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
SCO Filed, but it's Under Seal
Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 01:26 AM EST

Well, they dood it. SCO filed on Friday, according to Stephen Shankland, who must have gotten the info from SCO itself, because it isn't on Pacer yet.

What? A party to a lawsuit is sending legal documents to a journalist? Oooh, perfidy. Call Dan Lyons right away. Does that mean Shankland works for SCO? Get a detective on that right away.

: )

Friday was the interim deadline for the parties to "disclose with specificity all allegedly misused material identified to date and to update interrogatory responses accordingly."

Here's what Shankland tells us:

In a five-page document filed Friday, SCO attorneys say they identify 217 areas in which it believes IBM or Sequent, a Unix server company IBM acquired, violated contracts under which SCO and its predecessors licensed the Unix operating system. However, the curious won't be able to see for themselves the details of SCO's claims: The full list of alleged abuses were filed in a separate document under court seal.

The Lindon, Utah-based company did provide some information about what it believes IBM moved improperly to Linux, though.

"Some of these wrongful disclosures include areas such as an entire file management system; others are communications by IBM personnel working on Linux that resulted in enhancing Linux functionality by disclosing a method or concept from Unix technology," SCO said. "The numerosity and substantiality of the disclosures reflects the pervasive extent and sustained degree as to which IBM disclosed methods, concepts, and in many places, literal code, from Unix-derived technologies in order to enhance the ability of Linux to be used as a scalable and reliable operating system for business and as an alternative to proprietary Unix systems such as those licensed by SCO and others."

Yeah? We'll see. Or maybe only the parties and the judge will, but if they had found infringing literal code, there is absolutely no reason not to show it without seal, because if it's literal, it's out there in the public already. All Linux code is freely viewable by anyone on Planet Earth. The astronauts can look at it too. SCO may be afraid the Linux community will pull the rug out from under them before they can get to trial, if they tell us publicly what they think they have. Every time they tell us what they think is infringing, somebody proves they are mistaken. At best.

I'm from Missouri, personally. Not literally, so don't bother sending detectives to harrass me, or to dig up dirt to discredit me, as per a recent suggested list of corporate dirty tricks. But seriously, remember the ominous-sounding words about AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler and their alleged breaches? You saw how far SCO got with that nonsense. DC hadn't even used SCO's software -- if it is even theirs -- for almost a decade. Remember all the hot air about IBM's horrendous "copyright infringement" that also disappeared in a puff of smoke when Judge Kimball said he saw no there there? So while I can't know for sure that they have nothing this time unless or until we get to see it for ourselves, one thing is for sure -- their track record is mighty poor so far.

Robin Bloor has a theory to warm SCO's heart. He figures that if SCO's stock goes up, it will mean someone leaked whatever it is they filed and it's solid. Mwahahahaha. He hasn't been watching this stock the way we have, methinks. Doesn't he remember how the stock shot up to the $20 on news of IBM's alleged copyright infringement? And did those claims prove to be solid? I'm no stock guru, but I can extrapolate from that.

By the way, here's what *is* on Pacer: the hearing on IBM's Motion to Compel Production of Documents on SCO's Privilege Log and SCO's "Renewed" Motion to Compel Discovery will be on December 20 at 10:00 AM in Room 220 before Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells.


  


SCO Filed, but it's Under Seal | 364 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here!
Authored by: chris_bloke on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 01:33 AM EST
You know the drill (no, not the electric one!)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Filed FIVE pages - that's it?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 01:34 AM EST
FIVE pages.

217 Areas.

Sounds as if SCO still has not shown anything specific.

They're still trying to use the idea of methods and concepts.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic (OT) Here Please
Authored by: chris_bloke on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 01:34 AM EST
Off topic posts only under here please..

