decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text
Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:02 PM EDT

Here's the Declaration of Marc Rochkind [PDF] as text, thanks to Groklaw members Trollsfire, PeteS, knew, and cybervegan.

Poor Mr. Rochkind has a number of problems, as far as I can see. The first difficulty Mr. Rochkind finds himself in is that while he thinks he is disagreeing with IBM's expert, Randall Davis, regarding the need for specific lines of code when identifying methods and concepts, in reality he is contradicting the court, which ordered SCO to provides specific lines of code. So he is arguing to the court that SCO should be allowed to deliberately ignore the court's orders, based on his opinion that it isn't necessary to comply. That's a problem. It's a compound problem, because SCO's lawyers wrote this up for him, and they know what her orders said.

The second problem he -- and SCO -- has is, what law is it that IBM is supposed to have violated? We've arrived at a new theory of the case, methods and concepts, but is SCO charging methods and concepts under contract law, or do they have a theory under copyright law, as hinted by Darl McBride and Chris Sontag in their musings on Harry Potter and Vanilla Ice? For IBM to be able to respond, they do need to know. If it's under copyright law, what would or wouldn't be covered would differ than if it is contract law. There is no fair use, for example, under contract law.

Another problem is that IBM has already told the court that it doesn't know how to defend itself from such vague material. No court in the world will tell IBM to fend for itself and just do the best it can, because an expert says they should be able to figure it out for themselves. The lack of specificity is a serious weakness. If, as he says, you can find a method and concept in pretty much all versions of Linux, SCO's list should have enumerated them. After all, even if the method and concept belongs to SCO and we find it in Linux, they haven't shown that IBM put it there, have they, without specifics. Then they need to specify what part of a method and concept they claim ownership of. Are they saying they "own" entire ideas on how to approach a computer problem? If they are, how much of those same ideas show up in DOS, for example? Such a claim is as big as the sky and would disrupt the entire software industry, and judges tend to avoid disrupting entire industries.

SCO's expert may say lines aren't needed, but IBM says it needs lines and versions in order to figure out how to respond. With specificity, IBM has the opportunity to trace it out and presumably prove ownership of the method and concept itself. Two unrelated people on two separate desert islands can invent the same method and concept, after all. So where is the tracing that would show that IBM has done a single thing wrong? I think it's a given that SCO will, at best, be ordered to be more specific and provide what was required by the court's orders and in response to IBM's expressed inability to know what SCO is talking about. It's a matter of simple fairness. Does anyone know what SCO is talking about? Don't you find it odd, after three years of this goop that you -- and IBM -- still don't know? These are the kinds of games that give lawyers a bad name, and rightly so. It looks to me like SCO decided to try to get all the way through discovery without ever revealing to IBM what its theory of the case really was. I can't tell you the depths of disgust that I feel if that was the plan. It'd be like a boxer deliberately hitting his opponent below the belt, having the poor guy drop to the ground, and then declare himself the champion of the world on the basis of a knockout. Champions of the world do not deliberately hit opponents below the belt. There are rules about that.

Also, one comes away from this declaration, particularly reading paragraph 10, with the distinct feeling that SCO is asking the court for billions in damages because some computer programmers sat around and chatted in email about different ways to do X or Y. That is preposterous. If you divide $5 billion by a couple of hundred "misuses" -- even if you credit every stupid item on SCO's list as being real -- that is a stupefyingly ridiculous calculation. No jury in the world will give SCO money at that scale.

The most remarkable thing he says, to me, is that this really is all SCO has. IBM accused SCO of holding out and refusing to reveal what they have. But their own expert tells the court that this really is all there is:

16. IBM alleges in its reply brief that "it is beyond reasonable debate that SCO acted willfully in not specifying its claims" (at 10) and that "SCO has declined, as a practical matter, to tell IBM what is in dispute" (at 9).

17. I am familiar with the technical evidence. I played the largest, although not an exclusive, role in assembling it, so I am in the best position to know that IBM's allegation is false. For each of the 294 Items, I did everything I could to ensure that everything we had was disclosed and that it was organized in the most accessible possible manner.

How extraordinary. They sued IBM and cost them millions in legal fees because of a paltry few items of questionable merit in the category of "infringed" code out of millions of lines of code in Linux and a handful of vague methods and concepts, which, from what we see so far, adds up to some guys who worked on Dynix talking about how to solve problems, not anything IBM as a company ever did in any official capacity. It's simply mind-boggling.

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

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH


THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

DECLARATION OF
MARC ROCHKIND


Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

FILED IN REDACTED FORM
[ORIGINAL FILED UNDER SEAL]

1. I have devoted my professional career to computer science, a field in which over the past 39 years, I have developed software, written textbooks, and taught. My speciality is in the area of UNIX operating systems.

2. I received a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Maryland in 1970, a Masters of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Rutgers in 1972, and a Masters of Science in Computer Science from Rutgers in 1976. I have taught computer science courses at the University of Colorado. Exhibit A contains details of my professional background and publications.

3. I consider myself to have expertise in computer science generally, and specifically on application and system programming, programming languages, software development processes, software design, database systems, graphical user interfaces, and internet applications.

4. I have personal experience in the development of the UNIX operating system. From 1970 to 1982, I worked on UNIX development at AT&T Bell Laboratories. My work involved design and development of the UNIX operating system and of applications running on the UNIX operating system.

5. I wrote Advanced UNIX Programming, published in 1985, which was the first textbook to explain in detail how to use UNIX system calls to write applications. I updated Advanced UNIX Programming in 2004 to include newer features of UNIX and to include material on Linux and FreeBSD. These books are considered standard references on UNIX operating systems.

6. I was retained by counsel to SCO in May 2005, to analyze the technical evidence in this case, to help prepare the preliminary October and December 2005 Disclosure of Material

2

Misused by IBM (the "December Submission") and to serve as a consultant and expert witness. I have since been asked to review the declaration recently submitted by Professor Randall Davis, and this declaration is submitted as a result of that review.

7. I strongly disagree with Professor Davis's assertion (at paragraph 11) that SCO has failed to identify with specificity 198 challenged items in the December Submission. SCO's Submission identifies the technology in issue with specificity, both with respect to disclosures of code and with respect to disclosures of methods and concepts. It provides ample identification to define each technology in question and from which IBM can formulate a defense, if such defense is available.

8. Of the 294 Items in the December Submission, about a third are cases of misused code, and about two-thirds are cases of misused methods and concepts. With respect to disclosures of code, the December Submission provides specific identification of the code that was wrongfully disclosed by IBM, including in many cases providing charts showing precisely where the code had been disclosed. These disclosures of code are, with a few exceptions, not the subject of IBM's motion or Professor Davis's declaration.1

9. The remaining two-thirds of the material identified in the December Submission are methods and concepts. These are specifically identified in the December Submission not only by



1 IBM notes that SCO "appears not to have even used [CMVC] to prepare its Final Disclosures." That is incorrect. I used CMVC extensively.

REDACTED

3

summarizing the method or concept implicated, but also, in almost all cases, by identifying the actual written communication that constitutes the disclosure. In other words, the method and concept is fully described in the December Submission and the related materials, which are referenced as sources for each of the enumerated items. In most cases the December Submission also identifies the IBM individuals involved in making the disclosure.

10. Contrary to disclosures of source code, disclosures of methods and concepts neither require an accompanying disclosure of source code, nor is the method and concept defined or identified by source code. Many textbooks on computer programming discuss methods and concepts without providing accompanying source code for actual systems. I strongly disagree with the premise of Professor Davis that version, file, and line of source code must be provided to identify a method and concept, and to prepare a defense to an allegation of misuse. Where IBM disclosed methods and concepts from the Dynix and Dynix/ptx operating systems without providing source code in the disclosures, for example, it is often not possible and certainly not necessary to cite to specific source code in identifying the disclosure. The reason is simple: the material that was improperly disclosed to Linux was the method or concept itself, not particular lines of source code from Dynix/ptx.

11. Moreover, for many of the challenged items in the December Submission, there is code imbedded in the disclosure email or other document, or found at a referenced URL (internet website) address. In addition, some of the methods and concepts relate to other disclosures that do implicate code.

REDACTED

4

12. I have prepared and attach as Exhibit B a summary chart of the 198 challenged disclosures. This chart first shows where the actual disclosure, such as an email from an IBM engineer to a Linux programmer discussing the protected material, has been provided. (See column A.) In these cases, to use Professor Davis's analogy, the proverbial needle itself is identified, verbatim, in the December Submission. The chart also identifies those disclosures as to which there is accompanying source code for the item contained in either the text of the disclosure, a document or URL address referenced in the disclosure, or in related code that is the subject of a separate disclosed item. (See column B.) In those cases, the origin of the method and concept in protected material (often Dynix/ptx) is supported by such source code. In yet other cases, the disclosure does not reference specific code, but contains in the face of the communication an admission or other statement that directly links the method and concept as coming from protected material such as System V, or a derivative such as AIX or Dynix/ptx. (See column C.) Finally, the chart indicates in Column D those disclosures for which file locations in Linux are provided relating to the challenged method and concept.2

13. Even the one example cited by Professor Davis in his Declaration, Item 146, does not support his point that it "provides no meaningful information about what IBM is alleged to have done wrong."

