|
|
| Chris Sontag's Supplemental Declaration - as text |
 |
|
Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 06:27 PM EDT
|
Here is Chris Sontag's Supplemental Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike as text. In presenting his qualifications, he says that at university, he "consulted with individual programmers on various aspects of computer programming." So, slashdotters and Groklawians are qualified to give their opinions too, I think. Why, just the other day, I was asking a programmer about an aspect of computer programming. I dare say that qualifies me to testify. Please? Pretty please? We sooo want to tell the judge what our opinion of all this is. No kidding. There would be a line around the block three times, and then to the
moon!Joke. Joke. But SCO does say Sontag is just giving a layman's opinion here, and that no specialized knowledge is required, so keep that in mind as you read. Thanks go to David Truog for transcribing and to Electric Dragon for proofreading this document.
*************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE,
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
David K. Markarian (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Robert Silver, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Frederick S. Frei (admitted pro hac vice)
Aldo Noto (admitted pro hac vice)
John K. Harrop (admitted pro hac vice)
ANDREWS KURTH LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
THE SCO GROUP,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant.
|
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
CHRISTOPHER SONTAG IN SUPPORT
OF SCO'S OPPOSITION TO IBM'S
MOTION TO STRIKE
Case No. 2:03-CV-0294 DAK
Judge: Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Brooke C. Wells
|
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SONTAG
1. My name is Christopher Sontag, and I am a Senior Vice President of SCO. My office is located at [redacted by Groklaw]. This Supplemental Declaration is based on my personal knowledge.
2. I submit this Declaration as a supplement to my July 9, 2004 Declaration, which was submitted in support of SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on IBM's Tenth Counterclaim.
3. I am informed by counsel that IBM has moved to strike my July 9, 2004 Declaration for lack of my personal knowledge and lack of qualifications to address the matters that I addressed. In addition to the material in my July 9 Declaration, I set forth herein the personal knowledge and qualifications for the statements in my July 9 Declaration.
4. In my July 9 Declaration in support of SCO's Rule 56(f) Motion, I describe and explain SCO's need for discovery related to IBM's Configuration Management/Version Control ("CMVC") system, how such discovery together with other discovery of third parties would reduce logistical and evidentiary obstacles facing SCO, and how discovery would allow SCO to present pertinent facts regarding IBM's Tenth Counterclaim to the Court.
5. As to my qualifications, I received a Bachelor's degree in Information Management ("IM") from Brigham Young University in 1988. My computer science and IM courses included 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. I also took many other introductory computer science and information management courses.
6. While at Brigham Young, I drafted computer code, wrote programs to solve individual problems presented to the university's Computer Consultation Center where I worked, consulted with individual programmers on various aspects of computer programming, and provided private software consulting services.
7. From 1988 to 1995, I was employed by Novell, Inc. One of the positions that I held 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. My responsibilities included managing the overall software development and release of this network operating system.
8. I was familiar with the source code control system utilized by Novell for the NetWare product release and was responsible for implementing stringent source code lock-down procedures using the source code control system. I had overall supervision over the various development groups including programmers who were required to use Novell's source code control - or version control - system on a regular basis to record programming changes. I had overall responsibility for the engineers who on a daily basis worked with and maintained the source code control system. I had direct experience with the source code check-in and check-out procedures used by the Novell software programmers.
9. From 1996 until 2000, I served as Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of a company that I co-founded. As CTO, I had overall responsibility for software design development, technical strategy, intellectual property and information systems as well as general executive management. As CTO, I also led the evaluation and selection process of the source code control/source code management system that was used by the development team. The selection process
involved comparing and contrasting the capabilities of various source code control systems to select the most suitable system for the company.
10. During my time at SCO beginning in 2000, one of my responsibilities was overall strategy and direction over the UNIX operating system.
11. My work history has given me the experience and background to understand how software code is written, developed, annotated, tracked and controlled. Much of my career has been spent managing software development processes.
12. I have read portions of IBM documents about its CMVC product. These documents describe IBM's source code management tool. The system described is similar to the source code management systems with which I became familiar at Novell and thereafter. In addition, I am familiar with SCO's source code management (or version control) system, an excerpt from which is contained in Exhibit M to my July 9 Declaration. Anyone who has had the responsibilities in the software industry which I have had necessarily becomes familiar with the uses, benefits and capabilities of source code management tools, also referred to as version control systems.