[ Reply to This | # ]

He, he, this is going to be funny
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 01:36 AM EST
> Some of these wrongful disclosures include areas such as an entire file
management system

This would be IBM's JFS. No less ;-)

> others are communications by IBM personnel working on Linux that resulted
in enhancing Linux functionality by disclosing a method or concept from Unix
technology,

Ah, these are called "patents", of which SCO have none ;-)

> he numerosity and substantiality of the disclosures reflects the pervasive
extent and sustained degree as to which IBM disclosed methods, concepts,

More non-existent patents ;-)

> and in many places, literal code

The obsolete malloc() function ;-)

> in order to enhance the ability of Linux to be used as a scalable and
reliable operating system

This must be IBM patented RCU, for which Linus received the patent grant from
IBM themselves. How nice ;-)

Same old, same old. Move on...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Filed, but it's Under Seal
Authored by: chris_bloke on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 01:38 AM EST
enhance the ability of Linux to be used as a scalable and reliable operating system

Quick! They must sue Caldera for helping to develop SMP! :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gratefull they used very small characters
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 01:48 AM EST
217 pages to hold all those millions of lines that have been copied. Well done.

Serieously though. IBM will finally have an idea as to what SCO thinks is the
hart of the case. I think we'll hear them laughing even here in the netherlands
when they read the pages. I think SCO did their best to put their theories to
paper without saying a singel meaningfull word and then present it as evidence.
They can now claim they did their duty and the discussion about wether the filed
pages are in compliance with the order will probably take months. Deadlines will
be rescheduled. This willl proof to be the latest diversion and delaying tactic
I'm sure.

[ Reply to This | # ]

When (or how) will it be unsealed?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 02:13 AM EST
Will IBM swiftly move to unseal this now? It would be in their best interest, so
all those thousands on Linux coders can jump in and prove SCO wrong (again). And
if IBM doesn't for some reason, can someone else somehow get these documents
unsealed?

Also, what would happen if it does get unsealed and all 217 claims are proven
false -- even before the December 20 deadline?

--
Sander Marechal

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Hard Lesson To Learn
Authored by: Dijital on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 02:13 AM EST
It's a crying shame that one of the hardest lessons to be learned from this
entire saga is that until massive software patent reform occurs (or software
patents preferably go away altogether), patent-related lawsuits are going to
only get worse. In fact, I think that in the past 3 years I've heard more about
patent-related lawsuits than in the decade previous to that, and not just for
software either.

You have to wonder, how many companies are currently reviewing their patent
portfolios and then searchng high and low for someone that may potentially be
violating them? I'm sure there are a good many.

These lawsuits all follow the same course:

1) Company A gets a patent on something.
2) Company B happens to have done something which either does or potentially
violates Company A's patent.
3) Company A files a lawsuit against Company B screaming "Thieves!"
and dreaming of that magical windfall.
4) Company A and B fight it out through time consuming legal maneoeuvering which
causes both companies to pay untold amounts of money to their respective law
firms.
5) One of the companies wins the case and there is much rejoicing.
6) The losing company appeals (in many cases) forcing yet again more time
consuming legal maneoeuvering and the wasting of even more untold amounts of
money.

It's very sad to know that we're going to have to deal with this for a very long
time.

---
- Armando -

"mv sco /dev/null"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cannot be specific at all
Authored by: Peter Smith on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 02:17 AM EST
If they mentioned 217 areas on five pages they must have been laughably vague.

That works out at 43 areas per page and if one includes blank lines for
paragraph spacing thay could have said very little indeed about each area.

So much for specificity.
I think a summary motion for dismissal cannot be far off.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The oral hearing
Authored by: elronxenu on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 02:18 AM EST
So does this mean when SCO gets to argue this stuff in front of the judge, that the hearing will be under seal?