REDACTED



2 IBM criticizes the lack of versions in these references. However, the files referenced can be found, in most cases, in any version of Linux issued after the disclosure.

5

REDACTED

6

16. IBM alleges in its reply brief that "it is beyond reasonable debate that SCO acted willfully in not specifying its claims" (at 10) and that "SCO has declined, as a practical matter, to tell IBM what is in dispute" (at 9).

17. I am familiar with the technical evidence. I played the largest, although not an exclusive, role in assembling it, so I am in the best position to know that IBM's allegation is false. For each of the 294 Items, I did everything I could to ensure that everything we had was disclosed and that it was organized in the most accessible possible manner. Counsel to SCO made it very clear that that was what they wanted me to do. I made sure that every Tab containing a publicly available email included the complete URL and I also made sure that not only would versions, lines, and files be cited where available, as they were in the October Interim Submission, but that the code itself would be shown and that the misused lines would be highlighted and indicated with red lines drawn between the columns. As I explain above, code copying is properly described one way (version, file, and line), and a different approach is used for methods and concepts.

18. I note that there were some candidate Items that, in my opinion, did not meet my professional standards for completeness, clarity, and specificity. I told SCO's counsel that these should be rejected, and in all cases they took my advice.

19. In short, the 198 Items challenged in IBM's reply brief are as complete as possible, and constitute a specific identification of the misappropriated technology at issue.

20. I will timely submit my expert report, which will offer fully explored opinions about IBM's disclosures formed during the work I have done over the last year.

7

21. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.


(signature)

Marc Rochkind

Date: 9-April-2006
Place: Boulder, CO

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Declaration of Marc Rochkind was served by mail on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation on the 10th day of April, 2006, by U.S. Mail to:

David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]

Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]

Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]

(signature)

9

EXHIBIT A

Marc Rochkind

Marc Rochkind received a BS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Maryland in 1970, an MS in Mechanical Engineering from Rutgers in 1972, and an MS in Computer Science from Rutgers in 1976.

>From 1970 to 1982 he worked at AT&T Bell Laboratories as a Member of Technical Staff and Technical Supervisor. Starting in 1972 he began working on development of the UNIX system. He contributed to the architecture and implementation of the Programmer's Workbench version of UNIX (PWB), several UNIX commands, a table-driven data-validation system that served as a model for the "awk" programming language, and the Source Code Control System (SCCS).

His paper on SCCS, delivered at the first IEEE Software Engineering conference, won an award from IEEE a decade later as the most significant from the first conference. SCCS has formed a basis for RCS, CVS, SourceSafe, PVCS, and other version control systems.

In 1982 Mr. Rochkind started one of the early software companies to take advantage of the emergence of the IBM PC as the dominant personal computer. In 1988 he invented XVT, the first developer tool to allow programmers to write portable, but native, graphical user interfaces for Windows, Macintosh OS, OS/2, X/Motif, OpenLook, and character displays. Methods and concepts from XVT have influenced contemporary user-interface systems such as Java AWT and KDE Qt.

Mr. Rochkind's publications include a 1985 textbook, Advanced UNIX Programming (Prentice-Hall), which explained how to program UNIX applications at the system-call level. In 1998 he authored Advanced C Programming for Displays, also published by Prentice-Hall. He rewrote Advanced UNIX Programming in 2004 to bring it up to date and to specifically cover Linux and FreeBSD. In the 2004 Linux Journal 2004 Readers' Choice Awards, Advanced UNIX Programming won third place for "Most Indispensable Linux Book."

Mr. Rochkind has delivered numerous technical papers on UNIX, software development, and graphical user interfaces, and has taught professional seminars on UNIX and computer science at the University of Colorado.

In addition to his work as a consultant and author, Mr. Rochkind continues to develop computer software. He has designed and implemented applications for UNIX, Windows, Macintosh OS X, and Linux servers, including a high-capacity web-based grading and report-card application for a large school district, applications for digital photography, and database utilities.

10

Marc Rochkind's UNIX-Related Publications

Rochkind, M.J., "The Source Code Control System," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-1, Number 4, pp. 364-370, Dec., 1975.

Rochkind, M.J., "A Table-Driven Data Validator," Proc. of COMPCON FALL 1980, IEEE Catalog No. 80CH1598-2C.

Bergeron, R.F. and Rochkind, M.J., "Software Tools and Components," Bell System Technical Journal, 61(6), July-Aug., 1982.

Rochkind, M.J., "Structure of a Database File System for the UNIX Operating System," Bell System Technical Journal, 61(9), Nov., 1982.

Rochkind, M.J., "Evolution of UNIX Within Bell Laboratories," UNIX Symposium, Sydney, Australia, May 1-3, 1984.

Rochkind, M.J., Advanced UNIX Programming, Prentice-Hall, 1985.

Rochkind, M.J., "Pick, Coherent, and THEOS," BYTE Inside the IBM PCs, 10(11), Fall, 1985.

Rochkind, M.J., Advanced C Programming for Displays, Prentice-Hall, 1988.

Rochkind, M.J., "XVT: A Virtual Toolkit for Portability Between Window Systems," Proceedings of the Winter 1989 USENIX Conference, Jan. 30-Feb. 3, 1989, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 151-163.

Rochkind, M.J., "A Unified Programming Interface for Character-Based and Graphical Window Systems," Proceedings of the Summer 1989 USENIX Conference, June 12-16, 1989, Baltimore, MD, USA, pp. 109-117.

Rochkind, M.J., "An extensible virtual toolkit (XVT) for portable GUI applications," IEEE Compcon Spring '92 Thirty-Seventh IEEE Computer Society International Conference, Digest of Papers, 24-28, San Francisco, CA, USA, Feb., 1992.

Farrand, A.B., Rochkind, M., Chauvet, J.-M., Tognazzini, B., and Smith, D.C., "Common Elements in Today's Graphical User Interfaces: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Proceedings of ACM INTERCHI'93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 470-473.

Rochkind, M.J., "Has UNIX Programming Changed in 20 Years?," informit.com, Addison Wesley Professional, May 28, 2004.

Rochkind, M.J., Advanced UNIX Programming, 2nd Ed., Addison-Wesley, 2004.

11


EXHIBIT B

Misused Material
by Item Number
in December
Submission

Actual
Disclosure of
Code or Method
and Concept
Provided
(Column A)

Source Code
Identified in
Disclosure,
Referenced
Document, URL, or
Related Item
(Column B)

Link to Protected
Materials (e.g.,
Dynix) Expressly
Provided in
Disclosure
(Column C)

File Locations
in Linux
Identified
(Column D)

3

X

X

X

4

X

X

X

5

X

X

6

X

X

X

X

7

X

X

X

8

X

X

X

9

X

X

X

10

X

11

X

X

X

12

X

X

13

X

X

X

14

X

X

X

15

X

X

X

16

X

X

X

17

X

X

18

X

X

X

19

X

X

20

X

21

X

X

X

22

X

X

X

23

X

X

X

24

X

25

X

X

26

X

X

X

27

X

X

X

X

28

X

X

29

X

X

X

X

30

X

X

X

31

X

X

32

X

33

X

X

34

X

X

X

35

X

X

X

36

X

X

X

37

X

X

X

38

X

X

X

39

X

X

X

40

X

X

X

41

X

X

X

42

X

X

X

43

X

X

X

12

Misused Material
by Item Number
in December
Submission

Actual
Disclosure of
Code or Method
and Concept
Provided
(Column A)

Source Code
Identified in
Disclosure,
Referenced
Document, URL, or
Related Item
(Column B)

Link to Protected
Materials (e.g.,
Dynix) Expressly
Provided in
Disclosure
(Column C)

File Locations
in Linux
Identified
(Column D)

44

X

X

X

45

X

X

X

46

X

X

X

47

X

X

X

48

X

X

X

49

X

X

X

50

X

X

X

51

X

X

X

52

X

X

X

53

X

X

X

X

54

X

X

X

55

X

X

X

X

56

X

X

X

57

X

X

X

58

X

X

X

59

X

X

X

60

X

X

X

61

X

X

X

62

X

X

X

63

X

X

X

64

X

X

X

65

X

X

X

66

X

X

X

67

X

X

X

68

X

X

X

69

X

X

X

70

X

X

X

71

X

X

X

72

X

X

X

73

X

X

X

74

X

X

X

75

X

X

X

76

X

X

X

77

X

X

X

78

X

X

X

79

X

X

X

X

80

X

X

X

81

X

X

X

82

X

X

X

83

X

X

X

84

X

X

X

85

X

X

X

86

X

X

X

13

Misused Material
by Item Number
in December
Submission

Actual
Disclosure of
Code or Method
and Concept
Provided
(Column A)

