|
|
| SCO Attacks The Open Group |
 |
|
Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 02:34 PM EST
|
Looks like I had it right. SCO has filed a redacted Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Leave to Take Certain Prospective Depositions [PDF] and in it SCO tells the court why it wants to depose Intel: The discovery sought from Intel is directly related to resolution of the claims at issue in the instant case. The discovery seeks information about code and specifications copied from SCO's UnixWare by IBM and The Open Group for use in Linux....
Intel representatives participated significantly in this Open Group committee and therefore discovery from Intel is material and necessary to discover issues related to: (a) this disclosure of SCO's copyrighted materials; (b) its intended use in and for Linux; and (c) the bases, if any, upon which The Open Group and its committee members contend that a copy assignment exists from SCO for use of this interface in The Open Group's specifications. So, looks like they are going after The Open Group. This speaks of true desperation. Obviously, they have nothing to charge IBM with except that it used open specifications in good faith, for which SCO would like 3 billion dollars in damages. These folks are truly incredible. Oh, and there is no apology for the mistakes in the subpoenas. Instead, SCO argues that they provided notice.
SCO's tall tale goes like this: Seeking to make Linux a viable, commercial-ready UNIX-on-Intel alternative, IBM misappropriated UNIX technology from SCO and provided that technology to The Open Group for purposes of The Open Group's "Single UNIX Specification 2001" and The Open Group's efforts to work on "UNIX Developer Guide -- Programming Interface" (of "UDG-PI"). The Single UNIX Specification 2001 was the update on the collective name of the family of standards that an operating system must meet to qualify for the name "UNIX" (where The Open Group owns the trademark to that name). The UDG-PI are guidelines that software developers and system manufacturers needed to create UNIX interoperability with Intel-based processors, and were intended solely for use in support of Project Monterey, and were not intended for use in support of Linux. The Open Group participated with IBM to use SCO's protected source code and specifications to create an open standard for support of Linux-on-Intel processors, with the knowledge and intent that the Linux product would replace SCO's UnixWare product as the market leader in the UNIX-on-Intel market. Revisionist history, methinks. SCO suffers from the fact that it seems not to have necessary papers from Santa Cruz, which is telling in itself. Time to research, everyone. I always heard that Santa Cruz was a member of that same committee and that it turned everything over under the GPL. All that info should be in the records from that time period. You might want to read this article on ELF we did long ago as well. SCO's argument appears to be that The Open Group made an open specification that was only allowed to be used for Project Monterey. Open but closed. Anyone grasp a conceptual problem with that argument? Of course, but that is the piece to research. To orient anyone new, here's some info to orient you, from Sun's sunsite: A single Unix spec
In August 1995, Intel rounded-up the major Unix vendors to get all of them to agree on a few specifications relating to 64-bit computing. After six months of work, the "Aspen Group," as the collective was known, announced it had "reached consensus on the goal of this initiative to seamlessly incorporate 64-bit applications in a single Unix specification."
According to a prepared statement, the 64-bit consensus will be added to SPEC 1170, which X/Open now calls the X/Open Single Unix Specification. The Aspen Group agreed to "LP64," a common data representation model, "a common set of extensions to the POSIX Threads interface, dynamic linking interfaces to support the emerging class of extensible self-configuring applications, and agreed to implement common POSIX APIs for software installation user group management."
The Unix vendors collaborating on the single Unix specification comprise of industry heavyweights, including Digital Equipment, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Novell, NCR, Santa Cruz Operation, and SunSoft.
stats_for_all has already found this: SCO claims on pg. 6 of Doc 628 that The Open Group's "UNIX developer Guide-Programming Interface" was "intended solely for use in support of Project Monterey, and were not intended for support of Linux.
A May 1999 article on Project Monterey provides a slightly different interpretation. The guide had old SCO authorship and was intended as a open specification.
In a separate initiative, a group of industry leaders, including IBM, SCO, Sequent, Compaq, and Intel, has unveiled the UDG-PI. The document contains guidelines that software developers and system manufacturers can use for Unix operating systems running on the Intel microprocessor architecture. These guidelines should reduce development, maintenance, and test costs.
"The developer guide will enable the establishment of a shrink-wrap software business around Unix on IA-64," says Tilak Agerwala, IBM's director of Unix marketing and product management. "Anyone can be compliant to these APIs. That makes it a very powerful value-proposition for independent software vendors (ISVs)." ISVs will be more willing to spend development resources and efforts on Monterey knowing those efforts will result in software that can be sold across a wide market segment.
www.elecdesign.com/Globals/PlanetEE/Content/4737.html
And Christopher McNabb found a usenet post about the UniForum that preserves the joint press relase from the announcement of the consortium:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
UNIX LEADERS ANNOUNCE COMMON OPEN SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENT
Six Companies Agree On Software Technologies And Common Desktop
Reinforce Commitment To Open Systems
SAN FRANCISCO, UNIFORUM, March 17, 1993 -- Worldwide UNIX
system leaders Hewlett-Packard Company, IBM Corp., The Santa Cruz
Operation, Inc., Sun Microsystems, Inc., Univel and UNIX System
Laboratories, Inc. today announced their intent to deliver a common
open software environment across their UNIX system platforms. This
announcement is in response to increased customer demand for consistent
technologies across multiple platforms, greater technology choice,
increased cost savings and quicker time to market.
HP, IBM, SCO, SunSoft, the software subsidiary of Sun
Microsystems, Inc., Univel and USL have defined a specification for a
common desktop environment that gives end users a consistent look and
feel. They have defined a consistent set of application programming
interfaces (APIs) for the desktop that will run across all of their
systems, opening up a larger opportunity for software developers. The
six companies have each decided to adopt common networking products,
allowing for increased interoperability across heterogeneous
computers. In addition, they have endorsed specifications, standards
and technologies in the areas of graphics, multimedia and object
technology, and have announced a working group in the area of systems
administration. All of the new specifications, technologies and
products will be designed to preserve compatibility with the companies'
existing software application environments.
Today's announcement is a strong endorsement for the premise of
open systems. Under open systems, unencumbered specifications are
freely available, independent branding and certification processes
exist, multiple implementations of a single product may be created and
competition is enhanced. To this extent, the Open Software Foundation
(OSF) has agreed to submit the Motif specification and associated
support materials to X/Open for incorporation into a future release of
X/Open's portability guide, including licensing of the trademark and
the branding process. In addition, Novell/Univel have agreed to submit
the specification for the NetWare UNIX client to X/Open.
Common Desktop Environment
The six companies have defined a specification for a common desktop
environment that will provide end users with a consistent computing
experience and software developers with a consistent set of programming
interfaces for the HP, IBM, SCO, SunSoft, Univel and USL platforms.
This advanced environment will enable users to transparently access
data and applications from anywhere in the netork.
