|
It's Raining SCO Redacted Documents - Updated |
|
Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 10:07 PM EDT
|
All of a sudden, there are SCO redacted documents galore. I haven't had time to read them myself yet, so we'll do it together. I started reading the David Rodgers deposition while I was busy uploading all the documents, and I'm up to the part where he tells us that Dynix is based on BSD. He also explains what methods and concepts are, and why he feels sure they were not covered by the license the company signed, and he explains what a derivative is as opposed to a modification, and he amplifies his Declaration. I haven't finished reading it, so there may be many more things of interest. I also saw the SCO proposed 3rd Amended Complaint, as an exhibit, which is all it will ever be, since SCO was denied the right to file it. There are quite a number of documents in support of that failed effort, so just remember as you read them all, it didn't work for SCO. There are a few exhibits I think we already have, but I haven't carefully parsed that all out yet. And I also saw that there is an IBM answer to some interrogatories in which they detail on what basis they are asking that SCO be ordered to pay them damages. But the overarching feeling I am left with is how many, many documents SCO filed under seal. Just uploading them all and making this list took hours. No wonder Judge Kimball mentioned the poor clerk getting buried. I'll write about anything interesting in this collection, piece by piece, if I see anything that needs explaining, as we get them transcribed. I will really need your help transcribing, so if you can help, please leave a comment that you will do whatever document you can do, so we don't duplicate. If you are new to transcribing, take a look at earlier documents transcribed by Groklaw, to see our general style on headers. Also, if doing an exhibit, make sure we don't already have it, by checking the IBM Timeline page or the Legal Docs page. Then send me the finished work, and let me know what credit, if any, you'd like. Thank you if you can help. Update: We've added #497 plus exhibits to the list.
Here's the list, all PDFs. Can you believe it?
|
|
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 12:33 AM EDT |
.
---
webster
>>>>>>> LN 3.0 >>>>>>>>>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Totosplatz on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 12:42 AM EDT |
I will post it when I am done - the whole
enchilada.
--- All the best to one and all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 12:51 AM EDT |
Clicky links and HTML mode.
---
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make
you commit injustices.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 01:33 AM EDT |
Attachment #495-1 looks to be a firecracker for SCO, but I'll reserve judgement
until they've been under the Groklaw microscope.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: chotchki on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 01:36 AM EDT |
Im new to transcribing so please bear with me :D [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 01:58 AM EDT |
Well that clears that up. All that SCO found in IBM's documents are an attempt
of the developping team of AIX on IA64 to get the product they have worked on
for so long released.
Their argument is that the agreement was set up in order to make this product
happen and that they needed to release it in order to secure the necessary
rights. They hate to see their work end up in the garbage bin.
The answer is clear: we made an effort, and no one wanted the damn thing.
SCO is running (or better was) with this argument. Unfortunately it might be
that the development team was dead wrong. As happens often with SCO's
assertions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: apessos on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 08:25 AM EDT |
Post which documents are being transcribed to help with the effort and reduce
any duplicate work...
Totosplatz has IBM-476
chotchki has 477[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM-500 Certificate of service (raw HTML) - Authored by: gumnos on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 09:49 AM EDT
- Transcribing Effort, Who's Doing What - Authored by: Matt C on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 09:59 AM EDT
- Hey, that's pretty funny - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 10:36 AM EDT
- Transcribing Effort, Who's Doing What - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 06:34 PM EDT
- 496 - Authored by: mwexler on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 06:35 PM EDT
- 496 - Authored by: ForestMorenthree on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 11:56 PM EDT
- 496 - Authored by: mwexler on Thursday, August 25 2005 @ 02:53 AM EDT
- I'll take 497 - Authored by: mwexler on Sunday, August 28 2005 @ 09:57 PM EDT
- I claim 498 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 28 2005 @ 11:26 PM EDT
- 498 Completed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 31 2005 @ 07:19 PM EDT
- 478 and 479 are done - Authored by: aj on Wednesday, August 31 2005 @ 12:29 PM EDT
- IBM-480 is done - Authored by: aj on Thursday, September 01 2005 @ 01:04 PM EDT
- Starting IBM-495... - Authored by: aj on Friday, September 02 2005 @ 04:01 AM EDT
- Starting IBM-481... - Authored by: aj on Saturday, September 03 2005 @ 07:58 AM EDT
- Starting IBM-482... - Authored by: aj on Sunday, September 04 2005 @ 09:34 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
Did SCO really seal two certificates of service?
