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
Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims, as text
Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 12:20 AM EDT

Here is Judge Brooke Wells's Order as text. 39 pages and 128 footnotes! Why? I can't read the judge's mind, of course, but my best guess is she is indicating to SCO not to bother to appeal this order. And if they do, she has provided her reasons -- with specificity, one might even say, sufficient to uphold her decision. You can follow along with the references on Groklaw's IBM Timeline page, where the docket numbers are provided.

Another possible factor in the style of this Order: Do you recall when SCO appealed a prior order of hers, on the grounds that she neglected to mention one item? SCO lost that battle when Judge Dale Kimball affirmed her order [PDF], but I believe she may be addressing that issue preemptively by listing, with references, every little detail.

A lot of you have asked over the years what it takes for SCO to get sanctioned. Now you know.

This was a bear to code, so I did it myself. I believe I may be qualifying for sainthood tonight. For sure, I couldn't have finished it until tomorrow, except that I kept thinking that we have a number of blind readers, and I know they want to read this extraordinary Order too, and PDFs can be a problem for the visually challenged. So, this is for you guys.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DIVISION, DISTRICT OF UTAH

__________________________________

THE SCO GROUP INC.

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,

vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

_________________________________

Case No. 2:03cv00294 DAK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
IBM'S MOTION TO LIMIT SCO's
CLAIMS

JUDGE DALE A. KIMBALL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROOKE C. WELLS

__________________________________

This matter is before the court on Defendant/CounterclaimPlaintiff International Business Machines Corporation's (IBM) Motion to Limit The SCO Group Inc.'s (SCO) Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material.1 A hearing on IBM's motion was held on April 14, 2006. At the hearing, SCO sought leave to file the declaration of Marc Rochkind. The court granted SCO's request and out of a sense of fairness gave IBM 10 business days to respond to the Rochkind declaration because this was originally IBM's motion.2 The court has throughly considered the relevant

law, expert declarations, the parties' memoranda, and has reviewed the 198 items at issue in this motion.3

During a recent hearing this court stated,

Obviously what I don't want is either side to use information that has been withheld in support of a summary judgment motion or in support of their case at trial, all evidence need[s] to be on the table for the other party to analyze and take a look at.4

After the evidence is "on the table" then the fact finder will be able to determine the merits of both SCO's and IBM's claims and counterclaims. The current motion focuses on the interpretation of the court's prior orders and exactly what evidence should have been provided pursuant to these orders. The sanction IBM seeks precluding SCO from using certain alleged misappropriated items because of a lack of specificity - is very serious. As outlined in greater detail below, the court finds that SCO has failed in part to meet the level of specificity required by this court's orders and the order entered by Judge Kimball. It is also apparent that SCO in some instances failed to meet the level of specificity it required of IBM. Further, this failure was willful under case law and prejudicial to IBM. Therefore, the court GRANTS IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material in PART.

2

BACKGROUND

The instant dispute does not take place in a vacuum. As mentioned, the crux of the latest dispute centers around the interpretation of court orders which have been entered over the course of a couple of years. The court finds the following background, including SCO's public statements, helpful in framing the issues involved in IBM's motion.

In March 2003 SCO filed the instant action against IBM alleging, inter alia, that IBM had misappropriated portions of SCO's copyrighted code and contributed these portions to Linux. SCO alleges that "a significant amount of UNIX protected code and materials are currently found in Linux 2.4, 2.5x and Linux 2.6 releases in violation of SCO's . . . copyrights."5 In addition, SCO alleges that IBM is "improperly extracting and using the confidential and proprietary information it acquired from UNIX and dumping that information into the open source community."6 SCO further alleges that IBM has "infringed, [has] induced the infringement of, and [has] contributed to the infringement of, copyright registrations of SCO and its predecessors."7 In sum, according to SCO, "Linux is a clone of UNIX, including protected UNIX System V Technology, including modifications and derivatives

3

thereof.8

I. SCO's Public Statements

As repeatedly noted by IBM, concurrent with SCO's court filed allegations has been SCO's siren song sounding the strength of its case to the public. At a trade show in 2003 SCO shared with the public a presentation outlining SCO's claims against IBM.9 SCO identified four categories of alleged misappropriation: (1) literal copying ("[l]ine-for-line code copied from System V into Linux kernels 2.4+");10 (2) derivative works which arose from "[m]odifications of System V created by vendors contributed to Linux kernels 2.4+ in violation of contracts";11 (3) obfuscation ("[c]opying, pasting, removing legal notices, reorganizing the order of the programming structures");12 and (4) non-literal transfers ("[m]ethods, structures and sequence from System V contributed to Linux kernels 2.4+").13 Finally, in the presentation SCO also gave "one example of many" of line by line copying between the System V Code and Linux kernel code.14

4

In April 2003, SCO's Senior Vice President Chris Sontag stated that, "We are using objective third parties to do comparisons of our UNIX System V source code and Red Hat [Linux] as an example. We are coming across many instances where our proprietary software has simply been copied and pasted or changed in order to hide the origin of our System V code in Red Hat. This is the kind of thing that we will need to address with many Linux Distribution companies at some point."15

In June 2003 SCO took "its case against the Linux operating system and IBM on the road."16 SCO "began showing to U.S. analysts code that, it claims, proves that the source code to the Linux operating system contains sections of code lifted directly from SCO's Unix code base." 17 Senior Vice President Chris Sontag stated that, "The one specific example that I'm showing right now is [Unix] code, line by line copied into Linux." 18 A SCO spokesman went on to state that SCO had hired three teams of experts, including a group from MIT's math department to analyze Linux and UNIX code for similarities. "All three found several

5

instances where our Unix source code had been found in Linux."19

Chris Sontag stated in November 2003 during an interview that, "There are other literal copyright infringements that we have not publicly provided, we'll save those for court. But there are over one million lines of code that we have identified that are derivative works by IBM and Sequent that have been contributed into Linux that we have identified . . . ."20

In December 2003, SCO sent a letter to Linux users identifying a portion of their copyrighted code which had been incorporated into Linux without authorization.21 SCO stated that files in Linux version 2.4.21 which incorporated copyrighted binary interface code must be removed. And, that "SCO's review is ongoing and will involve additional disclosures of code misappropriation."22

Also in December, Darl McBride and Chris Sontag were asked during an interview, "Have you identified exactly what code is at issue here?"23 In response Mr. Sontag stated, "We've identified

6

a lot of different things. Early on when we filed against IBM, people wanted us to show the code. Even though we're fighting a legal case and [a courtroom] is where it's appropriately vetted, we decide to take at least one example and show it." 24 Sontag continues, "A substantial amount was a cut-and-paste job, a few lines changed, but a substantial body of code. You don't have to be a programmer at all to see copying has occurred. It wasn't just 10 lines of code, that example was over 80 to 100 lines of code."25

II. Motions and Orders

In October 2003 IBM filed its first Motion to Compel Discovery. 26 In the motion IBM sought an order from the court compelling SCO to "respond fully to IBM's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents, served June 13, 2003."27 The following is a sampling from IBM's First Set of Interrogatories which is attached to their memorandum in support.

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify, with specificity (by product, file and line of code, where appropriate) all of the alleged trade secrets and any confidential

7

or proprietary information that plaintiff alleges or contends IBM misappropriated or misused, . . .

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please describe, in detail, each instance in which plaintiff alleges or contends that IBM misappropriated or misused the alleged trade secret or confidential or proprietary information, . . .; and (d) with respect to any code or method plaintiff alleges or contends that IBM misappropriated or misused, the location of each portion of such code or method in any product, such as AIX, in Linux, in open source or in the public domain.28

Based on a plain reading of these interrogatories, it is apparent to the court that IBM was not only seeking information about SCO's trademark claims but information about "any confidential or proprietary information that plaintiff alleges or contends IBM misappropriated or misused."29

In November 2003 SCO filed its first Motion to Compel.30 In its motion SCO sought an order from the court compelling IBM to respond fully to SCO's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories. Specifically, SCO sought the production of

(1) the source code for all of IBM's versions of UNIX (known as "AIX"), together with all notes and documentation for the software development methods used in the design and modification process;

(2) the source code for all of Sequent's version of

8

UNIX (known as "Dynix"), . . . .31

The following definition of identify is found within SCO's first set of interrogatories, which was served upon IBM in June 2003. This was also part of SCO's first motion to compel.32

7. The term "identify" shall mean:

e. in the case of alleged trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information, whether computer code, methods or otherwise, to give a complete and detailed description of such trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information, including but not limited to an identification of the specific lines and portions of code claimed as trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information, and the location (by module name, file name, sequence number or otherwise) of those lines of code within any larger software product or property.33

After reviewing the record, the court has not found any evidence that SCO abandoned the level of specificity it required from IBM in its first set of interrogatories, to wit, "identification of the specific lines and portions of code"34 for methods or other“confidential or proprietary information.”35

Shortly after SCO filed its First Motion to Compel, IBM filed its Second Motion to Compel Discovery on November 6,

9

2003.36 In this motion IBM sought to compel SCO to fully answer IBM's second set of interrogatories and to produce certain agreed upon documents. 37 IBM's second set of interrogatories contains the following:
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify, with specificity (by file and line of code), (a) all source code and other material in Linux (including but not limited to the Linux kernel, any Linux operating system and any Linux distribution) to which plaintiff has rights; and (b) the nature of plaintiff's rights, including but not limited to whether and how the code or other material derives from UNIX.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: For each line of code and other material identified in response to Interrogatory No. 12, please state whether (a) IBM has infringed plaintiff's rights, and for any rights IBM is alleged to have infringed, describe in detail how IBM is alleged to have infringed plaintiff's rights; and (b) whether plaintiff has ever distributed the code or other material or otherwise made it available to the public, as part of a Linux distribution or otherwise, . . . .38

On December 5, 2003 this court heard oral argument on IBM's First and Second Motions to Compel and SCO's First Motion to Compel. The court granted IBM's motions and stayed action on SCO's motion until it complied with the court's order that was entered on December 12, 2003.39 The court ordered SCO:

10

1. To respond fully and in detail to Interrogatory Nos. 1-9 as stated in IBM's First Set of Interrogatories.

2. To respond fully and in detail to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 as stated in IBM's Second Set of Interrogatories.

