|
|
| Another Redacted SCO Document Shows The Game Plan |
 |
|
Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 03:43 PM EDT
|
Here's SCO's Reply Brief in Further Support of its Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery [PDF], which has now been refiled in redacted form. When I read it, I understood several things:
1) why Judge Wells granted them all the discovery she originally did
2) what SCO's strategy is
3) that much of SCO's need for discovery is to defend themselves from IBM's counterclaims, and
4) that even if they were to win the IBM contract claims, which I doubt, Linux has now been vindicated once and for all, ironically enough *because* of all the discovery SCO obtained.
After all, if the only way to find copyright "infringement" in Linux is to sort through all *unreleased* versions of AIX and Dynix going back ten years to try to find some abstruse, nearly impossible to find nonliteral infringement that can only be proven by tracing methods and concepts mini steps through a decade of AIX and Dynix development that not even SCO can put its finger on after two years of effort and mostly because of contract terms that they argue give them more rights than copyright law, it seems obvious that no normal person would blame Linus or the Linux development process for not noticing something as hard to discover as all that.And SCO still hasn't shown any evidence of infringement two years into the process and after having access to all versions of everything, released and unreleased, despite their public claims in 2003 that they already had in their hands such evidence. Now they tell us they are still looking.
This filing was part of SCO's ultimately largely successful strategy to obtain discovery from Judge Brooke Wells, asking her over and over in every way for unfettered access to IBM's CMVC and the Dynix equivalent. She didn't give them that, but she gave them plenty. If you found that incomprehensible at the time, reading this Reply Brief will help you understand at last. As you will see, they filled her ears with indignant stories about how evil IBM had misused their code in AIX on Power, stating they only just found out about this wicked deed, and they needed discovery. Later, Judge Kimball ruled that SCO or its predecessor appeared to know or should have known all about AIX on Power years ago, so he refused to allow them to amend their complaint to include that issue. And he also batted down SCO's arguments about IBM's Ninth Counterclaim. So as you read this filing, you can safely ignore all the bluster about AIX on Power and the Ninth Counterclaim. They lost on both of those points in the end, but they used both to argue their need for more discovery, and in that, they were more successful. Why? Because it isn't Judge Wells' job to decide who is right, just who needs what in discovery if they claim whatever they are claiming. And SCO was claiming with what turns out to be mock outrage that they only just discovered the AIX on Power use and they vitally needed the discovery to investigate the particulars. But they also stressed to her that to defend against IBM's counterclaims, they needed all the code. And so she said OK. You will see they portrayed IBM as refusing to produce materials that SCO had earlier asked for but the court had never ordered. It's a smarmy technique, because it is misleading, but I've given up trying to teach SCO anything about morals. So here they waxed poetic about IBM's alleged sins. She, as the magistrate, didn't know it was all a tall tale. She presumably knows now, and she may be kicking herself a bit after seeing all the evidence about AIX on Power and the ultimate ruling against SCO. But at the time, she likely felt she had no choice but to give them what they asked for. They told her, in effect, that they couldn't defend themselves without it. This document lays the strategy all out in a clarity I haven't seen before, maybe because they knew they'd be filing it as a sealed document. They didn't know that their pals G2 would ask the court to unseal everything and that this document would see the light of day. Be careful what you ask for, eh? It's possible I just didn't clue in to SCO's strategy before, so if you figured this out years ago, more power to you. But it only just clicked into place for me when I read this filing.
If you turn with me to page 11 of the PDF, in the argument under the heading "The Discovery SCO Seeks is Relevant to SCO's Claims and Defenses to IBM's Counterclaims on Several Distinct, and Independently Sufficient Grounds" (that begins on page 10), we find the following, and I've set off the quoted section in colored text, to distinguish it from what I write about it afterward:
First, the discovery is unmistakably relevant to SCO's core claims concerning the IBM and Sequent license agreements. 9
The plain language of the IBM and Sequent Software License Agreements required that any derivative or modification of the original UNIX System V code was to be treated as if it was "part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT," and thus subject to the same restrictions on use and disclosure as the original licensed UNIX source code itself. 10
One way in which SCO will prevail on its contract claims is by tracing the AIX or Dynix code that IBM contributed to Linux back to UNIX. The outstanding discovery concerning the development history of AIX and Dynix that IBM has refused to produce is clearly relevant to this proof because it documents among other things: (1) the names of the programmers who were involved with developing, modifying, and/or contributing the AIX and Dynix source code in question; (2) the dates of those developments, modifications, and/or contributions; and (3) the precise developments, modifications, and/or contributions that were made, including the precise source code involved and other relevant programmer notes pertinent to these issues. See SCO Reply Mem. Regarding Discovery (July 12, 2004) at 11-13.11 . . . .