Or am I mistaken - because it isn't a motion, it doesn't get a hearing? And so therefore, assuming that these 217 claims are hot air, IBM must wait until the close of fact discovery and then it can resubmit its claims for summary judgement or partial summary judgement?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Filed, but it's Under Seal
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 02:29 AM EST
Isn't it possible even without the details of the 5 page document to check and
match certain coders that worked on stuff over the years and crossref them with
earlier rants from SCO (timelines ,systems , kernel versions etc etc ) and
debunk most of it ? All we need should be a very very rough description of the
areas affected.

My bet is this "rough" version will leak somewhere between NOW and
next week.

So people, bring on the *grep*.

Retep.

[ Reply to This | # ]

... from Unix-derived technologies
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 02:31 AM EST

As monsieur_bobo on Yahoo points out:

>>
... IBM disclosed methods, concepts, and in many places, literal code, from
Unix-derived technologies
<<

Note the key pharse 'from Unix-derived', not 'from Unix', so in other words, the
same old crap; JFS, RCU, NUMA and anything having anything to do with SMP.

Code that IBM actually wrote and own. SCO claims it has rights to this code
because ... Darl had a dream...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Filed, but it's Under Seal
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 03:21 AM EST
"Some of these wrongful disclosures include areas such as an entire file
management system; others are communications by IBM personnel working on Linux
that resulted in enhancing Linux functionality by disclosing a method or concept
from Unix technology..."

To me, SCO is not hinting at much more than contract violations. As we've
discussed at length, they have a tough fight here because of Novell and the
AT&T contracts and sideletters. They also seem to be accusing IBM of letting
the UNIX cat out of the bag. Of course, that is ignoring BSD and the fact that
the UNIX cat was already out of the bag.

In general, it seems like good news for Linux. It's a big stretch for end
customers to be responsible for contract violations on IBMs part, if any; SCO is
going to have a hard time defending against Lanham act allegations from Novell
and Red Hat.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So no actual UNIX code, then
Authored by: mnuttall on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 03:22 AM EST
"IBM disclosed methods, concepts, and in many places, literal code, from Unix-derived technologies."

To parse this SCO-speak, "IBM moved AIX code into Linux." But we knew that all ready.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Filed, but it's Under Seal
Authored by: BobinAlaska on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 04:04 AM EST
I really wish we could see what they are claiming!! However, before any of the
infringment claims could stand up I think they need to prove they own the IP.
They need to show two documents. One the writing transferring the copyrights to
Santa Cruz, the real SCO, and another the writing transferring the copyrights
from Santa Cruz to Caldera. Am I wrong? They seem to have a problem coming up
with them.

When does the next shoe drop in the Novell matter?

It would also be interesting to see if they actually showed the code they claim
was copied or just that they claim it happened.

I hope IBM just rips their claims to shreds and it would be nice if it was in
public.

---
Bob Helm, Juneau, Alaska

No, it is not always cold and dark.

[ Reply to This | # ]

numerosity?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 04:33 AM EST
Numberiness? Numerificationality? Numerationness? Countality?

Oh deary deary deary me.

Tom

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could the judge order the allegations unsealed?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 04:53 AM EST

On the basis that:

a) It hampers IBM's ability to defend the charges by preventing them making use
of third party expertise, eg us.

b) It prevents IBM from defending themselves in public. I would assume that
IBM's responses would also have to be sealed if the allegations are, because
they would need to quote them.

c) Keeping the allegations sealed allows Darl to carry on making misleading
statements about the case to the press.

And why, anyway, are they able to make the allegations under seal in the first
place. This clearly isn't just.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Filed, but it's Under Seal
Authored by: BobDowling on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 05:40 AM EST
No doubt G2, Forbes and the rest of the media pack will be filing for the
document to be unsealed. Perish the thought that they would only want to report
on one side of the story.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Communications from IBM employees
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 06:13 AM EST
Is SCO talking about "Trade secrets"? IANAL and know nothing about
these.

But the entire case does now seem to be about the contract that SCO and IBM had
and is no longer about Linux per se.

Suspicion 1: SCO felt they had to come up with something and so came up with
something.

