08:54 PM EDT
"17. Any programmer would know that a configuration management and version
control system could not function in a manner as described in the Thomas
Declarations and still be a viable tool for managing a company's
software."

Funny, as a programmer myself, I find Thomas's descriptions quite plausible, so
far as I've seen them. It seems to me that Sontag has a rather idealistic view
of the operation of a source control system. Reality is often much more
complex.

"18. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sontag Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag's Declaration - PDF and text
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 08:37 AM EDT
Christopher Sontags proves IBM's point, his main claim is as follows

From 1988 to 1995, I was employed by Novell, Inc. One of
the positions that I filled at Novell during this time
was director of Program Management. In that position I
had overall responsibibility for the development and
release of the NetWare 4.0 product - which involved over
500 software developers, testers and documentation
writers.

Having tried to roll out NW4.0, the one thing I know is that software management
and version control was not something that Novell had under control. Service
packs would back rev modules, or miss out hot fix updates and at times not even
install because other patches had been installed.

If he was involved in the CMVC system at Novell, he has proven that he does not
know how to manage a large project with such a system. If he was not involved
then he can not say that he knows how a system should be used.

[ 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 )