The companies plan to publish a preliminary specification for the
environment by the end of June, 1993 and will periodically release
updates to the industry. They have agreed to submit the specification
to X/Open for incorporation into the X/Open portability guide. HP, IBM,
Sun and USL will make available an implementation for the common
desktop, based on X/Open specifications, in the first half of 1994 that
will be openly licensable to the industry. SCO and Univel will strongly
participate on the evolution of this common desktop environment. The
six companies will host a Developers Conference in early October to
give users and software developers details on products and direction.
The common desktop environment will incorporate aspects of HP's
Visual User Environment (VUE), IBM's Common User Access model and
Workplace Shell, OSF's Motif toolkit and Window Manager, SunSoft's OPEN
LOOK and DeskSet productivity tools and USL's UNIX SVR4.2 desktop
manager components and scalable systems technologies. Specific
technologies to be used by the six companies include the X Window
System, Version 11, the Motif toolkit and interface and SunSoft's
ToolTalk interapplication communication product with an incorporated HP
Encapsulator. As most of this environment exists today, the companies
will integrate key technologies available in the open marketplace and
innovate where appropriate to give users and software developers a
consistent UNIX desktop environment. The common desktop environment was
demonstrated here today running across five hardware and software
platforms.
The companies' goal is to preserve compatibility of existing
applications written to HP-UX, IBM AIX/6000, SCO Open Desktop, SunSoft
Solaris, Univel UnixWare and USL UNIX SVR4.2 as they are evolved from
their current desktops to the common desktop environment.
Networking
In furthering support for heterogeneous computing, HP, IBM, SCO,
SunSoft, Univel and USL will sell, deliver and support OSF's DCE,
SunSoft's ONC+ and Novell/Univel's NetWare UNIX client networking
products. The companies will offer customers greater choice while
providing them with a consistent level of support and integration.
Users will gain increased interoperability across multiple platforms
while continuing to protect their current investments.
Individual companies will announce pricing and availability for
each of their products at a later date.
Graphics
To enable consistent implementation of high-performance
graphics software and promote wider availability of applications in the
marketplace, the companies plan to support a core set of graphics
facilities from the X Consortium. These are Xlib/X for basic 2D pixel
graphics; Pexlib/PEX for 2D/3D geometry graphics; and XIElib/XIE for
advanced imaging.
Multimedia
The six companies will submit a joint specification for the
Interactive Multimedia Association's (IMA) request for technology. This
will provide users with consistent access to multimedia tools in
heterogeneous environments and enable developers to create
next-generation applications using media as data.
Object Technology
HP, IBM, SCO, SunSoft, Univel and USL are working together to
accelerate the development and delivery of object-based technology.
They are supporting the efforts of the Object Management Group (OMG)
that has developed the Common Object Request Broker (CORBA) standard
for distributed object management solutions. The companies will comply
with the CORBA specification in their future product implementations.
In addition, the companies will work with the OMG to establish
common guidelines to simplify developer transition, specify core
capabilities for object construction and development, and further the
adoption of common testing and certification.
Systems Management
As more customers move to distributed heterogeneous computing
environments, enterprise system management becomes a critical
requirement. To this extent, the six companies will form a working
group to facilitate the rationalization and rapid acceptance of
industry specifications in the systems management arena. The companies
will initially focus on the areas of user and group management;
software installation and distribution management; software licensing
management; storage management; print spooling and distributed file
system management.
###
1993 IBM is a registered trademark of International Business Machines
Corp. and AIX/6000 is a trademark of International Business Machines
Corp. NetWare is a registered trademark of Novell, Inc. OSF, Motif and
Open Software Foundation are trademarks of the Open Software Foundation
in the U.S. Univel and UnixWare are trademarks of Univel. SCO and SCO
Open Desktop are registered trademarks of The Santa Cruz Operation,
Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. Sun Microsystems, Inc. SunSoft,
Solaris, ONC+ and ToolTalk are trademarks or registered trademarks of
Sun Microsystems, Inc. UNIX and OPEN LOOK are registered trademarks of
UNIX System Laboratories in the U.S. and other countries. X/Open is a
trademark of X/Open Company Ltd. in the United Kingdom and other
countries. All other products or service names mentioned herein are
trademarks of their respective owners.
CONTACTS:
Hewlett-Packard Company
Lynn Wehner
[phone redacted]
IBM, Corp.
Kathleen Ryan
[phone redacted]
The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Zee Zaballos
[phone redacted]
SunSoft, Inc.
Shernaz Daver
[phone redacted]
Univel
Melanie King
[phone redacted]
UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
Larry Lytle
[phone redacted] And Mike Houghton contributes this: So how does this relate to oldSCO's participation in 86open?
Even ignoring the fact that oldSCO eventually dropped out of this and
produced lxrun, membership of 86open was clearly demonstrative of intent
to "create an open standard for support of Linux-on-Intel processors".
Surely
this shows a parallel effort, outside the Open Group, to do exactly what they
allege IBM was doing. Of course, oldSCO wanted to do it to _increase_ their
market share.
http://www.telly.org/86open/
If you go to the page he cites, you find Evan Leibovitch,
Chair of the 86open project writing this in 1999: Unix-on-Intel players agree on a common binary (It's the Linux ELF format)
FINAL UPDATE: July 25, 1999
(reformatted Nov 2, 2005)
Dead effort or declaration of victory?
You decide.
On October 1997, a group informally calling itself the 86open project issued a communiqué, discussing the need for a standard binary executable for the various Unix and Unix derivatives which run on Intel 80X86 "PC"-architecture systems.
The group, which had met earlier that year at the headquarters of SCO, eventually included representatives or developers involved with the most popular such operating system suppliers:
* BeOS
* BSDI
* FreeBSD
* Linux
* NetBSD
* SCO
* Sunsoft
The aim of this effort was to encourage software developers to port to the Unix-Intel platform by reducing the effort needed to support the diverse mix of operating systems of this kind currently available.
The original target was a binary format specification which would supportable by each OS, without emulation, in addition to (but not to replace) each OS's native format. The early discussions centered around Linus Torvalds' scheme involving a standardized programmers' function libraries, and agreement on numbering schemes for signals and other interfaces.
The group was making reasonable, if slow, progress into mid 1998. At that time, SCO was involved in the development of lxrun, software which ran Linux-format binaries under the two SCO operating systems (OpenServer and UnixWare).
The possibility that SCO could run Linux binaries made the need for 86open less important. Most of the BSD programs already have solid capabilities for running Linux binaries.
The lxrun package is now stable and runs well. It was officially announced by SCO at LinuxWorld in March 1999, and was later ported by Sun to allow Linux binaries to run under SolarisX86.
With these announcements, the need for a distinct common binary standardis gone. The operating system vendors, one way or another, have chosen a common binary format -- the Linux ELF format, which is now supported on the systems of all the developers which originally joined 86open.
It is therefore only logical that the 86open project declare itself dissolved. Our goal -- the development of a single binary that software vendors can trust will run on most Unix and Unix-derivatives on PC platforms -- has been realized. It didn't come about the original way we had planned, but we achieved what we set out to do.
Thanks to everyone for your participation and interest.
