decoration decoration
Stories

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

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

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


User Functions

Username:

Password:

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

No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 03:50 PM EDT

Here's the Todd Shaughnessy affidavit [PDF] from IBM that Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells requested they file when they turned over all the code and paperwork to SCO, which we now find out happened on schedule on March 18.

It's a remarkable document in many ways, and, as I'm sure you'll see for yourself, it's got the air of a company not a bit worried about turning over every last Stickie note it could find, so to speak. They even turned over a server to SCO's "outside counsel", no doubt Boies Schiller, complete with elaborate instructions, even a script to help them find whatever they wish. (I have transcribed Exhibit B, but it throws the page formatting off, and you end up having to scroll, so I'll work on figuring that out, while you read this part. UPDATE: It is now complete.) Frankly, it's hilarious. It tells them how to do everything but plug the server in to the electric outlet. Perhaps they didn't believe Chris Sontag when he claimed to be knowledgeable about how CMVC works.

Why? Well, Judge Wells, in that January Discovery Order, suggested that IBM be thorough so as to block SCO from complaining about not getting everything, and for sure they now have everything IBM says they could find:

IBM is also hereby further ORDERED to file an affidavit specifying the efforts it took to deliver the code from the CMVC and RCS systems. Included in this affidavit should be an attestation to the percentage of AIX and Dynix information found and provided from the CMVC and RCS systems. By requiring this, the court seeks to circumvent future complaints by SCO alleging that IBM failed to provide all CMVC and RCS information.

Knowing SCO, they'll complain that IBM must have more hidden in a mattress somewhere, but it's a tired argument now, with this massive dump of code and white papers.

If SCO complains about wanting more, IBM is now positioned to argue that SCO is being unreasonable, and so is the court, if it goes along with SCO's outre demands. It tells the court just how much this has cost them in man hours and effort, by employees and the legal team. It comes to a pretty penny:

5. Complying with the Court's Order involved more than 4,700 hours of work from more than 400 IBM employees. This does not include the time spent by IBM's counsel and consultants on this project, which was likewise considerable. IBM produced a total of more than 80 GB of source code and other electronic data to SCO, and more than 900,000 pages of paper (which were scanned and produced in electronic form on CDs).

That is a lot of white papers and design documents, and it's a significant amount of money spent, and discovery is not supposed to punish the defendant, so that they end up losing even when they eventually win. I think they've made that point very clear to Judge Wells.

Another interesting point is that it turns out that there aren't even 3,000 contributors to AIX and Dynix code, another indication that the original Wells order was out of line. There were 7,200 people with access to the code, but not all were contributing code, so should SCO come back with more demands -- do you doubt it? -- the outside limit is now considerably less than it seemed to be before. IBM will produce, by July 19, 2005, documents from the files of the 100 individuals who made the most contributions and changes to AIX and Dynix source code, as ordered by Judge Wells when she cut back the requirement to turn over such documents from the 3,000 she thought existed.

So IBM is obeying the order to the max, but it is also letting both the court and SCO know that they feel it was a ridiculous, albeit expensive, fishing expedition. And judging from the tone of this affidavit, and the way IBM turned over every last crumb it could dig up, I gather they don't think SCO will find any fish, either, though they no doubt wish them an elaborate and expensive fishing trip.

**************************************

SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
[address, phone, fax]

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE, LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

______________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

_____________________

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant.

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

___________________

DECLARATION OF
TODD M. SHAUGHNESSY

Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

_____________________

I, Todd M. Shaughnessy, declare as follows:

1. I represent International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") in the above-entitled action brought by The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"). This declaration is submitted pursuant to the Court's January 18, 2005 Order Concerning SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel (the "Order").

2. The Court ordered IBM to produce CMVC and RCS data relating to IBM's AIX and Dynix operating systems, including "all versions and changes to AIX and Dynix" (Order at 9-10), and to produce information regarding the 3,000 AIX and Dynix developers who "made the most contributions and changes to the development of AIX and Dynix". (Order at 16.) With respect to the source code produced from CMVC and RCS, the Court ordered IBM to submit an affidavit "specifying the efforts it took to deliver the code from the CMVC and RCS systems". (Order at 10.) With respect to information about the 3,000 AIX and Dynix programmers who "made the most contributions and changes to the development of AIX and Dynix" the Court ordered IBM to submit an affidavit "detailing the process by which the 3,000 were chosen". (Order at 17.)

3. As described in more detail below, IBM has complied with the Court's Order, and has produced all responsive, non-privileged information located after an extensive search. As ordered by the Court, IBM produced from CMVC and from RCS all source code relating to the AIX and Dynix operating systems, including all versions and changes to the code. IBM also produced from CMVC and RCS all documentation related to the AIX and Dynix operating systems, including all programmer's notes, design documents, and white papers. IBM identified all the individuals who created or made changes to AIX or Dynix source code, as recorded by CMVC and RCS, prepared a list of those individuals, together with their login identifiers and contact information (for every person for whom IBM had that information), and provided that

2

list to counsel for SCO on May 3, 2005. As explained below, the number of individuals who contributed source code to AIX and Dynix (as recorded by CMVC and RCS) is less than 3,000; therefore, the individuals identified for SCO constitute all of the individuals that are identified in CMVC and RCS as having made changes to AIX or Dynix. IBM has produced, in the form of CMVC and RCS data, information that shows what changes to the source code were specifically made by each of these individuals. As provided for by the Court in its April 20, 2005 Order Concerning IBM's Motion for Reconsideration, IBM has not searched for and through all the files of 3,000 individuals. In accordance with that April 20 Order, IBM will produce, by July 19, 2005, documents from the files of the 100 individuals who made the most contributions and changes to AIX and Dynix source code.

4. IBM also undertook a reasonable search for programmer's notes, design documents, white papers and source code related to the AIX and Dynix operating systems that are not stored in CMVC or RCS and has completed its production of these documents to SCO.

5. Complying with the Court's Order involved more than 4,700 hours of work from more than 400 IBM employees. This does not include the time spent by IBM's counsel and consultants on this project, which was likewise considerable. IBM produced a total of more than 80 GB of source code and other electronic data to SCO, and more than 900,000 pages of paper (which were scanned and produced in electronic form on CDs).

6. Section I describes the steps IBM took to produce AIX source code, documentation (including programmer's notes, design documents, and white papers), and other information related to the Dynix operating system from IBM's RCS system. Section II describes the steps IBM took to produce Dynix source code, documentation (including programmer's notes, design document, and white papers), and other information related to the Dynix operating system from IBM's RCS system. Section III describes the steps IBM took to

3

search for, collect, and produce AIX source code, programmer's notes, design documents, and white papers outside of IBM's CMVC system. Section IV describes the steps IBM took to search for, collect, and produce Dynix source code, programmer's notes, design documents, and white papers outside of IBM's RCS system. Section V describes IBM's production of information concerning each of the individuals who made changes to AIX or Dynix, including the names and contact information for these individuals, and what changes each individual specifically made.

I. Production of AIX Code and Documents from CMVC

7. CMVC is the source code revision system currently used by IBM's AIX development organization. CMVC has been used in AIX development since 1991. Other than the AIX source code stored in CMVC, IBM does not maintain revision control information for AIX prior to 1991. CMVC does not contain any source code or other information for the Dynix operating system.