4. To identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM.

6. If SCO does not have sufficient information in its possession, custody, or control to specifically answer any of IBM's requests that are the subject of this order, SCO shall provide an affidavit setting forth the full nature of its efforts, by whom they were taken, what further efforts it intends to utilize in order to comply, and the expected date of compliance.40

On February 6, 2004 the court heard arguments concerning SCO's compliance with the court's December 12, 2003 order. After reviewing the progress of the case up to that point, the court lifted the discovery stay in light of "SCO's good faith efforts to comply with the Court's prior order." 41 This order - dated March 3, 2004 - specifically ordered both IBM and SCO to provide certain items pursuant to discovery requests. The court does not recite the order in its entirety due to its length but a few of the salient portions include the following: IBM is ordered

1. To provide the releases of AIX and Dynix consisting of "about 232 products" as was represented by Mr. Marriott at the February 6, 2004 hearing. . . . Following this production, SCO is to provide additional memoranda to the Court indicating if and how these files support its position and how they are relevant. The memorandum is to include with specificity, and to the extent possible, identification of additional files

11

SCO requests and the reasons for such requests. The Court will then consider ordering IBM to produce more code from AIX and Dynix.

2. Pursuant to Rule 26(b), SCO should use its best efforts to obtain relevant discovery from the Linux contributions that are known to the public, including those contributions publicly known to be made by IBM. IBM, however, is hereby ordered to provide to SCO any and all non-public contributions it has made to Linux.

5. IBM is ordered to provide further responses to SCO's interrogatory numbers two, five and eleven.42

SCO, on the other hand was ordered

1. To fully comply within 45 days of the entry of [the March 3, 2004] order with the Court's previous order dated December 12, 2003. This is to include those items that SCO had difficulty in obtaining prior to the Court's previously ordered deadline of January 12, 2004.

2. As previously ordered, SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code that IBM is alleged to have contributed to Linux from either AIX or Dynix. This is to include all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time.

3. SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code from Unix System V from which IBM’s contributions from AIX or Dynix are alleged to be derived.

4. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to.

5. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties. This is to include where applicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released.43

In May 2004 IBM filed a cross-motion for partial summary

12

judgment on its claim for declaratory judgment of noninfringement. 44 In opposing IBM's motion SCO argued that they needed additional discovery in order to properly respond to IBM's motion. SCO filed a Rule 56(f) motion seeking to continue any consideration of IBM's motion until "sufficient discovery has been conducted." 45

Consistent with SCO's arguments regarding the need for more discovery, SCO filed a renewed motion to compel discovery on July 6, 2004. SCO sought to obtain documents and information that SCO argued IBM was required to produce pursuant to the court's March 3 order. SCO's motion also sought information from IBM's Configuration Management Version Control (CMVC) and Revision Control System (RCS). These systems contained "information regarding the individuals who worked on developing source code for IBM's AIX, Dynix and Linux products and the contributions of these persons to these products."46

This court heard oral argument on SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel on October 19, 2004 following supplemental briefing by the parties.47 On January 18, 2005 the court granted in part and denied in part SCO's renewed motion. 48 Specifically, the court - over IBM's objection - ordered IBM to "provide in a readily

13

accessible format all versions and changes to AIX and Dynix."49 IBM was also required to file with the court an affidavit detailing the efforts it undertook to deliver the code. Unfortunately some older code was unavailable because it was discarded after it became obsolete. IBM did, however, provide what amounted to volumes and volumes of code pursuant to SCO's requests and this court's order.50

On February 9, 2005 Judge Kimball entered a memorandum decision denying IBM's cross motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice.51 Judge Kimball also stated that he would "not entertain any dispositive motions until after discovery is complete, unless both parties stipulate that resolution of the motion is possible prior to the close of discovery."52

In an order signed by Judge Kimball on July 1, 2005, both SCO and IBM were given two important dates, October 28, 2005 and December 22, 2005 respectively. These dates were court ordered deadlines for the parties "to disclose with specificity all allegedly misused material." 53 With the October date being the

14

interim deadline and the December date being the final deadline. Pursuant to this same order, the parties were also ordered to "update interrogatory responses."54

In September 2005 SCO filed a Renewed Motion to Compel seeking the production of "ALL non-public Linux contribution information." 55 SCO also sought "the development history of Linux contributions . . . programmer's notes, design documents, white papers, and iteration, revision, and interim versions of those contributions." 56 After hearing oral argument on SCO's motion, the court denied SCO's request finding that the court's prior orders did not contemplate the production of every single document relating to the development of Linux. Further, the court found that SCO's interpretation of this court's orders was taken out of context and that SCO failed to timely seek clarification of any unclear portions. Notwithstanding the court’s decision, IBM offered to produce Linux information from specified Linux developers. Therefore, IBM was required to

undertake a reasonable search for and produce nonprivileged and non-public Linux programmer's notes, design documents, white papers, and interim or draft versions of Linux contributions from the files of 20 of the IBM Linux developers whom SCO identifies as potential deponents and whose files it would like IBM

15

to search.57

SCO filed an objection to this court's decision with Judge Kimball on October 27, 2005. In its objection SCO argued that this court "concluded that it had not previously ordered IBM to produce the requested materials, but did not address SCO's argument that the court should now order IBM to produce them.”58 In December 2005, Judge Kimball overruled SCO's objection and affirmed this court's decision.59

On October 21, 2005 pursuant to this court's request SCO filed a Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery. 60 This motion largely mirrored SCO's original motion which unfortunately was not set for a hearing because of a docketing error. 61 SCO’s motion primarily dealt with the production of documents from IBM's senior level management and the depositions of these individuals. On December 20, 2005 this court granted in part SCO's renewed motion.

Finally, on February 24, 2006 the court denied without prejudice SCO's most recent Motion to Compel.62 SCO was given 30

16

days to file a more concise and detailed motion but did not do so.63 64

IBM's MOTION TO LIMIT SCO'S CLAIMS

IBM seeks to limit the scope of SCO's claims relating to allegedly misused material.65 The items in dispute include item numbers 3-112, 143-149, 165-182, 186-193, 232-271, 279-293.66 IBM argues that SCO has failed to identify the allegedly misused material "with the most basic detail"67 despite requests from IBM and court orders that required such specificity. In essence, without greater specificity than that provided by SCO, IBM claims it is "left to guess as to SCO's claim[s]." 68 Because this is prejudicial to IBM, and in direct conflict with three orders from the court, the appropriate remedy according to IBM is "an order precluding [SCO] from pursuing undisclosed elements of [their] claim."69

17

In opposition, SCO argues that it "has fully complied with this [c]ourt's July 1, 2005 order to the parties to identify with specificity the material they allege has been misused." 70 SCO states that, "Collectively, the report and supporting exhibits show that IBM improperly disclosed over 290 items, consisting of over 450,000 lines of source code and hundreds of confidential methods and concepts."71

I. Standards of Review

A court has “wide discretion in imposing sanctions, including severe sanctions, under Rule 37(b)(2), . . .”72 “Severe sanctions are justified . . . when the failure to comply with a court order is due to willfulness or bad faith, or is otherwise culpable.”73

Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) a court may sanction a party for failing to comply with an order. For example, a court may enter, “An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party

18

from introducing designated matters in evidence.”74 Courts have imposed sanctions, including severe sanctions like those permitted in Rule 37(b)(2), when warranted.75

A court may also enter sanctions for failing to disclose required information pursuant to Rule 37(c).