This is so insane, words fail me.
MSS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Matt C on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
mailed it to ya. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 499 is done - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 11:34 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 12:45 PM EDT |
Q. Do you understand that, at least as the plaintiff SCO alleges, IBM has
contributed code from Dynix/pts to Linux?
A. I do, but you were my source.
Q. I'll put on the record that that was not meant to be a waiver of the
attourney-client privilege.
Mr. Heise: Too late.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Stumbles on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
Now I have this little ditty running around in my head;
It's
raining, it's pouring... SCO is a snoring. --- You can tune a piano
but you can't tune a fish. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 03:37 PM EDT |
There certainly must be a reason why SCO puts out so many documents at once?
Maybe they want to drown the signal in lots of noise. There's probably a
"smoking gun" hidden in the pile. Let's read it all, carefully...
</tinfoil>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rm6990 on Thursday, August 25 2005 @ 01:16 AM EDT |
Re : Supplemental Memorandum re Discovery #482 - REDACTION to [287] Sealed
Document/Supplemental Memorandum re Discovery by Plaintiff SCO Group.
Don't you just love how SCO confuses the Judge into thinking that because SCO's
products ran on Intel chips (x86), they somehow have expertise on developing for
the Itanium architecture?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Thursday, August 25 2005 @ 02:26 PM EDT |
It looks like over half of the documents SCO recently released redacted versions
of were filed under seal because they contained information IBM marked
CONFIDENTIAL. Some of that confidential material is shown here, did they get
with IBM to make sure it was ok to release that? Some stuff is still marked
'Redacted at IBM's request' so that must be the case.
Why were documents filed under seal?
476 - SCO - Part of Chris Sontag's declaration is still redacted (UNIX code in
it)
477 - IBM - Information contributed by IBM in discovery and marked CONFIDENTIAL
478 - IBM - Interrogitory responses marked CONFIDENTIAL by IBM
479 - IBM - Those emails IBM didn't want read in court, still redacted form this
document at IBM's request
480 - IBM - Two pages marked as redacted at IBM's request
481 - SCO - Why is one paragraph redacted?
482 - IBM - Three pages redacted at IBM's request?
483 - IBM - Documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL by IBM
484 - IBM - Documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL by IBM
485 - IBM - Documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL by IBM
486-7 - ?? - Declaration of IBM witness
488 - IBM+SCO - Documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL by IBM plus SCO documents
489 - IBM+?? - Documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL by IBM and others also
490 - ?? - Citations and samples of other cases? Why was this not filed?
493 - ?? - I couldn't open the document ("damaged and cannot be
repaired")
494 - ?? - 404 error
495 - SCO - Proposed third amended complaint
495-1 - IBM - Documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL by IBM
495-2 - ?? - Cases and stuff from WestLaw?
496 - ??
497 - SCO+IBM?? - Agreement between AT&T and SEQUENT
497-1 - ?? - RCU paper
497-2 - ?? - Sample RCU code contributed to Linux by IBM
497-3 - 404 error
497-4 - "file is damaged and cannot be repaired"
497-5 - ?? - Two linux header files and some SYSV init manual pages
497-6 - ?? - SYSV init manual pages, Linux ELF code
497-7
498 - IBM? - Motion for 3rd complaint, maybe contains info in the emails IBM
didn't want disclosed?
499 - IBM - Documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL by IBM
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|