8. CMVC provides shared access to source files used in the development of the AIX operating system, allows IBM to keep track of changes that are made to source code files, and ensures that the files are available for viewing or updating only by those with the proper authorization.

9. In accordance with the Court's January 18, 2005 Order, IBM identified and extracted from CMVC all of the source code, documentation, and other information related to the AIX operating system, built an AIX server loaded with the appropriate version of CMVC along with the source code and documentation related to the AIX operating system, tested the system to ensure it was functional, and delivered and installed the server to allow access to SCO.

10. The server contained a fully functional version of the CMVC tool, one hundred percent (100%) of the source code in CMVC that is part of or related to AIX (including the

4

operating system itself, development tools, documentation, and test programs) and one hundred percent (100%) of the documentation in CMVC that is related to AIX, including programmer's notes and design documents. One CMVC design document was redacted to protect attorney-client privileged information. After redaction, IBM was unable to restore the document into the database in electronic form. IBM produced the redacted version of the document along with the CMVC server. The code and documentation that IBM produced from CMVC represent more than 62 GB of data.

11. The particular CMVC server at IBM that contains source code and information related to AIX also contains a large amount of source code and material that is neither part of, nor related to, AIX. IBM did not produce source code or material in CMVC for components that are unrelated to AIX or its code, internal design, or methods. IBM excluded components containing design, manufacturing, and test information specific to IBM hardware products, such as hardware system designs, hardware test exercisers and other hardware test programs, and hardware manufacturing-related components. IBM also excluded firmware source code (machine-level code, distinct from the operating system, that is embedded into a computer hardware device or placed on a computer system to function at a level below the computer's operating system) and other software programs that are distinct from the operating systems, such as middleware (software that provides support functions for software applications, such as application-to-application exchange of data, data storage management, and other services) and other applications.

12. The source code that is part of or related to the AIX operating system is not segregated in a single location within CMVC, but rather is commingled with hundreds of thousands of other source code files that are not part of or related to the AIX operating system. A thorough review of the contents of the CMVC system was undertaken to determine which of

5

the thousands of separate "components" within CMVC are part of or related to the AIX operating system.

13. A script -- a small computer program -- was written and executed to map each of the responsive components to the specific source code file names within CMVC. Using the list of file names and identifiers that had been generated, IBM then matched those files names and identifiers to corresponding Source Code Control System ("SCCS") files. These SCCS files are the files maintained by IBM that provide the file development history since 1991 (or the inception of the file) for the particular corresponding source code file in the AIX operating system or related source code. These SCCS files were produced by IBM and allow SCO to reconstruct every version and iteration of AIX since 1991.

14. After all of the source code components for the AIX operating system were identified, the non-source code materials in CMVC that are related to the AIX operating system source code were similarly identified. This included programmer's notes, design documents, and data about version control, users, and change histories.

15. CMVC programmer's notes reflect developer commentary concerning defects and enhancements to AIX, and sometimes contain confidential information from IBM's customers and vendors, or information covered by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If a CMVC programmer's note contained third-party confidential information, the name of the third party (or other information that would identify the third party) was redacted from the copy of the programmer's note to be produced to SCO. Reviewers also redacted privileged information from the copy of the note to be produced to SCO. All redacted information was marked with an appropriate legend. Out of 304,398 programmer's notes produced from CMVC, approximately 100 contain a redaction of customer names or privileged information.

6

16. CMVC also contains more than 2,500 design documents related to AIX. These design documents were also produced to SCO. As noted above in paragraph 10, one design document was redacted to protect attorney-client privileged information and produced to SCO in redacted form.

17. For each source code file produced to SCO, IBM reviewed the origin codes or copyright notices in the code to identify potentially confidential third-party material. IBM located a copy of the relevant confidentiality terms and notified the third party prior to production, when required.

18. IBM obtained an AIX server with the hardware components necessary to produce the data from CMVC. An IBM team created a working copy of the CMVC source code revision system on the server. In order to retain CMVC database functionality that would allow SCO to search and query the code and documentation being produced, IBM copied the entire contents of the CMVC families that contained AIX-related content, and then removed the contents of the source files and programmer's notes that did not relate to AIX.

19. The server, which contained all the information described above, was made available to SCO at the offices of Snell & Wilmer in Salt Lake City, Utah on March 18, 2005. SCO's outside counsel took possession of this server. Along with the server, IBM also has made available to SCO general AIX and CMVC user documentation and a custom README file that contains basic instructions on how to start and navigate the server, CMVC, the necessary IDs and passwords, and a script to instruct SCO how to determine the changes made by each person who contributed code to AIX, as recorded by CMVC. A copy of the README file is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A. A copy of the script is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit B.

7

II. Production of Dynix Code and Documents from RCS

20. Revision Control System ("RCS") is the source code revision system that was used by Sequent's and IBM's Dynix development organization. It also serves as a shared electronic repository for programmer's notes, design documents, and white papers. The source code revision information in RCS dates back to 1988. Other than the Dynix source code stored in RCS, IBM has searched for, but has not been able to locate, revision control information for Dynix prior to 1988. RCS does not contain any source code or other information for the AIX operating system.

21. IBM hs produced one hundred percent (100%) of the source code in RCS that is part of or related to Dynix (including the base operating system and layered products, development tools, and test programs). IBM also extracted, and produced to SCO, one hundred percent (100%) of the Dynix-related design documents, white papers, and programmer's notes that were stored in RCS.

22. The RCS server at IBM that contains source code and information related to Dynix also contains source code and material that is neither part of, nor related to, Dynix. IBM has not produced source code and material that is neither part of, nor related to, Dynix. IBM has not produced source code or material in RCS for components that are unrelated to Dynix or its code, internal design, or methods. IBM excluded components containing design, manufacturing, and test information specific to IBM or Sequent hardware products, such as hardware system designs, hardware test exercisers and other hardware test programs, and hardware manufacturing-related components. IBM also excluded firmware source code (machine-level code, distinct from the operating system, that is embedded into a computer hardware device or placed on a computer system to function at a level below the computer's operating system), and other software programs that are distinct from the operating system, such as middleware (software that provides support functions for software applications, such as

8

application-to-application exchange of data, data storage management, and other services) and applications.

23. Extracting the source code that is part of or related to the Dynix operating system required identification of the source code files that are not part of or related to the Dynix operating system. A thorough review of the contents of the RCS system was undertaken by IBM to determine which files are part of or related to the Dynix operating system.

24. Copies of both the source text file and the comma v file for each of the Dynix-related code files were extracted from RCS. Comma v files are the files maintained by RCS that provide the file development history since 1988 (or the inception of the file) for the particular corresponding source code file in the Dynix operating system or related source code. The copies were prepared in tape archive ("tar") format, and then compressed using a zip program to allow them to fit on the CDs. The total amount of this Dynix source code produced from RCS represents more than 17 GB of uncompressed data.

25. For each source code file produced to SCO, IBM reviewed the copyright notices in the code to identify potentially confidential third party material. IBM located a copy of the relevant confidentiality terms and notified the third party prior to production, when required.

