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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

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
A Chart To Immortalize SCO's Lack of Specificity
Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 01:15 PM EDT

Here's IBM's chart [PDF], attached as Addendum B to IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material, and described by IBM as showing SCO's failure "to identify lines of System V, AIX or Dynix, and Linux material with respect to any of the 198 items" on SCO's list of "All Allegedly Misused Material Identified to Date” which they were supposed to disclose with specificity on December 22. Our thanks to grouch for doing the HTML for us, which must have been enough to make his eyes water, trying to make sure he got all the blank boxes counted out just right. Let us know if you spot any errors. [ Update: Mathfox: I cut two tables and hope this version renders properly.]

The chart is vivid Show and Tell for the judge. You don't need to be a techie to understand this chart -- it shows all the specifics that SCO has *not* produced, and for that failure, IBM asks that the court not allow SCO to introduce at trial any expert evidence or documents not produced during discovery where SCO’s failure prejudiced IBM in its ability to conduct discovery, prepare for trial and cross-examine SCO's witnesses. This is bound to come up again during the trial, I think, over and over. And right now, IBM wants the 198 items on SCO's list, the majority of it, tossed out for SCO's willfully disobeying the court's orders and discovery rules.

If you are a techie, you know how hard it is to explain computers to people who aren't naturally interested. This is a case that depends on the judges understanding a fair measure of technical details. SCO seems to be hoping they don't bother, and in fact IBM in its Memorandum accuses SCO of counting on exactly that:

Despite its generalized protestations of compliance, it is indisputable that SCO has not complied with the Court’s orders. The Final Disclosures themselves, which SCO plainly does not expect the Court will review, demonstrate the inadequacy of the 198 Items at issue.

But there are all those SCO boxes and boxes of "evidence" filed to make it look like they have complied, so IBM here is trying to show the judge that while there may be boxes and boxes of paper, there isn't anything on the paper about the bulk of the items on SCO's list that IBM can use to specifically identify what SCO is talking about. If there is infringed code, where is it?

So the chart is a visual aid to make that clear, a graphic representation of what IBM expert Professor Randall Davis states in his Declaration [PDF] is SCO's failure to provide IBM sufficient specifics to allow IBM to build its defense:

SCO does not provide a complete set of reference points (version, file and line) for any of the 198 Items. Astonishingly, SCO fails specifically to identify a single line of System V, AIX or Dynix, and Linux code for any of the 198 Items. SCO does not identify specific System V, AIX, or Dynix version(s) or file(s) with respect to more than a few of the Items.

Sometimes people talk about what they'd like as a memento when this saga is over, and some say they'd like a stock certificate to frame and hang on the wall. Me too, actually, once it's all over. But I think I'd like this chart framed for my wall even more. I find it absolutely hilarious, even though I assume, and have long assumed, that SCO is saving something up their sleeve they plan to throw on the table at the last possible minute that they just don't want to tell us yet.

Does that scare me? It used to a bit, at 2 AM sometimes, when I couldn't sleep and was staring at the ceiling, thinking about worst case scenarios. But having watched them in action for now three years (we're in our fourth as of last month, actually), I am no longer worried. First, if the only way to win at trial is by playing tricks and breaking the rules, how solid is your case? And how can I worry about what SCO may think is killer stuff, when I read IBM's Memorandum and learn that SCO has abandoned Item 294, which seems to have been their best shot, or at least the one they worked on the hardest:

To create the false impression that it has provided information that it has not provided, SCO tells the Court that it has provided “color-coded illustrations”, “line-by-line source code comparisons” and “over 45,000 pages of supporting materials”. What SCO fails to mention is that 33,000 of those pages concern Item 294, which SCO abandons in its opposition brief. Moreover, while the Final Disclosures include color coded illustrations and line-by-line source comparisons, they do not do so with regard to any of the 198 Items at issue, which are utterly lacking in the requisite particularity. In other words, SCO refers the Court to Items that are not challenged to try and defend those that are.

