|
Supplemental Declaration of Sandeep Gupta - as text |
|
Monday, December 06 2004 @ 12:36 AM EST
|
Here is the Supplemental Declaration of Sandeep Gupta [PDF] in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike, as text. Our thanks to Loguar for doing the transcribing and HTML. As you will recall, IBM's Motion to Strike [PDF] asked that certain materials SCO had offered in opposition to IBM's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its 10th Counterclaim, including Mr. Gupta's Declaration, be stricken, for the reason that that Rule 56(f) says you can offer declarations that are expert opinion or you can offer a lay person testifying to facts based on personal knowledge, but according to IBM, Gupta doesn't fit either category: "Specifically, SCO offers the declarations of three witnesses, Sandeep Gupta, Chris Sontag and John Harrop, consisting almost entirely of testimony not made on personal knowledge and improper opinion testimony. Indeed, SCO does not even attempt to show that these witnesses may properly offer opinion testimony, either because the testimony is 'rationally based on the perception' of the witnesses, Fed. R. Evid. 701, or that the witnesses are 'qualified as experts by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education' and have applied 'reliable principles and methods' in reaching their conclusions, Fed. R. Evid. 702." SCO filed its Memorandum in Opposition, and IBM replied. Here, Mr. Gupta defends himself and presents his credentials, in support of SCO's opposition to IBM's Motion to Strike. However, one wonders why, since SCO says in their Memorandum in Opposition that, while he could qualify as an expert, instead he is offering testimony based on personal knowledge, as a lay person, not as an expert. So Mr. Gupta testifies that code in Unix and Linux is similar, but he is testifying only as a layman. And on the other side, we have the world-renowned Dr. Randall Davis of MIT, who has provided a Declaration testifying that it is his expert opinion that there is no similarity. This was filed back in September, so this is to bring our archives up to date, but the issue has not yet been decided.
************************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
Mark R. Clements (7172)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC
[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 The SCO
Group,
Inc.
_____________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
______________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant
_______________________________
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION
OF SANDEEP GUPTA IN SUPPORT OF SCO'S OPPOSITION TO IBM'S MOTION TO
STRIKE
Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
__________________________________
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF SANDEEP GUPTA
1. My name is
Sandeep
Gupta, and I am Vice-President of Engineering of SCO. My office is
located at SCO's offices at 430 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, New
Jersey. This Supplemental Declaration is based on my personal knowledge.
2. I submit this
Supplemental 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 which I discussed. In addition to the material in my July 9,
2004 Declaration, I set forth herein the personal knowledge and
qualifications for the statements in my July 9, 2004 Declaration.
4. In my July 9
Declaration in support of SCO's Rule 56(f) Motion, I set forth six
instances of Linux code being identical to, or substantially similar
to, UNIX code. I set forth these comparisons because they appear to me,
based on my direct observation of them, to be examples of copied code.
5. As I stated in my
July 9 Declaration, I am not an expert in copyright law and therefore
did not present my six examples as legal proof of copyright
infringement. Rather, I provided the facts of six examples which are
evidence of what I believe is code in Linux that is a copy of UNIX
code.
6. My background in computer
engineering and the computer software industry, upon which I drew in
the code comparison process which formed the basis for my July 9
Declaration, is as follows.
7. I graduated from
Delhi College of Engineering ("DCE") in Delhi, India with a Bachelor of
Science degree in Computer Engineering in 1993. DCE is one of the top
engineering institutes in India with only 20 seats each year in the
Computer Engineering faculty for all Indian candidates. My course work
included courses in Computer System Architecture, Network and
Communications, Compiler Design, Operating Systems, Microprocessors,
Analog Circuits, Computer Software Engineering, Databases and
Programming, Parallel Processors, and a software course in Design of
UNIX Operating Systems. During my senior year I developed networking
software on Xenix, using Ring Topology. This software helped network
the computer department with the Math department on campus and was
completely written in C programming language, which is the programming
language in which UNIX and Linux code is written. My internship was at
the Indian Space and Research Organization where I developed an
algorithm and software for speech synthesis on an ADSP microprocessor.