“A party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information required by Rule 26(a) [for written interrogatories] or 26(e)(1) [for supplementation of disclosure and responses] shall not, unless such failure is harmless, be permitted to use as evidence at a trial, at a hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so disclosed.”76

II. Discussion

At the outset, the court wishes to address two of SCO’s central arguments against IBM’s motion. First, SCO argues that the "preclusionary order of the type that IBM seeks is a severe

19

sanction reserved for instances where there is a willful or badfaith failure to comply."77 According to SCO, IBM cannot establish the requirement of bad faith. Second, SCO argues that IBM's motion is in essence an attempt to obtain summary judgment.78

While the court agrees with SCO that the sanction IBM seeks is severe, the court disagrees that bad faith must be shown. Instead, willfulness is sufficient.79

Next, “A trial court has the power to dismiss a claim for the failure to obey a discovery order.”80 Thus, contrary to SCO’s suggestion, IBM’s motion is not essentially about the merits of SCO’s case but about “whether SCO complied with IBM’s discovery requests and the Court’s orders.”81

A. Methods and Concepts and Specificity

One of the principle disagreements in the instant dispute is the parties’ disagreement over how methods and concepts are properly disclosed. A large portion of SCO’s alleged misappropriated items are methods and concepts. “Of the 294 Items in the December Submission, about a third are cases of

20

misused code, and about two-thirds are cases of misused methods and concepts.”82

IBM argues that under the court’s orders SCO should have provided more specificity, including version, file, and line information, for the items SCO claims were misappropriated. IBM’s expert Randall Davis' states, "The methods and concepts employed in an operating system (or any computer program) are in the source code.83 Hence, under IBM’s view of the court’s specificity requirement the source code behind methods and concepts should have been disclosed by SCO.

In contrast, SCO’s expert Marc Rochkind states, “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.”84 Mr. Rochkind continues, “Many textbooks on computer programming discuss methods and concepts without providing accompanying source code for actual systems.”85

After considering the expert declarations and the parties’ memoranda, the court finds that methods and concepts are at least on some basic level comprised of source code. The court agrees with Mr. Rochkind, SCO’s expert, that methods and concepts can be

21

discussed without disclosing source code. But it is possible, and even preferable in many instances, to provide the code behind methods and concepts. In fact, Mr. Rochkind's own publication Advance Unix Programming (2d ed. 2004), provides many examples of code when discussing "fundamental concepts."

Closely related to the methods and concepts question is in this court’s view the heart of the dispute - what level of specificity is required by the court’s orders? If the court’s orders required the production of specific source code for alleged misappropriated items, including methods and concepts, then many of SCO’s arguments and much of Mr. Rochkind’s declaration miss the mark. If however, the level of specificity did not require specific source code then IBM has fired a wayward shot off the starboard bow in its attempt to sink SCO’s ship.

IBM argues that SCO has failed to identify the allegedly misused material "with the most basic detail."86 Although the court only specifically said “lines” in its orders, IBM argues that it was also necessary to provide the version and file information for SCO’s alleged misappropriate items. Otherwise, IBM is left to undertake a "massive analysis, potentially of every single version, file and line of Unix System V code, . . . AIX and Dynix, and . . . Linux."87 For example,

22

Unix System V R4.2 ES/MP consists of 22,222 files and 7,339,157 lines of code; AIX 4.3.3 for Power consists of 111,964 files and 138,420,329 lines of code; and Linux 2.6.15 consists of 18,811 files and 7,290,070 lines of code.88

In direct contrast to IBM’s arguments, SCO argues that it has met the level of specificity required by the court’s orders. Indeed, SCO states it has provided “over 450,000 lines of source code and hundreds of confidential methods and concepts."89

SCO represents that there are different categories of information supporting its alleged misused material. First, for improper source code contributed by IBM to Linux, SCO "ha[s] named the particular files of infringing source code IBM contributed," and has provided some "color-coded illustrations lining up the code in Dynix/ptx that IBM took and placed into Linux files."90

Second, with respect to methods and concepts, "the disclosure is not of specific lines of code."91 Instead, SCO "identifies and appends as exhibits actual smoking-gun communications whereby IBM developers violated SCO's rights and disclosed confidential methods and concepts."92 This includes,

23

"numerous e-mails, other communications, and memoranda evidencing the hundreds of individual disclosures by IBM . . . ."93 SCO continues,
It should be remembered that it is IBM, not SCO, that made these contributions. IBM has ready access to the engineers who made the disputed disclosures to assist in identifying the nature of the contribution, whether it originated independently from protected material, how it is used, and whether it was in fact disclosed to the Linux community. 94

In sum, "for each source code contribution, SCO identifies the source code; and for each method and concept disclosure, SCO identifies and details the method and concept disclosed."95

Finally, SCO alleges IBM's complaints about specificity are unwarranted because of the "roadblocks IBM has placed along the way to hinder SCO [in] identifying the particular misused material."96 For example, SCO says IBM resisted providing the CMVC and RCS systems which contain AIX and Dynix materials along with other information. In May 2005, the information was produced pursuant to court order but "IBM has been unable to produce all versions of its AIX source code, claiming that they

24

cannot be located."97

In considering the parties’ positions the court first looks to the language in SCO’s own requests and the language in the court’s orders.

In June 2003 SCO sought “specific lines and portions of code” for all alleged “trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information, whether computer code, methods or otherwise.” 98 This request was part of SCO’s first motion to compel which was eventually granted in part.

On December 12, 2003 this court ordered SCO to "respond fully and in detail to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13" and to "identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM."99 Interrogatory 12 requested “with specificity (by file and line of code),” all source code and material in Linux that SCO claimed rights to. Interrogatory 13 sought further clarification of Interrogatory 12.

For each line of code and other material identified in response to Interrogatory No. 12, please state whether (a) IBM has infringed plaintiff's rights, and for any rights IBM is alleged to have infringed, describe in detail how IBM is alleged to have infringed plaintiff's rights; and (b) whether plaintiff has ever distributed the code or other material or otherwise made it available to the public, as part of a Linux

25

distribution or otherwise, . . . .100

In March of 2004 this court ordered SCO to "provide and identify all specific lines of code that IBM is alleged to have contributed to Linux from either AIX or Dynix." 101 Next, SCO was ordered to "provide and identify all specific lines of code from Unix System V from which IBM's contributions from AIX or Dynix are alleged to be derived."102 SCO was further ordered to "provide and identify with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to." 103 SCO was also to "provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties."104

Finally, in July 2005 Judge Kimball ordered the parties to “disclose with specificity all allegedly misused material”105 by December 22, 2005.

Based on the language of the orders, and SCO’s own requests, the court finds that SCO was to provide source code, i.e. version, file and line information, for its alleged misappropriated items. Although the court did not specifically

26

say version and file in its orders, the court finds that this information was inherent within the court's ordering of "specific lines." The court agrees with IBM's argument that line information without version and file information is not very specific and makes the identification of what is at issue much more difficult.

This court further finds that Judge Kimball intended the same level of specificity in his July 2005 order which provided what amounted to a date certain for the parties to define their case. Judge Kimball’s order was entered after this court’s orders which dealt with specificity. And Judge Kimball did not provide a different definition of specificity in his order. Further, in an earlier decision, Judge Kimball in essence rebuked SCO for a lack of specificity. “Nevertheless, despite the vast disparity between SCO’s public accusations and its actual evidence-or complete lack thereof-and the resulting temptation to grant IBM’s motion, the court has determined that it would be premature to grant summary judgement . . . .”106 Given this background this court believes that Judge Kimball intended the same level of specificity as this court did, to wit, version, file, and line information for misappropriated items.

Most important to the court however, is the fact that SCO itself sought this level of specificity by asking for "identification of the specific lines and portions of code" for all alleged “trade secrets or confidential or proprietary

27

information, whether computer code, methods or otherwise.”107 Given SCO's track record in this case, the court is certain that if IBM had simply provided line information without version and file information for “methods,” SCO would have filed motions to compel complaining about IBM's lack of specificity. The court cannot find any reason why SCO should not be held to the same level of accountability that SCO held IBM to. Thus, SCO should have supplied not only line but version and file information for whatever claims form the basis of SCO’s case against IBM.108

In further support of this court’s finding that version, file, and line information was the required level of specificity the court points to the testimony of SCO's own Chief Technology Officer, Sandeep Gupta. Sandeep Gupta testified about the importance of having version, file and line information in respect to methods and concepts.

Q: Okay, How would you determine whether a particular description was specific enough to describe an aspect of System V as a method?
A: I have to look at the source code.
Q: Okay. What would you do if you looked at the source code?
A: I look at various steps that are taken, specific for that particular method."
Q: Okay. So in order to determine what a particular method or concept is, you would actually have to look at the source code?
A: In some cases, yes. . . . .

28

Q: . . . would you have to look at the source code to be able to accurately describe a method or concept in UNIX?
A: That's my opinion, yes.109

Finally, the court notes that the deposit requirements for copyright registration also support this court’s decision. The copyright registration requires printouts of program source code.110 Even though registration is not a condition of copyright protection it is often advantageous to register. For example, timely registration establishes prima facie evidence in court of the validity of a copyright. And, if certain conditions are met statutory damages and attorneys fees are available to the copyright owner in court actions.

The copyright registration requirements include:

(A) For published or unpublished computer programs, one copy of identifying portions of the program, reproduced in a form perceptible without the aid of a machine or device, either on paper or in microform. For these purposes “identifying portions” shall mean one of the following:
(1) The first and last 25 pages or equivalent units of the source code if reproduced on paper, . . . . 111

Thus even the copyright law, from which SCO seeks protection, prefers the production and identification of specific source

29

code.