That's really pitiful. Whatever Item 294 was, it was apparently the heart of their list, taking up 33,000 of 45,000 pages of "supporting materials," and it's now on the cutting room floor. How could that happen? I don't know, but I'm guessing that in discussions with IBM, which IBM refers to in their timeline of events [PDF], also attached to the Reply Memorandum, IBM probably clued them in that they were relying on something that wasn't going to support their weight, and they quickly dropped it before the public could get a look at it.

More's the pity. How much would you pay to know what exactly what it was? I'd pay plenty. Hmm, there's a possible business plan for SCO. Hey, it beats direct marketing.

We did get a hint what 294 was about from IBM's "Enough is enough" Memorandum in support of its Motion to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material:

Item Nos. 271 and 294 of the Final Disclosures illustrate the problem. Item No. 271 claims that “AIX and Dynix/ptx patented technologies, based on UNIX System V, were improperly released for the benefit of, and use by, the Linux development community in developing Linux.” SCO does not identify a single version, file or line of Unix System V, AIX, Dynix or Linux technology that IBM is alleged to have misused. Instead, SCO merely attaches 34 patents. None of these 34 patents lists any versions, files or lines of code. There is, therefore, no way of telling what, if any, Unix System V, AIX, Dynix or Linux technology SCO contends was misused. Similarly, SCO’s Item No. 294 alleges that IBM has engaged in “[e]xtensive use of ptx programming experience (and a fortiori exposure to UNIX System V) in creating numerous Linux kernel patches”. In support of this claim, SCO attaches a computer disk containing 33,000 single-spaced pages of proposed code contributions. Nowhere does SCO identify with specificity a single version, file or line of Unix System V, AIX, Dynix or Linux code. Here again, IBM is left to guess as to SCO’s claim.

Heh heh. Proposed patches. I harken back to all that prolonged song and dance about wanting "nonpublic" Linux materials. What these guys don't understand about Linux is a lot.

Remember when SCO attorney Mark Heise said in August of 2003, when SCO first began to show code, that they had plenty of line-for-line copying just ready to show the court?

Q: Why show the code?

Heise: Why show the code? Why show the contracts? Why show anything? Because SCO is committed to educating people about their rights to ownership and allowing people, with their own eyes, to see what code is out there, because I think you've seen throughout a lot of the open-source media: "There's nothing to this litigation. There are no lines of code out there. They keep claiming there (are), but we don't believe that." We are addressing that. We're educating the public in general that, well, there is in fact infringing code, both direct line for line and obfuscated code, derivative works, non-literal -- it's there. [We] just don't want the rest of the world to believe that it's not [there], that this is some sort of smoke and mirrors. It's not.

Q: How did the decision to show the code play out? At the beginning, it seems, not a lot was being shown by the company. Weren't you afraid of tipping your legal hand or that people would criticise the code you were showing?

Heise: As a lawyer, I'm always hesitant to show anything, so I'm probably not a good person to ask. I think it really was the company feeling the need to educate the world. They had heard one too many times: "There's nothing there; this is ridiculous."

OK. So where is it? When does SCO drop the veil? Darl McBride said this back in June of 2003:

When we take a top-tier view of the amount of code showing up inside of Linux today that is either directly related to our Unix System 5 that we directly own or is related to one of our flavors of Unix that we have derivative works rights over--we don't necessarily own those flavors, but we have control rights over how that information gets disseminated--the amount is substantial. We're not talking about just lines of code; we're talking about entire programs. We're talking about hundred of thousands of lines of code....

We're talking about line-by-line code copying. That includes not just the function but the exact, word-for-word lines of code. And the developer comments are exactly, 100 percent the same. The developer comments really get to the DNA of the code. It's one thing to have something look the same, but when the developer comments are exactly the same, that tells you everything you need to know that this is in fact lifted, that it has been copied and pasted from Unix into Linux.