The software was first written in C programming language and then
translated to the assembly language of the ADSP 2100 processor.
8. Upon graduation, I
was employed for a year by Fujitsu ICIM in India as a computer systems
engineer. I worked in the division involved with research and
development on UNIX System V. My work involved developing device
drivers on UNIX System V for different types of devices like tape
drives and multiport serial cards. These drivers were developed in C
language and x86 assembly language.
9. From 1994 to 1996,
I was employed by ICL in the United Kingdom as a Senior Systems
Engineer working on UNIX System V technology. I wrote C language code
for a number of different drivers and kernel modules for the UNIX
System V-based ICL operating systems on SPARC architecture. Some of the
projects I was involved in were to develop a driver for the ICL LAN
products like DRS-Connect, multithreading of the existing serial
driver, and enhancing the SCSI driver. In 1996, I was presented with
the ICL Excellence Award for my work on porting UnixWare modules on
SPARC architecture. Most of my work at ICL was coding software on UNIX
System V-based code and used C/Assembly languages very extensively.
10. I began working for SCO
in the United States in 1996, and have worked for SCO ever since. I
have held positions of, among others, Lead Engineer for SCO's Division
of ISV Engineering, Lead Engineer for the UnixWare Escalations and
Research Division, Senior Manager of Operating Systems Engineering, and
my current position of Vice-President of Engineering for the SCO
Engineering Division. During this time, I further developed my
Operating System Architect skills and worked with top technical people
in the industry. I developed and read hundreds of thousands of lines of
operating system code written in C/Assembly languages. I spent a
significant amount of time reviewing code developed by other developers
and providing my review comments.
11. My responsibilities at
SCO have included numerous projects on Unixware 7. From 1996 to 1999,
my responsibilities included assisting IBM in its DB2 and SNA Gateway
ports to UnixWare 7, and assisting Oracle, Progress, Computer
Associates, Dialogic, and CA Ingres in their respective ports on or to
UnixWare 7. While working on these projects, I enhanced and "debugged"
code in the UNIX System V dynamic runtime libraries, rtld, debugger and
other applications. I also developed kernel hooks to provide run time
optimization of these applications on SCO operating systems.
12. Projects on which I
worked from 1999 through 2001 include: taking the technical lead for
Escalations support for 24x7 Enterprise customers like Unisys and
Compaq. During this time I enhanced UNIX System V IPC code, developed a
module that could detect kernel memory leaks and corruptions for
UnixWare, and did enhancements to the UNIX System V kernel virtual
subsystem.
13. From 2001 to 2004, my
SCO responsibilities have included leading the development of Unixware
7.1.2 and Unixware 7.1.3 releases and being Senior Manager of
engineering on the support and development of SCO's Linux product line.
I also have worked on the development of Web Services technology on SCO
platforms, and have managed several software code engineering
development sites at SCO.
14. As Vice-President of SCO
Engineering beginning in 2004, my responsibilities include all UNIX
System V technology and engineering, as well as responsibility for the
technological and engineering aspects of SCO products such as
OpenServer, UnixWare product lines based on UNIX System V technology,
an embedded product offering called Smallfoot, SCO Web Services, and
OffiServer. I am responsible for co-coordinating and leading the SCO
development centers in New Jersey, California, Utah, and India.
15. In total, I have worked
with UNIX System V code or related code for eleven years. I developed
code on Xenix for about three years during my education, and have
worked on the Linux operating system for about five years.
16. My knowledge of UNIX
permits me to identify files or features or other pieces of code that
are in most modern commercial operating systems.
17. The six examples of
copied code presented in my July 9 Declaration are instances of
comparable Linux code and UNIX code that SCO assembled by July 9 from
then-current work in the SCO code review/comparison process.
18. In my July 9
Declaration, I point to code comparisons that appear to me to be
examples of Linux code which is a copy of UNIX code. In each instance,
I looked at the code, observed its expression, and noted how the
commands operate. I personally reviewed each line of code in the eleven
Tables that I present in the Declaration and in the Exhibits to my July
9 Declaration.
19. I conducted this review
relying on years of experience working with software code and with UNIX
code in particular, my knowledge of C language programming, and my
experience with the SCO team working on code comparisons.