III. Production of AIX Design Documents, Programmer's Notes, White Papers and Code Outside CMVC

26. IBM also searched for design documents, programmer's notes, white papers and AIX source code that are not stored in the CMVC database and has completed its production of these documents. Certain AIX development teams keep a large portion of their work files and documents, other than what is required to be stored in CMVC, in shared electronic repositories. To collect a large volume of AIX design documents, programmer's notes, whitepapers, and code, and to avoid redundancy, IBM collected potentially responsive documents from shared electronic repositories at a department, team, and project level. These documents were reviewed for

9

responsiveness, third-party confidential information, and attorney-client privileged communications, and responsive, non-privileged documents have been produced to SCO.

27. IBM also located, from shared electronic repositories and from some data tapes, some source code for the AIX operating system. Although it is likely that this code is duplicative of the AIX source code already produced to SCO on the CMVC server as discussed in Paragraphs 7-19, IBM was unable to confirm that the code is duplicative, and therefore has produced this AIX source code to SCO, on CDs.

28. As I have noted above, IBM does not maintain revision control information for AIX source code pre-dating 1991. To the extent that any code for the AIX operating system (that did not duplicate the code already being produced in CMVC) was found during the search described in Paragraph 26-27 above, it was produced. Paragraphs 29-31 below describe additional search efforts IBM undertook to locate pre-1991 versions of AIX code. No versions of AIX pre-dating 1991 were found.

29. In the 1980s and early 1990s, IBM prepared vital records backups of AIX source code and transferred them to a remote storage location. At some point in the 1990s, the AIX vital records tapes were transferred to Austin, Texas. In late 2000, the tapes were determined to be obsolete, and were not retained.

30. The AIX development organization contacted other IBM employees who were known or believed to have been involved with the development or product release of AIX versions prior to 1991. In addition, IBM managers and attorneys asked current members of the AIX development organization whether they were aware of the location of pre-1991 releases of AIX source code. No one asked was aware of any remaining copies of pre-1991 AIX source code.

10

31. Source code archives retained by the IBM group responsible for filing IBM copyright registrations and maintaining some of the IBM copyright records were transferred to IBM's Austin site in 2000. IBM searched those archives; all of the source code in the archives are duplicative of AIX versions and changes already produced on the CMVC server as discussed in Paragraphs 7-19.

IV. Production of Dynix Design Documents, Programmer's Notes, White Papers and Code Outside RCS

32. RCS is the shared electronic repository that was used by Dynix developers to store design documents, programmer's notes, and white papers. As discussed above, IBM collected responsive code and documents from RCS. In addition, IBM searched for and retrieved potentially responsive materials from archived Sequent records. These documents were reviewed for responsiveness, third-party confidential information, and attorney-client privileged communications, and all responsive, non-privileged documents have been produced to SCO.

33. As noted above, IBM searched for, but was unable to locate, revision control information for Dynix prior to 1988. IBM did locate some pre-1988 copies of archived Dynix source code files (without revision control information), which were produced to SCO on CDs.

V. Contributors to AIX and Dynix

34. As IBM previously noted in response to SCO's Interrogatory 5, the list of 7,200 individuals who have or have had access to AIX or Dynix source code are the people who work or worked on developing AIX or Dynix. Not all of these individuals, however, have made contributions or changes to AIX or Dynix source code; for example, a development supervisor may have access to CMVC or RCS, but may have never personally made any changes to the code. In response to the Court's order that IBM provide information as to which persons made contributions or changes to AIX or Dynix source code, IBM has identified the names, user IDs,

11

and contact information (to the extent IBM has such information in its records) for all of the individuals recorded by CMVC and RCS as having created or made changes to AIX or Dynix or related source code files, and has produced all such information to SCO.

35. The total number of individuals who are recorded by CMVC or RCS as having made contributions or changes to AIX or Dynix or related source code files is 2,704. This number, while less than the 3,000 individuals contemplated by the Order, includes all individuals who are recorded by CMVC and RCS as having made contributions and changes to AIX or Dynix.

36. The list of AIX contributors contains 2,234 names. These names were obtained by using CMVC tools to determine which CMVC users have ever created or modified AIX or related source code since CMVC versioning was initiated in 1991. This list includes all of the persons who are recorded by CMVC as having made changes to AIX source code. The list was examined manually to merge the data for users who had multiple IDs or name changes.

37. IBM has also produced to SCO the user IDs for all of the individuals who made changes or contributions to Dynix, as recorded by RCS. The list contains 470 user IDs and identifies the number of files created or modified by each user ID. IBM reconstructed and reviewed Sequent records and questioned former Dynix developers, and has provided to SCO all of the corresponding employee names and contact information that were obtained.

38. The CMVC and RCS revision control data produced by IBM include complete information (to the extent such information is recorded by CMVC or RCS) as to which individuals made which specific contributions or changes to AIX or Dynix source code, as well as when each such change was made.

39. For AIX, the contributions and changes made by each person can be determined by running a simple script, a copy of which was produced to SCO along with the CMVC system

12

on March 18, 2005. A copy of the script is also attached to this Declaration as Exhibit B. Using the script, SCO can type in any individual user ID, and the script will produce as its output a detailed list of all the contributions and changes made by that user.

40. For Dynix, information about each change made to each file in the Dynix source code, including the date and time the change was checked-in to the RCS system, who checked-in the change, the number of lines of code added and deleted from the previous revision of the file, and a log message entered by the person who checked-in the change can be ascertained using standard RCS tools, such as the "rlog" command. For example, to determine the change history of the base_callback.c.,v file in the 4.6.1 version of the Dynix base operating system, SCO can type "rlog base_callback.c.,v", which results in the following output:

$ rlog base_callback.c,v

RCS file: base_callback.c,v; Working file: base_callback.c
head: 1.4
branch:
locks: ; strict
access list:
symbolic names: v4_6_lp: 1.4.3; v4_6_1: 1.4; v4_6_0p: 1.4.2; v4_6_0: 1.4;
comment leader: " * "
total revisions: 6; selected revisions: 6
description:
base_callback.c
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
revision 1.4
date: 97/09/29 18:20:23; author: mjs; state: Exp; lines added/del: 7/9
branches: 1.4.2; 1.4.3;
Made appropriate use of SYMUSED lint directive in this file.
PR #230499 / SCN rto1031.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
revision 1.3
date: 95/11/03 03:08:44; author: mjs; state: Exp; lines added/del: 5/2
lint fix.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
revision 1.2
date: 95/11/03 02:01:20; author: mjs; state: Exp; lines added/del: 20/2
Added lint ref for base_callback.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
revision 1.1
date: 95/11/02 20:14:52; author: mcneil; state: Exp;
Initial revision
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
revision 1.4.3.1
date: 20/1./3. 6.:0.:6.; author: hbeare; state: Exp; lines added/del: 6/2
Branch for v4_6_lp
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
revision 1.4.2.1
date: 20/0./9. 5.:8.:1.; author: breazile; state: Exp; lines added/del: 6/2
Branch for v4_6_Op
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

13

41. I declare under penatly of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed: May 3, 2005

Salt Lake City, Utah

___[signature]___
Todd M. Shaughnessy

14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of May, 2005, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following:

Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]

Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

Robert Silver
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

Robert Silver
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

___[signature]___
Todd M. Shaughnessy

15

EXHIBIT A

System operation (Please read the AIX 5.2 documentation before attempting to use this system)

To power up the system, press the power button on the front panel.
To reboot the system, run the 'reboot' command as root.
To shutdown the system run the 'shutdown -F' command as root.
To power up after shutdown, press the power button on the front panel.