Source Code
Identified in
Disclosure,
Referenced
Document, URL, or
Related Item
(Column B)

Link to Protected
Materials (e.g.,
Dynix) Expressly
Provided in
Disclosure
(Column C)

File Locations
in Linux
Identified
(Column D)

87

X

X

88

X

X

X

89

X

X

X

90

X

X

X

91

X

92

X

93

X

X

X

94

X

X

95

X

X

X

96

X

X

97

X

X

98

X

X

X

99

X

X

X

100

X

X

101

X

X

102

X

X

103

X

X

104

X

X

105

X

X

106

X

X

107

X

X

108

X

X

109

X

X

X

X

110

X

X

X

111

X

X

112

X

143

X

X

X

144

X

X

145

X

146

X

X

X

X

147

X

X

148

X

X

149

X

X

X

165

X

X

166

X

X

X

167

X

X

168

X

X

169

X

X

170

X

X

171

X

X

172

X

X

173

X

174

X

X

14

Misused Material
by Item Number
in December
Submission

Actual
Disclosure of
Code or Method
and Concept
Provided
(Column A)

Source Code
Identified in
Disclosure,
Referenced
Document, URL, or
Related Item
(Column B)

Link to Protected
Materials (e.g.,
Dynix) Expressly
Provided in
Disclosure
(Column C)

File Locations
in Linux
Identified
(Column D)

175

X

X

176

X

X

X

177

X

X

178

X

X

X

179

X

X

180

X

X

181

X

X

X

182

X

X

X

186

X

X

187

X

X

188

X

X

189

X

X

190

X

X

191

X

X

192

X

X

193

X

X

232

X

X

233

X

X

X

234

X

X

235

X

X

X

236

X

X

X

237

X

X

X

238

X

X

X

239

X

X

240

X

X

X

241

X

X

X

242

X

X

X

X

243

X

X

X

X

244

X

X

245

X

X

X

X

246

X

X

247

X

248

X

X

249

X

X

250

X

X

251

X

X

252

X

X

X

253

X

X

X

254

X

X

X

255

X

X

256

X

X

257

X

X

X

258

X

X

X

15

Misused Material
by Item Number
in December
Submission

Actual
Disclosure of
Code or Method
and Concept
Provided
(Column A)

Source Code
Identified in
Disclosure,
Referenced
Document, URL, or
Related Item
(Column B)

Link to Protected
Materials (e.g.,
Dynix) Expressly
Provided in
Disclosure
(Column C)

File Locations
in Linux
Identified
(Column D)

259

X

X

X

260

X

261

X

X

262

X

X

X

263

X

X

264

X

X

X

265

X

266

X

X

X

267

X

X

268

X

X

269

X

X

X

270

X

X

X

271

X

X

279

X

X

X

280

X

281

X

282

X

283

X

X

284

X

X

285

X

X

286

X

X

287

X

X

288

X

X

289

X

290

X

X

291

X

292

X

293

X


  


Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text | 533 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:16 PM EDT
.

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind vs Randall Davis
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:18 PM EDT
Curious how Mr. Marriott at the Hearing could have mistaken the Rochkind Chart
for the Davis Chart.
The Davis Chart clearly is missing some crucial information which SCO provided.
Hence all the empty fields?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Here
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:18 PM EDT
Please remember to make links clickable.

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Legal Strategy
Authored by: rjphillipssr on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:38 PM EDT
PJ, regarding "It looks to me like SCO decided to try to get all the way
through discovery without ever revealing to IBM what its theory of the case
really was." I would only slightly disagree with you. I think they have had
to change their theory of the case multiple times beacuse you, Groklaw, IBM,
Novell etc. have forced them to change their theory every time they present a
new one. Each time they go to the media or court they have had to revise their
theories because each one quickly proved to be false under the light of Groklaw.

---
Ron Phillips

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this the point Marc Rochkind has missed?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:39 PM EDT
The most remarkable thing he says, to me, is that this really is all SCO has.
IBM accused SCO of holding out and refusing to reveal what they have. But their
own expert tells the court that this really is all there is:

16. IBM alleges in its reply brief that "it is beyond reasonable debate
that SCO acted willfully in not specifying its claims" (at 10) and that
"SCO has declined, as a practical matter, to tell IBM what is in
dispute" (at 9).

17. I am familiar with the technical evidence. I played the largest,
although not an exclusive, role in assembling it, so I am in the best position
to know that IBM's allegation is false. For each of the 294 Items, I did
everything I could to ensure that everything we had was disclosed and that it
was organized in the most accessible possible manner.

It is not just in not specifying claims that SCO has acted wilfully badly it is
in pursuing claims they know to be groundless. Marc Rochkind says they have
provided all they have which in 191 claims at least is less than they were told
was the minimum. The only proper response therefore in these 191 cases was to
drop the claim.
IANAL etc. but this does seem rather glaringly obvious.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So, let me get this straight
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:43 PM EDT
SCO, through their expert, have now confirmed that their list is all they have.
And there is no matching code in the list. At what point does the judge say,
"defendant assert that they do not know of what they stand accused.
Demonstrate that *you* know."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration & SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:43 PM EDT
>>>
17. I am familiar with the technical evidence. I played the largest, although
not an exclusive, role in assembling it, so I am in the best position to know
that IBM's allegation is false. For each of the 294 Items, I did everything I
could to ensure that everything we had was disclosed and that it was organized
in the most accessible possible manner.
<<<

If you read this carefully you and think in SCO terms then this says NOTHING
about what was filed with the court system. It only discusses what he personally
did and that distinction between what he says he did and what we know about what
was filed with the court says volumes about what SCO’s battle plan is.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clueless?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:45 PM EDT
Did Mr. Rochkind actually paint a big red bull's-eye on himself claiming
responsibility for doing all or most of the disclosure work?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The joke items
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 12:50 PM EDT
His declaration is his justification for being vague about specifying IBM is
supposed to have done wrong... but his chart

Even by its own terms, even if vagueness is allowed, doesn't seem to allege any
wrong doing.

1. For some items, he simply says "they're in protected materials"
(column C).

But he doesn't allege that IBM disclosed them (column A), and nor does he allege
that they're in Linux (column D).

If the allegedly protected materials, are only found in the protected materials,
what is IBM supposed to have done wrong?

I mean doesn't this own chart, say "IBM kept them secret, and they never
made it into Linux"

These items: 10, 20, 24, 32, 91, 92, 112, 145, 173, 280, 281, 282, 289, 291,
292, 293


2. For some other items, he says "It's in Linux" (column D)

But he doesn't even attempt, however vaguely to link them to protected materials
(column C), or disclosures (column A)

If they're in Linux, and they can't be linked, even by his own vague standard,
to a disclosure, nor to anything in protected materials, then what's supposed to
be wrong with that? There isn't even an alleged wrongdoing alleged, it just an
observation about what is in Linux.

These items: 247, 260, 265


3. Then there's the hilarious footnote about item 294.

Apparently IBM accepts the item - (which oddly doesn't appear on his chart) -
wasn't it the other way round... SCO conceded the item should be removed (see
for example, IBM's reply memo on the motion to limit)



And this is before, we get to whether the remaining items are sufficiently
specified, or just vague.

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Chart
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:04 PM EDT
Even if his legal analysis were right, and his method of specifying was
sufficient is chart is still missing a lot.

According to his chart, how many items have 1) Disclosure, 2) Source Code, 3)
Link to protected materials, and 4) File locations in Linux?

#s: 6, 27, 29, 53, 55, 79, 109, 146, 242, 243, 245

So even buying all of his arguments, it looks like only 11 of the 198 items are
completely specified.

Zimbel (I should create an account someday)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Chart - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:35 PM EDT
    • Chart - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 05:02 PM EDT
A Legal Question
Authored by: Prototrm on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:13 PM EDT
Perhaps this has been addressed before, but if this really is all SCO has, it
begins to look to me like their lawsuit is an attempt at extortion based on
known fraudulant claims and no evidence.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps someone could explain what would be necessary
for this whole fiaSCO to turn into a criminal case. What are the elements
usually required before a person or company can be accused of such a thing as
fraud and extortion, and how well does the known evidence match up against those
requirements?

Of course, I'm probably way out of line, and my layman's perceptions of the law
and legal proceedings are total nonsense. In that case, I'd like to find out
where fantasy ends and reality sets in.

Although "reality" doesn't seem to be a very good description of this
very surreal case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Methods and Concepts
Authored by: MrCharon on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:28 PM EDT
Ok IANAL but it has always been my understanding that methods and concepts are
uncopyrightable under section 102(b) of the Copyright Act. The law is cited in
both the Lotus 123 /v Quattro Pro and Lexmark /v SCC stating that methods are
not copyrightable. Methods and concepts would/should fall under patient and
trade secret laws.