20. In Paragraphs 7 and
12-13 of my July 9 Declaration, I note that Read-Copy-Update ("RCU") is
but one of the methods used to synchronize access to shared data in a
multiprocessing environment. That statement is based on my personal
knowledge of methods other than RCU to deal with synchronized access in
computer operating systems.
21. In Paragraph 8 of my
July 9 Declaration, I state that RCU is a very important part of a
modern computer operating system. That statement is based on my years
of experience with computer operating systems and my understanding of
what operating systems optimally must be able to do.
22. In Paragraph 34 of my
July 9 Declaration, I state that user level synchronization ("ULS") is
a very important part of an operating system. That statement is based
on my years of experience with modern computer operating systems and my
understanding of what operating systems optimally must be able to do.
23. In Paragraphs 47-48 of
my July 9 Declaration, I discuss the fact that there are several ways
to implement the blocking and unblocking acts of ULS. Those statements
are based on my personal knowledge of the alternative
blocking/unblocking acts in AIX and my reading of relevant portions of
the Exhibit K article identified in paragraph 48.
24. In Paragraph 62 of
my July 9 Declaration, I explain that the differences between the
expressions of UNIX Inter-Process Communication ("IPC") code and Linux
IPC code are insubstantial. That statement is based on my personal
knowledge of C programming and how computer code commands work in an
operating system.
25. I also state in
Paragraph 62 that anyone with access to UNIX System V or one of its
derivatives could have had access to the IPC code. That statement is
based on my experience in using UNIX System V and getting access to its
IPC code.
26. In Paragraph 64 of my
July 9 Declaration, I set out how a person can have access to UNIX
System V headers and interfaces. Paragraph 64 is based on my using UNIX
System V to obtain access to header/interface code.
27. My discussion in
Paragraph 74 of the availability of Sys v init code is based on having
read the referenced manual pages and my direct experience with the
releases of UNIX System V in which I accessed init code.
28. In paragraphs 24-29 and
48-49 of my July 9 Declaration, I present information about the access
or potential access to UNIX code that certain persons who worked for
IBM and who worked on Linux may have had. This information is based on
documents that were compiled by members of the SCO team and which I
read and reviewed for inclusion in my July 9 Declaration.
29. I present the
information in paragraphs 24-29 and 48-49 as indication of possible
movement of UNIX code to IBM and thereafter into Linux, and therefore
as discovery leads which SCO needs to pursue if the Court grants SCO a
reasonable opportunity to explore such avenues.
30. To the extent not
already mentioned above, I have read and reviewed the relevant parts of
the Exhibits to my July 9 Declaration.
I delcare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
Supplemental Declaration of Sandeep Gupta is true and correct.
September 7th,
2004
_____[signature]___
Sandeep Gupta
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I caused a true and correct copy of the
foregoing SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF SANDEEP GUPTA IN SUPPORT OF SCO'S
OPPOSITION TO IBM'S MOTION TO STRIKE to be mailed by U.S. Mail, first
class postage prepaid, this 7th 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.
____[signature]______
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 02:27 AM EST |
I can't imagine a single person that I know and consider to be experts in a
programming discipline that would refer to something like "computer code
commands".
And, if I were him, I'd keep quiet about having programmed on
Xenix while being a student. That not exactly the sort of experience that
instills a great deal of confidence in your audience with regard to your
(self-proclaimed) expertise in UNIX.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 02:31 AM EST |
Just to put this in context from IBM's point of view,
it should be compared to IBM's reply memos
1. in support motion to strike materials (which I believe states this should be
stricken too)
and 2. in support of PSJ in CC10 (which I believe states that Gupta fails as a
matter of law in any case by ignoring AFC test, incorrectly claiming public
domain code as subject to copy protection (more ignoring of AFC), and claiming
methods of operation as subject to copyright protection (still more ignoring of
AFC)).