Evan Leibovitch
Chair, 86open project Here's the lxrun home page. It takes you to the FAQ, which tells us who wrote lxrun:Q0.7: Who wrote lxrun?
A: It was originally written by Michael Davidson, an engineer at SCO.
In 1997, Michael released the lxrun source code to Steven Ginzburg who is continuing its development as an open source project under the Mozilla public license. Contributors to lxrun have included hobbyists and engineers from all over the world. In addition, the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) and Sun Microsystems have both contributed engineering time and other resources to the project.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Chris Lingard on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 02:51 PM EST |
Please post in HTML, and put in those links; there are instructions at the
end of the posting page. If you cannot do this, then post it anyway.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- How do you pronounce Groklaw. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:11 PM EST
- The health of Ray Noorda was a big influence on the timing of the SCOG scam. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:25 PM EST
- Is Microsoft responsible for Intel's Itanic disaster? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:53 PM EST
- Tangent suing Microsoft - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 04:05 PM EST
- Not that I want to give SYS-CON Media any clicks, but... - Authored by: NetArch on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 05:11 PM EST
- Off topic here please - gmail anyone? - Authored by: tbogart on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 05:22 PM EST
- Boies Schiller & Flexner Website - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 05:47 PM EST
- sharing positive Linux experiences... - Authored by: gumnos on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 08:20 PM EST
- OT: New IBM Subpoenas - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 09:37 PM EST
- "Sony struggling with new toy" More FUD By Staff Writer - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 09:47 PM EST
- RIM news - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 02:16 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: snorpus on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 02:55 PM EST |
| Should the need arise. ---
73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi
Comments Licensed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 02:56 PM EST |
"After SCO filed this lawsuit against IBM, however, Oracle stopped issuing
certifications for SCO's operating system products and has not certified a
single release by SCO since March 2003. SCO contends that this action has been
induced, in material part, by IBM." Therefore SCO needs discovery.
Erm, what does this have to do with the allegations contained in the lawsuit,
namely that IBM misappropriated code?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:20 PM EST
- huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:22 PM EST
- huh? - Authored by: Dave23 on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:42 PM EST
- huh? - Authored by: ChefBork on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 06:18 PM EST
- huh? - Authored by: Dave23 on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 07:37 PM EST
- $ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:50 PM EST
- huh? - Authored by: Ed Freesmeyer on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:53 PM EST
- huh? - Authored by: electron on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 05:41 PM EST
- huh? - Authored by: pogson on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 04:51 PM EST
- Quick, lookit the Wookie! - Authored by: OmniGeek on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 05:54 PM EST
- huh? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 05:57 PM EST
- Double huh! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 07:27 PM EST
- huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 11:14 PM EST
- huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 10:03 AM EST
- huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 03:43 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 02:57 PM EST |
But won't the judge DENY these requests based on the timeliness issue alone
(within a day of discovery cutoff) when they've had YEARS to do this
discovery??
Won't this be denied simply based on the timing that SCO/Yarro has
*squandered*...regardless of the reasons why this is so important?
This case just makes me so mad...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chris Lingard on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 02:57 PM EST |
A point of law. The Open Group are based in the United Kingdom. I have
always believed that you need to sue in Federal Washington DC, or in the United
Kingdom when an "alien" is involved. I have read the rules about serving writs
and things in the United States of America.
So can the Open Group ask
to be heard either in Washington DC, or in the United Kingdom.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 02:58 PM EST |
So lets see:
No identifiable code, no patents, no copyrights, no trade secrets, no contracts
with Intel or Open Group.
Now we have the claim of copying SPECIFICATIONS???
What planet does THAT come from?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rweiler on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:00 PM EST |
If SCO wants to go after Intel and The Open Group, it would seem that their
motion should be dismissed as neither Intel or The OpenGroup are a party to SCO
vs IBM, so what difference does it make? IBM can't possibly owe damages to SCO
for contributing RCU, NUMA, and JFS to Linux since those technologies are
specified by the Unix standard; they are just one possible implementation of the
standard interfaces. And the rest of Linux, IBM didn't write. IANAL, but it
would seem to me that if SCO is now claiming that they sued the wrong party,
that can't be very helpful in winning and of their current lawsuits.
---
Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from
being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:01 PM EST |
What is involved with suing a company in another country? Which country is the
suit brought? Between geographic issues and differences in legal systems and
laws, this has got to be a challenging situation.
Do they even have the money to do this? Surely it is not covered under any
agreements they have with BSF.
Can they start such a suit without challenge as to their viability? The IBM
counterclaims could be devastating.
Is this a prelude to an Emily Litella "Never Mind" moment with regards
to the IBM suit? A way to say "We were completely wrong, we now
realize..."? "Honest, Your Honor, we said all those awful things
about IBM in good faith!"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: johan on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:09 PM EST |
This shift in focus to The Open Group makes sense if the true purpose behind
this is to discredit Linux.
Ineptly executed though...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:09 PM EST |
"this disclosure of SCO's copyrighted materials; "
As if "disclosure" were an issue addressed by copyright. Psst, SCO:
the phase you're looking for is "trade secret". Or something. Yeesh.
My head hurts.
And they were on the committee, too. Double yeesh.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Tee Hee! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 04:06 PM EST
- Tee Hee! - Authored by: tbogart on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 06:18 PM EST
- Tee Hee! - Authored by: electron on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 06:01 PM EST
- No they weren't? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 07:38 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:15 PM EST |
It all just seems so ridiculous and one has to try and imagine what their
motivation is. This isn't very original but it seems SCO has known for some
time
they don't have a winning case and now perhaps they have accepted their
fate
and are just trying cost the other side (Open Source) as much money as
possible
while ensuring they have nothing left to undo the damage done.
IBM and Intel have deep pockets but how financially secure is The Open
Group? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Vindictive Litigation as Punishment. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:32 PM EST
- Vindictive Litigation as Punishment. - Authored by: geoff lane on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:35 PM EST
- Motivation - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 04:00 PM EST
- Motivation - Authored by: Darigaaz on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 05:07 PM EST
- Motivation - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 08:05 PM EST
- Motivation - Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 09:15 PM EST
- Vindictive Litigation as Punishment. - Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 05:41 PM EST
- Vindictive Litigation as Punishment. - Authored by: fxbushman on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 07:19 PM EST
- Utah has a nickname as "Scam Capital of the World" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:43 PM EST
- Motto - "Live free or die" - SCOG must be on a suicide mission. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 01:09 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: rweiler on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:17 PM EST |
Now that I've read the PDF, it looks like total nonsense. SCO is trying to claim
that by working on the Common Unix specification, IBM breached their Monterey
contract. Presumably tht means that everybody else that worked on the common
Unix breached their UNIX contracts as well, including old SCO. The Feb. 24th
court appearance should be interesting.
---
Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from
being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:19 PM EST |
I won't speculate on why SCOG has done what it has. Consider for a moment
the following:
- SCOG makes numerous claims which they refuse to clarify
let alone disclose for any attempt to mitigate damages.
- IBM decides to
fight in court.... oh oh SCOG.