With out question the Novell APA and amendment never transfered patients to SCO
and SCO has admitted that no trade secrets exist in Unix. So if the information
that IBM is accused of disclosing is available else where, does not SCO have to
prove that IBM got that information from System V and not from some book like
Advanced UNIX Programming even under contract law?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM has obviously known that this was about M&C since December
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:32 PM EDT
It has to have been clear to IBM for quite some time that the bulk of SCO's case
has rested on these vague ideas about Methods and Concepts. This recent filing,
then, is IBM's first shot toward destroying that argument.

I don't believe that IBM was genuinely surprised the line numbers and versions
were not specified -- but the artifice of surprise is useful to point out as
clearly as possible that SCO has not done what the judge has required them to
do. SCO has not clearly laid out what the "allegedly infringing
material" is, as the judge (and as good sense) requires.

IBM chose this forum to bring this dirty laundry to the fore, rather than wait
for trial or even summary judgment, because everything needed to dispose of
these charges are avialable now. IBM probably is actually pleased to get this
Rochkind declaration, because this upcoming opportunity to respond allows them
to make the argument clearly and specifically, without any other confusing
baggage. IBM needed a way to say "You just can't copyright Methods and
Concepts -- that's insane", but without the clear statement in the Rochkind
declaration to respond to it would have been awkward to make that argument.

Now, they get to make that argument clearly and precisely. SCO, in attempting
to do a last-minute gotcha, has been gotten -- big time. IBM will have the last
word on this issue and then the judge will decide.

Pass the popcorn, please.

Thad Beier

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text
Authored by: mwexler on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:35 PM EDT
We know that for the items under dispute here that SCO didn't supply
file/line/version data for infringing and infringed code (per the courts
order).
But without having seen the actual disclosure. How do we know that SCO didn't
include some explanation of how they owned the item under contention and how IBM
infringed it.
They still might lack specificity. The legal arguments might be specious, etc.
SCO may not have provided the information. But how do we *know* they didn't
provide it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:42 PM EDT

I think the judge was channeling some old torch song singer whan she said "Is that all there is? ..." (Well, she didn't say exactly that but that Lieber and Stoller song is what flashed into my mind when I read the accounts a few days ago.)

This case has brought my opinion of high-priced legal eagles to an all-time low. Not, of course, because of anything that IBM's team has done. It's because of Boies and company and their pathetic antics.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text
Authored by: Arker on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:51 PM EDT

It looks to me like SCO decided to try to get all the way through discovery without ever revealing to IBM what its theory of the case really was.

It looks to me like they did this for a reason. Their original theory of the case was destroyed before the court case even got under way. They went through discovery anyway hoping to find another theory along the way. They've found several, only to have each demolished as soon as they let someone know what it was.

It's still shocking to me that the court has let them get anywhere near this far without sanctions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Never interupt your opponent when he's making a mistake.
Authored by: tangomike on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 01:55 PM EDT
Lots of comments have bemoaned IBM's and the court's willingness to let TSCOG
dance on and on. Now, however, IBM has on record three (count 'em) orders to
TSCOG to specify lines, PLUS TSCOG's confirmation that they understand and
accept that. I don't see any wiggle room there.

If Judge Wells sticks to her orders, IBM's patience will be remarkable and
lauditory. They've waited for their opponent to make mistakes, underlined them,
and now I expect will reap the result.

I've got the popcorn ready.


---
Deja moo - I've heard that bull before.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Still another theory of the case?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 02:12 PM EDT
It seems to me that this declaration is laying out still another theory of the
case.
The theory goes something like this:
- IBM was required by contract to keep methods & concepts secret
- IBM programmers told someone (linux programmers but it doesn't matter
who) about these methods and concepts
- Therefore IBM violated the contract, even if these linux programmers did
nothing with the methods and concepts (i.e. even if they don't show up in
linux).

Of course, if this is so they should have objected to the judges order for
file/
line/version long ago.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text
Authored by: belzecue on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 02:22 PM EDT
Probably a good time to once again review what the U.S. Copyright Office says about methods and concepts:

  • Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
  • Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
  • Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
  • Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)
... but of course your YMMV, particularly with SCO at the wheel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

XVT, anyone?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 02:23 PM EDT
"Methods and concepts from XVT have influenced contemporary
user-interface systems such as Java AWT and KDE Qt."

Watch out Sun, watch out Qt, watch out KDE! Marc might be coming...

So what are the unique methods and concepts unique in XVT, anyone used it?
What's so difficult about writing a common cross platform toolkit conceptually?
A lot of hard coding work, for sure, but ideas-wise?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Just to take two paragraphs...
Authored by: PeteS on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 02:47 PM EDT
18. I note that there were some candidate Items that, in my opinion, did not meet my professional standards for completeness, clarity, and specificity. I told SCO's counsel that these should be rejected, and in all cases they took my advice.

Well, well. So there were some items with less specificity? Those must truly have been virtual. If the specificity of the listed items meet Mr. Rochkind's professional standards, one awaits with bated breath for the response from IBM and Professor Davis. Mr. Rochkind has left himself wide open for an attack on his credibility with this statement, although I am sure any such would be politeness itself; or perhaps not. Credibility is everything for an expert witness, as I am sure both CS&M and BS&F are fully aware.

19. In short, the 198 Items challenged in IBM's reply brief are as complete as possible, and constitute a specific identification of the misappropriated technology at issue.

As complete as possible? That's not what the court (make that Magistrate Judge Wells and Judge Kimball) ordered. They said to provide the items with specificity including file, line and version of where it came from and where it now is.

This might be construed as a direct affront by Judge Wells (although I don't know, obviously).

Certainly if I told one of my staff to get me specifics, and (s)he came back with something like this and said 'it's as specific as possible', they might get a small talk about the meaning of words.

If they came back and said such specifics were not to be found, that's rather different, as I suspect SCOX and Mr. Rochkind will soon discover.

No, I rather suspect the disclosures do not provide a specific identification of the misappropriated technology at issue.

I am so looking forward to the IBM response.

PeteS

---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity

[ Reply to This | # ]

Same old Theory - Summary Judgement Time
Authored by: gvc on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 03:07 PM EDT
SCO have had the same theory from day 1:

- IBM has a Unix license
- the Unix license says that derivative works should be
"treated the same as the original" with respect to
trade secrets, copyright, and so on
- SCO asserts that this clause allows it to control code
and ideas that IBM owns lock, stock, and barrel

I see this declaration as conceding that this is SCO's *only* legal argument.
He says "all we need to know is that it was an idea in Dynix."

So be it. If SCO wants to rest its entire case on this argument, surely it is a
legal one, not one of fact, which can be disposed of in summary judgement.

Even if not disposed of, SCO could surely be prevented from presenting to the
jury any evidence about the origin of the code and ideas, save "it came
from Dynix", and I suspect the judge would instruct them to interpret that
in the light most favourable to IBM, namely that the ideas were developed by,
and owned by, IBM, or in the public domain.

All the jury would then have to decide is whether or not the intent of the
contract was to give SCO this sort of intrusive power over IBM (and Sequent).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Behind closed doors
Authored by: phaoUNTOtom on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 03:21 PM EDT
1) Mr. Rochkind: "Where IBM disclosed methods and concepts from the Dynix
and Dynix/ptx operating systems without providing source code in the
disclosures, for example, it is often not possible and certainly not necessary
to cite [the] specific source code in identifying the disclosure. The reason is
simple: the material that was improperly disclosed to Linux was the method or
concept itself, not particular lines of source code from Dynix/ptx."

My thoughts: We have System V, Dynix, AIX, and Linux being talked about in this
case.

My questions: Why did Daryl McBride zero in on Linux with his public statements
and argue that the GPL violates the US constitution and copyright law and is a
threat to the American economy and why is Mr. Rochkind zeroing in on Linux?
Dynix/ptx and AIX are also operating systems in use today.






2) Mr. Rochkind: "I was retained by counsel to SCO in May 2005, to analyze
the technical evidence in this case . . ." and " . . . disclosures
formed during the work I have done over the last year."

My thoughts: Am I correct in understanding that this is the only "expert
witness" that SCO has? It appears that SCO is relying upon the
understanding of third parties (not SCO's internal findings) to justify what it
started three years ago. SCO has presented one external party (Marc Rochkind)
that apparently has only been working with SCO for one year? Then on what basis
did SCO start the lawsuit three years ago? On suspicion that they might have a
case?

My questions: Was SCO (over two years ago) pushed into suing someone? If their
case is about "methods and concepts", then why did they choose to go
after IBM?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text
Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 03:35 PM EDT
I think it's a given that SCO will, at best, be ordered to be more specific and provide what was required by the court's orders and in response to IBM's expressed inability to know what SCO is talking about.
Actually, if we go back to the hearing, when Judge Wells asked "Is this all you've got?" it wasn't a question about how much material, but rather whether there were more specifics available. The answer was basically no.

Although we don't have the transcript, our report from the courtroom was this:
Judge Wells asked: "Does SCO have, can they provide, additional specificity?... I mean, basically, is this all you've got?"