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 02:32 AM EST |
So PJ can find them
---
IANAL
The above post is (C)Copyright 2004 and released under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 02:35 AM EST |
That's funny, I've written various serial and hardware port-based drivers in C
and assembly language. I have also written "limited capability" protected-mode
kernels for testing purposes. Add to that network apps, including bridges and
routers, as well as the gazillion high level apps and scripts I've written at
various companies where I've been employed.
I'd say that goes a bit
further than Mr. Gupta, based on this declaration.
But I have never,
ever considered myself an expert in UNIX code and comparison. Even I know that
there are bound to be similarities which couldn't be categorized as
copying. He couldn't possibly believe that he is really an expert, could
he?
I feel sorry for Mr. Gupta in a way. I can just see the SCO
executives telling him, "It's either tell the story our way, or else...".
For some, that's a difficult prospect to face, especially
nowadays.
--- Collaborative efforts synergise. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Expert? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 12:52 PM EST
- Expert? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 01:24 PM EST
- Expert? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 10:14 AM EST
|
Authored by: webster on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 02:47 AM EST |
They are trying to put him in a spitting contest with the illustrious IBM
expert. Even though his credentials are greatly overshadowed, they contradict
each other and that is what SCO needs to get past this motion - a factual issue.
The IBM guy says there is no copying, Sandeep says there is.
However, since this is copyright, Sandeeps contention needs more. He has to
speek about the copyrights, whose they are, and that they have not been waived
before. They have to show a violation. He also can't say he even knows what
the test is in court, let alone he knows how to apply it, or has any experience
at all doing it. He apparently has no court experience or familiarity with the
precedents in court for determining a copyright violation.
He may be very familiar with working with SCO System V code, but he doesn't say
he knows where it came from or that he wrote it.
The fact is that he would not qualify as an expert. He would not be permitted
to testify to this in the trial. He also has no personal or expert knowledge of
the origin of the code (BSD?) or any copyrights. He just knows he works with it
a lot and it seems to be similar to some linux.
He is their "similarity" or "nonliteral copying" expert. He
is similar to but not literally an expert.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Declaration of Sandeep Gupta - Similar to but not literally an expert - Authored by: rm6990 on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 02:53 AM EST
- Declaration of Sandeep Gupta - Similar to but not literally an expert - Authored by: rm6990 on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 04:13 AM EST
- Declaration of Sandeep Gupta - Similar to but not literally an expert - Authored by: ram on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 04:34 AM EST
- Declaration of Sandeep Gupta - Similar to but not literally an expert - Authored by: blacklight on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 05:57 AM EST
- Declaration of Sandeep Gupta - Similar to but not literally an expert - Authored by: rm6990 on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:07 AM EST
- He's not an expert, no facts in dispute, even SCO agrees - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 10:29 AM EST
- Speculations, conclusions, and province of the court - Authored by: AllParadox on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 10:42 AM EST
|
Authored by: Naich on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 03:51 AM EST |
The weather is nice, isn't it? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: radix2 on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 04:52 AM EST |
As noted with his original declaration, his statements (18-24) fail to take this
into account. Which is understandable if he is not familiar with code analysis
for legal purposes.
In effect what he is saying is that (for example) a modern GUI will require a
widget/control that allows mutually exclusive selection of a single option (a
radio button), and in some cases the underlying code is so similar between
Windows and Mac OS-X that it *must* be copied from one to the other. The
abstraction/filtration test is what is used in this case. What is the function?
How many ways to write it efficiently (the expression of an idea)? If there are
few possible expressions for a given algorithm, then the implementations will be
convergent.
Others would be better able to cite the case which introduced this. I suggest
you look at his original declaration (and the comments about it)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jig on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 05:46 AM EST |
better hurry with these... the judges need all the input before the decision
(cause of course they read groklaw).
hmm. i wonder if it would be declared a mistrial if it was proven the judges
read groklaw.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 05:52 AM EST |
16. My knowledge of UNIX permits me to identify files or features or
other pieces of code that are in most modern commercial operating
systems.
What little gem of SCOspeak and SCOthink at work: he is
saying that SCO owns all the code and features of most modern commercial
operating systems.