- SCOG scrambles for 6+ months in an
attempt to find something. I can't say if they've only scrambled for 6 months
but you can bet they weren't doing anything while they thought there was a
chance of IBM settling.
- Deadline of discovery is quickly approaching,
which means IBM can start filing for PSJs again soon. SCOG starts to
panic.
- To keep this alive... (they're not actually trying to settle
anymore, they accept IBM will not settle for terms SCOG can live with, they just
don't want to face the piper with the Lanham Act claims so they're trying to put
off the inevitable, like stopping the sun from rising)... they file a long list
of "something"... 'hey, this evidence worked with the reporters, let's use it
with the court, they won't know anything....'
- They realise what they
filed can't stand the tiniest bit of scrutiny, so in comes the brainstorming...
I'll resist making the obvious joke about braindrizzling.
- Ah hah,
someone asks the question: 'you know that transfer of copyright that we should
have in writting, well.... wouldn't the Open Group require one as well?'...
someone else responds with: 'yea, that's right, they need a written copyright
transfer, we don't have one so it must not exist...'... 'quick, send out
subpeons now, we only have a couple days and this is our only hope'
Of
course, the actual reality of what happened is not necessarily as above. Above
is just my speculation but if it's reasoably accurate, it's a wonderous sign
just how clean the development process with Linux was/is.
I'll let
someone else delve into the futility of copyrighting an
interface.
Someone else can delve into the missing link that if Open
Group doesn't have the transfer in writting, and neither does SCOG then it must
still exist in Novell's hands.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:28 PM EST |
| Please can we have a judge that kicks this out on a "bad faith" basis?
The
entire point of The Open Group is to maintain and publish public standards
required to ensure that all Unix-like operating systems present the same
interfaces.
All the Open Group specifications are publically available and
always have been. If super sekret TSG documents had been incorporated into OG
publications, TSG has had many years to inform OG and get the information
withdrawn.
As a Unix company TSG cannot deny being familiar with OG
documents; they would be refered to every day when developing and patching Unix
code.
Enough is enough.
---
I'm not a Windows user, consequently
I'm not
afraid of receiving email from total strangers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stats_for_all on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:29 PM EST |
| SCO claims on pg. 6 of Doc 628 that The Open Group's "UNIX developer
Guide-Programming Interface" was "intended solely for use in
support
of Project Monterey, and were not intended for support of Linux.
A May 1999
article on Project Monterey provides a slightly different
interpretation. The
guide had old SCO authorship and was intended as a open
specification.
In a separate initiative, a group of industry
leaders, including IBM, SCO,
Sequent, Compaq, and Intel, has unveiled the
UDG-PI. The document contains
guidelines that software developers and system
manufacturers can use for
Unix operating systems running on the Intel
microprocessor architecture.
These guidelines should reduce development,
maintenance, and test costs.
"The developer guide will enable the
establishment of a shrink-wrap
software business around Unix on IA-64," says
Tilak Agerwala, IBM's director
of Unix marketing and product management.
"Anyone can be compliant
to
these APIs. That makes it a very powerful
value-proposition for
independent
software vendors (ISVs)." ISVs will be more
willing to spend development
resources and efforts on Monterey knowing those
efforts will result in
software that can be sold across a wide market
segment.
www.elecdesign.com/Globals/PlanetEE/Content/4737.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:36 PM EST |
| I thought that SCO tried to amend their complaint to
include charges about the
Monterey contract and were
denied.
How can they be allowed to drag
Monterey in again through
the back door?
---
Anyone who has the
power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit
injustices. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:42 PM EST |
(first, that is a scary thought but anyway)
I would ask the SCO lawyers "Explain this to me. Your lawsuit was
initially filed because you say that IBM copied code from your UNIX into Linux.
Then it was about trade secrets. Then is was about methods and concepts. Then
you changed and said it was about copyrights and patents. Then you said it was
about contracts. Now you are saying that IBM with the help of Intel and your
'supposed' predeccesor in interest provided specifications to The Open Group and
you need to depose Intel to find out information on a comittee that they were a
part of (along with IBM and your 'supposed' predeccesor in interest) to find out
information that you should have had all along if you are the true successor in
interest to your 'supposed' predeccesor in interest?"
I think the only appropriate answer to this is "Ummmmm, yes."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:44 PM EST |
So how does this relate to oldSCO's participation in 86open?
Even ignoring the fact that oldSCO eventually dropped out of this and
produced lxrun, membership of 86open was clearly demonstrative of intent
to "create an open standard for support of Linux-on-Intel processors".
Surely
this shows a parallel effort, outside the Open Group, to do exactly what they
allege IBM was doing. Of course, oldSCO wanted to do it to _increase_ their
market share.
http://www.telly.org/86open/
(Mike Houghton)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DBLR on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:48 PM EST |
The SCO Group is asking Oracle, Intel and the Open Group for information about
the business dealing they each had with Santa Cruz and Caldera. If SCOG as it
claims to be, the successor in interest all the way back to AT&T then how
come they need this information from these 3 corporations, should they not have
this information in it's own file cabinet???
Charles
---
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:50 PM EST |
| As Steve Martin pointed out in another thread, SCOG knew or should have known
about this, since they claim they are the predecessor in interest and own all of
Unix (tm) (they just can't find the copyright transfers right now, but they
will, any minute now).
They also started talking about ELF in summer of
2004. Isn't it a little late to realized it is a standard, especially since they
read Groklaw and there is this story by Frank Sorenson, Dr Stupid and PJ dated
July 22, 2004:
A Tall
Tale About ELF
Pugs, not logged in. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jaywalk on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 03:52 PM EST |
| All right, this one's going to be weird. SCO's main Open Group beef seems to be
with the "Single UNIX Specification 2001". That means the document was
published nearly five years ago. So why are they just now getting to discovery?
Note too that the document is in reference to UNIX, not Linux. If Linux
developers chose to comply with those standards after the fact, it's hardly
IBM's fault. So the motion is not only untimely, but irrelevant. More
brilliant work from SCO's "friends" at BSF. ---
===== Murphy's Law is
recursive. ===== [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DBLR on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 04:03 PM EST |
Just in case you did not know about the change.
Motion Hearing previously set for 2/24/2006 at 9:30 AM in Room 220 before
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells has been reset for 2/24/2006 at 2:30 PM in Room
220 before Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
---
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kaltekar on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 04:12 PM EST |
What stricks me as odd is SCO can manage to site 4 or 5 cases that say how many
days under 14 is appropriate notice. But nothing saying that if the notices were
filled out incorrectly they can count as being served. Am I not reading this
corectly?
kal
---
Through all the noise the Silence must be heard.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Case Law - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 04:50 PM EST
- Case Law - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 04:51 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Bill The Cat on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 04:14 PM EST |
tSCOg Say:...While Oracle timely filed a motion for
protectiveorder in the Northern District of California, 2 neither The
Open Group nor Intel produced a witness on January 27 or filed any motion for a
protective order or to quash by that date
The Intel
Say:Intel's
Response to SCO's Motion to Take Certain Prospective Depositions - as
text I would say that Intel did respond by identifying the
defects of the subpoena and the lies of tSCOg.