Second, independent of SCO's own claims, the discovery at issue is plainly relevant to two separate counterclaims that IBM inserted into this case on March 29, 2004 -- after this Court entered its last discovery-related Order on March 3. IBM's Tenth Counterclaim, for example, seeks a blanket declaration that Linux does not infringe any SCO copyright. See IBM 2d Am. Countercl. ¶173. There is no merit to IBM's attempt to shield the development history of AIX and Dynix from discovery based on its repeated refrain that the proof of its Linux copyright claim requires a comparison of only UNIX System V code on the one hand and Linux code on the other. SCO does not dispute that its defense to IBM's Tenth Counterclaim will necessarily involve proof of literal and/or non-literal copies of UNIX code that were ultimately dumped into Linux. What IBM ignores is that its Linux dump did not occur directly from the original licensed UNIX product; rather, before the original UNIX code was copied, literally or non-literally, into Linux (within the past five years), it traveled for longer than a decade through the development process of the UNIX-based AIX and Dynix programs. It is for this precise reason that the development history of AIX and Dynix -- the discovery that IBM has withheld for over a year -- is critical to SCO's defense to the Tenth Counterclaim. In particular, and as SCO has previously detailed for the District Court in its opposition to IBM's first summary judgment motion and at the recent argument on that motion, the outstanding programming-history discovery may contain programmer admissions and comments on which courts have heavily relied in copyright infringement cases. See, e.g., Computer Assocs. Int'l v. Quest Software, Inc., No. 02 C 4721, 2004 WL 1459495, at *9 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 2004)(Exh. A)(granting preliminary injunction in computer software infringement case based on such evidence). See, e.g., Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus. Ltd., 9 F. 3d 823, 835-36 (10th Cir. 1993)(noting that the "structure, sequence, organization" of a program, and not only its "literal" source and object code, may be copyrightable). Automated computer programs, while useful in detecting verbatim copying, are not perfect, and are virtually useless in identifying non-literal copying. And manual, side-by-side comparison of millions of lines of System V and Linux source code in a search for non-literal copying would be incredibly burdensome and time-consuming. The discovery SCO has requested, on the other hand, will allow SCO to determine which elements of UNIX were directly incorporated into AIX and Dynix in the first instance and thereby to trace the migration of protected, non-literal elements of UNIX, through AIX and Dynix, to Linux. In turn, SCO will be able to identify "hot spots" in Linux (those portions of AIX and Dynix that can ultimately be traced back to UNIX) on which it can effectively focus its Linux copyright infringement investigation in this case.
12
Finally, and even more obviously, the outstanding programming history is independently relevant to IBM's Ninth Counterclaim, which seeks a declaration that IBM does not infringe "any SCO copyright through the reproduction, improvement, and distribution of AIX and Dynix." IBM 2d Am. Countercl. ¶ 167 (emphasis added). That history is relevant entirely apart from the specific evidence that SCO has recently uncovered to establish IBM's infringement of SCO's copyrights through AIX (i.e., evidence that in connection with its work on "Project Monterey," IBM used its CMVC system as an instrument to misappropriate SCO's proprietary code for inclusion in a specialized version of AIX (AIX for Power)). Given its plain language -- and notwithstanding IBM's attempt now to recast its scope, see Part II, below -- IBM's Ninth Counterclaim necessarily directly implicates the programming history of AIX and Dynix, an issue on which the CMVC and RCS systems constitute direct evidence.
9These claims include SCO's breach of contract claims (Counts One through Four) as well as its copyright claim (Count Five), which centers on IBM's improper continued use of AIX and Dynix following SCO's termination of the IBM and Sequent license agreements.