Well, taking it literally then he is not able to identify
anything when it comes to the modern non-commercial operating systems.
That guy should have better taken more classes before tapping into a game that
is too big for him to survive. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sproggit on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 07:36 AM EST |
Team,
Here's a question for you regarding the issue of "substantially similar"
code and a process that has been around in the IT industry since sat least the
days of the first PC. I'd like to know if anyone would like to comment on
similarities between this environment and the case of Linux and the allegedly
similar code...
IBM BIOS
Way back when, IBM designed and
developed the Personal Computer, and they had the only game in town. PC hardware
had been born. It didn't take other manufacturers long to figure out that the PC
represented a lucrative market, but in order to enter, they had one significant
problem to overcome. Everything in the PC could be dismantled and inspected,
allowing other suppliers to see how they had been built. Everything, that is,
except for the BIOS. The Basic Input-Output System is the "bootloader" [these
days they have become much more sophisticated] that is responsible for loading a
machine's Operating System from disc.
The challenge for the cloners was
that they had to figure out what the BIOS did, but couldn't reverse engineer it,
because that was against the law. So the work-around that they came up with was
quite clever.
One engineer took an IBM PC and performed a whole series
of exhaustive tests on the machine's BIOS. They recorded exactly all of the
functions that it performed, and under what circumstances it performed them.
They produced a detailed "observed operational performance" document that
described what was learned. Now, in legal parlance [IANAL and working on memory
here] the people who performed the analysis of the operation of the BIOS could
be argued to have "dirty hands" in as much as they had been working directly
with an IBM PC. They therefore wrote a report which they then handed to the
legal representative of their company. The lawyer read the document to ensure
that it did not contain IBM proprietary material, and was as claimed just a
written analysis of the performance of a BIOS.
Satisfied that all was
well, the lawyer then handed the document to the company's engineers, who then
set about writing some BIOS code that performed a substantially similar task. In
a short space of time [with testing] other manufacturers [such as Compaq] had
produced "clone" personal computers, and the world was changed
forever.
That's all ancinet history, but I wonder if there are
similarities with the SCO Case, specifically :
it is one thing for SCO
to claim that there has been literal copying of their code into Linux, but
"substantial similarities" takes us to a very grey area
indeed.
Similar Code or Literal Copying?
Suppose we were to
ask 10 different C programmers to write us a small program that added up the
first 10 integers in sequence, starting with 1, ending with 10, and then printed
the result to the output stream. Now, some of them might write a simple
statement which reads something like :-
total == 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 +
7 + 8 + 9 + 10;
while the more experienced ones will write a simple
loop structure.
The important thing to remember here being that
each of those loop structures will look "substantially similar". Now go back to
my explanation of the way that the functions of the BIOS were analysed and
reproduced in a legal way. It is important to remember here that much of the
"specifications" of the operations of unix were widely known and published
standards. Think of POSIX for example. Think of JAVA, which also has a published
standard, for instance.
Now I'm not suggesting that this was the case,
but given the fact that Linux is a unix-like operating system that was or may
have been derived from published standards, isn't it likely that two talented
programmers are likely to come up with "substantially similar" code? I think
that might be the case. I think that's why SCO might have been asking for all
the access to IBMs CSV system that we went through before. I think SCO realise
that it just isn't enough to show two comparable lines of code that
contain
c == a + b;
and then claim that copying must
have followed. This is a real problem for SCO. I don't think it's going to be
enough for them to argue "substantial similarity" in this case. For example,
consider the file level security system that creates and maintains the
read/write/execute permissions for files. To my knowledge, Linux shares
substantially similar functionality in this instance with Solaris, AIX, HP/UX
and so on. I could therefore deduce that the program code that delivers this
functionality might contain similar operational functions.
Can any of
our readership theorize on exactly how far a court will require SCO to go in
order to prove their claim? Is the accusation enough? Is similar code enough? Or
have we already seen tacit admission from them that they need a complete trail,
complete with smoking gun, in order to prove this
case?