CMVC operation (Please read the CMVC documentation before attempting to use the CMVC GUI or CMVC command line interfaces)

The aix and admin CMVC families will automatically start on system startup or reboot.

To start or restart the CMVC families, run the following commands as root:

StartAIX.ksh - to restart the aix CMVC family
StartAdmin.ksh - to restart the admin CMVC family

To run CMVC commands on the aix and admin CMVC families

Log on the system as the scoid ID
The scoid CMVC ID has hostlist access setup, no password needed to access the CMVC families
The scoid CMVC ID has superuser authority to the families (refer to the CMVC docs for superuser description)
To run the CMVC GUI interface run the 'cmvc' command (refer to the CMVC docs for help on the CMVC GUI)

To set the family to access from the CMVC GUI:
Select "Set Family . . ." from the "Options" pull down
Enter either "aix" or "admin" in the "Family:" field the
- or -
The "CMVC_FAMILY" environment variable can be set to "aix" or "admin"
CMVC command line commands can be run from the command prompt (refer to
the CMVC docs for help on the CMVC command line interface)
To set the family to access for the CMVC command line interface:
The "-family" parameter on the command can be set to "aix" or
"admin"

- or - - or -

The CMVC_FAMILY" environment variable can be set to "aix"
or "admin"

aix family address: aix@@7260
admin family address: admin@@7265

user2diffs usage (user2diffs command is located in /home/scoid)

Log on as scoid

16

> user2diffs -?

Outputs the CMVC file changes for the specified CMVC login.

Usage: user2diffs [-E|-S -f family -v] login
-E Extract and diff rather than using sccsdiff
-S use sccsdiff to get the file diffs
-f CMVC family (default is aix)
-v Status message level

For example,

/user2diffs leedp

will output all of the diffs for user 'leedp' in the 'aix' family.

/user2diffs -f admin arb

will output all of the diffs for user 'arb' in the 'admin' family'.

The output is sent to stdout.

Documentation (all docs are in /home/scoid; run "xpdf filename.pdf" to view PDF docs)

scoreadme.txt Basic system information
aix52.pdf AIX 5L Version 5.2: System User's Guide: Operating System and Devices
whatis.pdf CMVC95:PDF for What is . . . files
howto.pdf CMVC95: PDF for How to . . . files
gcommandinfo.pdf CMVC95:PDF for General Command Information files
usersref.pdf CMVC95:PDF for User's Reference files

System Userd ID's and passwords

ID password description
root sc0root1 system admin ID
scoid sc0cmvc1 cmvc ID

17

EXHIBIT B

# /bin/ksh
#########################################
# user2diffs
#
#ORIGINS: 27
#
# (C) COPYRIGHT International Business Machines Corp. 2005
# All Rights Reserved
#Licensed Materials - Property of IBM
#US Government Users Restricted Rights - Use, duplication or
# disclosure restricted by GSA ADP Schedule Contract with IBM Corp.
#
# Outputs the CMVC file changes for the specified user login.
#########################################
# @(#)0.11 user2diffs.sh 03/12/05 08:30:00

# Constants
#
integer Extract=0 ShellDebug=0 Verbose=0
typeset Prog=$(0##*/)
typeset TmpDir=/tmp/$Prog.$$
export CMVC_FAMILY=aix

#Global variables
#
#typeset Flag VcPath

#Write a message to stdout if $1>=Verbose
#
function vStdout {

Integer MsgLevel

MsgLevel=$1
(( Verbose >=MsgLevel ))$$ {

shift
echo "$*"
}

}
function vStderr {
vStdout "$@">&2

}

# Clean and exit
#
function Exit {

typeset rc

# Output a message if specified
#
rc=$(1:-0)
(( $#>1))&

18

exit $rc

}

# Return the vc path for a given sourceid
#
function Sourceid2vc {


(( ShellDebug )) && set -x

echo $1 | awk -v vc=$VcPath '{

file = "s."substr($0, length($0) - 1)
t = substr($0, 1, length($0) -2)
if (length(t) while (length(t)) {
if (path =="") {
if(length(t)>4){
path = substr(t, 1, 2)
t = substr(t, 3)
}
}
else {
path = path"/"substr(t, 1, 1)
t = substr(t,2)
}
}
print vc"/"path"/"file
#printf("%s%s/%sn", vc, path, file)
}'
}

# Return the previous veresionsid for the specified
# pathname,releasename,versionid
#
function PreviousVersionsid {

Report -g "fileview f,versions v,versions x"
-w "f.nupathname = '$file' and f.releasename = '$rel' and v.sid = '$vers' and f.sourceid =
v.sourceid and v.previousid = x.id" -sel x.sid
}

# Show the diffs between the specified versionsid and previous versionsid
#using sccsdiff.
# $1 = pathname
# $2 = sourceid
# $3 = versionsid
# $4 = previous versionsid
#
function DiffBySccs {

(( ShellDebug )) && set -x

SccsFile=$(Sourceid2vc $2)
if [[ -f $SccsFile ]]; then

echo "===> $1 $4 -> $3"

19

sccsdiff -r$4 -r$3 $SccsFile

else
echo "===> $1 ($SccsFile) not found"

fi

}

# Show the diffs between the specified pathname, releasename, versionsid
# and the previous versionsid
#
function DiffByExtract {


(( ShellDebug )) && set -x

Outfile1=$TmpDir/${1##*/}.$3
Outfile2=$TmpDir/${1##*/}.$4
echo "===> $1 $4 -> $3*
mkdir -p $TmpDir
File -extract $1 -rele $2 -vers $3 -stdout >$Outfile1
File -extract $1 -rele $2 -vers $4 -stdout>$Outfile2
diff $Outfile1 $Outfile2
rm -rf $TmpDir

}

# Usage and exit
#
function Usage {

exec >&2
(( $# )) && echo "$*"
cat Outputs the CMVC file changes for the specified CMVC login.

Usage: $Prog [-E|-S -f family -v] login
-E Extract and diff rather than using sccsdiff
-S Use sccsdiff to get the file diffs
-f CMVC family (default is aix)
-v Status message level
|
exit 99


}

########
# MAIN #
#########

#Parse the flags
#
while getopts ":ESXf:v" Flag; do

case $Flag in
E)
Extract=1
;;
S)
Extract=0
;;

20

X)
ShellDebug=1
sset -x
;;
f)
export CMVC_FAMILY=$OPTARG
;;
Verbose=Verbose+1
;;
:)
Usage "-$OPTARG requires an argument"
;;
?)
[[ *$OPTARG" = "?" ]] && Usage
Usage "Illegal option -$OPTARG"
;;
esac done
shift OPTIND-1

(( $# )) || Usage

#Set variables based on options
#
VcPath=/family/${CMVC_FAMILY%%@*}/vc
(( Extract == 0 )) && [[ ! -d $VcPath ]] &&

Usage "Path to the SCCS files ($VcPath) does not exist.nPerhaps you should use the -E
flag?"