Based on the foregoing the court finds that methods and concepts can be identified in source code and that under the court’s orders SCO was required to provide the source code behind them.

SCO approved the orders as to form. SCO also never sought further clarification of the court’s orders. And in fact, from the start of this case SCO has repeatedly sought source code on the grounds that it was necessary to substantiate its case. 112 On more than one occasion SCO has argued that it could not respond to IBM's requests without further production from IBM. Thus, it really should come as no surprise to SCO that they were required to produce version, file, and line information to substantiate their claims.

III. Willfulness

A willful failure has been defined as “any intentional failure as distinguished from involuntary noncompliance. No wrongful intent need be shown.” 113 In contrast, “The courts that have concluded that the failure to comply with a discovery order was not willful have emphasized the inability of the party to comply with the order.”114

30

There is no evidence before the court to indicate that SCO lacked the ability to comply with the court’s orders. In fact, given SCO’s own public statements outlined in part supra, it would appear that SCO had more than enough evidence to comply with the court’s orders.

In December 2003, near the beginning of this case, the court ordered SCO to, “identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM.”115 Even if SCO lacked the code behind methods and concepts at this early stage, SCO could have and should have, at least articulated which methods and concepts formed “the basis of their action against IBM.”116 At a minimum, SCO should have identified the code behind their method and concepts in the final submission pursuant to this original order entered in December 2003 and Judge Kimball’s order entered in July 2005.

Additionally, pursuant to the Federal Rules a party is obligated to update their interrogatory responses.117 Here, SCO was ordered on multiple occasions to answer IBM’s interrogatories which in this court’s view covered methods and concepts and a request for the code behind them. Thus, SCO’s failure to provide code for the methods and concepts it claims were misappropriated is also a violation of Rule 26(e) in addition to a violation of

31

this court’s orders.

Finally, after IBM received SCO’s interim alleged misappropriated submissions, IBM informed SCO that the submissions were not specific enough. IBM warned SCO that if the final submissions were of the same level of specificity court intervention would be sought. Tellingly, SCO did not seek court guidance as to the required level of specificity after IBM disagreed with SCO’s interpretation of the court’s orders.

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that SCO has had ample opportunity to articulate, identify and substantiate its claims against SCO. The court further finds that such failure was intentional and therefore willful based on SCO’s disregard of the court’s orders and failure to seek clarification.118 In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put “all evidence . . . on the table.”119

IV. Prejudice

IBM argues that SCO’s lack of specificity is prejudicial because without more detail it would have to undertake a massive analysis of multiple versions, files, and lines in Unix, AIX,

32

Dynix and Linux to defend itself.120 This analysis would allegedly take substantial time and create additional delay in the resolution of this case.

In rebuttal SCO states

It should be remembered that it is IBM, not SCO, that made these contributions. IBM has ready access to the engineers who made the disputed disclosures to assist in identifying the nature of the contribution, whether it originated independently from protected material, how it is used, and whether it was in fact disclosed to the Linux community.121

Thus according to SCO, IBM should be able to determine what was misappropriated without being given substantial detail. Further, SCO argues that it was IBM’s own roadblocks that hindered SCO in identifying particular misused material so IBM cannot now claim that they were somehow prejudiced.122

The court finds SCO’s arguments unpersuasive. SCO’s arguments are akin to SCO telling IBM sorry we are not going to tell you what you did wrong because you already know. SCO received substantial code from IBM pursuant to the court’s orders as mentioned supra. Further, SCO brought this action against IBM and under the Federal Rules, and the court’s orders, SCO was required to disclose in detail what it feels IBM misappropriated. Given the amount of code that SCO has received in discovery the court finds it inexcusable that SCO is in essence still not

33

placing all the details on the table.123 Certainly if an individual was stopped and accused of shoplifting after walking out of Neiman Marcus they would expect to be eventually told what they allegedly stole. It would be absurd for an officer to tell the accused that “you know what you stole I’m not telling.” Or, to simply hand the accused individual a catalog of Neiman Marcus’ entire inventory and say “its in there somewhere, you figure it out.”

Without more specificity than SCO has provided some very important questions that could materially impact this case are nearly impossible to answer. For example, is the code that comprised the method or concept still in use in Linux? If not, then damages may become nominal instead of in the billions. Or, it may be possible that the code comprising a method or concept was already disclosed pursuant to some other license such as the BSD License. Since Linux uses some BSD code this could have a substantial impact upon SCO's case. Especially since SCO claims to be a successor in interest to some of the technology involved in the dispute between Unix System Laboratories and The University of California.124 Without the code, however, there is no way to ascertain exactly what the impact is of prior disclosures that may involve the code at issue in the instant

34

case.

Requiring IBM to engage in an analysis of millions of lines of code to figure out which code is at issue in hopes of answering such questions is patently unfair given the fact that it was SCO’s duty to provide more detailed code in the first place. For example, many of SCO’s submissions are supported by a presentation given by Richard Moore of IBM’s Linux Technology Center in June 2005. In the presentation it appears Mr. Moore discusses the uniqueness of Linux, Linux’s advantages and how IBM has helped with Linux development. It briefly compares Linux to other operating systems such as UNIX, Solaris, AIX, HPUX, IRIX, and Dynix. In the court’s view this is largely a presentation to help generate interest and business for IBM that does nearly nothing specific to demonstrate what SCO claims was misappropriated. While it discusses Kernel patches, thread locks and NUMA there is nothing that links these back to being originally owned by SCO. And even with a related “smoking gun” email there is once again little connection back to what is allegedly owned by SCO. This simply is not enough specificity under the court’s orders.

In essence, IBM is left to wade through all the code found in the operating systems, and then ask SCO are you claiming line X in the Read-Copy-Update method found in Linux because there is a somewhat similar line in the Read-Copy-Update in AIX? Such an endeavor seems like a waste of resources and time because under the court’s orders SCO should have already identified such

35

information.

Accordingly, based on the delays that would arise from SCO’s lack of specificity, and the burden this places on IBM at such a late stage in this litigation, the court finds that IBM is prejudiced by the lack of specificity in SCO’s disclosures.

V. Specific Items

IBM seeks to limit items numbers 3-112, 143-149, 165-182, 186-193, 232-271, 279-293.125

As argued by SCO in its opposition, some of SCO’s misappropriated items relate to “negative know how.” These items include number 23 (discussing EES an “error event subsystem” in Dynix/PTX), number 43 (learning from TCP failures to help networking and storage for Linux), and number 90 (avoiding a logging event that caused problems in PTX). Although claiming that negative know how is somehow prohibited seems like quite a tenuous position, the court nevertheless agrees with SCO that these items are not easily substantiated by source code. And, the court agrees that they were disclosed with sufficient specificity to survive the current motion. The court notes, however, that just because an item cannot be easily supported by source code, this does not automatically absolve SCO of its duties under the court’s orders to provide specificity for its alleged misappropriated items.

Accordingly, IBM’s motion is denied as to item numbers 23,

36

43, and 90.

In similar fashion SCO argues that, “Under SCO’s interpretation of the contracts at issue, IBM is prohibited from having former Dynix/ptx developers write source code for Linux.”126 Thus according to SCO, “IBM has breached its contracts by permitting IBM developers exposed to Dynix/ptx methods and concepts to contribute to Linux in the same area where each developer worked.”127 SCO then argues that item numbers 94, 186-193, and 232-270 concern these types of contractual violations.

After reviewing item numbers 94 and 186-192 the court finds that they are supported with enough specificity to survive the current motion. Item number 193, however, is only supported by the Richard Moore presentation mentioned supra, and a few references to Linux files. The court finds that this does not meet the level of specificity required under the court’s orders. Therefore, IBM’s motion is denied as to item numbers 94 and 186-192. IBM’s motion is granted as to item number 193.

Item numbers 232-270 are supported by the Moore presentation, a link to a Linux Kernel archive and a brief list of Linux files. The court finds that these items should have been substantiated by more information including more detailed disclosures of source code. If SCO revealed the files one would believe that they would have line information to disclose.

37

Unlike item numbers 94 and 186-192, there is not deposition testimony supporting these alleged misappropriated items. Thus, the court finds that these items failed to meet the level of specificity required by the court’s orders. Therefore, IBM’s motion is granted as to item numbers 232-270.

After reviewing the remaining items at issue, the court reaches the same finding - SCO failed to support its alleged misappropriated items with the specificity required by the court’s orders. Therefore, IBM’s motion is granted as to the remaining items.128

38

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS in PART IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims.

DATED this 28th day of June, 2006.

BY THE COURT:

___[signature]___
BROOKE C. WELLS
United States Magistrate Judge


1Docket no. 619.

2SCO sought further leave of court to file another rebuttal declaration to Mr. Davis' rebuttal declaration. The court denied SCO's request. See Order dated May 10, 2006.

3 SCO submitted its alleged misappropriated materials on CD-ROM. The court has reviewed all of the disputed items individually.

4Hearing held on February 24, 2006, transcript p. 50.

5Second Am. Compl. at ¶ 79.

6Id. ¶ 110.

1Id. ¶ 179.

8Id. ¶ 83.

9IBM's Mem. in Supp. 1st Motion to Compel ex. F.