Interesting...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Paul Shirley on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 07:47 AM EST |
17. The six examples of copied code presented in my July 9
Declaration are instances of comparable Linux code and UNIX code that SCO
assembled by July 9 from then-current work in the SCO code review/comparison
process.
Aren't SCOG still claiming in other declarations that no code
comparison has been performed yet? Isn't the whole 'we need a roadmap' line of
argument based on comparison being too hard to even start? Is there any way IBM
get to use this contradiction if his submissions are rejected?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 08:30 AM EST |
RE:
"10. I began working for SCO in the United States in 1996, and have worked
for SCO ever since"...
"11. My responsibilities at SCO have included numerous projects on Unixware
7. From 1996 to 1999"...
"13. From 2001 to 2004, my SCO responsibilities have included leading the
development of Unixware 7.1.2 and Unixware 7.1.3 releases and being Senior
Manager of engineering on the support and development of SCO's Linux product
line"...
"15. In total, I have worked with UNIX System V code or related code for
eleven years. I developed code on Xenix for about three years during my
education, and have worked on the Linux operating system for about five
years"...
-----------------------------------------------------
When you mix the timeline outlined in these statement(s) with the wording of the
GPL, and that Caldera, and that Santa Cruz Operation ALSO did work on LINUX as
well, and that the staff for both these companies are now at SCOx where they
supported, developed and distributed LINUX, and that there is a question as to
what LINUX code may be in UNIXware, in the UNIXware comp add-on, as was
suggested by Chris Hellwig... what do you get?
GPL issues - Caldera/Santa Cruz Operation/SCOx ?
GPL issues with SCOx Unix/Linux AND UNIXware LINUX comp add-on?
GNU/GPL LINUX and UNIX Clean ROOM issues right at SCO itself?
Worked on UNIX and LINUX at same time...how many others at SCOx are tainted?
AND what about the USL vs BSDI settlement agreement and similarity as to the
fact that there is so little code that USL/Novell/Santa Cruz
Operation/Caldera/SCOx can claim a right to?
Exactly where/what is the code that he is saying looks similar?
AND when we take a look at the USL vs BSDI injunction ruling, by another JUDGE
we see that there are questions about USL UNIX and BSD UNIX were the JUDGE
really could not see that there was much protectable with USL UNIX in the first
place (not enough were someone could not just go out and build their own
operating system kernel, without treading on either copyrights or Trade secrets
that USL had, or didn't have (as the judge ruled that any copyrights or Trade
secrets that USL was claiming were dubious, or just did not exist), so the
injunction was denied!
If I were SCOx I would not want this guy admitting such a knowledgable UNIX and
LINUX past while working on BOTH at the same time for over, at least, the past 5
years?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AllParadox on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 09:09 AM EST |
Main posts in this thread may only be made by senior managers or attorneys for
"The SCO Group". Main posts must use the name and position of the
poster at "The SCO Group". Main posters must post in their official
capacity at "The SCO Group".
Sub-posts will also be allowed from non-"The SCO Group" employees or
attorneys. Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO Group"
must be very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the
honorific "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as
appropriate, use correct surnames, not call names or suggest or imply unethical
or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its employees or attorneys.
This thread requires an extremely high standard of conduct and even slightly
marginal posts will be deleted.
P.J. says you must be on your very best behavior.
If you want to comment on this thread, please post under the off-topic thread,
"OT", found above.
---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Latesigner on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 11:16 AM EST |
He wants to testify without being held responsible for what he says and SCO
wants to at least look like it's responding to IBM.
I'm assuming Kimball is going to throw the whole thing out.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 11:18 AM EST |
This is so sad. He is not a legal expert on IP, so his opinion on this matter is
worthless. Besides that, he works for SCO instead of being an independent
expert. Either of these problems is enough to lead the judge to ignore his
claims. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Worse than worthless - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 12:17 PM EST
- Speculation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 01:46 PM EST
|
Authored by: jim Reiter on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 02:53 PM EST |
Even if Gupta's declaration is left in the TSG filings,
IBM has high-lited Gupta's serious lack of qualifications
for the Judge. Good job IBM. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Doubt - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 04:19 AM EST
|
|
|
|