########
# MAIN #
########
Report -g userview -w "login = '$'" -sel id | read uid )
Report -g changeview -w "userid = $uid" -set pathname,releasename,versionsid |
while IFS='|' read file rel vers; do

Report -g fileview -w "pathname = '$file' and releasename = '$rel'"
-sel sourceid,type | IFS='|' read sid ftype
[["$ftype" = "binary" ]] &
overs=$(PreviousVersionsid)
if [[ -z "$overs" ]]; then
echo "===> $file $verfs is the original version"
else
if (( Extract )); then
DIffByExtract $file $rel $vers $overs
else
DiffBySccs $file $sid $vers $overs
fi

21

fi
done

22


  


IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code | 585 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: gakulev on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 03:59 PM EDT
I hope they do not connect the machine to the internet without changing the root
password first...



---
Gakulev

May the source be with you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: abtm on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:03 PM EDT
Is there not a provision under which IBM can ask for SCO to reimburse them? If
so, could this document be helping to lay the ground for that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - But no Linux.
Authored by: Jaywalk on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:07 PM EDT
IIRC, SCO tried to expand the ruling after the fact by saying that IBM had been ordered to turn over AIX, Dynix and Linux code. But IBM has complied with the original order, which didn't specify Linux. I think Wells mentioned Linux in passing in the clarification of the order, but I don't think it was ever specifically added.

I'm guessing that the next thing coming out of SCO will be a claim that IBM didn't comply with the order because there's no Linux code. Followed by IBM pointing out that it wasn't in the order. Then it's back to the judge again.

---
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====

[ Reply to This | # ]

RTFM
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:08 PM EDT
I hope the manuals they told them to read aren't long. I can see it now.
"If it pleases the court, we need a few more years to read the manuals
before we can begin our search for the code IBM stole from us."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh man how I LOVE this!
Authored by: pitr256 on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:09 PM EDT
Section I.9

In accordance with the Court's January 18, 2005 Order, IBM identified and extracted from CMVC all of the source code, documentation, and other information related to the AIX operating system, built an AIX server loaded with the appropriate version of CMVC along with the source code and documentation related to the AIX operating system, tested the system to ensure it was functional, and delivered and installed the server to allow access to SCO.

Just have to love that! Send them a server with AIX on it even though SCO had asked to have all AIX frozen while the trial was ongoing.

GO IBM!

[ Reply to This | # ]

240 Feet of Paper
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:11 PM EDT
A standard sheet of paper is roughly 0.0032in thick (0.081 mm). Weighing in at 900,000 pages that is 2,880 inches of paper. Or, if you stack all the pages the pile would stand a total of 240 feet high!

That's a lotta documents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Correction
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:14 PM EDT
"Other than the AIX source code stored in CMVC, IBM does not contain any
source code"

A line got lost in the shuffle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Very Curious as to how the Court Responds
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:16 PM EDT
IBM's actions seem above and beyond the call of duty so I am curious how the
court will view them.

I believe we are fast approaching the moment of truth in this case. If this
court does not soon see this case for what it is, and take appropriate
dispositive action, both us and IBM will know this court is not primarily
interested in a fair trial.

Enough is enough. Let's have our courts show a bit more backbone and stop
frivolous suits much earlier in the process. The mess in the courts is solely
the responsibility of the courts, and it is up to them to start the process to
fix the mess and begin to restore confidence in that system.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO will no doubt object...
Authored by: jfw25 on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:18 PM EDT
that the format supplied is useless, and that IBM should have turned over a server running Windows with the file history all translated into SourceSafe.

Additionally, by failing to turn over the file history for firmware, hardware designs, and test plans, they are obviously trying to hide the fact that SCO's treasured intellectual property was copied into those files and then copied out into the actual software source after being disguised! I mean, obviously if SCO's intellectual property isn't in the files they were given, it has to be in the files they weren't given!

I am also sure that SCO will note that the fact that IBM was able to deliver this server at all is proof that the discovery request was in fact a mere trifle, and not the arduous task that IBM claimed it was. Of course, three months from now when SCO is asked by the court about the progress they've made on discovery and they reply "we can't figure this stuff out, it's too hard, we need more time!", they certainly won't see any contradiction at all...

I wonder if IBM was thoughtful enough to provide the outside counsel with copies of the same marketing literature that enabled Chris Sontag to become a certifiable expert in CMVC. (Well, a certifiable something, anyway.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:18 PM EDT
Ah, but did they include Blepp's briefcase?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Good Luck SCO
Authored by: cxd on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:20 PM EDT
I would like to be the first person to wish SCO luck in searching all this
information. They may want to look to an all knowing being for help in this
task, because I am not sure if any human will be able digest all this
information in the time given.

So with that said, good luck SCO and may the FORCE be with you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:32 PM EDT
Corrections go here. I'll start us off:

hardware manufacturing-related comoponents
material that isneither part of, nor related to,
40. FOr Dynix, information about

[ Reply to This | # ]

Destructions
Authored by: Nick_UK on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:35 PM EDT
What happens if SCO now claim they own the copyright to
the said code/scripts supplied, and wish to go fishing
more from where they came from?

Joking!

But this is getting too silly now. Where is Groucho Marx?

Nick

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: gleef on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:36 PM EDT
I'll start out corrections by pointing out the missing text in I.7. The mistake
also mangles what they're trying to say about both AIX and Dynix. The paragraph
should read:

"CMVC is the source code revision system currently used by IBM's AIX
development organization. CMVC has been used in AIX development since 1991.
Other than the AIX source code stored in CMVC, IBM does not maintain revision
control information for AIX prior to 1991. CMVC does not contain any source
code or other information for the Dynix operating system."

[ Reply to This | # ]

4700 Hours? They're Quick!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:40 PM EDT
Wow! And they did all that in only 4700 man hours? That's pretty good.

Let's see, at $20/hour (and you know many/most make a LOT more than that,
probably two to three times that), 4700 * $20 = $94,000. Of course that's only
labor. No way to tell how much cost from pulling people off other projects
(delay cost), and the server isn't cheap. And CDs are at least $0.15-$0.30
apiece -- then there's paper and printing costs.

So well over 100 grand (less than I expected) not counting legal personnel,
server, delay costs, and probably more that I can't think of right now. Cheaper
than I expected, but it's still a lot of money. Of course that's a rather low
labor estimate, and it is likely AT LEAST twice that.

Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

At what cost?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:43 PM EDT
Since SCO (ie Chris Sontag and the rest of the SCOx employees) can't view this
material, can one imagine the cost to SCO to have this truckload of material
analyzed?? The reason I say that is I seem to remember that only outside
analyst are allowed to view IBM's code and documents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Comma v" files
Authored by: gleef on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:56 PM EDT

The affidavit says:
24. Copies of both the source text file and the comma v file for each of the Dynix-related code files were extracted from RCS. Comma v files are the files maintained by RCS that provide the file development history since 1988 (or the inception of the file) for the particular corresponding source code file in the Dynix operating system or related source code. The copies were prepared in tape archive ("tar") format, and then compressed using a zip program to allow them to fit on the CDs. The total amount of this Dynix source code produced from RCS represents more than 17 GB of uncompressed data.