10Id. p. 8.

11Id.

12Id.

13Id.

14See id. p. 10-14.

15MozillaQuest The On-Line Computer Magazine: SCO Clears Linux Kernel but Implicates Red Hat and SuSE, p. 2 (April 2003) (emphasis omitted), available at http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-10_Story01.html.

16Computerworld: SCO shows Linux code to analysts (June2003), available at http://www.computerworld.ceBasic&articleId=81973.

17Id.

18Id. (alterations in original).

19Id.

20CRN Interview: Darl McBride & Chris Sontag, SCO Group(November 2003), available at http://www.crn.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18831088&flatPage=true.

21Decl. of judgment ex. 13.

22 Id.

23CRN Interview: Darl McBride & Chris Sontag, SCO Group(December 2003), available at http://www.crn.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=DUWHLXLGZKHNMQSND BOCKHSCJUMEKJVN?articleID=18831200&queryText=crn+interview+sco's+darl+mcbride.

24Id. (alterations in original).

25Id.

26See Motion, Docket no. 44.

27Id. p. 2.

28IBM's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for The Production of Documents (third emphasis added).

29Id.

30See Docket no. 66.

31SCO's Mtn. to Compel p. 2.

32See Docket no. 66.

33SCO's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories p. 3-4 (emphasis added).

34Id.

35Id.

36See Docket no. 68.

37See id. p. 2.

38IBM's Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for the Production of Documents p. 2.

39See Docket no. 94.

40Order dated December 12, 2003.

41Order dated March 3, 2004 p. 3.

42Id. p. 4-5.

43Id. p. 2.

44Docket no. 152.

45SCO's Rule 56(f) Motion p. 1.

46SCO's Renewed Mtn. to Compel p. 2.

47Docket no. 327.

48Order dated January 18, 2005.

49Id. p. 9-10 (emphasis in original).

50In May 2005, IBM stated that, "The total amount of . . .Dynix source code produced from RCS represents more than 17 GB of uncompressed data." Decl. of Todd Shaughnessy p. 9. This data alone would fill over 12,000 floppy disks. Floppy disks were among one of the most popular forms of portable memory not long ago, although now, they are somewhat obsolete.

51Order dated February 8, 2005 p. 17.

52Id. p. 18.

53Order dated July 1, 2005 p. 4.

54Id.

55 SCO's Renewed Motion p. 2 (emphasis in original).

56 Id p. 2.

57 Order dated October 12, 2005 p. 3-4 (emphasis added).

58 Mem. in Supp of SCO's Objection to the Magistrate Court's Order of October 12, 2005 p. 2.

59 See Order dated December 16, 2005.

60 Docket no. 534.

61 See id. p. 2.

62Docket no. 592.

63 Docket no. 633.

64 On May 5, 2006 SCO filed a motion for in camera review of allegedly privileged documents. The court granted this motion in part and is currently awaiting further briefing by SCO.

65 Initially, IBM sought to limit 201 of the 294 items identified by SCO in its Final Disclosures. After further clarification by SCO, SCO's abandonment of one of the items (No. 294), and IBM's acknowledgment that it initially improperly included item no. 2, 198 items remain in dispute.

66 See Mem. in Supp. p. 10.

67 Id. p. 2.

68 Id. p. 6.

69 Id. p. 8.

70 Op. p.1.

71 Id.

72 Daval Steel Prods. v. M/V Fakredine, 951 F.2d 1357, 1365 (2d Cir. 1991); see also Orjias v. Stevenson, 31 F.3d 995, 1005 (10th Cir. 1994) (“The impositions of sanctions for abuse of discovery under Fed.R.Civ.Pro 37 is a matter within the discretion of the trial court); Eisenberg v. Univ of N.M., 936 F.2d 1131, 1136 (10th Cir. 1991) (stating that a district court is afforded “wide discretion in selecting an appropriate sanction”).

73 Daval, 951 F.2d at 1367 (emphasis added); see also In re Standard Metal Corp., 817 F.2d 625, 628 (10th Cir. 1987).

74 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(B).

75 See e.g., Daval, 951 F.2d at 1363 (affirming district court’s decision to prohibit the presentation of certain evidence due to discovery violations); In re Standard Metals Corp. 817 F.2d at 633 (affirming lower court’s dismissal of holder’s claim for failing to appear at a deposition); Nike, Inc. v. Top Brand Co. Ltd., 216 F.R.D. 259, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (precluding the defendants from introducing evidence concerning damages because of providing evasive or incomplete discovery); Tenen v. Winter, 15 F.Supp.2d 270, 272-73 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) (affirming magistrate’s imposition of Rule 37 sanctions where alleged copyright infringer failed to provide discovery concerning court ordered interrogatories); Kern River v. 6.17 Acres of Land et al., 2005 WL 3257509 at *2-4 (10th Cir. 2005) (affirming district court’s sanctions against property owner that included precluding presentation of expert evidence and documents).

76 Orjias v. Stevenson, 31 F.3d 995, 1005 (10th Cir 1994).

77 Op. p. 4.

78 See id p. 5.

79 See Daval, 951 F.2d at 1367; In re Standard Metals Corp., 817 F.2d at 628.

80 In re Standard Metals Corp., 817 F.2d at 628.

81 Reply p. 9 fn. 9.

82 Decl. Marc Rochkind p. 3.

83 Reb. Decl. Randall Davis p. 11 (emphasis in original).

84 Decl. Marc Rochkind p. 4.

85 Id.

86 Mem. in Supp. p. 2.

87 Id p. 8.

88 Id p. 7.

89 Op. p. 1.

90 Id p. 7.

91 Id.

92 Id.

93 Id p. 6 (emphasis in original).

94 Id.

95 Id.

96 Id p. 3.

97 Id. As noted supra, some code was discarded because it was antiquated.

98 SCO’s First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories p. 3-4.

99 Order dated December 12, 2003 p. 2 (emphasis added).

100 IBM's Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for the Production of Documents p. 2.

101 Order dated March 3, 2004 p. 2.

102 Id.

103 Id.

104 Id.

105 Order dated July 1, 2005 p. 4.

106 Order dated February 8, 2005, p. 10.

107 SCO's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories p. 3-4 (emphasis added).

108 See Order dated December 12, 2003 p. 2.

109 Id Gupta Dep. Tr. attached as Ex. E to Reb. Decl. Randall Davis.

110 See 37 C.F.R. § 202.20(C)(2)(vii).

111 Id. (emphasis added).

112 See SCO's Mem. Re: Discovery

113 Patterson v. C.I.T. Corp., 352 F.2d 333, 336 (10th Cir. 1965) (quoting United States v. 3963 Bottles (7th Cir. 1959)).

114 In re Standard Metals Corp., 817 F.2d at 629.

115 Order dated December 12, 2003.

116 Id.

117 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

118 See Patterson, 352 F.2d at 336;

119 Hearing held on February 24, 2006, transcript p. 50.

120 See Mem. in Supp. p. 7-8.

121 Op. p. 6.

122 Id.

123 Hearing held on February 24, 2006, transcript p. 50.

124 Unix System Laboratories (USL) was at one time involved in a dispute with The University of California concerning copyrights and UNIX. Both parties claimed that the other had taken certain source code in violation of their rights. Eventually the parties reached a settlement.

125 See Mem. in Supp. p. 10.

126Op. p. 15.

127 Id.

128 The court notes that its decision to either strike or not strike certain alleged misappropriated items should not be viewed as a decision on the merits. The court’s decision is based solely on whether or not SCO met the requisite disclosure threshold as required by the court’s orders.

39


  


Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims, as text | 520 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 12:29 AM EDT
So they can be found

---
IANAL
The above post is (C)Copyright 2006 and released under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 12:31 AM EDT
Please make links clickable

---
IANAL
The above post is (C)Copyright 2006 and released under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question regard the Sontag and McBride quotes
Authored by: stats_for_all on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 12:37 AM EDT
Were citations to the code claims of Sontag and McBride used to such ironic
effect in this ruling profered by IBM in its various memoranda, or are the URL
and selection the work of the judge?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now, go to sleep! (n/t)
Authored by: Matt C on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 12:49 AM EDT
no text

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims, as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 12:56 AM EDT
Sainthood, indeed. Truly a "Herculean" effort, PJ. Thank you for
this and all that you do and bring to us here at Groklaw.

...D

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anyone want to party?
Authored by: Matt C on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 12:57 AM EDT
Okay, groklavians I'm going to have a party at which I barbecue pieces of meat
representing the 280-odd claims that have officially just gone up in smoke.
Because they were Dung of Male Bovine. I'm not joking. Saturday is best for me.
How many of you are near Dallas?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims, as text
Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 01:15 AM EDT
I love judge Welles' "Public Statements" section. In retrospect, SCOG
was really silly in believing that SCOG's off-court claims and assertions would
not be a factor in her court. I have no doubt that SCOG's trash talk will be
dealt with in compliance with the provisions of the Lantham Act.


---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Give PJ a couple of days off
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 01:21 AM EDT
I reckon we should give PJ a couple of days off this weekend.

You know, don't visit Groklaw so she can go away without thinking about posting
stuff!