Suspicion 2: If SCO did have something concrete, we would have seen a sample of
it already, one that could not be shot down in 24 hours.

I find myself compelled to carry on watching this (train wreck) case even
though I'm pretty sure of the outcome (SCO - smoking crater, IBM - minor
contract infringement at worst, probably untouched, Linux - untouched)

[ Reply to This | # ]

How can this be under seal?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 06:17 AM EST
The cat, according to SCO, is out of the bag. The vague intellectual property
that they claim to own is already in the Linux kernel. It's sitting right out
there in public being used today. Their case is about what IBM did in the past,
not what is in Linux now. If it's causing them ongoing damage then they should
want it removed. They can still (if they prevail, hahaha) get compensation from
IBM for past damages.

What, in short, are SCO's good faith grounds for not disclosing to the Linux
kernel team what parts of Linux they claim to own?

[ Reply to This | # ]

How this is different from
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 06:28 AM EST
grep for jfs, etc.?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Binary content in the MS Office XML Document 2003
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 06:30 AM EST
According to the Schema definition of the Microsoft XML Document 2003 a wordDocument element can contain two binary (base64 encoded) elements:
docOleData: Represents oledata.mso
store, base63 encoded, Contains storages for OLE objects.
docSuppData:
represents editdata.mso store, base64 encoded, Contains toolbar customizations,
envelope data, and the Visual Basic project.
I could not find documentation about the internal structures of these types. One can argue, that OLE embedding and VB projects certainly bind documents to legacy formats anyway, no matter how they are exported.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is "Filed" the right word?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 06:52 AM EST
Perhaps I am completely wrong, but....

I thought you served discovery on the other party (and the interim deadline is
for SCO to produce discovery to IBM) - not "filed" it with the court.

In fact, I was under the impression that discovery was generally not filed with
the court, except in relatively rare when the court specifically ordered it, or
parts of the discovery was attached to a motion etc.

You can go to the last update to the scheduling order too, and I don't think you
will see anything about it requiring SCO to produce discovery to the court (as
opposed to IBM), regarding identifying the code.

So I suspect "filed" is possibly the wrong word, perhaps a confusion
somewhere in the story generation process before it got to Shankland, or perhaps
a simple poor choice of word.

I suspect it should say "served to IBM" or something like that.

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Filed, but it's Under Seal
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 06:59 AM EST
"I'm from Missouri, personally. Not literally, so don't bother sending
detectives to harrass me, or to dig up dirt to discredit me, as per a recent
suggested list of corporate dirty tricks" PJ

Well PJ, if you tell them that "I'm from Missouri", they are liable to
take you litterally and run like headless chickens all over Missouri, looking
for you. What's wrong with this picture? Not a thing.

---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. Know your friends even better - in case they become your enemies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Filed, but it's Under Seal
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 07:42 AM EST
"communications by IBM personnel working on Linux that resulted in
enhancing Linux functionality by disclosing a method or concept from Unix
technology"

so if I use one method to write something for one company I I can never use
that method again for anything except that company. come on - that would just
about leave me without any skills to go on to another company.

also sco's hope is to get in front of a clueless jury and get some kind of
ruling in their favor.

If this does go to jury - I sure hope IBM gets nothing but technical people so
sco can't smokescreen anybody.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Demand massive discovery ....
Authored by: Latesigner on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 08:23 AM EST
...and then use it's 'weight' as proof :

"The numerosity and substantiality of the disclosures reflects the
pervasive extent and sustained degree as to which IBM disclosed methods,
concepts, and in many places, literal code, from Unix-derived technologies in
order to enhance the ability of Linux to be used as a scalable and reliable
operating system for business and as an alternative to proprietary Unix systems
such as those licensed by SCO and others."

I'll bet Kimball is going to be very unhappy with them.