This reads like it might have typos, but it doesn't. When you are storing a file (eg. README.txt) in RCS or similar version control systems based on RCS, the version control information is actually stored with ,v appended to the name. So, README.txt would be stored as README.txt,v. This is what they are apparently referring to as "comma v" files.

It's also worth noting that if you look at one of these "comma v" files, the file format isn't quite the same as the original file; you won't see just the straight text of the files. Instead you'll see one of the versions of the file (the earliest version IIRC), and a bunch of "patches", which are changes to the file represented in a formalized notation. These patches are also interspersed with metadata saying when the change was made, who changed it, what comments were given when the change was made, and so on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Plugging in the power lead ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 05:03 PM EDT

I so wish they'd included one of those simple line drawings you get with all PCs
and external kit that shows you where each cable has to go, including the power
lead!

They MUST have been tempted surely, but probably figured that judges' senses of
humor shouldn't be relied on where "smart-alec-ness" is concerned.

Though personally I reckon the judge would've fell out of her chair laughing if
they had done.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do they get to keep the server?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 05:05 PM EDT
Does IBM get the server back, when this is all over?

If so it should be donated to some worthy Linux project after disinfection.
Perhaps Linus could use it.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about service?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 05:07 PM EDT
Does this mean that IBM now has to provide service support for SCO's AIX server?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Google digital library
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 05:20 PM EDT
My local paper carried this article today (no registration required for first three articles viewed):
http://www.startribun e.com/stories/789/5387626.html

I was surprised not to see a link in the RSS feed. From the hints in the story, it sounds as if Google's library will be proprietary, possibly pay-per-view/subscription, and not allow new submissions--hopefully that's an exaggeration of the real situation!

Meghan

[ Reply to This | # ]

A funny story about dissapearing AIX
Authored by: dyfet on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 06:08 PM EDT
A number of years back I was at a IBM booth at a computer show, where they were showing a (then) new power pc (?RS/6000?) workstation which was running some version of AIX. The sales person, and clearly he was a sales person, in charge of the booth, kept hucksering about how reliable the system was and how it could survive crashes and such. So I had to ask, how he could actually demonstrate this. He choose to pull the power cord. They never did get that workstation back up for the rest of the show. I think they eventually did get it to the point of doing a fsck the next day, though...

I suppose the moral in this story is that Sontag better not to touch that power cord! I could only imagine the claim that, like Blepps mysterious extra- dimentional suitcase of holding, all the evidence "was there" but somehow "dissapeared" after the fsck! Oh, gee, and then the request to have another "discovery delay"?? It didn't work when I was a kid and claimed the dog ate my homework, hopefully it wouldnt work for something like that either.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comparing AIX programmer count with Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 06:10 PM EDT
It's interesting that since 1991 AIX has had only
2,234 programmers who've touched it. This is
dwarfed by the the number of people who've contributed
to Linux. While what counts is person/hours,
not number of people, this is still impressive.
It's hard to say how many IBM programmers and how
many Linux programmers work full-time, over what
time period. But it's interesting to speculate.

Karl O. Pinc <kop@meme.com>

[ Reply to This | # ]

But did IBM delete securely?
Authored by: NilsR on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 06:18 PM EDT
IBM copied the entire contents of the CMVC families that contained AIX-related content, and then removed the contents of the source files and programmer's notes that did not relate to AIX.

I hope they removed it thoroughly, or SCO could maybe resurrect it. I think I would have copied the result to a third server, and given SCO that one. Hopefully they did, and just didn't bother to mention that extra detail in the explanation.

---
NilsR

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 06:29 PM EDT
How does that PIL song go?

"This is what you want, this is what you get".

80 gigs of code, not to mention supporting documents, whew!

Think of all the work, time that goes into generating 80 gigs of code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now, SCO needs to honor their orders
Authored by: Bill The Cat on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 06:40 PM EDT
I wish that they had added one comment:
Now that we have complied with the orders, please direct SCO to immediately respond to the TWO (2) orders of the court directing them to produce their evidence for filing this expensive law suit in the first place.

I believe that the court would have been put in an awkward position and then have to demand that SCO answer the two previous orders to produce their evidence.

---
Bill Catz

[ Reply to This | # ]

I found the code!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 07:09 PM EDT
It has to be the copyrighted white background behind the text!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Uh-oh! Groklaw's been Slashdotted (N/T)
Authored by: joef on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 07:16 PM EDT
As I said, Uh-oh!

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 07:24 PM EDT
Did the auditor also recommend you block those potentially dangerous ICMP
packets at every router interface? or perhaps to use something more secure than
"service password-encryption" to encrypt your vty passwords? or that
your ACL's on snmp and vty access were not strong enough protection, since
someone could "spoof a packet" and "gain access from outside your
network"

oh yeah what was the auditor's certification? was it the one where they take an
accountant and set them down for 4 hours to show them the power switch and then
dub them an information security auditor? (hint: they keep their CPA's and
sometimes print both on their card!)

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: anesq on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 07:30 PM EDT
I think the parent post is low too. Another way to think of 4700 hours is a
little less than 2.5 manyears (or person years). So 2.5 times the average
salary of an IBM employee, time 2 to account for taxes, benefits, overhead, etc.
Figure $75k a year, your looking at $400k - $450k. Plus attorneys. It's
interesting they didn't list the attorney time. I'd guess the attorney time was
about the same (4700 hours), but at an average cost to IBM of at least $200 an
hour (a lot of the work would have been done by cheaper contract attorneys,
driving the average cost down). That comes to $940K. Call it $800k with a bulk
discount.

$1.2 - $1.4 million for this document production *alone.*

[ Reply to This | # ]

CMVC structure
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 07:31 PM EDT
The declaration contains this rather surprising statement:
The source code that is part of or related to the AIX operating system is not segregated in a single location within CMVC, but rather is commingled...
This sounds very odd to me. Normally, code within a revision control system is organised into "directory trees" just like files on an ordinary system. Files related to hardware, middleware, etc. would be expected to reside in separate directory trees from AIX-related stuff, so extracting the AIX stuff while avoiding non-AIX files should have been trivial.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 07:43 PM EDT
"but it is also letting both the court and SCO know that they feel it was a

ridiculous, albeit expensive, fishing expedition."

Perhaps I only missed something, but I am just curious-- exactly which
language in the document quoted here indicates that IBM was attempting to
communicate this? I only see dry speech about the amount of expense in
producing the evidence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO spin....
Authored by: xtifr on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 07:49 PM EDT

SCO's description of this event (I'm guessing): "IBM Capitulates!"

Seriously, I think we're getting a little carried away trying to present this as an IBM victory! IBM was manuevered into performing a whole lot of unnecessary, expensive work. While it does look like IBM is leaving no stone unturned here, that is kind of what we thought last time, when IBM turned over all the code to every release of AIX and Dynix. At that time, we all thought, "well, that should be everything SCO could possibly need; they'll either have to show some evidence or give up." Well, they didn't give up. They managed to spin IBM's last massive data dump into, "we haven't got any evidence to show, but that's because IBM is deliberately hiding it! Dear Judge, please make them turn over the real evidence."