To which Stuart replied: "Since, the last two months, it's possible we've discovered more, but, yes, at the time of the disclosure we provided all we have."
If they keep this in mind as they read the IBM response to the Rockhind declaration, I would hope for once that SCO would be called to the table for failing to tell IBM what this is about, and have the deficient claims removed. There is no more specific information available for those claims. They had a chance to contest the court orders from earlier regarding the specific requests, and they chose not to do so then. This is not the time to challenge it, after the FINAL deadline. And, finally, they claim they have no further specifics available. This should be a simple choice by the court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could this be another delay tatic?
Authored by: HockeyPuck on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 03:47 PM EDT
P.J.
Could this be another delay tactic? Are they just "buying" time to get
their case together?

Here is a theory; SCO knew they could not comply 100% with court orders with
their list (especially on time). So they drew up what they had and sent it on
hoping the court would not really know if it actually complied with their orders
or not since they are now tossing in the Methods and Concepts curve. We all knew
this was supposed to be about copying code and Methods and Concepts came about
later in the case.

So they throw this list out and bring in an "expert" to tell the court
that they complied with court orders; knowing IBM had to respond. Now IBM has to
rebuff their "expert" with their own. The court will have to rule on
this and I'm sure this will not happen overnight. The court will have to
research the law and retool their thinking to make sure they are being fair to
both parties before ruling.

The next step, I believe, comes in May or even June before we will see something
move on this. I would expect the court to rule in IBM's favor; at least on some
if not all of their points. SCO will be given ANOTHER date to refine their list
to be more specific. Mean while back at the ranch, SCO is going over the
discovery (fishing) with a fine tooth comb. Also I would expect “hey, you know
that discovery we got at the last minute? “Judge; we found some new stuff we
would like to add. It wasn’t our fault we could not look over this by our
deadline; could we pretty please add these new items?” Of course IBM will object
(more delay and more time to refine their case). And the beat goes on…

Well you get the point. I don't know how this could play out regarding the rules
and the law. But it seems to be reasonably logical to my untrained eyes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How much is Rochkind being paid?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 03:57 PM EDT
At least one part of me wants to see this go to trial. I would love to know how
much Rochkind is being paid. I think this is a fair question at trial, is it
not? We have already seen in a previous post about spending $20,000 for a
watch, so we know he likes the more expensive things in life.

We know that Randall Davis has been an expert witness, or consulted as an
expert, on many cases. I'm sure he has a standard "fee" that he would
charge for such assistance in a case.

I bet that Rochkind and SCOG has some nice negotiations for his services and
testimony. I would also bet that his "fee" is going to be
significantly higher than anything that Davis is charging.

I would love to here Rochkind in a court of law have to explain how he got paid
$5 million dollars compared to Randall Davis' $100K.

Of course, I have no idea what an "expert witness" costs, any lawyers
out there like to throw out some ballpark numbers?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration
Authored by: wharris on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 04:00 PM EDT
Another hurdle for SCO that I don't see much discussion on: How did IBM
learn about SCO's methods and concepts it has supposedly donated to Linux?
Unless SCO verbally taught them to IBM (When? Where? To whom?), then they
would have to be revealed in written material provided to IBM --- namely,
they would have to be in some tangible location in the System V source code.

Even if SCO's contagion theory is true and AIX can catch SCOits by being
adjacent to protected System V code, they would still need to show a method
in AIX or Dynix source code which was contributed to Linux.

I think this was what Marriot meant when he said that methods and concepts
do not exist in a vacuum. How was IBM informed of this protected method if
not through source code?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What I don't understand about Davis and Rochkind
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 04:06 PM EDT
Here is what I do not understand. What we have seen from both Davis and
Rochkind is a very, very, very consolidation of a ton of documents, papers, etc.
that were submitted as part of the "December Submission". We know
that SCOG submitted thousands of pages of documentation, but these two have
distilled that thousands of pages down to two or three in the form of very
concise charts.

Why didn't Davis, for instance, say "OK, here is exactly what SCOG
submitted for item number 'n'. This is not sufficient for IBM to defend because
of x, y, and z." He could then go on to be more generic in his findings on
the other 197 items.

Or, why didn't Rochkind say "IBM contends that item number 'n' is not
specific enough. Here is exactly what we submitted for this item. It is more
than specific enough for IBM to defend because of x, y, and z." Then he
could be more generic in his findings on the other 197 items.

I think what we see from both Davis and Rochkind are very generalized comments
on the submissions. I know the court (and counsel) have access to all of the
materials that were submitted and we do not have that benefit, but come one this
is like fighting a generic war between these two depositions. It is a "he
said, she said" situation.

I know that the Judge will have to make a determination who is more correct, but
if SCOG or IBM wanted to blow the other out of the water (which is what you
would want to do in a legal case like this, no?) then why not make your argument
as specific as possible?

[ Reply to This | # ]

But what did IBM do?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 04:15 PM EDT
Marc Rochkind claims that he used CMVC extensively to do his research, but I
would think that if this is really the case he would have documented the heck
out of where and why he was making is tons of accusations (which would be file,
line, and version information).

I would assume this is why Dr. Randall Davis was able to make his chart -- since
there was no mention of the basis of the claims from within the CMVC system.

It would seem to me that Mr. Rochkind is making tons of accusations that methods
and concepts from UNIX appear in Linux. Fine, let's just say for a moment that
he is 100% correct. If he is not specific from the CMVC system to show the
connection of that it was in Unix at some point in time, it was not in Linux at
that time, here is where it entered AIX/Dynix, and then at some point in time
later here it is in Linux. How in the world can he *prove* that it was IBM that
put it there?

This is killing me, just because something ends up in Linux, how can they prove
that it was IBM that put it there? And not, for example, submissions that
Caldera make to the United Linux consortium?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text
Authored by: jmc on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 04:22 PM EDT

It looks to me like SCO decided to try to get all the way through discovery without ever revealing to IBM what its theory of the case really was.

Didn't Darl actually say that at one stage? I can't find it in the quote DB though.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Guess scox needs more time
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 04:26 PM EDT
Scox: Golly, gee-whiz, your honor, we had no idea we had to be *that* specific.
We still don't think it's necessary, and of course, our expert agrees. But, you
know we *try* to be good boys. We really try and try . We will try again to be
more specific, but it will take awhile. We don't see where we have enough time.

Wells: There-there, don't worry about it, kitten. It's called
"learning." Of course the court will give you more time. As always,
it's easy to see you have acted in good faith.

[ Reply to This | # ]

And what about SCO's rights to the 'code'?
Authored by: MplsBrian on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 04:32 PM EDT
Most of the discussions here have focused on SCO's failure to identify, with
specificity, the code that IBM has allegedly misappropriated by inappropriately
including it in Linux. However, it seems to me that SCO was also burdened with
the task of identifying what their rights to that code are. If we even give
them the benefit of the doubt about their 'methods and concepts' theory, have
they not still failed to identify their rights to the code? If an IBM employee
shares a Dynix 'method and/or concept' in an email to a Linux developer, what
rights of SCO's have been infringed? What is SCO's right to that Dynix code
('method and concept')? This whole declaration seems to hinge not only on a
tenuous definition of how methods and concepts infringe on SCO's rights, but
also on an equally tenuous speculation that SCO has any rights over that code at
all; i.e. their theory of the AT&T license to Sys V code being viral in
infecting everything it touches. (Not to mention SCO's still-unproven rights to
that code).

[ Reply to This | # ]

IMHO - About BSF's current intentions and tactics.
Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 05:09 PM EDT

BSF, SCOG and the Pipe Fairy want out of the hole they have dug for themselves.

The informed comments I have read about Marc Rochkind's "faulty" testimony have convinced me to voice an opinion I have held since the faulty subpoena's were issued.

This case MUST continue.

I have no doubt that IBM will be happy too, if Judge Wells will allow it. It's good publicity. Being the "good guys" is cheaper and more effective than advertising. They were happy to allow Marc Rochkind's "evidence" as long as they could reply to it. They didn't seek to have it thrown out instantly despite BSF's best efforts to make a mess of it.

In any "serious battle" you don't take what the other side say as the truth. Ask anyone involved in tactics. People seek to conceal their true intentions to give themselves an advantage.

IMHO BSF protested loudly that the testimony should be allowed whilst all along hoping that it's late delivery would disqualify it.

They've even bought along Darl "to do some talking and surfing" and provoke the Judge.

They all realise this case is lost, it's time for a tactical withdrawal to prevent it's real purpose and sponsors from being exposed. They find themselves paying for their own public prosecution and evidence gathering which could lead to the criminal case against the scam's ringleaders.

Everything changed around Christmas and IMHO it's not unconnected with certain events in Massachusetts. I don't know about the SEC but ISTM there are "other investigations" going on, some at a very serious level and possibly involving the Pipe Fairy.

Just IMHO.

Another co-incidence has just been posted about in the previous story by ?. I'll credit him properly and put his link in OT above if he hasn't already. But SCOG no longer "own" the trademark for Unixware and X/Open have applied for it.

:)

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table of the whole sorry mess
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 05:54 PM EDT

Note that the official Groklaw chart above is, for good reason, a transcript. If you need a more informative and visually appealing presentation, collating everything we know about all the allegations, have a look at my big table over here.