They sucked in Laura Didio with that comments stuff. Remember? She talked about that forevah, until that particular code was debunked publicly in August of 2003 at SCOForum. Earlier, in that same busy month of June, Darl said this:

SCO chief executive Darl McBride declared that it is "a no-brainer" that the code was in Linux.

"When you look inside in the code base and you see line-by-line copy of [SCO's Unix] System V code, not just the code itself but comments to the code, titles that were in the comments and humour elements that were in the comments, you see that everything is taken straight across," he explained.

McBride claimed that everything was exactly the same, except that the copyright notices had been stripped out. "There could not be a more straightforward case on the Linux side," he said.

Then it's time to be straightforward with the court and with IBM. Show us the code. We want to see all that line-by-line copying. Where is it on this chart? Then in October of 2003, Darl said that the illegal code he was talking about added up to millions of lines of code, not dozens. It was so much code, he said it was unthinkable to take it out: "Replacing the illegal code seems unimaginable, even if we would be the first to approve such a solution. But we're talking about millions of lines of code and not a few dozen." [French: "Mais il s'agit de millions de lignes et non de quelques dizaines."]

The funny thing is, I could go on and on, just wandering through Groklaw's Quote Database. These days, it's tons of fun.

I remember also my interview with Gregory Blepp and our translation, which he approved, of his speech given at Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 06/17/2004, where he showed graphics of allegedly misused materials, and said this:

Blepp: The characters are ... I can place the file at your disposal later on. That's no problem. [inaudible] The issue in green [referring to his presentation], if you replace this on the other hand with System V, if you compare the data, and replace it with System V, you absolutely have an obfuscation. In fact, the original makes absolutely clear that it's System V code, which slipped in via AT&T, Bell Labs, Novell and SCO [inaudible].

Then follows a bit of black-colored code. There, nothing has been done, these are simply steering sequences. Here is also black-colored code which serves to steer for sequences from Linux. And now it becomes a bit red. All sequences you see in red from now on, are line-by-line, via copy and paste from System V, thus from Unix code, line-by-line, including comments. Only if you see a deadlock comment, it is a syntax line in Linux which summarizes the elements under Linux, so it can do the same things under Linux it does under Unix. And this example are [sic] in quotation marks "only" just under 200 lines of code. From these 200 lines, 55 are affected, which were copied into Linux. From these files, this is a quite simple, but handy example, we have approximately 40 files.

In other words, the entire kernel 2.4 -- experts may correct me -- is estimated, I believe, to contain 5 million lines, something like that, give or take something. At the moment, we assume 1.5 million lines of this code to be affected. Partially by structures, partially by sequences, but partially also by line-by . . . by copying.

It'd be interesting to compare Blepp's show and tell with IBM's, would it not? Of course, it was Blepp who said that SCO had proof of millions of lines of infringed code.

So, fellows, it's time, IBM is saying. Where is it now? If you have any cards in your hand, put them on the table now. And if not now, don't try to pull them out of your sleeve and introduce them later. That is what IBM's motion is about. Of course, even if they win their motion, it won't stop SCO from suddenly "discovering" something and trying to introduce it, as they tried to do with the "discovery" that Project Monterey ran on Power. But that gambit failed, and the purpose of this motion is to try to prevent SCO from gaming the court in the future. From that standpoint, it almost doesn't matter if IBM wins or loses this skirmish. It has drawn a line in the sand and explained to the court what it believes is happening. Down the road, all they'll have to do is say to the court, "Remember what we predicted SCO would do? They're doing it. Make them stop."