---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This site is like a cult
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 08:52 AM EST
And everyone is somehow evil if they don't insist linux is 100 percent legal.
Watch how this post vanishes for that very reason.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If this weren't so aggravating, it'd be funny
Authored by: Prototrm on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 08:55 AM EST
In addition to their "theory" that they have exclusive rights to the
ideas and methods reflected in Unix (yeah, right), SCO's sole argument is that,
because of certain contracts, they own code that IBM wrote by themselves for
themselves, because that code was incorporated into AIX (and look out for flying
pork chops while you're at it).

This case is like that TV commercial you found absurd and amusing the first few
times you saw it, but which became excessively annoying as it was played over
and over again, with no end in sight.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What restrictions, please, does "Under Seal" place on IBM's lawyers?
Authored by: PTrenholme on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 09:07 AM EST
Since the Linux code and their internal memorandums are either publicly
available or their property, it seems to me that all that's been
"sealed" is the "specific" identification of either publicly
available or IBM's private documents.

So, does the "under seal" label prevent the IBM lawyers from from
disclosing the information to which SCO is pointing?

---
IANAL, just a retired statistician

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Filed, but it's Under Seal
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 09:30 AM EST
What wasn't mentioned is that SCO filed it under seal so that even IBM isn't
allowed to see it. I heard the Judge peeked though. ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Filed, but it's Under Seal - Time to imitate MOG!!
Authored by: Rasyr on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 09:51 AM EST
Yeah, you heard me correctly. :)

I think that what needs to be done is that Linus, or some other high profile
Linux related firm needs to file a motion to unseal this document just like MOG
did not too long ago.

They can use the BSD case agreement to show that a prior court showed that there
are no trade secrets, and they plea for the unsealing so that the Linux
community, which includes several companies such as Redhat and Novell, can
correct any posible infringements.

By having this under seal, SCO is preventing these companies and others from
trying to remedy (on the off chance that there is a problem and they just are
not blowign smoke as per normal) this situation.

Now I know that the Linux community made this offer long ago, but now is the
time to tackle it again, this time in front of the court with a motion to
unseal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

pompous clowns!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 10:11 AM EST
"Numerosity and substantiality"??? How about "number and
substance"???
Well, I guess they're desperate to sound erudite ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bloor's theory, insider trading (?), and leaking out of evidence
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 10:18 AM EST
1. Bloor's theory is the stock price would go up, if SCO had some evidence,
because such evidence would "leak" out.

Q: I wonder if he came up with that theory on his own, or if somebody suggested
it to him?


2. If the evidence "leaked" out, and some people were trading on the
basis of this otherwise non-public info, thus driving up the stock price (which
is what Bloor's theory seems to be saying)

Q: Isn't that illegal insider trading? (Trading on material non-public info,
i.e. what Martha S was initially accused of before the prosecutors switch to the
perjury track)


3. Now look at the bigger picture:

Step 0: SCO stock price falling (check chart for last few days)

Step I: Bloor suggests evidence will leak out if SCO has a case, and this will
drive up stock price

Step II: Evidence (though apparently sealed) somehow gets, at least in part,
from SCO or their lawyers to journalist Steve Shankland, who writes about it. A
"leak"? A planned "leak"?

Step III: SCO stock price rises today after Shankland article. Did it rise on
the basis of the "leak" covered by the Shankland article?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Breaking News: SCO sent at least part of the filings to at least 1 journalist
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 10:37 AM EST
Wondering how Shankland got hold of the information from his article?

I can't say

But Dana Blankenhorn, tells us how she got it:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?m=200511

To me the most interesting aspect of the latest filing, the cover letter of
which was sent to me by SCO's PR officer, Blake Stowell, is the listing of
partners who worked on the sealed enclosure, which claims to detail which
specific pieces of Linux IBM allegedly "stole" from SCO's Unix.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Dana B. - Authored by: _Arthur on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 11:04 AM EST
    • Poor gal - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 02:35 PM EST
What a surprise
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 10:38 AM EST
One again accusations in public but the reality is hidden. Too complex and
secret for us all to understand. Yeah, right.