10 Similarly, Section 7.06(a) of the Sequent license agreement specifically prohibited the disclosure of "any or all of such SOFTWARE PRODUCTS (i.e., UNIX System V and, pursuant to Section 2.01, any modifications or derivatives based on that contents of System V] (including methods or concepts utilized therein) to anyone." Thus, any disclosure of any method or concept of anything in UNIX System V (or anything derived from UNIX System V) would breach the license agreement. SCO's access to the requested programming history will permit SCO to locate the proof of such breaches.
11 IBM has previously mischaracterized SCO's contract interpretation argument to be limited to showing that AIX and Dynix are, as a whole, derivatives of the original licensed product. As SCO has repeatedly explained, although there is much to support this contractual reading -- including IBM's own repeated admissions -- SCO's theory of the contract is not so limited. Rather, SCO also seeks to show that the particular contributions that IBM made to Linux violated the license agreements because those specific contributions represented derivatives or modifications that were required to be treated as if they were part of the original licensed Unix System V product.
12 After SCO showed during the September 15 hearing before the District Court how the development history of AIX and Dynix is a roadmap permitting SCO to investigate potential copyright infringement in IBM's Linux contributions, IBM counsel opined that the roadmap for which SCO asks "might as well be the road map for China" because "The only road map that matters, Your Honor, is what's in Unix and what's in Linux." Tr. at 115-16. This argument is misguided. Because IBM's contributions to Linux were taken from AIX and Dynix, the UNIX-derived products, the roadmap for IBM's contributions to Linux exists in the programming history to those programs. IBM's counsel's argument also misapprehends the governing discovery standard, under which SCO is entitled to any information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. They mentioned the Gates Rubber case in an earlier memorandum [PDF] in support of their requests for more discovery but without really explaining as clearly as here how they thought it applied. You can read the decision in the Gates case here. In this filing, they spell out exactly what they are thinking. Their footnote 11 states:SCO also seeks to show that the particular contributions that IBM made to Linux violated the license agreements because those specific contributions represented derivatives or modifications that were required to be treated as if they were part of the original licensed Unix System V product. Why would they need to look to the licenses instead of copyright law? Because the Gates case precludes methods and concepts from copyrightability: Some concern has been expressed lest copyright in computer programs should extend protection to the methodology or processes adopted by the programmer, rather than merely to the “writing” expressing his ideas. Section 102(b) is intended, among other things, to make clear that the expression adopted by the programmer is the copyrightable element in a computer program, and that the actual processes or methods embodied in the program are not within the scope of the copyright law. I believe they are hoping, or were when this all began, to extend copyright law interpretation to include methods and concepts (remember their book analogy?), but that exalted hope may have taken a back seat, and may now be sitting next to the GPL-is-unconstitutional silliness. But as of now, this isn't about copyright infringement in the line by line sense. The best they are hoping for, if they can find it, is indirect copying, obfuscation, that and the AIX-post "termination", a termination Novell has waived anyhow. Good luck with that, by the way. No, it's primarily about the licenses. It's a convoluted way to try to claim control of the code by coming in the back door via contract. They appear to understand, despite what they told the media, that they have no copyright infringement claim against IBM regarding Linux that would match what they told the world, the mountains of code baloney. That is a claim they have never substantiated with evidence, and I gather from this filing, they never will be able to do so. The claim is foundationally contract-based. The rest is still just a hope. How does that vindicate Linux? In this filing, they say "SCO's copyright claim . . . relates only to IBM's distribution, reproduction, and use of AIX and Dynix without a license to do so." Oh, really? Then what was all that trash talk to the press since 2003? And what about their recent "explanation" about the 1999 study? Is there or is there not copyright infringement in Linux relative to IBM? If you look at their statement closely, you will see they mention obfuscation. So that is their fantasy, that they'll be able to find some of that. That explanation doesn't in any way support their having accused Linux developers of line by line infringement. Remember the part about the comments being identical? Laura DiDio found that convincing. But in the court case, where is any of that evidence? It seems to have gone walkabout. Instead I see nothing but this strained and complex methods and concepts hunt, based not so much on copyright law but on contracts and a hope to find obfuscated code somehow, some day. If there isn't any copyright infringement except what is listed here, the post "termination" of the AIX license, which isn't about Linux, and if what they told the judge here was truthful, then why did they make the claims they did in 2003 and why are they telling the media even now that the 1999 study does show "problems" with Linux? If there were any such problems, why isn't IBM charged with copyright infringement regarding those "problems"? So which is it? Did they have in their hand in 2003 evidence of copyright infringement or didn't they? And by the way, what are those "problems", exactly? Do you really believe if they had anything at all to charge IBM with, that they would refrain?