---
Bill Catz [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 04:36 PM EST |
"After SCO launched this lawsuit against IBM, however, Oracle stopped
issuing certifations ....... SCO contends that this action by Oracle has been
induced, in material part, by IBM."
That made ME laugh, I bet the judge will howl at it too! They don't offer even
a shred of evidence to back it up and it is logically inconsistent with their
own version of the story. Reading their own account of events you logically
conclude that Oracle responded to SCO's actions, not IBM's.
Does Boies and gang realize how bad these documents are making them look? It's
beginning to look like law students from the bottom half of the class are
handling SCO's litigation now, what a wonderful advertisement for Boies &
company. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seeRpea on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 04:46 PM EST |
I don't understand why a court would have to say to IBM that it has to cool its
heels while newSCO goes on a discovery spree at Intel's expense. Everything they
mention in their latest response was already known prior to the case starting -
why is newSCO allowed to pop this long procedure at the last minute of
discovery?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 04:51 PM EST |
"On numerous occasions, IBM has represented to this Court that no
UnixWare or System V code has been copied into Linux. As demonstrated by SCO's
Dec. 22 Disclosure, those representations are simply untrue."
Did
IBM content that? Or did they content that no UnixWare or System V code has been
IMPROPERLY copied into Linux BY THEM ... ?
I think there is
definitely some SystemV in there that was released under a suitable licence,
isn't there?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 04:54 PM EST |
ALL of the header files SCO seeks to revisit have been a part of POSIX since at
least 1996. They were published as a technical standard in February 1997 -
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9693999399/toc.pdf
Clearly SCO has problems with timelines other than when deposition notices were
issued.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 04:55 PM EST |
Time to research, everyone. I always heard that Santa Cruz was a member of
that same committee and that it turned over this code under the
GPL.
COMPUTER INDUSTRY LEADERS EXTEND SINGLE UNIX*
SPECIFICATION FOR 64 BIT SYSTEMS AND SUBMITS TO X/OPEN
Press
release is here:
http://archive
.opengroup.org/public/tech/aspen/aspenf.htm
The list of contacts
includes:
Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. Monika Laud (408)
427-7421
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Liquor A. on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 05:03 PM EST |
It seems that NewSCO is trying to mischaracterise the Open Group. In the
'Background' section, they state
The Open Group is a consortium
that (among other things) has sought to develop common, "open" standards and
specifications to enable multiple sectors of the information-technology
community to use so-called "open-source" software ....
This
does seem to be an egregious conflation of open standards with open
source.
I may misremember somewhat myself here, but wasn't the Open
Group (or X-Open) originally a proprietary standards group? And
that no Linux distribution attempted to be certified under the POSIX standards
because of the costs involved?---
Liquor A. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Christian on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 05:03 PM EST |
| "UNIX" (where The Open Group owns the trademark to that name)
Notice
what SCO is trying to do here. They are claiming that The Open Group only owns
the trademark UNIX in some area with unspecified limits. This is no doubt part
of some scheme on SCO's part to register UNIX as a trademark of their own. If
The Open Group's use of UNIX is limited in some way, SCO could in theory
register UNIX to use outside the limits of The Open Group's use.
I can't
imagine it would work, unless SCO is going to start selling Unix Dog Food. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Laomedon on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 05:03 PM EST |
In its Reply memo SCO states that it "served on January 12 subpoenas on
Intel, The Open Group, and Oracle for depositions on January 27" (page
2). It is repeated in the Argument on page 7.
However, if you look at
the attached Intel subpoena and notice in Exhibit A and D (p13 and p31), it
reads January 26 as the scheduled date; that date did not change to Jan
27 until Jan 26, with less than 24 hours notice.
In other words, SCO
did not serve on January 12 a subpoena on Intel for deposition on January
27. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rpalmer on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 05:11 PM EST |
| From http://www.zna.com/team.htm:
Zee Zaballos – President and ZNA’s chief leadership accelerator
Zee is an
expert in media strategy and relations, analyst relations, publicity, crisis
communications, and corporate communications. With more than 20 years of
experience in all facets of communications and public relations, Zee maintains
ongoing relationships with countless editors of business, consumer and trade
publications and analysts at key analyst organizations. Zee's extensive
contacts, and experience enable her to secure strategic opportunities, including
article placements, analyst reports, and speaking engagements. Her familiarity
with press and analysts makes her an invaluable asset to clients actively
seeking to establish or improve their position in the marketplace. Prior to
forming ZNA Communications with husband and partner Steven Beedle, Zee served
as the corporate communications director at the original SCO where she
received the Blue Chip Award for “grace under pressure” from High Tech PR
Hotsheet. Zee has served on numerous community organizations in Santa Cruz
County and currently serves on the board of First Night Santa Cruz. She holds a
B.A. in Library Sciences from California State University Hayward. Zee is a
gourmet cook of fine authentic Mexican and Hispanic cuisine and a truly inspired
and unique individual.
The company appears to have been around
since 1994 according to http://www.zna.com/history.htm, and
amongst the things they've listed as having done was marketing "the killer Linux
utility" in 1998.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rdc3 on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 05:31 PM EST |
Here are some selected quotes from the annual
reports (10-K filings) of both
Santa Cruz/Tarantella and Caldera/SCOG.
The following statements are found
in each of the
10-Ks of Santa Cruz Operation from
1996
through
2000.
In addition, SCO is working with The Open
Group, a major
international standards group, to support the implementation of
standard
application programming interfaces (APIs) that will support
applications
compatibility across different versions of UNIX
system.
SCO
continuously works with standards
organizations such as The Open Group to assure
continued conformance to open
systems standards.
Because these standards are open,
competitors can readily
access the technology to include in their
products.
Caldera/SCOG refers to membership and participation
in Open Group in its
2002
report.
We participate as a key member of many
industry standard, partner and
open source initiatives, including the
following:
...
o The Open Group, an organization that specializes in
specification of and
certification for open standards - UNIX primary among
those.
Interestingly, Open Group wasn't mentioned in the
2001
report. So its inclusion in the 2002 report would seem
to
be a deliberate addition. Would that not reflect an acceptance of Open
Group activities (e.g., publication of the 2001 specification)
based on
appropriate due diligence?
It is also interesting that the
2003
report drops the reference to Open Group, concomitant with
the change in its "trading symbol from "CALD" to "SCOX."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sk43 on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 05:47 PM EST |
SCO ducks IBM's contention that it waited way too late to file the subpoenas.
It hints that the information leading to the subpoenas was developed during
discovery but gives no dates as to when particular information was provided; the
only date it gives is Dec 22, when it filed its Disclosure of Material Misued by
IBM.
SCO also nowhere asserts that it discussed the deposition dates with any of the
corporations - we know that Oracle couldn't meet its date.