The table includes placeholders for all 294 items, so hopefully we can watch together over the next six months as they all succumb to PSJs.

(Yes, this is a repost. No, the table hasn't been significantly updated since the last time. Yes, this is shameful self-promotion. Yes, I am vaguely embarassed. No, I'm not a natural extrovert. Yes, the table does need more cowbell. Sorry if you're fed up of seeing this link.)

-- Old Nob again

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text
Authored by: jmc on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 06:11 PM EDT

It looks to me like SCO decided to try to get all the way through discovery without ever revealing to IBM what its theory of the case really was.

Didn't Darl actually say that at one stage? I can't find it in the quote DB though.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text
Authored by: mossc on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 06:17 PM EDT
Ok, it seems to me that this is documenting a new category of claimed
infringement.

Previously TSG had claimed that any code in AIX or Dynix was restricted as a
derivative work of UNIX. They also claimed that methods and concepts of SYS V
were restricted. Now they are claiming that methods and concepts in AIX and
Dynix are restricted from disclosure because they are derivative works.

I don't recall seeing that claim in any hearing/motion up until this last one.
If this was the intention of the contract then no Sys V licensees could patent
anything in their UNIX OS since a public patent is a disclosure. This brings
back the point that TSG said that Sun and HP were in compliance. Have either of
these companies disclosed any method or concept in their UNIXes? I would bet
they have.

In the entire history of UNIX do they have any examples of AT&T, USL,
Novell, Santa Cruz etc objecting to a licensee disclosing a method or concept
they created for use in their OS? I am certain other licensees have done so.

Chuck

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Many textbooks on computer programming ..."
Authored by: tangomike on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 06:25 PM EDT
So lines of code aren't necessary *to write a book*. True, though illustrative
code sure helps the student.

Message for Mr. Rochkind: this isn't about a book, yours, IBM's, or TSCOG's.
Perhaps BS&F missed that in their instructions to you.

Sorry. I'll go have a cuppa now.

---
Deja moo - I've heard that bull before.


[ Reply to This | # ]

If you delete ALL the lines with empty cells...
Authored by: bigbert on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 06:34 PM EDT
..you end up ONLY with items 6, 27, 29, 53, 55, 79, 109, 146.
In other words, 8 item that Rochkind has identified a trail from "Misused
Material by Item Number in December Submission" to "File Locations in
Linux Identified (Column D)"

So he's identified only 8 items whith specificity?

What am I missing?


---
4c 69 6e 75 78 20 52 75 6c 65 73 21

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 06:35 PM EDT
The first difficulty Mr. Rochkind finds himself in is that while he thinks he is disagreeing with IBM's expert, Randall Davis, regarding the need for specific lines of code when identifying methods and concepts, in reality he is contradicting the court, which ordered SCO to provides specific lines of code. So he is arguing to the court that SCO should be allowed to deliberately ignore the court's orders, based on his opinion that it isn't necessary to comply.

My interpretation of what SCO said to the court was that they thought the court's order regarding specificity only applied to accusation regarding code, and since SCO's accusations agianst IBM are regarding methods and concepts, the court's order were irrelevant to SCO's case. Of course, if this is the case, you have to wonder why SCO didn't say "Uh, excuse me, your Honor, but why are you asking us for specificity with regards to code? This case isn't about code". I mean, if a judge tells a lawyer something that seems to the lawyer to be totally irrelevant to the case, isn't the lawyer's job try to understand what the judge is talking about? I mean, if the lawyer does think that it's irrelevant, but says nothing, isn't saying nothing falsely giving the judge the impression that the lawyer actually understands whats going on?

---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Seppaku
Authored by: relic on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 07:10 PM EDT
I can't claim to know what goes on in big time litigation, but this sounds like
SCO has intentionally set themselves up for a beheading when the summary
judgment phase opens up.

"Your honor, it was clear to us that what you asked us to do was not
relevant to this litigation, so we decided unilaterally to disobey your order.
Again."

That sounds pretty suicidal to me.

From my own experience I can say that a lot of the fun stuff really takes place
in conferences. What I would give to hear what's been going on this week.

My belief is that SCO, having failed the blackmail gambit, has embarked solely
on a well-funded PR campaign, knowing all along what the outcome would be for it
as a company. Somebody paid them very handsomely to publicly kill themselves,
hoping an otherwise unbeatable foe, Linux, would be collateral damage.

Only someone for whom $50 million is chump change could toss that kind of
scratch out for sport of it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dumb question
Authored by: Jude on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 07:58 PM EDT
Isn't the Rochkind declaration pretty much an admission by SCO that everything
they said about Linux was wrong, and that SCO has no claims on Linux? And isn't
it time for the Red Hat case to start moving?

AFAICT, SCO is complaining only about IBM's alleged acts of revealing allegedly
privileged information. Although SCO says these revelations were violations of
the contract, such violations would seem to be only IBM's problem. Without
evidence of actual copying, SCO has nothing to use as the basis of any claims
against Linux.

IANAL, I may be all wet, etc, etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Redacted Documents
Authored by: mwexler on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 08:35 PM EDT

Where are the redacted versions of the following documents filed under seal:

  1. Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's MOTION to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material filed by Plaintiff SCO Group.
  2. EXHIBITS TO [643] Sealed Memorandum in Opposition to IBMs Motion to Limit SCOs Claims Relating to Misused Material filed by Plaintiff SCO Group
  3. Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy

Aren't IBM and SCO supposed to file redacted versions of the sealed documents?

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOS ownership
Authored by: jo_dan_zukiger on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 08:37 PM EDT
The purported owners of DOS might be happy to have the opportunity to buy
SCO if SCO is held up in court to own the methods and concepts behind DOS. Or
not buy them officially, but fund them by buying licenses.

Particularly they would be happy if it meant that every OS based on Unix were to

become encumbered.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Methods and concepts and no code -- Oh, my!
Authored by: brian-from-fl on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 08:50 PM EDT

According to the DECLARATION OF MARC ROCHKIND:

I have devoted my professional career to computer science, a field in which over the past 39 years, I have developed software, written textbooks, and taught. My speciality is in the area of UNIX operating systems.

I have some questions:

  1. Did he ever teach his students any of the methods by which UNIX operates and the concepts of the subsystems, APIs, commands, organization, device drivers, and other pieces and parts of UNIX? Or did he did he never teach within his area of speciality?
  2. What methods and concepts are being specifically claimed as being put into Linux? Of those, which have never been taught, and therefore willingly and publicly revealed and given away, to students at institutions of higher learning?
  3. What planet is he from, and is he enjoying his visit to Earth?

Is UNIX in general a protected secret? Its source code has been distributed widely and freely for the purpose of teaching its methods and concepts to new generations of programmers.

And, it seems, many of them have learned well what they were taught. Isn't that the point??!!

With apologies to the "Wizard of Oz".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text
Authored by: scott_R on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 09:19 PM EDT
"Champions of the world do not deliberately hit opponents below the belt.
There are rules about that."

This is obvious, but the reason there are rules about that is simply because
boxers want to make a career of boxing, and imagine taking repeated hits from a
professional boxer in that area! Of course, the execs at SCO have no desire to
make a career out of their time at SCO, they are simply hoping to win this fight
in any way possible, and run with the money they might get from it. Even if the
case were to somehow succeed, it's likely Darl and Friends would leave, before
common sense came around to get them, leaving the "problems" for
others.

In that way, PJ's example is perfect, as SCO would do exactly that, jump around
the ring as the winner. Unfortunately for SCO however, in order to win that
kind of fight, you not only have to use surprise effectively, you'd better be
fairly evenly matched to your opponent. In this case, SCO is like a new kid
taking a cheap shot in a fight with an experienced professional boxer.

Even with the cheap shot, the professional will easily recover, as they've taken
more severe accidental hits during practice than the kid could offer with his
best effort. Of course, the professional has to first take time to figure out a
good strategy to make sure the kid doesn't get in another painful blow, but once
that's resolved, the fight is as good as over, as the professional would want to
help the kid understand that all cheapshots do is provide incentive for the
opponent to punish you severely. Instead of just winning on points, or a quick
TKO, it's more likely the professional will keep the kid on the ropes, with just
enough left to have to stay in the fight, extending the beating. All the better
to help his memory next time the kid even considers repeating the act. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's response
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 09:39 PM EDT
So... IBM has "10 business days" to prepare their response to this thing, right? That means that they have to submit their response by next friday, does it not?

I'm just curious when we can expect to read IBM's response, because I'm certain that after such a weak showing on SCO's part, EVERYBODY is wanting to see how IBM responds-- I think SCO might have actually left themselves in a weaker position after some of the clumsy talk about 'methods and concepts' SCO uses here, so long as IBM is fully able to capitalize on the many openings SCO has given them.

Do you think IBM will go all the way up until the deadline before filing their response to this thing? Once IBM submits their response, how long will it be until we know about it, and how long will it be until the document is released to the public? It took a full week for the Rochkind declaration to show up in public form-- is that just because it had to be redacted first?