---
Are you a bagel or a mous?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hmmm
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 12:09 PM EST
Could SCO be hoping that IBM (or the FOSS community)will attempt anything rash
in response to this filing?

I am thinking along the lines of filing something in response, such as their
summary judgment before the "final" deadline?

Could they be trying bait and goad action, like any good bully would?

Just makes me think twice, because nothing the SCO legal team does seems to be
on the up-and-up (morally, ethically, rationally, etc.).

I guessing that there is an attempt at a snare in this.

Call me paranoid, call me tin foil hatted, but now is the wrong time to be
wringing hands.

LOL Just watched the "Lord of the Rings" again, and the scene where
king Theodin says "Is that all you've got Sarumon?" - just before the
bombs went off under his wall is the one that comes to mind.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How soon could it be unsealed?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 12:12 PM EST
Can IBM move to unseal this discovery? If so when? I can see that they might
not be particularly motivated to do so if the sealed disclosure is only
pertinent to contract violations (and not infringement) I would love to see
Groklawers sift throught infringement claims. However IBM might be interested
in exposing the the lack of any pruported infringement. It could further limit
SCO's options in the public arena by limiting the sort of public statements they
could manufacture.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Correct me if I'm wrong...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 01:32 PM EST
Didn't SCO raise this "viral contamination" theory at one point, and
Kimball shot it down?

I don't recall the specifics, but he didn't explicitly rule on it. But in his
ruling, it was clear that he wasn't buying it.

Does anyone recall the details?

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Filed, but it's Under Seal
Authored by: apessos on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 02:07 PM EST
Wait a second. Where's that lady and her friends who were trying to get all
those sealed documents released to the public? Wouldn't this be something they
want to get released?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Penguin Island
Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 02:12 PM EST
>In a five-page document filed Friday, SCO attorneys say they
>identify 217 areas in which it believes IBM or Sequent, a
>Unix server company IBM acquired, violated contracts under
>which SCO and its predecessors licensed the Unix operating
>system. However, the curious won't be able to see for
>themselves the details of SCO's claims: The full list of
>alleged abuses were filed in a separate document under
>court seal.

All this SCO "evidence" reminds me a classic paragraph from
The Penguin Island by Anatole France.
see http://eserver.org/fiction/penguin-island.txt :

In the mean time the Pyrot case, having been presented to the
Supreme Court by the Keeper of the Seals, it fell to Chaussepied to
examine it and discover its defects, in case any existed. Although
as upright and honest as a man can be, and trained by long habit to
exercise his magistracy without fear or favour, he expected to find in
the documents to be submitted to him proofs of certain guilt and of
obvious criminality. After lengthened difficulties and repeated
refusals on the part of General van Julep, Justice Chaussepied was
allowed to examine the documents. Numbered and initialed they ran to
the number of fourteen millions six hundred and twenty-six thousand
three hundred and twelve. As he studied them the judge was at first
surprised, then astonished, then stupefied, amazed, and, if I dare say
so, flabbergasted. He found among the documents prospectuses of new
fancy shops, newspapers, fashion-plates, paper bags, old business
letters, exercise books, brown paper, green paper for rubbing
parquet floors, playing cards, diagrams, six thousand copies of the
"Key to Dreams," but not a single document in which any mention was
made of Pyrot.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Under Seal?
Authored by: Nick_UK on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 02:12 PM EST
After following this charade for nearly 3 years, the only
seal I can imagine is one with a party hat on, clapping
it's fins and going 'OINK OINK' at the circus...

Nick

[ Reply to This | # ]

Back from a looong week end
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 02:12 PM EST
All right, back from a long week end and kaboum!
Here is a _very_ bad news if proven true IMHO. Why?