What I now suspect happened is this: First, they found out from the 1999 study, which Davidson reported to Reg Broughton in August of 2002, that there was no copyright infringement. He told them so, plain as day. The study was useless. Any apparent similarities had turned out to be perfectly legal. At some point after that, SCO told us, they had three teams of programmers look at the code and they all, they claimed, said that they found literal copyright infringement, and yet SCO never, to my knowledge, presented any of these reports to the court as evidence and they've never released any of these studies to the media either. Why not? You may draw your own conclusions from SCO's behavior as to just how valuable those studies turned out to be, if they existed in the first place. But, aside from the contract claims, the need for all the code was primarily driven by a need to beat back IBM's counterclaims, not to attack IBM for copyright infringement. Here's how SCO puts it: Wholly apart from SCO's contract claims, the discovery that SCO seeks is now relevant, and indeed critical, to SCO's ability to defend against IBM's recently-added copyright claim. See what I mean? They need the discovery for two things: to try to establish their theory of the licenses, and they really need it to defend themselves. (Hope springs eternal in their breast, naturally, that if they keep looking, they'll find something that will at least appear to be copyright infringement.) My point is simple: I think that whether or not SCO is successful in its claims regarding the contracts, it's now obvious that there was no breakdown in the Linux development process. SCO is desperately needing all that code to defend itself from IBM's counterclaims, especially regarding copyright infringement, not because SCO is accusing IBM of infringement at this point, other than the AIX termination stuff, but because IBM is asking the court for a clean bill of health. I'm sure, if SCO ever found any infringement, they'd use it aggressively, but that isn't why they needed that mound of code. They need it to save themselves. Whatever contractual violations SCO hopes to someday find, it can't possibly reflect on Linux. Look what SCO has had to do to try to find any violations. They've been burrowing like little moles through this humungous pile of code, and so far, nothing. Linux isn't a party to any contract with SCO. If it's that hard to find, and SCO has had in hand both bodies of code from day one, Unix and Linux, since they sold both, how could Linus possibly screen out something that the owner of the code can't even identify after two years of serious looking? And the owner of the code appears to be going after methods and concepts in a contract claim precisely because there isn't any copyright infringement in Linux, and the only way to throw tacks in the road to try to slow down Linux adoption was this elaborate contract claim. Of course, the statements about "mountains of code" and "line by line infringement" will have to be explained one day, and justified, when IBM's other counterclaims about Lanham Act violations and common law torts have their day. Obviously, there isn't a thing wrong with the Linux development process. So, Linux has been vindicated, ironically *because* of all the hoops SCO insisted on leaping through in discovery.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: MathFox on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 03:52 PM EDT |
If you think PJ made an error in the story.
---
When people start to comment on the form of the message, it is a sign that they
have problems to accept the truth of the message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MathFox on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 03:56 PM EDT |
If you refer to a story, please add a link and a short description.
---
When people start to comment on the form of the message, it is a sign that they
have problems to accept the truth of the message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
| Great Analysis [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tredman on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 04:11 PM EDT |
Something just occurred to me reading this. Everything that SCOX has posited to
this point are civil accusations. Most of IBM's counterclaims are obviously
civil. Are there any of the counterclaims, however, that would, by their
nature, turn into criminal accusations? I'm thinking of the Lanham Act claims
specifically.
There's definitely the possibility that outside parties like the SEC are
watching this with some interest, and that criminal charges could arise there,
but could criminal charges actually arise directly from any of IBM's
counterclaims? Or does it not work that way?
I'm in search of enlightenment from some of our legal eagles out there.