13. The literature on CMVC which I reviewed together with my prior experience with such systems informed me of what information can be extracted from CMVC. On this basis, I explained how use of CMVC will assist SCO in the code comparison process. I note that the uses of the system that I described are basic and any version control system should be capable of executing them.
14. As part of this litigation, I have reviewed portions of the UNIX source code and Linux source code, and have been involved in SCO's process of attempting to expedite that code comparison effort.
15. From my review of the Linux and UNIX operating systems and my knowledge of the amount of code in each, and my understanding of the various complicated and inter-related functions which a large-scale operating system must be able to perform, I know that comparing the UNIX and Linux operating systems is a difficult and time-consuming task.
16. The statements made in my July 9 Declaration are based on my educational background, including my specialized course work in computer science and information management, my work experience, my management of software development teams, and my work in this litigation. Specific bases for specific paragraphs follow herein.
17. Large portions of Paragraphs 4-25 of my July 9 Declaration address the basics of the process of comparing UNIX code and Linux code. They are observations about rudimentary processes and hence do not require any specialized knowledge. That the kernel is the core portion of an operating system and that the UNIX and current version of Linux operating systems' kernels are complex are basic facts which are publicly available and publicly known, and certainly known by me.
18. Paragraphs 8, 9, and 15-23 are based on my first-hand knowledge from having been involved in SCO's search for infringing Linux code.
19. I have organized and reviewed output from the output report generating tools of the automated code comparison products which SCO has used. Thus, I have first-hand experience with what the tools can and cannot do. Some of the shortcomings of the automated tools are described in Paragraphs 10-13 of my July 9 Declaration.
20. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of my July 9 Declaration present simple mathematical calculations based on assumptions described therein. The example recited in Paragraph 14 is intended only to show that manual code comparison is not feasible in light of the millions of lines of code involved. From my involvement in searching for infringing Linux code, I have first-hand knowledge of the time-consuming nature of manual code comparisons.
21. Paragraphs 24-36 of my July 9 Declaration explain the discovery that SCO needs from IBM and from third parties. These paragraphs are based on my personal knowledge of and involvement in the code comparisons performed thus far by SCO, my prior experience (above) with version control systems and bug tracking systems, and my understanding based on IBM literature of what AIX and Dynix version control systems and "bug" tracking systems could contribute to the monumental code comparison process which SCO seeks to undertake in a more efficient way than is currently possible.
22. In this regard, although SCO can identify current versions of Linux code, and has access to all prior UNIX code, I know from personal observation that UNIX code and Linux code do not contain references to each other. To trace Linux code contributed by IBM back to its parentage in SCO code, SCO needs to examine successive versions of AIX and Dynix. Paragraph 29 of my July 9 Declaration explains this problem and is based on my prior experience with version control systems, my reading about CMVC, and my experience with the SCO team working on code comparisons.
23. Paragraphs 37-42 and Exhibits A-N of my July 9 Declaration are based on my review of the UNIX "perror.c" code versions presented therein. These paragraphs and exhibits demonstrate how a later code version is derived from an earlier code version even though the code itself appears very different between the later and the earlier code versions.
24. To make the observation set out in paragraphs 37-42 of my July 9 Declaration, I requested that an example of code permutation be drawn from UNIX code and be one that is presentable in a compact, easy-to-understand format. I then looked at the various versions of "perror.c" UNIX code that had been put together under my direction. Based on that effort, I presented the Tables and Exhibits and testimony in my July 9 Declaration regarding the versions of perror.c UNIX code.
25. Paragraphs 43-48 of my July 9 Declaration are based on my prior experience with and understanding of version control systems and "bug" tracking systems for software code, on my knowledge and understanding of how software code is developed, and on my reading of IBM documents on CMVC.
26. Paragraphs 50-60 of my July 9 Declaration discuss the methods that SCO is trying to use to prove that SCO code has improperly been placed into Linux and/or modified and placed into Linux by Linux developers. These Paragraphs are based on my first-hand participation in SCO's process for finding Linux code which is substantially similar to UNIX code, the difficulties I have observed in obtaining adequate materials to do efficient code comparisons, and my work with and review of output from automated code comparison tools.