All those in favour....??

[ Reply to This | # ]

Finally
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 01:51 AM EDT
A yellow card for SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Finally - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 02:17 AM EDT
    • Finally - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 03:21 AM EDT
    • Finally - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 04:25 AM EDT
      • Finally - Authored by: AlanMilnes on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 04:53 AM EDT
        • Portugal-Netherlands - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 08:24 AM EDT
        • Finally - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 09:23 AM EDT
          • Finally - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 10:28 AM EDT
            • Finally - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 02:02 PM EDT
          • Finally (O/T) - Authored by: Darigaaz on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 08:34 PM EDT
  • Finally - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 10:26 AM EDT
  • Finally - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 05:44 PM EDT
Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims, as text
Authored by: Zarkov on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 01:56 AM EDT
Will Judge Wells decisions with regards the minimum level of detail required to
prove a 'methods and concept' claim now become the de-facto standard for all
such cases?

Or are they just limited to the SCO vs.IBM case by dint of the Court Orders?

It seems to me to be fairly obvious that 'methods and concepts' only become an
issue in a software dispute when they are translated by some means into source
code, but it has taken years of tortuous discovery and argument for the court to
come out and say that in plain language.

If these decicisons were to become standards for future use, then hopefully they
would reduce the temptation for another scam like this to be attempted.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Link Error
Authored by: rp$eeley on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 01:57 AM EDT
Sorry to mention this after you've worked so hard, PJ, but the link to the pdf file isn't working.
Bob

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Link Error - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 03:28 AM EDT
So - what's the final score?
Authored by: SaveDrury on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 01:59 AM EDT
between the tears of laughter and the convolusion of all the specified items...
i
was unable to devine the real fun... like...

what was the final score?

How many items did SCO put up, and how many were shot down, leaving how
many?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sainthood
Authored by: kjb on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 02:04 AM EDT
PJ,

You achieved Sainthood long ago.

You rock, thanks for the hard work.

---
keith.burt at gmail dot com
Copyright info in bio

"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
- Yoda

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO suing SCO? Mistake in Court PDF
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 02:15 AM EDT
In the section on Willfulness, the PDF says:

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that SCO has had
ample opportunity to articulate, identify and substantiate its
claims against SCO.

Minor error in otherwise extremely gratifying document!

---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail

[ Reply to This | # ]

I love the way ...
Authored by: jbb on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 02:38 AM EDT
... Judge Wells appears to take SCO at their word over and over again.

SCO will have a very hard time trying to argue against this order without admitting they have been lying their hats off and gaming the system all along.

Reminds me of the saying:

The wheels of justice grind slowly, slowly
but they grind exceedingly fine.

---
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.

[ Reply to This | # ]

On the merits? Can SCO start a new court case?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 02:50 AM EDT
"The court notes that its decision to either strike or notstrike certain
alleged misappropriated items should not be viewed as a decision on the merits.
The court’s decision is based solely on whether or not SCO met the requisite
disclosure threshold as required by the court’s orders."

Does this mean, SCO being SCO, that once this case is over whoever buys what's
left of SCO can turn around and sue more people based on what was thrown out in
this decision?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks to Judges Wells and Kimball
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 02:51 AM EDT
Not all the comments on Groklaw were favourable (or fair) but most of us had the
utmost faith in the law and in you.

It is said that "the wheels of Justice grind slow, but they grind
small" and Judge Wells certainly ground SCO very small indeed with the help
of the mill-stone wrought by the Nazgul of IBM, and amusingly with the
inadvertent connivance of SCO themselves.

There may still be some action to play out in this case but it is likely to be
small beer after this decisive blow.

I blow a virtual kiss to Judge Wells. Thank you for a wonderful day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The end to Sconanigans
Authored by: grayhawk on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 03:09 AM EDT
SCO from this point on will be under both Wells' and Kimball's looking glass.
They won't be permitted any further transgressions of court orders and they
better have all their i's dotted and t's crossed. There will be no further
mischief, material deficiencies or sloppy courtroom activities permitted. It is
the end of the line and the writing is on the wall. They have squandered not
only time but millions of dollars on a court case that will if anything gain
them nothing more than a nickle if that. It has turned out to be a poor
investment for them which we all knew it would be right from the start. Their
initial hope with this was IBM buying them out just to avoid a court case but
IBM didn't see that as a good investment. So to court it went and now they are
lucky if they get any success and most likely no financial return.

For IBM it was a wise investment. Companies will think twice in making a court
case out of issues with IBM. This has been a great marketing strategy and for
Linux this has turned out to be the best advertisement of its viability and
veracity making it a true alternative to Unix and Windows.

---
It is said when the power of love overcomes the love of power, that it is then
and only then that we shall truly have peace!

[ Reply to This | # ]

the right questions...
Authored by: ash4stuff on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 05:32 AM EDT

i find this part VERY interesting: (my em added)

Without more specificity than SCO has provided some very important questions that could materially impact this case are nearly impossible to answer. For example, is the code that comprised the method or concept still in use in Linux? If not, then damages may become nominal instead of in the billions. Or, it may be possible that the code comprising a method or concept was already disclosed pursuant to some other license such as the BSD License. Since Linux uses some BSD code this could have a substantial impact upon SCO's case. Especially since SCO claims to be a successor in interest to some of the technology involved in the dispute between Unix System Laboratories and The University of California...

It seems that the judge has the right questions in her head. I think it will be very hard for SCO from now own ;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting timing?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 05:33 AM EDT
The issues around the aditoinal claims included in SCOs expert testimony were
only completed in the last few days and then Judge Wells drops this on them.
(From a great height).

I get the feeling she can see exactly what SCO is upto and knows how to deal
with it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ, better iron that red dress and polish the dancing shoes
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 05:36 AM EDT

It looks like there ain't goin' to be much to argue after this and there's probably enough blokes(1) lining up to fill your dancing card several times over.

Thanks for your hard work and dedication to keeping us all informed. I for one have been following your commentary twice daily since it first hit the news way back when and I really appreciated your clear, careful analysis as well as your humour and glee at SCO's ridiculous antics.

Put me down for a can-can.

(1) Aussie slang roughly equivalent to 'fellas', but implying more testosterone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yes, but what about the one's she didn't trash?
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 05:46 AM EDT
Before I go on, I should note that I have the image of a large, shiny, brass
screw driven into a wall, through a piece of burnt toast. It's satisfying, but
is it art?

Now, the ones she didn't trash. The items concerned were equally as unspecific
as the ones that were junked as a sanction for wilfully ignoring the court
orders. My assumption is that they all refer to misuse of SCO's valuable stuff
in order to prevent lines of code being used. SCO could not, wilfully, not
specify the lines of code that did not appear in Linux and where they did not
come from. She could only trash them on their merits and that she knows she must
not do.

In her spare time, this lady splits razor blades in two, lengthwise.

From wondering why she was taking so long, I am now wondering how she managed to
do so much in such a short time. Of course, she did have my help in suggesting
she investigated what specificity standards were appropriate for Methods and
Concepts. :-) However, I never thought she would have a read of Rochkind's book
and I thought she would miss Otis' regrets; You know, the non-expert expert.

Hey, wait a minute! That crack about IBM taking a shot across SCO's bows. That's
my copyright. In the unchallenged item that IBM quoted as having something of
the specificity required, they mentioned that it was published by Intel some
years before SCOG existed. I said that IBM had already holed it below the
waterline. She said that either Rochkind had missed the mark or that IBM had
fired a wayward shot across the starboard bow. Her finding was that SCO missed.
Is she hinting that SCO is holed below the waterline?

I think IBM have considerable confidence in dealing with the unchallenged items
and PJ is so full of scorn for what is left that I don't see IBM having a
problem. As far as I can see, the SCO case is completely dependant on what is
left in the December report. Their claim that AIX was distributed after they
revoked the unrevokable licence given in perpetuity falls if the reason given
(the claim of misuse of materials) falls. So do the other claims as far as I can
see.

So, for me, the final question is: Can a burst balloon be burst again by a
counterclaim?

---
Regards
Ian Al

[ Reply to This | # ]

Crossing the T
Authored by: grouch on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 05:46 AM EDT

If the court’s orders required the production of specific source code for alleged misappropriated items, including methods and concepts, then many of SCO’s arguments and much of Mr. Rochkind’s declaration miss the mark. If however, the level of specificity did not require specific source code then IBM has fired a wayward shot off the starboard bow in its attempt to sink SCO’s ship.

I love that. It seems to imply, to me, that IBM has, instead, fired a broadside at SCO's ship, after crossing the T.

---
-- grouch

http://edge-op.org/links1.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Getting 'em coming AND going
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 06:57 AM EDT

"Negative know-how"? Do I understand SCO to be claiming that if IBM do something smart, that's proof that IBM stole their dumb idea, because if IBM hadn't stolen their dumb idea they'd have done the same dumb thing SCO[1] did? Of course, IBM can only come up with the dumb idea by stealing it from SCO, so that's proof of wrong doing too. Kafka had nothing on these guys.

[1] ...or whoever wrote the stuff SCO now claims to own...