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

Addendum B

System V AIX Dynix Linux
Items V F L V F L V F L V F L
3                   * *  
4                     X  
5                     *  
6               X     *  
7                     X  
8                     X  
9                 **      
10                        
11                        
12                     X  
13                     X  
14                     X  
15                     *  
16                     †  
17                     X  
18                        
19                     *  
20                        
21                   * X  
22                     X  
23                     X  
24                        
25                     X  
26                     X  
27                     X  
28                     X  
29             X   ** X X  
30                     X  
31                   * X  
32                        
33                   * X  
34                   X X  
35                     X  
36                     X  
37                     X  
38                     X  
39                     X  
40                     X  
41                     X  
42                     X  
43                     X  
44                     X  
45                     X  
46                     X X
47                     X  
48                     X  
49                     X  
50                     X  
51                     X  
52                     X  
53                 **   X  
54                     X  
55                 **   X  
56                     X  
57                     X  
58                     X  
59                     X  
60                     X  
61                     X  
62                     X  
63                     X  
64               X        
65                     X  
66                     X  
67                     X  
68                     X  
69                     X  
70                     X  
71                     X  
72                     X  
73                   * X  
74                     X  
75                   * X  
76                     X  
77                     X  
78                     X  
79                     X  
80                     X  
81                     X  
82                     X  
83                   X X  
84                     X  
85             X       X  
86               X     X  
87                     X  
88                     X  
89                     X  
90                     X  
91                        
92                        
93                     X  
94                     X  
95                     X  
96                     X  
97                     X  
98                     *  
99                     *  
100                   X X  
101                     X  
102                     X  
103                     X  
104                     X  
105                     X  
106                     X  
107                     X  
108                     X  
109                     X  
110                     X  
111                     X  
112                        
143                        
144                     X  
145                        
146                     X  
147                        
148                     X  
149                   * X  
165                        
166                     X  
167                     X X
168                   * *  
169                   * *  
170                   * X  
171                        
172                        
173                        
174 X X   X X              
175                     X  
176                     X X
177                        
178                        
179                     X  
180                     X  
181                     X  
182                        
186                     X  
187                     X  
188                     X  
189                     X  
190                     X  
191                     X  
192                     X  
193                     X  
232                   X X  
233                   X X  
234                   X X  
235                   X X  
236                   X X  
237                   X X  
238                   X X  
239                   X X  
240                   X X  
241                   X X  
242                   X X  
243                   X X  
244                   X X  
245                   X X  
246                   X X  
247                   X X  
248                     X  
249                     X  
250                   X X  
251                   X X  
252                     X  
253                     X  
254                     X  
255                     X  
256                   X X  
257                     *  
258                     X  
259                     X  
260                   X X  
261                     X  
262                     X  
263                   X X  
264                     X  
265                   X X  
266                     X  
267                     X  
268                     X  
269                     X  
270                   X X  
271                        
279                        
280                        
281                        
282                        
283                        
284                        
285                        
286                        
287                        
288                        
289                        
290                        
291                        
292                        
293                        
V = Product version identified

F = File name identified

L = Lines of code identified

* Indicates that only Linux patch information is given

** Indicates that some lines of code are displayed, but none specifically identified as misused

Indicates that only Linux Test Project (LTP) information is given


  


A Chart To Immortalize SCO's Lack of Specificity | 399 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT Here, please
Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 01:19 PM EDT
Clicky links previewed in HTML please.

See text in red at bottom of comment pane.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 01:20 PM EDT
Please post corrections here, with specificity please. ;-)


---
"I never have frustrations. The reason is to wit: Of at first I don't succeed, I
quit!" ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Funny... I was going to do that
Authored by: Matt C on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 01:24 PM EDT
Those grey boxes were inscrutable though.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Format?
Authored by: Matt C on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 01:26 PM EDT
How 'bout an ODF? So we can all practice...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks for the Work
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 02:01 PM EDT
I especially like all of the white space.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

AIX and Dynix/ptx patented technologies?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 02:09 PM EDT
I find this very odd construction.

If there are "AIX and Dynix/ptx patented technologies" wouldn't the
patents belong to IBM?

If IBM does own the patents is SCOG saying that IBM isn't free to implement
their own technologies, giving SCOG control not only over IBM's code (which is a
fallacy) but also over IBM's patents (which is an absurdity)?