27. Anyone who has read white papers, design documents and programmers notes would know what type of information can be found in these documents. I have worked with programmers on software projects and know the purpose and circumstances of when they create white papers, design documents, and programming notes for software code development. Based on that experience, and based on having read such documents over the years, I know what type of information can be found in these materials. On that basis, I provided the descriptions in Paragraphs 51-53 and reached the conclusion in Paragraph 54 that SCO needs to obtain such materials in order to analyze potential copyright infringement in IBM's Linux activities.
28. Paragraphs 57-60 contain facts known by me and that I believe are generally known.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Supplemental Declaration of Christopher Sontag is true and correct.
September 7 . 2004
Lindon, Utah
_____[signed]_____
Christopher Sontag
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SONTAG IN SUPPORT OF SCO'S OPPOSITION TO IBM'S MOTION TO STRIKE to be mailed by U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, this 7 day of September, 2004, to the following:
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.
_____[signed]_____
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: joef on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:03 PM EDT |
I would place his technical qualifications as a programmer and technical team
leader as somewhere between an advanced apprentice and a journeyman. He's
certainly not qualified as an expert in the field. Many undergraduate CS majors
get the level of experience he describes as the duties of a part-time job in the
CS department computer center.
And I believe most programmers in the trenches look upon an IM degree as
prepping for the PHB career path, not the technical expert path.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:03 PM EDT |
At what point does a US court say "enough of this nonsense, get a case or
go straight to Jail, do not pass go and do not collect $200"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MrTimPA on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
| Wow - first post! But, the usual applies...:) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Franki on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
Mozilla foundation have started a publicity thing for Firefox.
My link
to it is here.
Mozilla Firefox, Spread the word.
They give me
brownie points for people clicking the link, so I thought I'd give it a try. And
it is without a doubt a worthy cause.
Rgds
Franki---
Is M$ behind Linux
attacks?
http://htmlfixit.com/index.php?p=86 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: echeadle on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
Judge:
On this side we have the world heavyweight champion.
Facing him today from that great state of Utah is a fellow you may never have
heard of, but one time he watched a bout and in college he handed towels to
people--this man knows what sweat smells like and now feels he is fully
qualified to jump into the ring and duke it out!
SCO, Boies---You have got to be kidding.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:26 PM EDT |
Sontag stated:
"While at Brigham Young, I drafted computer code,
wrote programs to solve individual problems presented to the university's
Computer Consultation Center where I worked, consulted with individual
programmers on various aspects of computer programming, and provided private
software consulting
services."
/********************/
/** pause_key.c
***/
/** by Chris Sontag **/
/********************/
int keypressed = 0;
void
static main(int argc, char[] argv*) {
printf("Press any key to
continue...\n");
keypressed = getch();
}
(sorry
about formatting --> geeklog's fault. also, my c skills are poor due to
atrophy :-D ).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Visual basic is more likely - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:58 PM EDT
- myfirst.c - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:59 PM EDT
- myfirst.c - Authored by: Ares_Man on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 08:04 PM EDT
- myfirst.c - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 04:36 AM EDT
- myfirst.c - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 05:37 AM EDT
- more like this... - Authored by: bone_bag on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 05:51 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:32 PM EDT |
The judge's response on Mr Sonntags could be very short and to the point:
"When you assume, you make an ass of u and me"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Just Assume - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:38 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: WojtekPod on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
<sarcasm>
Chris Sontag:
I have read portions of IBM documents about its CMVC product.
Me:
And I have watched portions of Apollo 11's moon landing. This fact, as a lay
person, make me fully qualified to say that TSCOG people are really cows that
fell from the moon. And landed on their heads.
</sarcasm>
Wojciech Podgórni
PS. Are they really that stupid?!? I have also completed some IT subjects on my
University of Economics and read portions of Oracle datebase documentation (and
installed and used Oracle for some time). Does this make me a valid person to
testify in Oracle court cases?!?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:44 PM EDT |
| So there's expert witness testimony, fact witness tesimony, and... layman's
opinion testimony? Could someone please give some examples of court cases where
a layman's opinion was actually used? And how it's integrated with all the other
evidence in a court case? ---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for
a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
(Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AMc on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:44 PM EDT |
I read through this and fell over laughing! It's like watching an old pertual
rerun of the M*A*S*H television series where LtCol. Blake is gone and Frank
Burns is practicing his best attempt at administrative tyrrany...