Also-- on what sort of vague timetable will the judges ruling regarding the Rochkind / Davis reparte appear? And is it at all possible that once Davis/IBM has submitted a response to Rochkind/SCO, SCO will want or try to respond to the response? Or is it too late for that?

Thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

When did SCO first bring up the "Methods and Concepts" argument ?
Authored by: farhill on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 09:42 PM EDT
I have a strong memory that SCO used this argument to account for their lack of
specificity a long time ago, perhaps arguing against various motions to compel.
However, I've just spent a good while digging through the early archives and
don't see it.

Interestingly, their early excuse (starting in late '03) always seemed to be
that they didn't have enough IBM code. That argument struck me as weak at the
time, but is even more amusing in light of their current claim that exact lines
of code don't matter. I do hope Judge Wells remembers this.

Still, I'm quite sure they did make the M&C argument quite a while back. If
anyone remembers and can point it out, that would be much appreciated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does M&C constitute an amended claim???
Authored by: Walter Dnes on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 09:44 PM EDT
I seem to remember earlier on, SCOX tried to get YAAC (Yet Another Amended
Claim), number 3 I believe. Kimball disallowed that request. If Wells allows
the M&C claims to stand, can IBM appeal/complain to Kimball about SCOX
trying to get around his order?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What I don't know about mthods and concepts
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 10:16 PM EDT
What puzzles me, a non programmer, is this. Given that both experts wrote books
and taught courses about how UNIX and LINUX work how much of the methods and
concepts are already public domain?

I would also like to know whether we are looking at somebody expressing an
opinion vs somebody providing something new. The best example I can think of
would be something like 3 folks discussing the best way to get back to the dorm
from the party. Either go left out the door right at the corner and north 2
blocks or go right out the door, left at the corner and north 2 blocks. Which
is better because the corner is closer. If that is it then I don't see an
issue. Two obvious methods. If the third guy (IBM) came up with cross the
street, go into the building, down the stairs and the basements are joined all
the way to the dorm so you can skip the corner then they came up with something
new and unexpected and maybe there is a question. My question is which type of
alleged behaviour are we talking about?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind ain't no rocket scientist.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 10:38 PM EDT
Marc Rochkind does not have any affiliation with MIT, according to the
biographical information in the decleration.

Didn't SCO at one time say that they have MIT rocket scientists identify the
lines of code? Come on SCO, show it to us, please. Or did the deep divers
never surface? Or are they suffering from the bends?

Is this all you have?


[ Reply to This | # ]

"It's simply mind-boggling."
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 10:41 PM EDT
Yes indeed - fraudulent misdirection like this is called a "con game" and so far
as I am aware it's illegal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can Mr. Rochkind be an expert witness at all?
Authored by: JR on Friday, April 21 2006 @ 11:06 PM EDT
Given that he is the one doing the work, can he testify that the work is
completely correct? Conflict of interest? Since he basically has been getting
SCO's paycheck since May 2005?

Besides the conflict of interest, he could probably testify that his work was
done "properly", can he then testify that his work is what the judges
had asked for?


I am no lawyer, and cannot give nor would give any advice...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Methods & Concepts!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 22 2006 @ 12:41 AM EDT
How can IBM be held to blame for the release of UNIX methods and concepts when
they have been available for Years!! In books eg "The Magic Garden
Explained: The Internals of Unix System V Release 4 : An Open Systems Design
(Paperback)" Prentice Hall (January 1994)

If you do a Google search you find so many references to books and articles
explaining every aspect of UNIX internals that it is not funny!! UNIX internals
had been discussed on usenet, BBS systems, Academia, User Groups even before
Linus started with his Linux Kernel.

This whole Methods and Concepts thing seems a total farce!!

For all of SCO's Claims regarding "Enterprise" features like NUMA,
SMP, etc there are tons of articles that even predate the beginning of Linux
discussing these concepts and how these could be implemented. Does this not
disclose to the Public "Methods and Concepts" and free IBM from the
licence clause?

Regards
BeamMeUp

Beam me up Scotty

[ Reply to This | # ]

Point 17 and timescales
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 22 2006 @ 02:03 AM EDT
Um, correct me if I am wrong but this case has been tottering along for more
than three years, since Spring 2003 to be almost precise. SCO has long
maintained that it had the evidence *way* back then.

Now along comes Mr Rochkind and tells the court, amoung other astonishing
things, "I am familiar with the technical evidence. I played the largest,
although not an exclusive, role in assembling it, so I am in the best position
to know that IBM's allegation is false. For each of the 294 Items, I did
everything I could to ensure that everything we had was disclosed and that it
was organized in the most accessible possible manner."

So, since he also states *very* clearly "I was retained by counsel to SCO
in May 2005, to analyze the technical evidence in this case, to help prepare the
preliminary October and December 2005 Disclosure of Material", one has to
ask a simple question.

Why should the court not throw this crap out and sanction SCO and all concerned
for their behavior? SCO had been ordered by the court to prepare the disclosure
with specificity years ago, and yet they hadn't actually started to compile
their evidence until May 2005?

I also find it interesting that Rochkind clearly blames Boies et al for
disobeying the court's order so blatantly. He says "Counsel to SCO made it
very clear that that was what they wanted me to do. " Given how clearly the
court had made it's order, time and again, one has to conclude that the fact
that SCO has failed to obey the order is, indeed, quite willful. SCO's attorneys
were 'very clear' with Rochkind. They were in no doubt as to what they wanted
him to do.

I may have to stop reading about this case, the longer it's gone on the more
offensive it has become. At this point, disgust is simply not a sufficient word
to describe how I feel about SCO, their lawyers and a justice system that has
bent over backwards for these guys. Had they sued someone other than IBM, the
consequences could very well have been the failure of a business.

Look at the Blackberry patent case. The patents will liekly be thrown out, but
thanks to 'justice', millions of dollars in corporate blackmail have been paid.
Disgusting.

Folks can defend the system all they want. Frankly I find it indefensible. The
law is an ass, it is simply to stupid to realize how much of an ass it is.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question and observation
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 22 2006 @ 04:26 AM EDT
One of the things that strikes me as being notable in this case is the way that,
in an effort to bend over backwards to be 'fair' to SCO, the judges have been
treating their lawyers as though it's Daniel Wallace who is acting on SCO's
behalf.

"OK, this is yet another retarded motion that has no basis in law, by
comparison with IBM's finely crafted rebuttal. But you know what? You might be
able to say this, so why don't I just make an order that lets you get away with
that, and give you just one more bite at the cherry because it's clear that
you're lost here."

This declaration is yet another submission from a junior paralegal who trained
at the Daniel Wallace School of Law. So my question is this: at what point do
the judges in this case start to recognize that they aren't dealing with Daniel,
but are actually dealing with one of the most expensive and sophisticated law
firms in the USA, and that they are deliberately trying to game the system?

And is it possible that Boies et. al. are deliberately trying to provoke the
court in the hopes of it resulting in an appealable mis-step? That way, when IBM
finally win -- as they eventually must -- SCO can continue to drag the case out
for several more years in the hopes of getting the best settlement that they
can?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well, SCO is making one thing clear:
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 22 2006 @ 05:16 AM EDT
Proprietary code (like Unix) is a contagious virus that gobbles up everything it gets in contact with, including those things for which no contact can be shown.

And it takes IBM and millions of dollars of legal fees and ten thousands of work hours and wagonloads of getting smeared to get away from that.

In the light of this, anybody who enters into a specific contract for proprietary software is a fool waiting to be ripped apart because then he can't revert to the defense that this would affect everybody else similarly and would be outrageous.

With a specific contract, there is no such thing as generic outrageousness. There are only sharks, then.

So the lesson is that anything but publicly licensed software is too dangerous to use for business, unless you have a very large legal department and deep pockets.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 22 2006 @ 05:32 AM EDT
I understand what he's saying about methods and concepts not being confined to
instances of code, but he seems to forget that they can only be demonstrated by
instances of code.

Or maybe he's expert enough that they should just take his word for it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO sent Rochkind fishing to the Caribbean for King Crab
Authored by: JR on Saturday, April 22 2006 @ 11:31 AM EDT
King crab are a species of crab that are native to cold seas, thus not to the
Caribbean...

SCO sent Rochkind fishing to the Caribbean; the Caribbean is full of fish, but
he would never find king Crab, they paid him by the hour and not by how many
King Crab he caught.

So Mr. Rochkind cruises around the Caribbean since May, 2005 and finds
absolutelly nothing... He finds a couple of crabs that are big and are red, so
he says these are king crabs. Then, he runs out of time and grabs a few large
fish and writes in his report that these fish somehow ate a king crab.