I realize it probably seems like this can't go on forever, but, darnit, I want to see some evidence that this can't go on forever! 'Cause, y'know, I've thought that before, and I was wrong then.

---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light.

[ Reply to This | # ]

LOL 40GB! SCO=Stuffed :)
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 08:01 PM EDT
Thanks SCO I have had a really good laugh at your expense!
Outside experts to read all this @ what rate per hour?

Hey SCO whats your burn rate now? Suckers!

---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"

Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 08:11 PM EDT
I think the Nazgul can smell the ring.

{I may be wrong, but I'am not nesessarily right)

Gunillablue

[ Reply to This | # ]

Was Darl economical with the truth last conference call?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 08:20 PM EDT
During the April conference call, I got the impression that Darl was saying that
SCO pressing their claims was "absolutely dependant" (I think that was
the words he used), on SCO getting the AIX revision information - and rather
implying that they hadn't received it yet.

Now we discover... they (or rather their lawyers) got the AIX server containing
the CMVC revision information, about one whole month earlier.

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Truly hope this is the beginning of the end
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 09:39 PM EDT
I for one am so glad the "discovery" is seemingly over at least for
this part of the war.

I know the wheels of justice and all that, but I am so sick of waiting with
baited breath for someone to drop a stink bomb like 80GB of incredibly complex
tidbits of stuff out of context on SCO HQ. This will do fine, but my patience
is really worn thin with the system being so forebearing of the SCO lies,
distrotions, waffling, delay tactics, deflection, and general strategy of
obfuscation.

Every time that putz Darl, or any of his cronies or legal team steps to a
podium, or gets an audience on a con-call is one minute too many. The idea that
it has taken to so long to begin the end is hard to bear. I have some level of
understanding that the court(s) have to bear this in order to give certitude to
the result and prevent appeal, but come on. I wish they would just file
bankruptcy and get it over with.

I think just for the sake of clarity if it ever hit a court where I was on the
bench, I would have thrown SCO out for lack of evidence about 180 days in,
ordered them to pay costs, damages, legal fees, with prejudice, and fined their
counsel for contempt after about the third discussion about discovery, and for
filing other cases behind my back, and for being full of it. So what, let them
appeal, they probably will if possible anyhow.

I am kind of interested what effect will an eventual "go away SCO"
order from Judge Wells, or a jury "SCO what have you been smokin?"
have on the other related cases with RH, Novell, etc?

vr

mdw

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: UnixGuy on Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 11:17 PM EDT
Excellent.

"Your honor, we request sanctions against the defendant for... for... for
complying with our demands in a blatantly disdainful and contemptuous
manner!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

How can the courts force IBM to do this?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 12:00 AM EDT
I don't get it -- is there's something that I'm missing here? Isn't there a presumption of innocence until provien guilty? Why doesn't that imply that SCO has to show at least the minutest shred of evidence that there is some misappropriation before the courts can force IBM to engage in such extensive discovery?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What if the outside consultants are
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 12:23 AM EDT
the competition to IBM, example MS. Is there a process where IBM can object to
the competition looking at their code on SCO's behalf.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why is IBM being punished for innocence?
Authored by: dwheeler on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 01:00 AM EDT
The average US programmer salary a few years ago was about $56k. A 50-week year, and a 2.4 overhead, would yield 56000.*2.4/50/40=$67.20/hour loaded costs to an employer. I realize that not everyone working on this was probably a programmer, but that's still a reasonable average. With 4,700 hours of work, that's 4700hrs*$67.20/hr=$315,840 in fees NOT including legal time, etc.

If SCO doesn't find some serious smoking guns, I think IBM has a case for a really nice countersuit. It's quite reasonable to punish the guilty, and anyone entering court has to expect that there will be expenses going through the process. But this is 6 figures, NOT including the lawyers, to support a fishing expedition. SCO has not produced a shred of evidence for their case; if SCO had already produced real evidence, and thus a reason to expect more, this might make sense, but this is moving closer to extortion. I commend IBM for this heroic effort, but really, it's not clear they should have had to do this in the first place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can SCO forge the "evidence"?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 01:44 AM EDT
SCO now has all the evidence it could need. However, IBM gave SCO superuser rights to the repository software. I don't understand the software enought to know if this is possible, but could it leave open the posibility of outside investigators altering the records to favour SCO's case?

I am sure IBM have thought of this posibility. Hopefully they have a copy of their own to refute the new allegations, but how would this play out if it happened?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder just how fast that server is....
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 02:54 AM EDT
Is it a quad multi-Ghz Xeon machine, designed to mine data with the speed of
John Henry? Or could it be a 233 Mhz Pentium, designed to maximize SCOX's billed
hours?

bkd

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • POWER up - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 03:30 AM EDT
Ignore History and you're doomed
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 03:43 AM EDT
Don't you think this AIX server inside SCO premises looks like a trojan?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's next attempted delay?
Authored by: cmc on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 03:53 AM EDT
OK, so SCO's next move will obviously be to attempt another delay, cleaiming
that they need x amount of time to review this material before they can even
respond to it. Should we start taking bets for what that 'x' amount of time
will be?

cmc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Discovery not to be costly to defendent?
Authored by: golding on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 04:48 AM EDT
4,700 hours @ (approx) US$20/hour, OUCH! That comes to just under $100,000,
just to answer a discovery request.

I would love to know how this is determined to be a reasonable request.

---
Regards, Robert

..... Some people can tell what time it is by looking at the sun, but I have
never been able to make out the numbers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Delay and object is SCO's game.
Authored by: Franki on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 05:27 AM EDT
SCO doesn't care much about this, they don't have the money or manpower to
inspect it all in detail anyway.

Their game is to delay, object and harras IBM until IBM's bean counters decide
that settling the case would be cheaper.

Thats what SCO wants, and from the look of this, IBM doesn't plan on doing that
anytime soon.

Expect SCO to ask for massive delays and multiple objections of stuff they think
they wanted but didn't get. Or expect them to stop talking about source code and
instead hassling IBM about staff that they want to talk to, (including the CEO)
and asking for information that IBM doens't have and then arguing about it in
court..

As long as IBM chooses not to settle, SCO will continue to object to everything
they can. At least to the point where SCO's lawyers reach what they consider to
be the end of what the SCO price cap requires of them.

rgds

Franki

---
Is M$ behind Linux attacks?
http://htmlfixit.com/index.php?p=86

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: belzecue on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 06:10 AM EDT
So basically anyone with a straight face and money for a law suit can kick up
enough of a fuss -- without a shred of evidence! -- to force IBM or any other
big company to jump through these complex, demanding, and expensive hoops... and
face no penalty for doing so.

Where's the downside for SCO? Lose the suit: make the golden hanshakes, fold
the company, and move on to the next corporate goldmine. Win the suit: collect
billions and never work again.

I'm embarrassed for IBM that this can happen, and I'm not even a U.S. citizen!

Morally depressing in the extreme :-(

[ Reply to This | # ]

I love the last line :)
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 06:20 AM EDT

Last line reads:

done

Says it all :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT HERE
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 07:17 AM EDT
OT here please

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lines of code
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 07:22 AM EDT
If each line of text in those 80 GB is 80 characters long (it' far less, but
let's say), SCO now have 1 billion (yes folks, 1,000,000,000 lines) of text to
look at. Many of these lines they have to compare to Linux source (I guess) They
whined before that this has to be done by hand, because automated tools aren't
good (apparently).