*visions of
Sontag walking around Darl's office after hours, a poor admin stuck taking notes
as he rambles...*
3. I am informed by counsel that IBM has moved
to strike my July 9, 2004 Declaration for lack of my personal knowledge and lack
of qualifications to address the matters that I addressed. In addition to the
material in my July 9 Declaration, I set forth herein the personal knowledge and
qualifications for the statements in my July 9 Declaration...
But seriously, I really wonder who deposed Mr. Sontag. This
is so poor that most first year law students would do better for form and
construction. There is no solid development of why he should be considered as a
witness, no construction of relevancy, decidedly little proofing, structure that
would put a technical communications professor in agony... It's almost like
someone told poor Chris to go write a deposition, handed him an outline, and he
did his best to plug in answers. For a 'second' try, he comes up sounding
unconvinced of his qualifications for his own job![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:49 PM EDT |
This is the fifth story PJ has posted today. Is that a record? And when does she
sleep? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:50 PM EDT |
he appointed himself Chief Technical Officer of his own company.
I gather, since he's no longer there, that he failed in the job.
At Novell he was a program manager. Apparently he was so good at that that he's
no longer there.
There's a saying that employers should beware of candidates with overly varied
and numerous job history. Here's an object lesson why that's true.
---
The SCO Group's secret project to develop Artificial Stupidity has obviously
succeeded!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:55 PM EDT |
| Has the Novell-SCO hearing been scheduled yet? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
| September 15 = DDay for the World vs. the SCO 3rd Reich. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 08:02 PM EDT |
Judge: So, you have in depth knowledge of the code in question?
Sontag: No your honor, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 08:04 PM EDT |
In this regard, although SCO can identify current versions of Linux code, and
has access to all prior UNIX code, I know from personal observation that UNIX
code and Linux code do not contain references to each other. To trace Linux code
contributed by IBM back to its parentage in SCO code, SCO needs to examine
successive versions of AIX and Dynix.
Well, there it is. Sontag is
on record admitting they lied about literal copying to the press. Their case is
solely based on a flawed view of derivative works, the same view that lost in
the USL vs Berkely lawsuit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Franki on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 08:43 PM EDT |
IT is my laypersons opinion that mr Sontag is an idiot. I'm not an expert on the
subject, but apparently that is not important any more.
Furthermore, I am pretty sure I could get expert testimony that he is in fact
an idiot. So now we just have to work out what the penalty is for being an
idiot, because there can be no doubt that anybody who has seen any form of
idiot, or read about them, or knew someone who knew someone who once saw an
idiot can testify that mr sontag is in fact an idiot.
Wow, I think I just passed the SCO bar exam. :-)
rgds
Franki
---
Is M$ behind Linux attacks?
http://htmlfixit.com/index.php?p=86[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 09:13 PM EDT |
"6. While at Brigham Young, I drafted computer code, wrote programs to
solve individual problems presented to the university's Computer Consultation
Center where I worked, consulted with individual programmers on various aspects
of computer programming, and provided private software consulting services"
Chris Sontag
While I, Chris Sontag, was at Brigham Young, I drafted "hello, world"
and similarly complex programs, pestered far more knowledgeable programmers to
help me with doing my homework assignments, and tutored fellow IT management
majors who knew even less than I did. This educational experience gives me the
authority to identify "non-literal" code copying in Linux as such. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 09:21 PM EDT |
"As CTO, I also led the evaluation and selection process of the source code
control/source code management system that was used by the development team. The
selection process involved comparing and contrasting the capabilities of various
source code control systems to select the most suitable system for the
company." Chris Sontag
"I led" - That's a classic example of taking credit for someone else's
work. If I was working for that charlatan, he'd probably be demanding that I do
all the grunt work and give him the results in a Powerpoint presentation with
all the bullet points.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cbc on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
How much direct experience do you have with CMVC?
While you have read that CMVC can produce releases, can you explain the steps
required to produce the detailed intermediate change history requested by SCOG.
Could you create this as a step-by-step procedure to make it easier for IBM to
provide?
While you were at Novell, using their source code change management system, how
many times were you required to produced detailed history of changes of Novell
code in response to subpoena or discovery?
Could you explain the exact methodology, in the Novell system that you have
used, for recovering this information for releases 10 generations before the
current release? Does this apply accross "versions" where all
previous changes are "accepted" and made part of the base for the next
version?
If you cannot explain it and have not done it, how can you estimate the ease
with which this information can be produced?
Thank you very much. It is pretty apparent that you have no more to
contribute.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 09:31 PM EDT |
"12. I have read portions of IBM documents about its CMVC product."