The result:
The lawyers have their king crab look-a-likes, their king-crab eating fish.
Mr. Rochkind got paid by the hour to cruise in the Caribbean in a worthless, but
profitable journey. He got paid by the hour, it doesn't matter the result
really; those who sent him knew anyways he would not find what they sent him to
find.
Now it is for the judge to decide if the fish really didn't eat king crab from
the Alaskan sea. Can the Judge really decide that these fish didn't eat king
crab? Not really, all the judge can say is that the fish don't look like king
crab.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Just how does a Method and Concept differ from a trade secret?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 22 2006 @ 11:42 AM EDT
If I know the basic principle of how Unix does something, that gives me a
tremendous advantage when I start to write code for something that works like
Unix.

If I want to keep someone from developing a product that competes with mine, I
will keep my methods and concepts as a trade secret.

The only reason to forbid the disclosure of methods and concepts is because they
are trade secrets.

Guess what folks; SCO has admitted that there are no trade secrets.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can't Wait For Mr. Rochkind's Deposition
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 22 2006 @ 11:42 AM EDT
Mr. Rochkind and his chart will be taken apart piece by piece.

A train wreck on the say to happen.

[ Reply to This | # ]

... an email from an IBM engineer to a Linux programmer ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 22 2006 @ 11:42 AM EDT
That should make some interesting witness testimony (if the case ever gets that
far):

IBM Legal Counsel: Mr Smith, this email shows you and Mr Jones discussing a
method for achieving X in UNIX. Is that correct?

Mr Smith: It is sir.

IBM Legal Counsel: Was that the first time you had heard of this method and/or
concept?

Mr Smith: No sir. I first became aware of it by reading the book "UNIX for
Dummies" ten years ago. I have a copy here.

IBM Legal Counsel: Thank you Mr Smith. Next!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comment from a computer science expert
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 22 2006 @ 11:44 AM EDT
I was in University in 1976, should give you an idea how long I've been around,
my major was computer science. Should give you an idea how much I know about
this stuff.

I worked on the first OSes, even before unix really came along. But I've used
various Unix OS systems in my life.

I am a programmer as well, used Linux since even before v1, and BSD and all the
rest. Even SCOs (old-SCO) version too.

Even Novell Unixware and so forth.

Reading his comments as a professional, I have to say, IMNSHO that most of what
he says doesn't even make sense.
Some of it even seeems contradictory!

And what is this, another "look and feel" lawsuit??
Is that REALLY all they're going after?

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a
duck!" .... oi!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Methods and Concepts questions for any lawyers out there
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 22 2006 @ 11:59 AM EDT
Well first of course, does New-SCO actually "own" or control any of
the Methods and Concepts?

I think that one is huge. FIrstly, do they have the right?
Secondly, is what IBM (er Dynex) did actually wrong?

and finally for any lawyers here on GL -

Isn't there mounds of case law supporting IBMs position? or at least, in
arguement against SCOs nonsense the way they are doing it?

I am sure there must be clearly defined boundaries for Methods and Concepts -
how to identify them, what is required and what is not. Surely this is
established?

I mean new-SCO is simply whining about Methods and Concepts and not pointing at
anythihng, wont someone just throw the book at them?

I mean, as a tactic, might IBM use some other expert to answer this - a person
who is steeped in the rules of Methods and Concepts and knows the whole coding
angle inside out? (perhaps it is the same expert - but I'm just thinking outloud
here).

Any thoughts?

and finally a general legal question - which maybe obvious -
in court as a witness giving evidence - is the truth still the truth if it's
taken out of context (delibertly) ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Saturday, April 22 2006 @ 12:06 PM EDT
Surely, if SCO has given someone who publishes books on Linux Concepts and Methods access to IBM's CMVC, then they cannot value their IP very much. What are they supposed to do - shoot him after the case is over? I suppose this is allowed under the Second Ammendment.

I do not know how seriously to take this but a member gave a link to a link to a document which may be one of the documents which SCO does not want the world to know about (as it is published on the Internet, it is hardly a secret). Just read and enjoy.

[For those who missed it - IBM have criticised SCO for accusing them of revealing how not to do something.]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 22 2006 @ 04:43 PM EDT
>>>Many textbooks on computer programming discuss methods and concepts
without providing accompanying source code for actual systems

>>>In short, the 198 Items challenged in IBM's reply brief are as
complete as possible,


Textbooks will skip the actual source code because it is often easier to explain
methods and concepts otherwise. A textbook that describes a method and concept
without source code may be succinct but it isn’t “as complete as possible”. It
would be more complete with a source code example. It might not be a better
textbook, but it would be a more complete textbook.
If, as SCO’s (new) argument goes, IBM learned methods and concepts because of
its special access to the SCO’s UNIX source code, then the method or concept
should be illustrated in specific code within UNIX. If the SCO witness is
saying that the 198 items are “as complete as possible”, then he is
contradicting a “methods and concepts” argument. If you can’t show the source
code in UNIX where the method was implemented, then IBM couldn’t have learned
the method from the access to the source code (maybe they learned it from a
textbook). Of course with this statement (and the whole “this is about methods
and concepts thing), this SCO witness is directly contradicting Darl’s famous
public comments about “millions of lines of code copied into Linux”, (which was
followed by a temporary spike in SCO’s stock price into which some SCO exec’s
sold).
There are music textbooks that describe musical concepts without showing the
notes. That doesn't mean you can't be specific when you try to sue Vanilla Ice.
If Vanilla Ice got his musical ideas from Queen or David Bowie, you can point
out the song where the ideas came from.
BTW: doesn’t this remind you of William H Macy’s character in Fargo who writes
VIN numbers with a really dull pencil and faxes then to the finance company so
they would be illegible when they arrived?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind Declaration & Exhibits A & B as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 22 2006 @ 11:23 PM EDT

table.borders{ border:1px solid black; border-width: 1px 0 0
1px;}
table.borders td{ border:1px solid black; border-width: 0 1px 1px
0;}






[ Reply to This | # ]

Money talks
Authored by: golding on Sunday, April 23 2006 @ 07:09 AM EDT
Just goes to show that money talks loudest.

To give up his professional career, which he has effectively done with this
declaration, he must be getting a very high amount of remuneration.

I, for one, would not hire him. He has shown a severe lack of understanding for
very basic 'concepts' within how software works.
i.e. If a method and concept has been used you end up with code that shows
this method and concept.

No code, no problem :-)

---
Regards, Robert

..... Some people can tell what time it is by looking at the sun, but I have
never been able to make out the numbers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Hired gun - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 24 2006 @ 04:40 PM EDT
Compare and Contrast Marc Rochkind's Declaration & Exhibits A & B
Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Sunday, April 23 2006 @ 07:27 AM EDT

with a song, Nobody Takes Me Seriously, by New Zealand band Split Enz, somewhat mutilated (with all due apologies to Tim Finn, its singer-songwriter):

Nobody listens to a word that I say
And at work I'm just a lawyer's tool
Sitting in the corner with my coffee & tray
All the secretaries think I'm a fool

I don't wanna suffer these conditions no more
Haven't I the right to say
I don't wanna suffer these conditions no more
Nobody takes me seriously anyway
Nobody takes me seriously anyway
Nobody takes me seriously anyway

Law's not a glimpse, it's a permanent rinse
And it keeps you on your toes all day
Every judge I met seemed to get apathetic
When I looked at her that special way

I can't get nobody else to take me for real
They like to keep me tucked away
Even if they listened to what I had to say
Nobody'd take me seriously anyway
Nobody takes me seriously anyway
Nobody takes me seriously anyway

If war broke out I'd be the last one to know
If there was a fire they'd just leave me to burn
I got just as much to say as any man
But I never seem to get my turn

I don't wanna suffer these conditions no more
Haven't I the right to say
I don't wanna suffer these conditions no more
Nobody takes me seriously anyway
Nobody takes me seriously anyway
Nobody takes me seriously anyway

(Nobody takes me seriously)
Nobody.. no, no, no-nobody...

Am I the only one to have caught a distinct air of self-pity in Marc Rochkind's statements? How have the mighty fallen, in the cafes far from the battle.

---
finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of these states of view, I duck

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Rochkind - an Expert who can't Add
Authored by: BassSinger on Monday, April 24 2006 @ 06:46 PM EDT
1. I have devoted my professional career to computer science, a field in which
over the past 39 years, I have developed software, written textbooks, and
taught. My speciality is in the area of UNIX operating systems.

2. I received a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University
of Maryland in 1970, a Masters of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Rutgers
in 1972, and a Masters of Science in Computer Science from Rutgers in 1976. I
have taught computer science courses at the University of Colorado. Exhibit A
contains details of my professional background and publications.
**************

So, he was in school studying Mechanical Engineering until '70, then studied it
some more to get a masters until '72. We don't know when he started studying
CompSci, but it wasn't before '72 (he was busy). But he has been a Computer
Scientist for 39 years. Hmm. Is this 2011 (or later) and I've been sleeping?

Either he can't count or he is as accurate as me saying, "Over the last
2000 years I've been a computer scientist, a sailor, a bicyclist and a
singer."


---
In A Chord,

Tom

Proud Member of the Kitsap Chordsmen
Registered Linux User # 154358

[ 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 )