Talk about viral. That would be a plague worse than the Black Death.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Copyrighting experience?
Authored by: Jaywalk on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 02:25 PM EDT
Similarly, SCO’s Item No. 294 alleges that IBM has engaged in “[e]xtensive use of ptx programming experience (and a fortiori exposure to UNIX System V) in creating numerous Linux kernel patches”. In support of this claim, SCO attaches a computer disk containing 33,000 single-spaced pages of proposed code contributions.
They were claiming "programming experience" as a reason for the suit? That has to be right up at the top of boneheaded claims. (And SCOX has made a lot of them.)

I'm a consultant and every consultant knows that what you write belongs to the client, but what you learn belongs to you. I just had to learn Perl to meet a client's specific needs. That client owns the scripts I wrote for them, but they can't forbid me from ever writing another Perl script just because I got my experience working for them. If that was the way it worked, anyone who has ever worked on one operating system -- or any client, for that matter -- could never work on a competitor. Even "exposure" to System V taints you for life.

No wonder they dropped the item; it was just too absurd to actually say aloud before a judge. I'm more convinced than ever that my original guess was correct; this is a cynical attempt by SCOG to artificially inflate their page count to provide an illusion of credibility.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

3 years is a long time.....
Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 02:26 PM EDT
.... to wait for a Red Dress. But not much longer now, I think.

IANAL, but I don't think that there will be enough of this case left for it to get to trial. At some point, once he is sure that there will be no scope for an appeal, I suspect that Judge Kimball will throw the whole thing out, on the basis that there is no evidence. Some say that he should have done so long ago, but it is probably best that SCO were allowed to proceed to this point, and be seen publicly to have no evidence. But I don't believe that they can keep up the pretence of having a case for much longer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Predictably, SCOX is rising
Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 02:34 PM EDT
No amount of bad news ever causes what should be the appropriate reaction. I am not an expert on such matters, but think that this means that very little, or maybe none, of the stock is now owned by "normal" investors who buy in the hope that it will rise. Presumably those holding short positions fully intend that SCO should fail?

I wonder if there is illegal dealing of some kind going on behind the scenes, or merely someone with a large paintbrush. But I have wondered that for a long time.....

Maybe we will find out in the aftermath of the inevitable bankrupcy, which presumably, following inverse logic, will make the stock go to infinity.

:-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

So all that's left are header files
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 02:49 PM EDT
Which are fair use anyway.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Chart To Immortalize SCO's Lack of Specificity
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 03:06 PM EDT
I think SCO would have had a better chance if they had
decided to sue M$. At least their vague assertions
would make sense.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Chart To Immortalize SCO's Lack of Specificity
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 03:20 PM EDT
>>> If there is infringed code, where is it?

It is amazing that after two complete audits, thousands of people looking and
three years of discovery that we (everyone) is still asking what code are they
talking about. Three years an still our foolish court system has not insisted
SCO show what exactly they are in court about. Amazing ... simply amazing. Now I
understand why SCO did this. It bought them three years plus.

[ Reply to This | # ]

T-Shirts!
Authored by: spectrum on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 03:40 PM EDT
Anyone want to take the initiative and put this on a t-shirt? I'd buy one.
Ranks right up there with the DeCSS shirt and The Jabberwocky done in
ActionScript.



---
dave.

[ Reply to This | # ]

We have predicted...
Authored by: PeteS on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 03:48 PM EDT
that SCOX lack of specificity would catch up with them, and we have been
predicting it ever since early discovery.

I remember we even wondered why the Nazgul were being so polite, but give them
their due - they are polite even when about to crush their opponent into the
ground.

Now, however, we see some real sarcasm and puns in the filings, which does not
bode well at all for SCOX, at least in my opinion.

This chart was made with 'malice aforethought' in the sense Cravath, Swaine
& Moore (et. al) decided it was time to let the Judge know they are getting
tired of the stonewalling and present it in a way that may not be ignored (much
to the consternation of BS&F, no doubt).

Wonderful job, PJ - I don't think I've seen that much white space since my
<RET> key got stuck while typing some code (it still compiled, though.
That's something SCOX is not going to have going for them).