Well, I'm actually sure these 217 claims are pure rubish,
however, I'm sure it will be enough to go to trial... After
all, they can lay claim on ELF, JFS, NUMA and so forth...
This is so many materials that I somehow don't see the
judge not allowing it on trial...

Even if we all know this is pure foolishness...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Filed, but it's Under Seal
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 02:38 PM EST
Consider they claim IBM released an entire File system through to Linux thus
violating their contract. Uhmm - this File system originated in OS/2 Warp and
was ported to AIX, then ported to Linux. So IBM is guilty of releasing THEIR
OWN CODE to both the AIX and Linux code base.

Uh-huh.

That one item is going to fly like a lead baloon!

If the quality of the rest of SCO's revelations are as good as this one then
this has been the big 2.5 year waste of time we've all suspected it was.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Submitted Evidence
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 03:48 PM EST

I haven't noticed it yet, so thought I'd mention it. In one of the renditions of Shanklands' article I noticed a mention of the fact that the actual evidence was filed seperately under seal. My impression of that was that the five page document is the non-specific filing.

Based on the above, I can only come to the conclusion that the filing was done for the reporters, not the court. I suspect the five page document to be available once the filing shows up on Pacer. As for the sealed filing, I can only go based on past pattern and we won't likely see anything from that until IBMs filings start giving us clues.

I suspect IBMs strategy will be to wait till the end of discovery. If SCOX truly has not provided any evidence concerning certain claims/counter-claims IBM will most likely file for Partial Summary Judgement on those instead of sanctions of not admitting the evidence.

It makes sense that sanctions would likely take additional time before IBM could file for PSJ. However, with the evidence admitted, if IBM can still "go for the throat" then that would be their quickest resolution of the issue(s) affected by the lack of evidence.

If my supposition is accurate, we likely won't hear anything till IBM files for PSJ. Of course IANAL so I could be way off base.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Be Proud, Groklawrians!
Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 04:23 PM EST
Team,

Though like you I have no more insight as to the content of the latest sealed
SCO documents than anyone, I suspect that PJ and all the other denizens of
Groklaw should award themselves a metaphorical "pat on the back" for
the news that SCO decided to file their latest "proof" under seal.

Let's not get too worried about that just yet.

The reason, I submit, that a small smile is deserved is based on the
[theoretical] notion that SCO have indeed provided a good range of factual,
precise evidence. Evidence that IBM are going to have to spend time, money and
effort to disprove.

If I've learned one thing from the marvel that is Groklaw, it is that Linus' Law
extends far beyond keeping the kernel free of errors. Many eyeballs do indeed
make all bugs shallow. If SCO had published their evidence as an open court
document, we all know that thousands of Linux fans and Groklaw regulars would
have been scouring every available [and legitimate, of course!] resource and
would be able to knock some serious dents [or even holes] in any such evidence
in no time.

We all know that if SCO had rock-solid confidence in their evidemce they would
have shouted it from the rooftops, for all the world to see. They did not make
such a proclamation. Funny old thing, that.

If, however, they harboured a doubt as to the validity of their claims, then SCO
would do their best to mitigate that with obfuscation. If they can make a claim
that is going to cost IBM a fortune to disprove, then this increases the delays,
the costs, the chances of IBM throwing in the towel. [No, I'm kidding. No sane
person who has followed this case could possibly believe IBM will fold now].

Just a few short weeks ago both parties were asked by the Judge to lift
restrictions on all but the most sensitive of their evidential documents. Given
that all of Linux source code exists in the public domain, there is no reason
for SCO to hold back on publishing this now, unless, of course, they were
frightened to do so.

And please ... please ... don't give us this old, tired story about concerns
that this great mass of nasty Linux programmers would simply rewrite the
offending code, removing the IBM contributions and thus rob SCO of their
legitimate claims to vast riches and rewards. That's nonsence.

No, the way I see it, SCO are running scared. Ho hum.

[ 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 )