So, I give them about 10 years to come up with something. In the meantime...
Eh?

Gotta love IBM. The didn't only bury them in paper, they did one better ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: mscibing on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 07:55 AM EDT
It tells them how to do everything but plug the server in to the electric outlet. Perhaps they didn't believe Chris Sontag when he claimed to be knowledgeable about how CMVC works.

Or perhaps they don't believe SCO will make a good-faith effort to use the system. Perhaps they're anticipitating SCO going for more delay due to "technical difficulties" in discovery. Perhaps they're trying to keep the judge happy by being cooperative.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 08:16 AM EDT
Regardless of all the sarcasm about this, since SCO already
has all the evidence and Sontag is an expert on CMVC it
should not take SCO very long to find what they are
looking for.

Would you believe ...?
;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: heretic on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 09:29 AM EDT
Lets assume that TSCOG really tries to find the proverbial needle in the
haystack.

What I wonder about is who will do the analysis. It can't be anyone currently
employed by TSCOG. It must be a group a of people with fairly good knowledge
about *nix systems, including the *bsd variants, and there must be quite a few
of them. I would guess that analyzing 80GB or 2G lines of code, plus whatever
number of paper copies, requires an awful lot of manpower. It is not a trivial
piece of work.

Does anyone know about a similar exercise anywhere, and if so, how much
resources and time did it take?

heretic

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM is entitled to charge RETAIL $$ for those 4700 hours
Authored by: PrecisionBlogger on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 09:43 AM EDT
The people who put in those 4,700 hours could otherwise have been earning money
for IBM. They are entitled to estimate their time at reasonable coprporate
expert consulting rates, which will be between $150 and $300 per hour. I figure
roughly: $200 * 4700 = $940,000 .

If IBM seeks court costs they are also entitled to the legal consulting hours
related to this work, which will be much higher per hour.

If IBM seeks court costs for ALL their work on this lawsuit, I would guess $2 to
$8 million total.
- Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com


---
- Precision Blogger

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: mikeprotts on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 09:48 AM EDT
"xpdf filename.pdf" to view PDF docs

So IBM even tell NewSCO how to read a pdf - even with an open source tool! I
don't think even NewSCO would be able to stand up in front of a judge and say
"filename.pdf" doesn't exist.

I think the speed is an important point here - IBM have made a good effort to
produce quickly, I would think that the plaintiff would be expected to match
that, or the court could order them to, especially as they have already
specifically claimed they could exptract the information themselves far quicker
than IBM!

Cheers
Mike

[ Reply to This | # ]

I found a violation
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 09:54 AM EDT
I did not see any mention, of IBM licensing their Korn Shell script via the Creative Commonstm. I assume that court records are placed into the public domain? You may find this as ridiculous as the pirated music on George Bush's iPod, but this is the law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I bid $500 for that machine when the case is over
Authored by: haegarth on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 11:16 AM EDT
Sure, it would be worth quite more than that, but with all the charges SCO will
have to pay after IBM has crushed them to croutons I guess they will happily
sell everything they've still got, including that machine, which should have had
quite a burn until this case is finally done with.
And, of course, please wipe the harddrive clean, I just want the hardware. Never
had a power PC before, and it should run Linux like a charm. No need for
proprietary IBM material, really (not that I don't like AIX, I don't even know
it, but an IBM power machine running Linux is the one IT thing I would really
like to have at home. Just to add to my collection.)


---
MS holds the patent on FUD, and SCO is its licensee....

[ Reply to This | # ]

The next public contentions by TSG
Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 11:27 AM EDT
TSG always needs to be able to tell us that they don't have everything that they need. In spite of the fact that the number of documents that are redacted are tiny, expect them to make a big deal of those documents that do have parts marked out. Also expect them to make a big deal about the lost backup files that were disposed of in 2000. They will probably also try to press for their earlier request for hardware, firmware, and other code.

Even though TSG will complain again--until they find some real evidence they can bring to a jury they will never be "satisfied" as to the completeness of production--IBM is trying to convince only two individuals: The judges. My hope is that this well-written document, and this very impressive production as well as the great expense and effort to comply with the judge's request will impress them, and will cause the judges to now put the rest of the onus on TSG from here.

I like the suggestion of an earlier post for the IBM lawyers to depose TSG's experts to ask them how much time they spent analyzing the code. And, separately, they should ask HOW they analyzed the code as well. It should yield interesting results. I hope that IBM's reading this, and thinks about that concept. It would help their cause to show that IBM spent so much effort and money, to show that TSG didn't do much with it. Especially because of their contention in court that they could handle so much data.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic Scoip not up to date
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 11:37 AM EDT
Hi all,

At first I was impressed withe the sco ip site. But honestly I don't think I
will check there anymore. They just don't keep it up to date. I mean how long
do you think they knew about this and didn't post it. Its still not posted on
their site. Almost as if they don't care. For now on I am simply not going to
waste my time on their site.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 01:28 PM EDT

Aren't discovery and deposition basically slavery? IBM HAS to do what it's told, and it's sure not being paid anything. And it's not a minor duty, either. IBM has to be spending at least tens of millions on this trial.

Looking at the dynamics of why this is happening rather makes this clear. At no point has SCO demonstrated a cause for action. IBM is being forced to work ridiculously long and hard purely because Wells wants to give SCO every courtesy, in order to minimize reversal chances.

How is this different from a slave being given into the service of a long-term visitor, as a matter of courtesy, in the antebellum South? Because Wells has a "free" resource available, he makes free with it to fit his own pressures. In the meantime, IBM could probably have saved at least 100 of the 13,000 jobs, if they didn't have this trial and Wells' whims to pay for.

Mind you, my blame of Wells is minimal. Slavery corrupts.

And as we've seen in this trial, long discovery can easily be more of a burden that any guilty verdict. It's crystal clear that IBM is not guilty is this case. And yet, IBM must bear a heavy penalty.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Complies To the Max - Turns Over Code
Authored by: tbogart on Friday, May 06 2005 @ 06:57 PM EDT
"IBM does not maintain revision control information for AIX prior to
1991"

He he he. Some years ago someone I was in fairly regular contact with at IBM
told the story that a certain 3letteragengcy was running either AIX 3.0 or 3.1,
(even at that point, long out of 'support'). That agence wasn't going to retest
their whole application on a new version of AIX, and in all the years they had
been running it after it was out of support, they had just one bug that really
needed fixing. Now, it was out of support, but IBM is famous for 'we will fix
it anyway, but it will cost you". Even that exorbitant cost was far less
than re-verifying the system on a new OS, so the money flowed.

At that point, IBMers were scrambling around trying to find anyone who had the
source code, so they could fix it ...

Interesting to see a court document that confirms exactly the problem ....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Waiting for this IBM submission:
Authored by: darkonc on Saturday, May 07 2005 @ 01:46 PM EDT
Your Honor, If we give them any more rope, they'll need to jump from a satellite to avoid splattering when they hit bottom. . .

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ 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 )