[ Reply to This | # ]

What would the exact legal procedure be for IBM if SCOX now attempted to dismiss the case?
Authored by: entre on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 07:32 AM EDT
How would this end run play out?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Compensation anyone?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 09:01 AM EDT
Can IBM claim compensation of legal costs for SCO's actions as stated in this
order?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims, as text
Authored by: ghost on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 09:21 AM EDT
Aaaaaahhw! This is beautiful! It brings a wee tear of joy to my sore eyes,
reading this, and finally seeing that they have been found out, big time.

I just wonder how they will spin this one...
Think it will be hard, and i think the stock is going to dive now, that there is
no, even imaginary, hope left of getting any of those bazillionz of millionz.

This is just another good example of litigation without mitigation to the stage
of atomic desintegration...

Now, the fun starts for the defendandts, as there is little , if nothing left to
deal with, and nothing but a huge pile of counterclaims fort SCO to deal with...


Happy running, SCO!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interrogatory 13
Authored by: mossc on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 09:42 AM EDT
For each line of code and other material identified in response to Interrogatory No. 12, please state whether (a) IBM has infringed plaintiff's rights, and for any rights IBM is alleged to have infringed, describe in detail how IBM is alleged to have infringed plaintiff's rights; and (b) whether plaintiff has ever distributed the code or other material or otherwise made it available to the public, as part of a Linux

I had forgotten about point (b). I have heard no mention of TSG acknowledging that they distributed anything with linux.

They were ordered to "respond fully and in detail to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13".

I am guessing that the fact that they distributed Linux under the GPL before and after the case started could be a basis for summary judgement.

What if they didn't acknowledge they distributed the code and it can easily be proven they did? Is that something that has to wait for trial or is that something that can come up in summary judgement as well?

Chuck

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims, as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 10:06 AM EDT
I think Judge Wells is feeling like going to see the fireworks on the 4th.
There seeing a guy handing out sparklers form 11 boxes. Then saying "OK,
lets all light them at once!" With the expence she put IBM through, she
was hoping for real fireworks. Now all we have is 107 sparklers.

You have to think that before IBM generated it's exclusion list, that they also
looked at which ones would be easy to defend. Like this one was written by
Intel, and this one came from BSD, no sense puting them on the exclusion list.
I am sure that original list is full of someone elses problems. Maybe even
SCO's.

Bill

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where is the Press??
Authored by: MplsBrian on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 10:54 AM EDT
It is interesting to me, that according to news.google.com anyway, there is, so far, only very limited press on this ruling. I see two references in the online media: Judge Grants IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims SCO loses crucial ruling Where are the others? Where are the analysts? Isn't this ruling somewhat newsworthy?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOX is down in early trading!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 11:03 AM EDT
The stock is down a bit to $4.00 in early trading...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Timed for the 4th weekend?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 11:06 AM EDT
This ruling is exceptionally detailed and must have taken Judge Wells and her
staff a while to compile. I can't help but wonder is she might have sat on it a
few days after completion to release it right before the big 4th weekend. Partly
as a nice hey IBM its the 4th go party you deserve it for putting up with this
nonsense and to SCO and group as a you shouldn't have brought this junk to
court so you might want to take the week end and really think if you want to go
forward.

Not saying she did but I sure do like the timing :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

A taste of what is to come
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 11:08 AM EDT
Wells quotes herself:

"Obviously what I don't want is either side to use information that has
been withheld in support of a summary judgment motion or in support of their
case at trial, all evidence need[s] to be on the table for the other party to
analyze and take a look at."

Is that a taste of what is to come with regard to the expert reports? If she
doesn't find against SCO, she somehow has to reconcile her finding against the
above statement. How can it not go against SCO?

Referring to SCO's 2003 trade show, Wells makes it quite clear that it's what
you say outside of the Court (ie, in public) that matters, as well as what you
tell the Court. Good for her. I hope McBride and Sontag appreciate the damage
they did to their case after IBM chose not to settle and the wretched thing
wound up in court. The discrepancy between what SCO say outside, vs what they
say inside has been noted.

"Based on the foregoing, the court finds that SCO has had ample opportunity
to articulate, identify and substantiate its claims against SCO."

Heh. And in fact has done so, eloquently :)

"It should be remembered that it is IBM, not SCO, that made these
contributions. IBM has ready access to the engineers who made the disputed
disclosures to assist in identifying the nature of the contribution, whether it
originated independently from protected material, how it is used, and whether it
was in fact disclosed to the Linux community."

I know we've been over this point before, but supposing IBM had set off on that
wild goose chase and it chance happened that such contributions, those alleged
contributions, did not in fact occur? At what point would IBM stop trying to
trace the source of those non-existent contributions? One cannot find something
that does not exist, but one can spend a great deal of time and effort looking
for it. SCO's suggestion is crazy.

Wow! Wells' Order had a tremendous effect on me. I feel all emotional. It
produced a few tears of joy, even. Hers was a terrific piece of work and was
well worth the wait. I am very impressed.

---
Shampoo for my real friends, real poo for my sham friends - not Francis Bacon
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What are the Implications?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 11:21 AM EDT
It seems to me this order may have several implications.

First it seems virtually certain that SCOG will appeal Wells' order to Kimball,
be denied, ask for permission to make an interlocutory appeal, and again be
denied. Then SCOG will ask for a delay.

Secondly this is a very good indication that IBM will prevail in their motion
regarding expert reports. Wells has strongly expressed her opinion that SCOG has
acted willfully in order to ambush IBM. She seems to now regret having told SCOG
that were acting in good faith and retracted that. I think BSF quoted it back to
her once too often.

Third IBM seems likely to file another motion asking that material relating to
these items be stricken from the expert reports or other wise restricted.

Fourth it seems likely that Darl will at some point attack the court and denying
SCOG their chance to prove t their case.

Finally Darl may eventually sue BSF for botching this case and costing him
billions.

It also appears Mr. Bleep was privy to the strategy.

Of course, as usual, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

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

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Smoking gun email
Authored by: jroyale on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 11:48 AM EDT
I seem to recall, but can't find as I'm apparently search-tarded today, that SCO made a whole bunch of noise about an email they had that they weren't suppose to have. I think they even went as far to try and start reading it aloud in court at one point.

So I think this on page 35 is Judge Wells telling SCO to utshay upway aboutway ethay emailway alreadyway.

And even with a related “smoking gun” email there is once again little connection back to what is allegedly owned by SCO. This simply is not enough specificity under the court’s orders.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims, as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 11:51 AM EDT
IBM wants to create not only a smear out of SCOX but get some case law and
create a smear out of BSF for riding a lawsuit extortion attempt.

The lawyers for SCO have not played fair with the evidence and have not played
fair with the court process. There needs to be some civil case law set here
around lawyers that game the system like this in attempts to run extortion
settlements. This is the perfect case for it as SCO has no legs to stand on yet
attempted this whole thing for a settlement of some sort.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting thought: the expert reports
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 12:01 PM EDT

Here's an interesting question: As the Judge is considering IBM's request with regard to striking certain aspects of SCOG's expert reports, how many more areas of those reports are going to be stricken due to the removal of the items in this last order?

Not sure if anyone else has raised this potential but it sure seems like a fun time to me.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO to got sanctioned, but will BSF ever get punished?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 12:17 PM EDT

This "sanction" is against SCO, not BSF. But Judge Wells' finding
of "willful" is really against BSF. Are they not the ones who acted
in the manner described?

For all of the BSF courtroom antics they are sorely lacking punishment. Will
the court ever punish BSF for this or other "willful" behavior?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Shot Across the Bows?
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 12:38 PM EDT
"If however, the level of specificity did not require specific source code
then IBM has fired a wayward shot off the starboard bow in its attempt to sink
SCO’s ship."

It's a funny thing, but for the last week or so I've been carrying around in my
head an image similar to Wells' description of the warships lining up for
battle: The Good Ship IBM vs Dastardly Ship SCO, with its Jolly Roger grinning
in the wind. Mine wasn't exactly as she described it, but similar:

In this long, drawn out case, no serious shots have been fired (except maybe one
by The Good Ship IBM when it was out of range - and missed). In my version, all
that has happend so far is the crew of Dastardly Ship SCO waving their cutlasses
threateningly across the water. The ships (of the galleon variety) are pretty
well aligned, broadsides on. The Good Ship IBM fires two big, heavy cannonballs
from its Defensive cannons. We see them arc slowly across the divide. So slow,
we get time to contemplate and speculate the outcome before they make their
mark.

SCO quickly whisks out a table tennis bat to try and deflect said cannonballs.
Will that work? Who knows...

[OK, so odd things happen in my mind sometimes.]

Pock! Suddenly, there's a cannonball-sized hole in SCO's table tennis bat. SCO
looks in astonishment at said hole.

Thud!

A hit! Dastardly Ship SCO shudders under the impact. Was that below the
waterline?

What will happen next? Is that Dastardly Ship SCO taking on water? Will
Dastardy Ship SCO founder before The Good Ship IBM can try out its even bigger
Counterclaim cannons? The first two shots put into context the complex
pre-battle manoeuvrings and the real battle suddenly gets interesting.

And that second cannonball is getting real close now. Its aim looks good...

