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
More Resources for the Next Phase of SCO v. IBM
Thursday, April 20 2006 @ 11:13 PM EDT

Now that we are about finished with discovery in SCO v. IBM, gasp! -- in order for you to understand the next parts, it's time to focus on things like rules for experts and the rules of evidence. So this is just a brief note to let you know that I've added such resources to Groklaw's Legal Links page. Here are the new items:

Feel free to dive in now. A lot of you have been emailing me asking questions that these resources can answer. It's fun to read the rules in the context of a particular case, as opposed to just trying to read and remember in the abstract. We'll likely be referring to these resources as we go forward. I'm looking forward to it very, very much.

For example, we have three experts now, regarding code, two for IBM and now one for SCO, although his expertise in Linux has not been established as far as I'm concerned.

I notice that his declaration attaches his bio, and his Linux credential is that his book on Unix was updated to include some material on Linux, and the book came in third, winning a 2004 Linux Journal Readers' Choice award in the most indispensible Linux book category. However, the real winner wasn't on the list: "The most popular write-in vote continued to be man pages." Here's a presentation [PDF] he gave on "What is Unix?" He has a personal definition on page 4 ("A UNIX system is an OS that implements*some version of POSIX.1 as its lowest-level (native) API") and note that in this June 2003 presentation, he lists SCO as being one of the owners of the Unix IP:

Who Owns “UNIX?”
•Open Group: 1996 merger of Open Software Foundation (OSF) and X/Open

•Owns UNIX trademark (gift from Novell)

–SCO (formerly Caldera) owns UNIX intellectual property –in the news!

•www.opengroup.org

•Jointly works with POSIX as Austin Group –www.opengroup.org/austin

So much for experts expounding outside of their area of expertise, but it does indicate rather a willingness to believe SCO pretty much from the beginning, doesn't it, unless he was joking. He does seem to have a nice sense of humor. If anyone listened to that presentation, I'd love to hear from you.

Actually, Groklaw won a Linux Journal Editors' Choice award that same year as best community website. I guess that qualifies me as an expert too, if his book winning third place in a reader poll qualifies him. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or vice versa.

So ... here's my expert opinion: This is the stupidest lawsuit since the world began.


  


More Resources for the Next Phase of SCO v. IBM | 205 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections, if any
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 20 2006 @ 11:53 PM EDT
Put 'em here, if they're needed.

---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially if I give some.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Wrong Link? - Authored by: RFD on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 08:06 AM EDT
Off Topic
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 20 2006 @ 11:56 PM EDT
Please read the red Hints just below the Comment entry text box, about how to make URLs clicky.

Thank you very much.

---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially if I give some.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is the stupidest lawsuit since the world began
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:16 AM EDT
Also the most important.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Expert qualification
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:01 AM EDT
Do we really care that M.R. might not be a true expert in the area that he's
providing a declaration on? After all, he's SCO's choice to put forward, and if
he's NOT a qualified expert, won't IBM's Nazgul just pretty much shred his
bonifides and the value of his expert testimony?

What's the downside?

..D

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is the stupidest lawsuit since the world began.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:20 AM EDT
mod that one up ++

sum.zero

[ Reply to This | # ]

I have two questions for all of you:
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:59 AM EDT
1st:

Have there been any other cases where the plaintiff could withold the content of
his plaint this long? ( 3 years )

2nd:

Has there been any other cases were the amount of documentations required and
provided during discovery exceeds this one? ( AIX + Dynix + CVS + Linux +
contract + etc )

If there are other cases, could you provide references please? It would be of
interest to compare them.

Thank you.

PS: I post about once a year, so no, I don't have an account.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Resources for the Next Phase of SCO v. IBM
Authored by: John Hasler on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 08:57 AM EDT
> So much for experts expounding outside of their area of
> expertise, but it does indicate rather a willingness to
> believe SCO pretty much from the beginning...

In 2003 everyone who hadn't read the APA (i.e., almost everyone) believed that
TSG owned Unix.

---
IOANAL. Licensed under the GNU General Public License

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Rochkind an expert witness?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 10:32 AM EDT
He's written some code. He's founded a company. He's written a book. He's won
awards for some programs he wrote.

These all sound sort of noteable, but there are plenty of people who have
achieved similar things. You might even argue, in the typical colloquial usage,
that they are experts in their field.

But I am far from sure that these things by themselves, add up to being
qualified expert witness, where the criteria are more specific.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in his resume, saying that he has
previously served as an expert witness.

So while, I'm not bashing his skills in what he has done (writing a book,
starting a company, writing some code), I am querying whether he meets the
criteria for being a qualified expert witness.

Thoughts anybody?


Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

definition of Unix?
Authored by: seraph_jeffery on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 11:06 AM EDT
His definition of Unix is rather dangerous, broad, and just way too vague, isn't
it? Until a couple of months ago, it was possible to download from Microsoft a
package called SFU (the page has since been removed), which made Windows 2000 or
Windows XP Professional COMPLETELY Posix.1 compatible. I don't believe that it
ran at the lowest level, but speaking loosely, even MS Windows could be said to
be Unix by a SCO-type-of-person who ran with that loose definition. Tsk.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's [former!] Unixware Trademark; X/Open has applied!
Authored by: rdc3 on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 11:14 AM EDT

I was going to comment that SCO has some IP: the UnixWare trademark as being the IP that was clearly transferred to old SCO by the APA.

But I just did a trademark search on Unixware at uspto.gov and was astounded to find:

  • DEAD: Unixware trademark owned by Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., registration number 2241666, cancelled February 3, 2006.
  • LIVE: Unixware trademark application by X/Open Group, serial number 78833448, application filed March 9, 2006.

With the loss of the Unixware trademark, any vestige of credibility to SCO's claim of Unix IP ownership dries up. Furthermore, if SCO can't be bothered to maintain the Unixware trademark, how could any jury be persuaded to consider that their Unixware business is of any value?

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Resources for the Next Phase of SCO v. IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 07:30 PM EDT
Discovery ain't over yet -- more documents required from IBM for the new
"methods and concepts" new improved chapter. Whites whiter, colors
brighter, smells fresh and clean!

SCO not asking for discovery AND the judge not granting more discovery are not
sure bets.

[ 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 )