---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
| I can resist any longer. I've tried, really I have, but this document turns out
to be the brick that broke my resistance.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
I can't hold it in any
longer; these clowns have driven me right past rightious indignation and into
riotous laughter. What a bunch of complete goons.
The Flatlander
In
hindsight, now, Judge Wells's sugestion that IBM's case would be made stronger
by all this [stupid/pointless/egregous] extra discovery makes a little more
sense. The SCOundrels are calcinated ash. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: golding on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 04:22 PM EDT |
Footnote 9 "These claims include SCO's breach of contract claims (Counts
One through Four) as well as its copyright claim (Count Five), which centers on
IBM's improper continued use of AIX and Dynix following SCO's termination of the
IBM and Sequent license agreements."
This argument is circular in that they could only terminate the licence
agreements if IBM had borked the contract, which hasn't been proven.
A man is caught breaking into a home, and is charged with "Break &
Enter". It transpires that the home is his own, he just lost his keys, are
they still able to prosecute the charge?. I think not!
---
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 04:28 PM EDT |
Hrm. Seems to me the discovery has about the same chance
of succeeding as monkeys typing a Shakespeare piece... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 04:33 PM EDT |
Given the magnitude of the task, wouldn't it be difficult to keep the identity
of those doing the analysis a secret?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
The problem with Judge Well's order: even if she was not give an opinion
of IBM when granting all that stuff asked for by SCO: That was not right!
If somebody argues with you and says that it is unfair that they can't fly,
you just can not go like "Oh yes, you're right. I grant you the right to
fly!"
Same goes for SCO. They did not abide by the law (this time not physical
law, but another type...). They asked for things which they were NOT
entitled to.
Copyright case means: no copying. There is no copying. If you
take something and slowly evolve it into something completely different,
that is no copying (well established law!!!).
Contract law means: you do not do anything which is prohibited by the contract.
I can not see anything (even by reading SCO's texts) that was done by IBM
to break the contract.
Sorry, but I still can not understand why Judge Wells (with all the knowledge
she should have... after all, she is PAID to know all that) granted so much
for SCO.
All in all, the whole lawsuit smells like incompetence from SCO's side
(they evidently filed an unmerited law suit), and also like incompetence
from the judges sides (they granted much too much, when they should
be savvy enough to know SCO was wrong).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
| I hope that SCO finds a clear cut case of copyright
infringment with all their
searching, only to bring it
into court and discover that it was actually a
case of
Linux code being copied into AIX.
That would make
all the extra discovery and delay
worthwhile... Possibly even for IBM.
c. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: James on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 06:45 PM EDT |
This only just occured to me, I don't know why it didn't before, but isn't SCO's
theory backwards? If IBM were copying code into Linux from AIX why would they
obfuscate it in AIX to hide their contributions to Linux??? Obviously logically
it would make sense to hide it going into Linux, not vice versa. But the
contribution process plus the archives at kernel.org make that trivially easy to
find and trace, therefore they obviously can't show it. It makes absolutely no
sense to me why that theory ever seemed logical to anyone.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
| PJ wrote : Linux has now been vindicated once and for all, ironically enough
*because* of all the discovery SCO obtained.
Perhaps this should be a
standard to which all operating systems are held.
It'd be great if large
corporations or government purchasers required Windows to be audited to make
sure Microsoft Longhorn / Vista didn't contain any illegal software (which was
a recurring problem for earlier releases of Windows with code from guys like
Stac and Carlos Armando Amado).
If you're a law-abiding corporation, surely
you wouldn't want your infrastructure based on likely illegal software -- seems
this means your only choice today is Linux, because many times in the past
Windows has been proven guilty and until they get some third party to audit
their code I sure as hell won't trust them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- good point! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 09:20 PM EDT
- Vista? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 10:24 PM EDT
- Vista? - Authored by: cmc on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 10:34 PM EDT
- Vista? - Authored by: inode_buddha on Sunday, July 24 2005 @ 01:48 AM EDT
- A flaw in that logic - Authored by: cmc on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 10:39 PM EDT
- It was Stac binaries - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 11:02 PM EDT
- Vindication of an OS - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 26 2005 @ 09:09 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 07:21 PM EDT |
"Brent Christensen," and, "Ralph Yarro."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Where is Ralph? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 08:59 PM EDT
- Where is Ralph? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 24 2005 @ 12:47 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: thorpie on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
It appears to me that what they are trying to show is that the Unix licence
prevented step by step, or incremental, development of methods and processes
that were initially based upon the Unix source code.