IBM, for its part, never mentioned the earlier defective subpeonas and
deposition notices. Perhaps we will hear some case law stating that if new
versions are sent out, they restart the clock, as least if the information
therein is materially changed (such as location of deposition).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 06:16 PM EST |
I think that I can explain why they are doing these incresingly insane motions,
and actions. If you put yourself in the shoes of a SCO person, you see that your
PR campaign has failed, yet your future rests on this case. You have already
pre-paid the lawfirm LOTS AND LOTS of money in order to pursue these claims,
which the discovery probably didn't give them enough material to work with.
So they have these lawyers that are pre-paid, and a case that they have to win,
but don't have many more arrows in the quiver. If that were you, and you didn't
have a conscience, you would make any wild claim that you thought you could get
away with.
A common debate technique is to make as many claims as possible, whether they be
valid or completely specious, because the other side needs to address them all.
I believe that we're seeing this in action, as the timer runs out. You can bet
that they are going to sqeeze every motion that they can out of this lawfirm,
because it's all that they have left.
I just can't wait until the 28th of July. I am looking forward to the new
versions of the PSJs that include what IBM learned during discovery.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 06:28 PM EST |
| Old SCO employee Tim Ruckle
openly discusses open standards and Aspen, March 1996
They knew about it in the UK,
too.
From Caldera, no
less, , someone knew the value of open standards, and how the UDI project relied on the Lp32, Lp64, and
P64 open specs.
---
The wise man is not embarrassed or angered by
lies, only disappointed. (IANAL and so forth and so on) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 06:51 PM EST |
I mean, really, how often can they change their story? They are making an
endless farce out of this process, making it a moving target by ever changing
their story.
Someone without the deep Pockets of IBM would've long been forced to give up.
Can IBM at least cut some compensation out of SCO and can they somehow make sure
*now* that that compensation is still present when it's Payday?
After years of litigation SCO finds out that they sued the wrong party, so IBM
may go home now and SCO can doe the whole story over with someone different (and
then maybe come back at IBM for another try if they choose so)?
Isn't it somehow possible to nail SCO down to one version of their story and
make them run or sink with it?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mram on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 06:54 PM EST |
A little known fact. There used to be a chain of confectioners -
Sconfectioners.com, who were SCO unix customers. One of their best sellers - the
recipe for which was kept a secret for a long time - was the Scorambola fruit
cake.
Until a 12 year old found the recipe in an old armoire and circulated it over
the Internet. Sconfectioners folded, and SCO lost a valuable customer.
The 12 year old happens to be the son of the third cousin of (wait for it, you
are not going to believe this)
an EX IBM EMPLOYEE!
The computer used by the 12 year old to post the recipe on the Internet - you
might think this is a strange coincidence - was an IBM PC.
You may ask what has Linux got to do with all this. The weird coincidences dont
stop here. An uncle of the 12 year old was a Swede settled in Finland. Though
the old IBM PC used by the 12 year old was running windows, as early as 3 years
before the said incident, the PC actually ran OS-2.
There's more. In the same LAN there was another PC running - no I'm really being
serious here - LINUX. The hacker who was using Linux actually tested the recipe
and urged many /. ers to try it out.
3 billion (or 5) is not enough to compensate for the suffering SCO has faced due
to IBM. SCO is rightfully trying to make exchange of recipes illegal - they have
written letters to all members of the congress to get a bill passed to this
effect.
Of course, it is not just the recipes. We have to get to the root cause - Linux
- or IBM. Or both. May be the OpenGroup![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 07:02 PM EST |
On page 9, SCO says “Second, as counsel for SCO recalls the teleconference, this
Court did not rule that the three Rule 30(b)(6) depositions at issue could not
go forward. Counsel for SCO explained that if the three corporations had been
put on proper and sufficient notice of the depositions on January 27, they
should have produced a witness on that date, and their failure to do so should
not work to SCO’s detriment.”
This would seem to imply there has been another teleconference after Januray 27,
but I do not recall any mention of one before. Either that or this would be an
awfully interestsing "recollection" since the teleconference I thought
was in question took place on January 26 which would have SCO's counsel
referring to possible future events as certainties in the past tense.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dogeron on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 07:17 PM EST |
...at the top of page 2 that they submit this memorandum "...in reply to
NonParty Intel's Response to SCO's Motion.....".
It seems strange to me that they make no reference to Oracle's or The Open
Group's response.
That is surely an acknowledgment on SCO's part that Intel hit home with their
response and did some serious damage.
Now that's a comforting thought. ;-)
======
Also has any one else noticed how SCO are getting paranoid?
As you will notice on page 7 they spin a tale that Oracle has not certified any
new Oracle products for the SCO operating system and that this was induced by
IBM. Yet they offer no evidence for this - no reference to something found in
discovery - absolutely nothing apart from "we haven't got it so it must be
IBM's fault".
If IBM had been in a conspiracy with Oracle - and I don't believe that for one
minute - then you would have expected desupport notices to have been issued by
Oracle for SCO's existing operating systems. It's to Oracle's credit that they
have continued to support the existing certified SCO operating systems which are
clearly on the wane.
As an aside, why would Oracle want to incur the cost of certifying SCO's
operating system - which can run linux binaries - that may be able to run
Oracle's Linux certified product? If SCO was so desperate for Oracle's approval
they had several options available - from testing it themselves through to
reimbursing Oracle for the certification and testing costs.
======
Dog.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 07:22 PM EST |
According to their latest filing they should have sued themselves (if they are
true successors in interest), or Tarantella.
---
Wayne
http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 07:34 PM EST |
OpenGroup's terms and
conditions for using UNIX® or UNIXWARE® include:The
Licensee undertakes to not do or permit to be done any act [...] which might
prejudice the right of X/Open Company to the trademarks
Has any
kind soul pointed this out to The Open Group yet? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 07:44 PM EST |
SCO is like a rabid animal that snarls at and even attacks, anyone who draws
near.
SCO is the company formerly known as Caldera, that changed its name and went
insane.
They are so desperate to keep the dogcatcher away, they are snarling and making
vicious noises at nearby children and trying to keep the dogcatcher from acting.
Because once he does, SCO gets a one-way trip to the pound where it will be
destroyed.
I know its their job to keep soldiering on with the case and all, but these
BS&F guys have no sense of decency. They are willing to cause as much fuss
and muss as possible, just to delay the inevitable destruction of their client a
month or two longer. In a truly enlightened culture SCO's executives and their
lawyers would all have committed ritual suicide by now to expunge their
corporate shame.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mossc on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 07:52 PM EST |
As I read through this PDF it strikes me again that TSG is using SCO to
represent the Santa Cruz Operation and "the SCO Group" interchangeably
again to avoid confusion can't the Judge order them to differentiate?
We already have a ruling that TSG is not SCO when they tried to claim
attorney/client priviledge over documents they were not party to.
They define SCO to represent The SCO group at the beginning of the document but
then use SCO to refer to agreements/actions by Santa Cruz.