PeteS


---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity

[ Reply to This | # ]

Red Dress, SCOX, and
Authored by: jimwelch on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 03:48 PM EDT
tiger99 -- Red Dress? Is this an inside joke?

tiger99 -- SCOX Stock - Check the volume levels, they are so low, that a few 1,000s shares traded, changes the price.

tredman -- "I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE - I chuckle EVERY time I read this!

---
Programming since 1976 with punched cards and not a single hagging chad (yet).

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is how the SCO ends...
Authored by: qitaana on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 04:28 PM EDT
Not with a bang, but a whimper.

Heck, there might not even be enough left for a whimper, more like one of those
little "poof" balloons you see on the cartoons.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • More like - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 08:59 PM EDT
    • More like - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 12:50 PM EDT
Interpretation of chart
Authored by: blang on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 05:27 PM EDT
The cart says:

Unlike SCO, we don't need no stinkin 45,000 pages of color crayola smudged
printouts to make a point. Our chart is white and clean, the color of
innocence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's with item 174?
Authored by: jimbudler on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 06:08 PM EDT

Version and file from SysV and AIX, nothing from dynix or Linux. How is this a
problem? IBM has a license.

---
Jim Budler

[ Reply to This | # ]

Guesses on 294
Authored by: hconnellan on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 07:46 PM EDT
* The "Read Copy Update" (RCU), copied largely unchanged from
Dynix/ptx. (Would explain why they could produce so much documentation).

* The AIO code from IBM with concepts/ideas/code from Dynix/ptx.

* The scatter/gather I/O code from IBM with concepts/ideas/code from AIX and/or
Dynix/ptx.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe I'm reading the chart wrong but ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 07:58 PM EDT
They seem to have alleged nothing. If they are saying that something from Sys V
made it into Linux, wouldn't there have to be a mark in the Sys V column to
match a mark in the Linux column. Nowhere on the chart is there a row with a
mark in both the Sys V column and the Linux column. In fact, only item 174 has
any marks in the Sys V columns.

I really want a strong ruling on counterclaim 10. That would cleanse Linux for
once and for all of the stink of this case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here is another version of the chart
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 08:00 PM EDT
.

































































Any questions?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nothing is more
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 08:14 PM EDT
Those acres of pristine white space, in a chart just "helpfully"
attached to the memorandum for the court's benefit, are why IBM's lawyers are
known as the Nazgul and SCO's lawyers are known as Toast.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Working Chart
Authored by: Bill The Cat on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 08:56 PM EDT
Here's a chart (with color!) that may help some of you. It's coded to the HTML 2.0 standard so it should work with just about anything. The problem with item 193 has also been fixed in this chart.

I E-mailed the HTML to PJ so hopefully she can integrate it into the page. (all 3 of the existing charts look the same in Opera).

---
Bill Catz

[ Reply to This | # ]

what was dropped in item 294?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 04:33 AM EDT
Well, probably it was some public domain bsd code :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is a bit cute
Authored by: pcrooker on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 04:47 AM EDT
I know it has been 3+ years, but this just smacks of gloating.... well, all right, I'll buy it. Maybe I'll print the thing out and post it next to my desk ;-)

That aside, great day that this is finally coming out. I didn't see it in any of the other comments but does anyone know when the Court rules on this? Or shall we see a SCO's Opposition to IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material" and then SCO's Renewed Opposition to IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material"

NNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe I'm missing something, but...
Authored by: JJ on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 08:27 AM EDT
I don't understand why everyone is so amazed that SCO is shown to have a lack of
specificity in this chart. (Forgive me if the following numbers aren't exact,
but I don't want to be bothered going back to look them up.) SCO presented a
list of 294 alleged misdeeds by IBM. IBM then divided them into four
categories. One category, containing 198 items, are those alleged misdeeds that
aren't sufficiently specified. One category, containing one item, are those
alleged misdeeds that SCO subsequently dropped. One catetory, containing one
item, doesn't actually allege any misdeed. And the final category, containing
94 items, are those items IBM intend to deal with by partial summary judgment.
Of course this list exhibits a lack of specificity. The items in it were chosen
specifically by IBM because they were not specific. It's the other main
category that may have specificity. Look at it this way. IBM couldn't deal
with the instant list by partial summary judgment. Under partial summary
judgement the judge must assume all the claims made by the non-moving party, in
this case SCO, are true. When SCO are not specific, they are really claiming
that IBM took something from somewhere in the huge volume of code that is Sys V
and put it somewhere in the huge volume of code that is Linux. And the judge
has to assume it's true. However, when SCO have identified an alleged misdeed
with specificity, IBM claim they will be able to show they have a privilege to
do the things they have done. But we haven't yet seen that list.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Empty cells should have nbsp's in them.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 08:41 AM EDT
You need to put &nbsp; in the empty cells to make them show up.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Chart To Immortalize SCO's Lack of Specificity
Authored by: jsusanka on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 08:46 AM EDT
"SCO does not provide a complete set of reference points (version, file and
line) for any of the 198 Items. Astonishingly, SCO fails specifically to
identify a single line of System V, AIX or Dynix, and Linux code for any of the
198 Items. SCO does not identify specific System V, AIX, or Dynix version(s) or
file(s) with respect to more than a few of the Items. "

unbelievable!! just unbelievable!!

how we can be this far along in the case and sco has not produced one once of
code that has been copied.

isn't there some kind of punishment for bringing false claims to court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Chart To Immortalize SCO's Lack of Specificity
Authored by: sunnyfla on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 11:10 AM EDT
If you give someone a house, and they get robbed because they didn't lock the front door, that's not the builders fault. Some people would say, "Yeah, but the problem is with Windows it doesn't matter if you lock the front door because there are holes in the walls."

No...I think the correct quote should be:

"Yeah, but the problem is with Windows it doesn't matter if you lock the front door because Windows break(s)"

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Oops! - Authored by: sunnyfla on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 11:13 AM EDT
Ruling on IBMs motion....
Authored by: mram on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 12:08 PM EDT
There have been many speculations on how the judge is going to rule on this
issue. After all it is not practical for the IBM and SCO to argue each point of
contention (even though it looks like IBM is clearly in the right who knows what
other excuses SCO may come up with?) for each of the 198 "evidences"

Is it possible then for the judge to randomly choose say 10 of 198 and ask SCO
and IBM to put forth arguments before the judge as to how they meet or do not
meet the standards? If IBM wins 6 or more the judge can throw out all 198 of
them.

Of course IBM will win all 10. But is such an approach possible?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IANAL...
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 01:51 PM EDT
...nor am I a US resident.

Does the following analogy illustrate what IBM is trying to avoid.

Plaintive: The defendent walked off with my house and the State of Texas.

Judge: Be more specific about the house.

Plaintive: It was a house and he walked off with it.

Defendent: Could I have a Summary Judgement.

Judge: Accepting that the defendent did walk off with said items, I rule that,
in the matter of the State of Texas, the plaintive has no standing. But in the
matter of the house, the case will have to go to trial.

Defendent: But that is stupid, the plaintive has not even identified which
particular house.

Judge: Yes, I know, but you should have said so before.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Chart To Immortalize SCO's Lack of Specificity
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 10 2006 @ 03:17 PM EDT
A couple of points regarding SCO's "discoveries" jump out from this chart:
  • They have matches (of some sort) between SysV and AIX. But that was never an issue; nobody denies there is SysV code in AIX -- that's why IBM has a license!
  • They have matches between Dynix and Linux -- but Dynix is a BSD-based UNIX; an enormous amount of its code is freely redistributable!
  • Any SysV-Linux or even AIX-Linux matches constituted less than 100 of SCOG's examples -- about a quarter -- while three-quarters, even if they were completely specified, would go to demonstrate facts not at issue.
TheSCOG is both utterly desperate and completely clueless at this point. And Kimball is doubtless beginning to get that message... Craig (not logged in)

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.07 seconds