Simplify it to a two
step process - first step is that 40% of the code is changed and rewritten. The
second step is rewriting the whole, with access to only the 40% of the code that
they own visible to them when they are rewriting. They still want the code to
achieve exactly the same objective. SCO is saying this 40% of the code is a
deriviative that they have rights to it because they have rights to deriviative
works under the licence.
To me this view at least offers some logical
basis for the position SCO is taking.
If SCO firstly prove this type of
work did happen, and secondly, they then prevail to get a judgement that this
breaches the contract, then they have a case against IBM.
The question
that then comes to mind is do they have a case against other licensees who have
started using Linux? If they have a case against IBM, does this transfer to
other licencees?
---
The memories of a man in his old age are the
deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
Much of this filing seems cut and pasted from other filings. I seem to recall
reading much of this before.
One cute trick I noticed was SCOG taking credit returning the disputed emails to
IBM, while at the same time repeatedly referring to the contents.
The other cute trick is "REDACTED AT IBM's REQUEST"
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 09:48 PM EDT |
>Linux isn't a party to any contract with SCO.
Actually, SCO is in contract with the GPL, for distributing linux, so no quite
correct.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 10:43 PM EDT |
No has seems to have mentioned it yet, so I'll ask the question: if SCO freely
admits that Linux is free of infringement, then what is SCOsource all about?
Why did they send that letter to 1500 companies? Why did they plaster the media
with tales of Linux infringement? And most importantly, what is the recourse
for companies (such as EV1) who did purchase SCO's Linux license because of that
marketing?
cmc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 10:54 PM EDT |
"Obviously, there isn't a thing wrong with the Linux development
process." -- in respect to this case. A failed attack doesn't show the
absence of faults. Just like that today, Saturday, I didn't go shopping, doesn't
show that I never go shopping on Saturdays.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 11:35 PM EDT |
*Why* am I not surprised? This document supports what I've suspected since the
case began. Notice also how they say different things in three venues: the
Courts, the SEC, and the public.
---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AllParadox on Saturday, July 23 2005 @ 11:36 PM EDT |
Something that is not often mentioned is that much of trial work is about
blackmail.
A little guy takes on a vulnerable big guy. The vulnerability is that the big
guy is doing lots of things, many of them unrelated to his lawsuit with the
little guy. The little guy then works up some kind of theory that allows him to
dig around in Big Guy's records. Often, he finds something either embarrassing,
or very embarrassing, like failure to properly pay federal income taxes.
Then, in the context of the original complaint, big guy and little guy settle,
with the additional agreement, very carefully worded, that the whole thing is
off if little guy later "outs" the big guy.
B.S.F. may have had prior cases where they were able to settle on this basis.
This particular tactic is quite embarrassing to the legal profession. The
parties involved, the employees of the big guy, know very well that they have
been blackmailed, and they will tell their friends about it.
The bar associations have a very difficult task in sanctioning it, because the
language used by the little guy's attorneys is so very carefully couched that it
is impossible to prove the blackmail.
Federal judges are generally offended by such use of their good offices.
Sometimes, you can get some sense of what they are feeling. It is written in
the sounds of silence. After "reflection", a judge will drastically
reduce a prior broad order, as Judge Wells did with the discovery order against
IBM that she had so broadly expanded earlier.
There are persons who make a career out of being a royal pain-in-the-neck, and
are quite successful at it. Ross Perot comes to mind as an example.
The trick is to limit the suit and the complaint to a small topic. That way, if
you lose, all you are out are your attorneys fees.
"The SCO Group" may have learned the trick too late.
---
PJ deletes insult posts, not differences of opinion.
AllParadox; retired lawyer and chief Groklaw iconoclast. No legal opinions,
just my opinion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Sunday, July 24 2005 @ 03:33 AM EDT |
It's about now that TSG will start to sue their own lawyers for mishandling
their case. There will be no merit of course, but it's an ideal method to add a
year or two additional delay.