This, in conjunction with my experience in taking credit for other people's
work, makes me - Chris Sontag, more knowledgeable about IBM's version control
procedures and practices than IBM's own personnel. And IBM could not have
possibly used anything other than CMVC, because I haven't read anything but the
CMVC sales brochure.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 09:40 PM EDT |
I know from personal observation that UNIX code and Linux
code do not contain references to each other.
Those are his words.
Thanks Mr. Sontag.
Derek [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 09:43 PM EDT |
This reads like a CV and not like a recognised expert listing his contributions
to a subject over many years.
He did a degree in IT, learnt its basics and shortly afterwards went into
management. Not a great recommendation for a technical expert on the inner
workings of software although perhaps he could claim to know a fair bit about
managing people, departments and companies.
Although I suppose it might get him an interview for a position as manager, I
hardly think it qualifies him to inform the court of the inner workings of any
DMVC system.
Perhaps he should be asked to turn up all his notes, projects, marks, and odd
scribblings from his days at BY, after all he only left there in 1988, it should
be easy.
Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 10:37 PM EDT |
| 1 lead (I assume) - Brent Hatch & 7 followers "pro hac vice"
Looking at
the definition of pro hac vice gives
Pro Hac Vice: (lat.) for this one
particular occasion
OK, so what does "occasion" mean - this one session,
this one case, what?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brian on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 11:07 PM EDT |
paragraphs 16-27 shows that Sontag's only experience with
using version control systems started with this
litigation. It still doesn't address his lack of personal
knowledge of CMVC. His credentials at school (some 30+
years ago) does not make him an "expert". Reading a
pamphlet on CMVC doesn't make him an "expert" either.
Paragraphs 16-27 also show that the summary judgment for
Linux should be granted because they still have not shown
ANY code from UNIX (that they have in their possession) in
Linux (freely available for download) even after their
code comparasons he claims knowledge of. As I said
earlier, SCO is between a rock and a hard spot with this
declaration. If they come up now and say, "We found this!"
then there is a perjury charge waiting for them. If they
let this declaration die, then their chances of getting
their new fishing trip is dead.
---
#ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 11:11 PM EDT |
Is it normal practice for one side to submit a bunch of declarations, wait for
the other side to object, and then submit supplemental declarations in an
attempt to fix all the problems? Seems to be SCO's modus operandi. Perhaps
IBM's team should send a bill with a hefty consulting fee to Boies, Schiller
and Flexner.
And if it's not normal practice, how will Judge Kimball look upon this pattern
of "uh, what I really meant was..."?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brian on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 11:16 PM EDT |
paragraphs 16-27 shows that Sontag's only experience with
using version control systems started with this
litigation. It still doesn't address his lack of personal
knowledge of CMVC. His credentials at school (some 30+
years ago) does not make him an "expert". Reading a
pamphlet on CMVC doesn't make him an "expert" either.
Paragraphs 16-27 also show that the summary judgment for
Linux should be granted because they still have not shown
ANY code from UNIX (that they have in their possession) in
Linux (freely available for download) even after their
code comparasons he claims knowledge of. As I said
earlier, SCO is between a rock and a hard spot with this
declaration. If they come up now and say, "We found this!"
then there is a perjury charge waiting for them. If they
let this declaration die, then their chances of getting
their new fishing trip is dead.
P.S. What is going on with the Groklaw server? It is so
sluggish when it does work (which is not too often these
days).
B.
---
#ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AuraSeer on Tuesday, September 14 2004 @ 11:43 PM EDT |
Sontag says: I know from personal observation that UNIX code and Linux
code do not contain references to each other.
This looks like an
admission that Linux does not actually contain UNIX code, which would make it
just about the stupidest thing he possibly could have said. That would mean
there's no possibility of copyright infringement, and SCO has just shot itself
in the foot.
We all knew that Darl was lying about finding UNIX code in
Linux, but it's nice to see SCO admit it in a court of law. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mossc on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 12:04 AM EDT |
"19. I have organized and reviewed output from the output report generating
tools of the automated code comparison products which SCO has used"
for some reason this line strikes me as funny. ;-)
Would it not be appropriate to name the "output report generating
tools" or the "automated code comparison products"?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 12:22 AM EDT |
With a 5 billion dollar lawsuit on the line, you would think SCO would take the
effort to find a real CMVC expert to testify, instead of one of their own
executives. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 12:33 AM EDT |
IMPORTANT POINT: Please note the second 31 August comment....