Chuck
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ninthwave on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 08:17 PM EST |
Hmmmm
Specifically these two quotes:
AT&T didn't have much
success in the computer marketplace, and they finally sold their Unix business
to Novell in 1993. Novell then handed over the Unix trademark and System V
source code to the X/Open group. In December, 1993, Novell released the last
System V Unix, a multiprocessor version called SVR4.2MP.
and
In 1996, the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) bought the
Unix business from Novell in order to integrate System V with their leading Unix
version for the Intel personal computer. SCO, and maintained the System V
baseline for several years until making it available for free.
---
I
was, I am, I will be. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 08:30 PM EST |
Why are SCO being allowed to change their complaint almost monthly?
First it was copyright, then it was derivative works, then it was programmers
contaminating code by being exposed to the holy-of-holies, SCOs alleged IP, then
it was contractual - now they seem to be alleging conspiracy.
Isn't there some kind of limit on how often SCO can change their story on a
whim? And if not, why the heck not?
There was a deadline on discovery, which SCO are wetting themselves trying to
move - shouldn't there be a deadline by which their complaint also has to be
locked down and left to crash and burn on its merits?
Most of US legal system I've now got - courtesy of Groklaw - but this bit is
still puzzling me.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 08:35 PM EST |
Way back in the 1980's AT&T published the "System V Interface
Definition", commonly known as the "SVID". This was a source
level specification that described, among other things, all of the important
UNIX APIs that were available in Systebm V at the time.
This wasn't a totally altrusitic move on AT&T's part. Both AT&T and many
of their UNIX licensees wanted to be able to bid UNIX on various government
contracts. However the procurement rules related to most of those contracts did
not allow them to require a particular "product" (such as UNIX). They
did, however, allow them to specify a set of requirements - and conformance with
a published standard such as SVID was an acceptable requirement that could be
put into the RFP for such a contract.
So, AT&T started the process of "opening up UNIX" in the
"open systems" and "open standards" sense over 20 years ago.
It was a calculated decision and, even at the time, they were well aware that
the publication of such specifications would, in principle at least, allow other
vendors to produce "UNIX-like" systems that were SVID conformant. I
believe that they felt that this was an acceptable trade-off because this was
before the advent of the open/free software movement and it simply wasn't
commercially viable for most organizations to invest the hundreds of staff years
of effort that would be needed to "clone" UNIX from the
spcifications.
As time went by, other organizations came into the picture - X/Open (later to
become The Open Group when they merged with OSF) published various
"portability guides" and standards to promote interoperability and
portability between different flavors of UNIX, and IEEE put together the
original POSIX standards.
All of this was done with the full knowledge and consent of the various
companies that owned UNIX during that period of time - from AT&T, USL,
Novell, and The Santa Cruz Operation, to Caldera in 2002.
From the very start of that time through 2002 when Drew Spencer (CTO of Caldera)
left a few weeks before Darl's arrival each of those companies always had at
least one
or more members of their executive management team who were former engineers,
who were intelligent and technically competent, who understood the standards
process and the work of organizations such as X/Open, IEEE, ANSI etc, who
understood exactly what was going on, and who supported it.
In the end it appears that Darl thinks that just because he neither knows nor
understands what his predecessors did he can file lawsuits based on what he
would *like* to have happened, not what actually did.
I will be *so* glad when all of this is over.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 09:27 PM EST |
In their ongoing rampage to sue whoever crosses their path or darkens their
doorways, tSCOg has now gone after Mom, Apple Pie and Baseball with a
vengeance.
At this time, details are sketchy as to whether this is a copyright issue, a
trademark issue, a methods and concepts issue, a contract issue, or a my blanket
is scratchy issue.
Rumour (this spelling for the Brits :) has it that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck
are in their sights.
Film @ 11
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Avada Kedavra on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 09:38 PM EST |
Aaaargh!
The more I read this, the harder it is for me to avoid dropping an F-Bomb or
committing blasphemy. Did you see footnote number three?
"Because it cannot, IBM does cited any case finding notice was
insufficient[...]"
When I was an instructor, I'd have failed any student who handed in such
incoherent garbage.
Harumph.
AK[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: thorpie on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 09:39 PM EST |
A silly enough proposition to raise this kind of ridicule must have an ulterior
motive. Just what resources will IBM have to throw at quashing it, for how long
and what are the other deadlines. IBM have what, 3 months, to finalize all
their discovery. Wasting that 3 months on this deviation will not help their
case. All I can suggest is that they keep their eye very closely on the main
game.
---
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: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 09:52 PM EST |
The audacity of the liars is beyond compare. But the spot they put themselves
in is worse.
Look at that press announcement. If USL really was part of SCO then why is it
listed separately among the contributors?
Check out this much later web site (1998) and read the part about what SCO got
from Novell - "reseller" status:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/unixware/general/
and notice the history about USL. THEY'RE JUST PLAIN LIARS.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:16 PM EST |
| The absolute latest that SCO can claim that they knew the facts that
would lead them to filing these subpoenas would be their Dec 25 filing (which
was supposed to have been filed by Dec 15). They then waited another month
(from dec 15) to file the subpoenas and then almost 2 weeks to fix the horrid
mistakes in them.
Presuming that they corrected the other substantive
errors in their subpoenas (like being overbroad), they didn't correct the
location error until the day before. Now they claim that expecting these people
to drop their things and show up at the new location 'tomorrow' is reasonable
notice.
I'm guessing that the precedents that they're bringing for the fact
that 4-10 days is proper notice have cases of subpoenas that, other than being
improperly served, were substantially reasonable and correct -- and that the
corrections re service were done more than one day before the proposed
depositions. ---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel
within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:23 PM EST |
Interesting. SCOG was blocked from playing a delaying game when SCOG was
explicitly forbidden from amending its complaint for a third time. So now SCOG
is attempting to continue playing the delaying game by drawing up a brand new
complaint. To me, it looks like SCOG is launching whatever diversionary attack
SCOG can think of to delay, frustrate or block IBM's all out counterattack from
taking place.
SCOG is not interested in getting the issues resolved on their merit, because
SCOG would be slaughtered. Rather, SCOG is trying to continuously raise new
issues to prevent the original issues from being resolved. However, SCOG suffers
from the self-inflicted handicap that its subpoenas are too obviously and
grotesquely malformed for them to be approved without prejudice to the trial
process as a whole.
---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 01:21 AM EST |
.
.
1. I can only read the article today and browse the comments. We are just so
incredibly lucky to have PJ guiding us through this litigious jungle. She has
received a wealth of researched observations in the article and comments.
2. The irony is that PJ predicts what they should do, and they do it. It must
aggravate them ovetnite. The volunteered research just shows that they are
false. They have their own statements in the past to contradict this suit.
People have found numerous items that SCO would have to explain away. They will
have to go back and get their predecessors in interest to recall and take back
their statements. This will never go to trial.
3. IBM can amass all of these documents and include them in a "request for
admission" as to their existence and authenticity. Then IBM can ask SCO to
explain them. The case is not triable. SCO should default.
4. Clearly SCO released or opened up this code for compatibility and
interoperability. It was meant to atract developers to use Unix and/or Linux.