---
I'm not a Windows user, consequently I'm not
afraid of receiving email from total strangers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Sunday, July 24 2005 @ 04:12 AM EDT |
Maybe we get a hint what that is about here - the motion was to challenge the
privilege on the sealed emails that SCO was desperate to read out?
Not that it makes any odds now that Judge K has denied the 3rd amended
complaint.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: El_Heffe on Sunday, July 24 2005 @ 08:30 AM EDT |
"And SCO still hasn't shown any evidence of infringement two years into the
process ....... despite their public claims in 2003 that they already had in
their hands such evidence. Now they tell us they are still looking."
2 years ago, SCO publicly claimed to have an ENORMOUS amount of evidence of code
copying, MILLIONS OF LINES, and now they say have none and are still looking for
it.
IANAL, but I always thought that judges looked very unkindly on lying.
---
My dog! It's full of rats! - 2001 a Dyslexic Odyssey.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 24 2005 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
| Infinite donkeys theorum applies more aptly here.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yeh but - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 24 2005 @ 02:16 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 24 2005 @ 03:05 PM EDT |
Am I the only one who believes that SCOG will use its interest in Vista to sue
Microsoft over 'trademark' issues?
The lawsuit will appear to originate with John Wall, but will actually be a
vehicle for Microsoft to infuse another 50 or 100 million dollars into the 'SCO
vs. IBM' FUD factory. I think the winks have already been winked and the nudges
have already been nudged, that is, highly placed executives at Microsoft have
already indicated -- very informally and way off any record -- how much
Microsoft is likely to settle for, in return for promises defining how much of
the settlement SCOG will untimately end up with. What I don't understand is how
the principals expect to escape exposure.
Why was SCOG so determined to lock up a big interest in Vista? Why was a new
index created that seems to have no earthly use other than to give SCOX more
visibility on the financial landscape? Why did Microsoft -- a company built
entirely on marketing and litigation savvy -- select a product name that invites
both ridicule for its mediocrity and litigation for its infringement?
Could it be that from Microsoft's point of view, if SCO vs. IBM cannot be kept
alive until Longhorn has saturated its market, Microsoft will be ruined anyway,
so desparate measures are appropriate?
-Wang-Lo.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 24 2005 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
IIRC, the cap only applies to appeals on SCO's suit. I don't recall anything
about the counter suit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 25 2005 @ 08:45 AM EDT |
This case has been nothing but a Microsoft (and maybe Sun) attempt to slow
adoption in the enterprise.
Where is the freaking evidence? After all this time they can't even spare us
one shread of evidence. Just one?
I hope IBM goes after them with both barrels after this case gets thrown out.
SCO should see no mercy. They need to be made an example of so any other company
that wants to get in bed with Microsoft knows what they are getting into.
To me all gloves are off. I am through being nice about Linux adoption. I want
to shove Linux down all the people's throats that have been trying to shove
Windows down mine.
I also say boycott any website that writes windows only code. If the coders
can't write standard compliant code and needs Microsoft's handholding then they
shouldn't be writing code. Go to school and learn about open standards.
Sorry - I guess I need my coffee but I am so sick of Microsoft lock-in. Just
use open standards. I don't care what operating system you use. Just allow me to
use the os of my choice and code to open standards. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 25 2005 @ 07:10 PM EDT |
| "At some point after that, SCO told us, they had three teams of programmers
look at the code and they all, they claimed, said that they found literal
copyright infringement, and yet SCO never, to my knowledge, presented any of
these reports to the court as evidence and they've never released any of these
studies to the media either. Why not? You may draw your own conclusions from
SCO's behavior as to just how valuable those studies turned out to be, if they
existed in the first place."
Presumably IBM asked for copies of these
three studies in their discovery requests. Is there any indication yet of how
SCOG responded? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 27 2005 @ 06:09 AM EDT |
Has the money from SCO and their, umm, backers been worth it?
What inspired you to take this case of corporate blackballing of an open
community effort aiming to benefit the whole of humanity in the first place?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