13 August: IBM files their 2nd summary judgement motion
16 August: IBM files their 3rd summary judgement motion
Responses are due 13 September and 16 September respectively
(2 weeks pass)
26 August: SCO to IBM - Hatch to Shaughnessy IBM-279-A-1
- Please agree to defer briefing PSJ motions until 11 February 2005, please
respond by 27 August
- We intend to respond under rule 56f
27 August: IBM to SCO - Shaughnessy to Hatch IBM-279-A-2
- No we do not agree to defer PSJ motions until 11 February 2005
- It's your fault you haven't done depositions of contract people
- No depositions are necessary for CC8
- IBM are willing to extend time if you respond on the merits, not 56f
- The hearing is set for 9 December, if you're going to do 56f, why shouldn't
the hearing be mid-October?
31 August: SCO to IBM - Hatch to Shaughnessy IBM-279-A-3
- We're going to ask the court to defer the summary judgement motions until 11
February
- But in any event, please agree to give us an extra 30 days to respond to the
PSJs
31 August: IBM notices depositions to begin September 21st IBM-279B
- IMPORTANT: Notice this does not overlap with the period during which SCO
should have prepared their response to the PSJ motions
- The only reason it overlaps is because SCO have sought an extra 30 days
- IBM would probably *not* even have known of this overlap, given the first time
that SCO asked for an extra 30 days, was on the same day as the notice was
served.
1 September Letter: IBM to SCO -- note SCO did not include this letter as an
exhibit, but we know if exists from IBM-279-A-4
2 September: SCO to IBM - Hatch to Shaughnessy IBM-279-A-4
- IBM apparently refused the extra 30 days requested in IBM-279-A-3
- A rather rude letter
3 September: IBM to SCO - Shaughnessy to Hatch IBM-279-A-5
- Confirming IBM refused the extra 30 days requested in IBM-279-A-3
- "If SCO truly believes that it appropriately may ask the Court to delay
briefing on tese motions to the close of fact discovery, it has had three weeks
within which to do so (and an additional 10 days before the opposition is due),
which should have been more than sufficient."
(5 days pass)
8 September - SCO files two motions
- a request for 30 days more to respond to IBM PSJs (IBM-277-1)
- a request for the PSJs to be delayed until February (IBM-281-1)
- in SCO's motion they complain about the depositions interfering with their
response to the PSJs, but the only only reason there is an overlap at all, is
SCO sought delay to respond to the PSJs
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 12:38 AM EDT |
Although I hate to say it, he seems reasonably
experienced.... Not what I would call an "expert", but
what is the legal definition of "expert"?
My qualifications would certainly outweigh his and so
would most people's in the field, I'd think. Based on
what he presented (if true), I'd think he could talk,
inspite of 99% of real experts certainly disagreeing with
him.
Matthew [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ewe2 on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 01:13 AM EDT |
...when you ask for a managers view of reality. He assumes he knows what he's
talking about because he signed the paychecks and distributed the task sheets.
He assumes that he understands IBM's VCS because it sounds similar to Novell's,
but can't explain why that should be relevant.
He admits there is no direct reference between SYSV and Linux and claims this
is very difficult to research yet wants all the intermediate versions of
whatever IBM has in the hope that something might turn up, yet is certain
they've copied something but can't say what it is.
Managers. There's too damn many of them for effective evolution.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 01:48 AM EDT |
Not that Boies has stood in front of a judge on SCO's behalf yet, but should
that happen, I imagine it will go something like this scene from Futurama.
http://www.gotfuturama.com/Interactive/FanFiction/Kryten/Oyster_Syndrome.dhtml
-----
(The Hyperchicken gets up, tucks his wings inside his suspenders. Begins to pace
back and forth, very Matlock-like)
Hyperchicken: Now, yo' honah, ah'm just an ol'-fashioned country hyperchicken
lawyer. Ah may not have a lot o' fancy book-larnin', or be a member of yo'
hoity-toity Bar Assosiation, or anythin' like that. But what ah do know is this:
ah have absolutely no idea what ah'm flappin mah beak about.
Zoidberg: Ooh, he's good.
Hyperchicken: Now, mah clients may be guilty. Matter o'fact, they probably are.