Thats why SCO contributed it and that's what SCO said. You certainly pinned
them down today.
---
webster
-----------Free China
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 04:53 AM EST |
Slash and burn marketing. The market place has seen that the TSCOG is willing
to sue everybody for their precious IP. They do, and we see them in the light
of day. We loathe the business model they use to generate capital for there
stockholder. We will take them seriously. They sue we respond, by shinning
the light of day on there arguments. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 05:01 AM EST |
Hello,
SCO have filed defective subpeonas. Not only that they could have done it years
ago. Then they blatantly lied about it.
If the judge does not at least hand out a slap on the wrist then this US legal
system has gone beyond a joke.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 05:08 AM EST |
For me it is clear that SCOg made their errors in the subpoenas on purpose.
Because of these delibarate errors it was certain that none of the componies
would show up on the 27th and that is what SCOg wanted. It would have been
impossible for SCOg to take dispositions of 3 companies each having send 2 or 3
persons in 1 day. But SCOg has a trumph card: the case law helps them here.
"Suboenas improperly served..." and "Suboenas issued from
incorrect courts...." were accepted in the past. And it were these 2 errors
which we could not understand why the were made. It looked so stupid. Now we can
say, SCOg used the system and Intel, Oracle and The open group took the bait.
They should all have come and then SCOg would have been in trouble. Ofcourse,it
is to be seen that the case law is accepted by the judge. You could argue that
mistakes made on purpose do not count as mistakes.
Marc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 09:34 AM EST |
If I didn't know better, I'd say SCO's goal is to systematically document the
whole history of Linux development and its interaction with the various
companies that have contributed or been interested in Linux over the years. By
the time this case is finished (2015 anyone?), there won't be a stone unturned
nor a question unanswered...
Future web page...
<Submit your Linux search here>
Question: Who contributed code during the inclusion of native 256 bit file
encryption methods into the kernel?
Search results: Volume 14, chapter 12, page 27, paragraph 2. History of native
encryption methods as a service of the Linux kernel, including source,
discussion notes, rejections, complete version history, and miscellaneous
contributor notes were included on June 12, 2008 as part of the SCO vs. IBM
trial. See attached court findings.
Heh.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 10:48 AM EST |
It's interesting to me that the reason for the common Unix programming interface
was to offset the gains that microsoft products were making... a programmer
could program one way for microsoft, then had to make a hundred ports of his
software to all of the *nix variants.
So these vendors got together to build a common interface, allowing programs to
run on all *nix variants (in theory).
It would have been very much in old SCO's interest to participate in this
group... or their customers would have continued to drift toward Windows-NT,
following the lead of new software releases.
Customers go where the applications are.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ikocher on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 01:01 PM EST |
I think SCOg has made a really bad move. They are asking for documents that
they _should_ have, relation with intel/oracle/open group/novell, etc.
Everybody here is saying that if they are succesor of interest, they should have
all those papers. Well think on this: what if IBM asks SCOg to produce those
papers, the copies SCOg should have? That will hurt SCOg case:
-if they don't have them, "the dog ate my homework" thing won't fly.
They are no succesor of interest then.
-if they have them, why were they asking third parties for them before?
In both cases they "loose", and I wonder if the court can do something
based on this "new evidence". Something in the line of bad behaivor,
bad faith, etc.
Also, Can IBM ask for extra time in discovery? What happens is SCOg continues
to hace discovery on IBM's time?
Ivan
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 01:45 PM EST |
| I commented before about Quantum SCO
To recap:
If
we take some very basic (and slightly paraphrased, with apologies to
Schroedinger) Quantum mechanics principles,then SCO becomes much clearer
!!
Rule 1. Quanta are in all states (and none, really) when
unobserved.
Rule 2. Observing a quanta reserves the observed state for it
alone.
Rule 3. All quanta have a mutually exclusive duality.
Then Rule 1
shows we can never know what SCO will do next.
Rule 2 shows no-one else is
stupid enough to do what SCO just did.
Rule 3 shows they are talking out of
both sides of their mouth.
I may now update this theorem with my equivalent
of Nie
ls Bohr's Nobel prize winning dissertation
As with electrons, the
Quantum SCO theorem includes a quantum leap. It is this:
An idea leaps from
ear to ear without visiting the space
between
Now we may update this
even more
In honour of The Pauli
Exclusion Principle, I propose the SCOCollusion Principle
This
new principle states that if, for any reason, anyone but SCOX is successful, it
must have been because others colluded to prevent SCOX from being
successful.
Thankfully, as a scientific principle, this is falsifiable, and
can actually be found to be a result of the Mirror Principle, which shows that
'what goes around, comes around'.
PeteS ---
Artificial Intelligence
is no match for Natural Stupidity [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- In Support - Authored by: PeteS on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 01:52 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 01:50 PM EST |
SCO said early on, I don't remember exactly when, that HP was non-infringing.
However I see in the open group list not only HP, but also Digital Equipment
Corp. Remember DEC was bought by Compaq which was bought by HP. What
subpoenas has SCO served HP with since they obviously have information on this
from two fronts?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GLJason on Wednesday, February 22 2006 @ 04:39 PM EST |
Once again, SCO misconstrues the protections it claims that it
enjoys:
(a) this disclosure of SCO's copyrighted materials;
The disclosure of copyrighted materials is not
against the law. Only unauthorized copying of copyrighted materials is
against the law. Trade Secrets are protected by Contract
law.
After identifying that intellectual property, securing
each and every possible patent, copyright or trademark, implementing the
structural protections to guard the intellectual property, and enacting
nondisclosure policies, you can and should enter into contractual obligations
with your employees, agents and consultants. The contractual protections should
include confidentiality agreements, noncompete agreements, nonsolicitation
agreements, assignments of invention, and work-for-hire
agreements.
Publishing it as a standard and making it
available on their website annihilates the trade secret status of information
contained therin. Not to mention that Kevin McBride stated in court back in
December of 2003 (or was it spring '04?) that Unix contained no trade secrets.
Plus IBM has a clause in its contract with AT&T saying that it no longer had
to protect methods and concepts if they are made publicly available not due to
IBM's actions. You can't mandate that someone keep something secret that you
shout to the public.
Also you cannot copyright interfaces mandated for
interopability or by function. Where is the creative expression in that? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mad Geek on Thursday, February 23 2006 @ 06:53 AM EST |
UnixWare isn't even listed as being certified as following the current UNIX
specification. Are they just not capable of supporting the more advanced
specifications, or are they just too lazy to go through the specification
process? I don't know.
UnixWare is certified as a UNIX 95 product, and
OpenServer is certified as UNIX 93. Even z/OS, which is supposed to be the
first non-AT&T derived certified UNIX, is at the UNIX 95 level. Both AIX
and Solaris are certified at UNIX 98 and UNIX 03. Does this mean that those are
more "UNIX" than UnixWare?
They probably think they're the only ones who
can define UNIX, and The Open Group is infringing on their rights to define
things as how they view it.
---
--
This Geek is MAD!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
