|
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.
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
- " Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder" - Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:48 AM EDT
- Wow, that is horrible - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:08 AM EDT
- Not even close. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 03:05 PM EDT
- ties to ms - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:42 AM EDT
- " Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 04:31 AM EDT
- " Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 04:45 AM EDT
- " Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder" - Authored by: MathFox on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 05:10 AM EDT
- " Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder" - Authored by: TerryC on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 09:12 AM EDT
- Agree, but ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:38 PM EDT
- " Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder" - Authored by: Waterman on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 09:27 AM EDT
- " Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder" - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 02:36 PM EDT
- It doesn't need to be "the same way" - Authored by: Arnold.the.Frog on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 02:30 PM EDT
- " Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 07:04 AM EDT
- Bruce A. Chubb built a computer controlled railroad and wrote a book (or two) on it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 07:21 AM EDT
- Thanks Brian - MAJOR US Senate and House hearing on IP in APRIL... read! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 07:29 AM EDT
- time to act! - Authored by: rc on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:06 PM EDT
- " Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder" - Authored by: billposer on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 07:33 AM EDT
- This brings into question "what is really digital"? ...and thus NEW? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 09:14 AM EDT
- Jacobsen Strikes Back - Authored by: ChefBork on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 11:20 AM EDT
- " Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 11:48 AM EDT
- Microsoft's legal fight in Europe seen as Vista threat - Authored by: Chris Lingard on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 05:16 AM EDT
- Charlie demerjian on more DRM problems - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 08:04 AM EDT
- Patent Firm (Patent Troll) woos big name inventors - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 08:08 AM EDT
- Fake "Chase Bank" e-mails - Spam/Phishing - Authored by: clark_kent on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 09:51 AM EDT
- Google removes logo honoring Joan Miro - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 10:08 AM EDT
- Supreme court patent ruling ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 11:49 AM EDT
- Congress is selling out the Internet - Authored by: BigTex on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 11:50 AM EDT
- Read this first - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:37 PM EDT
- Google's role - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 03:16 PM EDT
- MS dirty tricks - some oldies - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 02:53 PM EDT
- Broken link - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 02:57 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:16 AM EDT |
Also the most important. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:20 AM EDT |
mod that one up ++
sum.zero[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Is Rochkind an expert witness? - Authored by: jmc on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 11:03 AM EDT
- Is Rochkind an expert witness? - Authored by: MathFox on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 11:16 AM EDT
- Is Rochkind an expert witness? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 11:18 AM EDT
- Attempting to counter Kernighan? - Authored by: rkhalloran on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 11:29 AM EDT
- Is Rochkind an O.T. expert witness? - Authored by: jog on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:33 PM EDT
- Is Rochkind an expert witness? Certainly he's more qualified than an AI expert from MIT. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:29 PM EDT
- In the 2004 Linux Journal 2004 Readers' Choice Awards, Advanced UNIX Programming won third place - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 02:18 PM EDT
- Is Rochkind an expert witness? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- Is Rochkind an expert witness? - Authored by: David Gerard on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 04:18 PM EDT
- Is Rochkind an expert witness? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 07:24 PM EDT
- Downside - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 22 2006 @ 10:52 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|