So, if it please the court, ah move that ah be slapped silly fo' this heah
ridiculous openin' statement...
Judge: Agreed. Bailiff?
(The bailiff slaps the Hyperchicken.)
Bailiff: How's that?
Hyperchicken: Much obliged, suh.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 03:04 AM EDT |
Oh, well, I didn't really think of myself as a "Groklawyer".
-- Andreas[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 03:13 AM EDT |
What he appears to be saying is
1: I have done some programming in the past
2: I have watched other programmers use a VCS about 10 years ago.
3: I have read documents about how CVCS works now.
4: This is of course how it was used 20 years ago.
5: I only have a CS major's vaigue grasp on the subject but if i am loud enough,
perhaps my hearsay will be accepted as truth. After all it worked for the
so-called technical press.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 03:48 AM EDT |
IM 333 Microcomputer Programming
IM 349 Information Systems Technology and Management.
IM 360 Systems Analysis
IM 437 Database and Information Systems
IM 433 Advanced Programming Language
IM 460 Advanced System Analysis and Design
6 courses (this is probably one year's study for normal people). I wonder how
many of the at least 460 courses, other students took.
US guys: Is Brigham a decent University? I have only heard of MIT, Harvard and
Yale.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 06:14 AM EDT |
| I think this
article explains what is happening.
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How
Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated
Self-Assessments
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their
abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this
overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these
domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous
conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of
the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found
that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and
logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their
test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in
the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in
metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error.
Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their
metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their
abilities.
H@ns
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: coffee17 on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:24 AM EDT |
Is to erase from the minds of the judge any mention of someone or someones
who could be considered to be the MIT deep divers or other groups who allegedly
investigated linux for TSG. When IBM brought that up in their motion to strike
I think it scared TSG badly. The last thing they want is a judge compelling
them to either admit to no evidence or to offer up obviously lacking evidence.
While there's the obvious note of giving IBM their Lanham counter claim, there's
more importantly a number of fraud charges and share holder law
suits.
Has anyone ever seen TSG back away from something else as quickly
as they jumped away from pointing towards prior analysis?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 07:34 AM EDT |
NO NO NO NO!
THE TEST IS: "Is the code you are checking[LINUX]
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR to the code you [SCO] own"
If its not
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR you have no case
Or you end up arguing
that CODE WHICH IS DIFFERNT to your code qualifies as SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
Which is MAD SCO speak(see P.22 below)
22. In this regard,
although SCO can identify current versions of Linux code, and has access to all
prior UNIX code, I know from personal observation that UNIX code and Linux code
do not contain references to each other. To trace Linux code contributed by IBM
back to its parentage in SCO code, SCO needs to examine successive versions of
AIX and Dynix. Paragraph 29 of my July 9 Declaration explains this problem and
is based on my prior experience with version control systems, my reading about
CMVC, and my experience with the SCO team working on code
comparisons. ---
Linux used ideas from MINIX
MINIX|UNIX
UNIX|MULTICS
MULTICS|CTSS
CTSS|FMS
In science, all work is based on what came before it.
Andy Tanenbaum, 6June04 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
How things will go:
Chris: Your Honor, I owned a Ti-99/4A when I was younger, and I programmed in
Basic. This qualifies me to speak to IBM's Configuration Management Software
Suite
Judge: 4 words...Shut Up Ferret Face.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 12:35 PM EDT |
I was under the impression that Chris Sontag was brought into Caldera by Darl
McBride circa 2002 just before (or after) the name change to SCOG.
Am I losing my mind or has Chris actually been working for SCO since 2000 ? If
so, was he previously a Caldera employee or an oldSCO employee ? Does anyone
know ?
If he is factually wrong here, I would think that would cast a poor light on the
rest of his declaration....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15 2004 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
At pointed out by others already, Sontag appears to admit
that there is no UNIX
code in Linux.
Some other interesting things:
- He admits to using
an automated code comparison tool
to compare UNIX and Linux. This had to have
produced
something, yet they have not provided anything based on
this. Could
this be something IBM will use in court? "Your
honor, they admit to running
comparisons, but they refuse
to give us the results."
- Why doesn't he
refer to Caldera by name? In para. 9,
he refers to it as "a company that I
co-founded." This is
an interesting change; SCO has seemed afraid to bring up
the Caldera issue much, but has referred to it as it's
"predecessor in
interest." Why the change?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