---
Shampoo for my real friends, real poo for my sham friends - not Francis Bacon
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells pulls out the Clue Stick...
Authored by: Atticus on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 02:25 PM EDT
...she's had it all along, you see. And uses it to whap SCO upside the head.
Any other comers? I've seen some criticism of the judges once in a while. No
offense, but I think I see why judgin' is best left to the judges. :-)

This is great. Not the end, but I can see more than a little light at the end
of a tunnel gone on far too long...

-Atticus


---
--
-Atticus (who is not a lawyer :-) aka Mike Schwager)

[ Reply to This | # ]

My favorite quote from Wells' Order
Authored by: Laomedon on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 03:14 PM EDT
In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put “all evidence . . . on the table.”

It proves she gets it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is horrible!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 03:19 PM EDT
A disaster of unmitigated proportions!

I can't wipe this silly smile off my face! I start giggling uncontrollable at
inopportune moments, and spontaneously burst out laughing in a crowded
elevator!

People are looking at me funny, and my boss has taken to fingering the pink
slips.

Please, before my life is ruined by exuberance, someone tell me that SCO has
filed a renewed overlength motion to amend their fantasy yet again, and that
Kimball has granted it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Nieman-Marcus analogy
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 04:00 PM EDT
Can we improve on the Nieman-Marcus analogy at all?

To me it seems more like:

You're being accused of shoplifting and disposing of the stolen goods by
donating them to the local thrift store. The shop won't tell you what you
stole, pointing instead at the whole NM catalog, and the inventory from the
thrift store.

They claim that you're the only one who knows what you stole/gave away, and
claim that your itemized deductions on your tax return prove it.

Also, the store (at least when it was under previous management) has donated
large portions of its excess inventory to the thrift store in the past.

--Joe

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Motion to SCO's Strike Expert Testimony
Authored by: Bill The Cat on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 04:03 PM EDT
Regarding IBM's motion to strike parts of sco's expert witness reports, I suspect TscoG may find their their chances to succeed diminished a bit...
Footnote75 See e.g., Daval, 951 F.2d at 1363 (affirming district court’s decision to prohibit the presentation of certain evidence due to discovery violations); In re Standard Metals Corp. 817 F.2d at 633 (affirming lower court’s dismissal of holder’s claim for failing to appear at a deposition); Nike, Inc. v. Top Brand Co. Ltd., 216 F.R.D. 259, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (precluding the defendants from introducing evidence concerning damages because of providing evasive or incomplete discovery); Tenen v. Winter, 15 F.Supp.2d 270, 272-73 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) (affirming magistrate’s imposition of Rule 37 sanctions where alleged copyright infringer failed to provide discovery concerning court ordered interrogatories); Kern River v. 6.17 Acres of Land et al., 2005 WL 3257509 at *2-4 (10th Cir. 2005) (affirming district court’s sanctions against property owner that included precluding presentation of expert evidence and documents).
and then
The court has throughly considered the relevant law, expert declarations, the parties' memoranda, and
and...
After considering the expert declarations and the parties’ memoranda, the court finds that methods and concepts are at least on some basic level comprised of source code. The court agrees with Mr. Rochkind, SCO’s expert, that methods and concepts can be discussed without disclosing source code. But it is possible, and even preferable in many instances, to provide the code behind methods and concepts. In fact, Mr. Rochkind's own publication Advance Unix Programming (2d ed. 2004), provides many examples of code when discussing "fundamental concepts."

So, I fully expect the expert testimony by SCO's so-called experts to be whittled down considerably, if not totally. Judge Wells has already layed the groundwork for that to occur. All IBM needs to do is ask.

---
Bill Catz

[ Reply to This | # ]

The BSD Paragraph 124
Authored by: IMANAL on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 04:13 PM EDT
Paragraph 124: "Unix System Laboratories (USL) was at one time involved in
a dispute with The University of California concerning copyrights and UNIX. Both
parties claimed that the other had taken certain source code in violation of
their rights. Eventually the parties reached a settlement."

Wouldn't it have been better if she had given a formal reference to any court
documents of that case? As I see it, it hangs in thin air now. Or is this
reference to a "dispute" sufficient for pursual of that track. I had
the impression it went to court but was settled before any ruling. Anyone more
familiar?

---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stock price
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 04:18 PM EDT
SCOX dipped below $4/share for the first time in over 5 months. Wonder if this
order had anything to do with that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Forbes and Dan Lyons take
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 04:55 PM EDT
Forbes and Dan Lyons mention the ruling, and add

Lyons in Forbes writes: SCO's Unix business has been gutted by Linux, which is fast becoming the lingua franca of the next era of computing, powering everything from cellphones to network routers to the world's biggest supercomputers.

and he includes the Nieman Marcus analogy and the sien song quote. I'm providing the link since the article seems fair.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Excellent Result! :D
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 05:10 PM EDT
Excellent Result! :D
How many does this leave now?

Just finished reading the Order… Wow!

Judge Brooke Wells's criticism of SCO is a big surprise.
She points out a lot of SCO’s double standards.

It’s a good day :)


---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Beautiful
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 05:21 PM EDT
So has SCO publicly responded to this ruling yet in any way?

It's funny how the longer this case goes on, the less and less SCO has to say
about it...

I wonder if this is just a coincidence, or if it has something to do with the
way that the longer this case goes on, the worse and worse things get for SCO...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wells' Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims, as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 07:27 PM EDT
Judge Wells: In essence, IBM is left to wade through all the code found in the
operating systems, and then ask SCO are you claiming line X in the
Read-Copy-Update method found in Linux because there is a somewhat similar line
in the Read-Copy-Update in AIX?

She really gets it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

She could write for Groklaw!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 09:19 PM EDT
Half way reading through Judge's order, I still wasn't sure if this was the
order or something written by Groklaw regulars :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rational Exuberance
Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 11:23 PM EDT
Until this ruling, in 2006, the court has not taken any serious steps to take an irrevocable action against SCO's claims. We could never tell, as observers, if the court "got it." We had no way to tell if they understood the technical reasons for IBMs motions, requests, and interrogatories for specific information. And, we were astonished at the leeway that was given to SCO throughout this process in spite of what seemed to us to be fairly specious logic.

This motion not only has well-considered rulings against SCO, it has generated a lot of material to show that SCO has been egregious in its prosecution of this case, using questionable logic at best, and at worst, completely hypocritical rhetoric. Although it has been said before on these boards for earlier motions, I believe that when this case is viewed in retrospect when the final verdict comes through, this motion will be one of the turning points because IBM has caused the court to finally say what it thinks of the case so far. IBM now has a bevy of wonderful quotes to use in future motions in order to convince the court to rein in SCO's further misdeeds. I believe that this ruling will also be cited often in the Partial Summary Judgments that are coming soon.

In this post, I will cover what I believe are some of the more useful quotes for our analysis into the mind of the court, and also to memorialize them for future reference:
Given SCO's track record in this case, the court is certain that if IBM had simply provided line information without version and file information for "methods," SCO would have filed motions to compel complaining about IBM's lack of specificity. The court cannot find any reason why SCO should not be held to the same level of accountability that SCO held IBM to. Thus, SCO should have supplied not only line but version and file information for whatever claims form the basis of SCO’s case against IBM.
Amen to this one! SCO has never been bashful about asking for the stars, the clouds, and the sky that contains them when requesting information from IBM. In this, we finally have a nod to actual fairness and balance in these expectations from the court. The fact that the court uses SCO's own Sandeep Gupta to prove it is priceless. It's a key point, because as Wells states later, the court didn't specify File, version, line of code in the order. But since Sandeep himself said that he needed it in his own testimony, this particular point should be airtight from a logic perspective should it come up on the inevitable appeal of this case.
Additionally, pursuant to the Federal Rules a party is obligated to update their interrogatory responses. Here, SCO was ordered on multiple occasions to answer IBM’s interrogatories which in this court’s view covered methods and concepts and a request for the code behind them. Thus, SCO’s failure to provide code for the methods and concepts it claims were misappropriated is also a violation of Rule 26(e) in addition to a violation of this court’s orders.
I always wondered how it was fair that they only provided information when compelled, and they still kept failling short. It seems that this requirement is codified in the Federal rules. This further bolsters the arguments in case of appeal.
There is no evidence before the court to indicate that SCO lacked the ability to comply with the court’s orders. In fact, given SCO’s own public statements outlined in part supra, it would appear that SCO had more than enough evidence to comply with the court’s orders.
I think that every regular member of Groklaw has made this very point many times. It's almost repeated reflexively whenever we keep hearing about the lack of code. To be able to quote Wells saying this is really a powerful statement, because it will bolster the PSJs as well as other motions in a similar vein. I personally expect quite a few of those in the future. This may also help the Lanham act counterclaims.
In December 2003, near the beginning of this case, the court ordered SCO to, "identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM." Even if SCO lacked the code behind methods and concepts at this early stage, SCO could have and should have, at least articulated which methods and concepts formed "the basis of their action against IBM." At a minimum, SCO should have identified the code behind their method and concepts in the final submission pursuant to this original order entered in December 2003 and Judge Kimball’s order entered in July 2005.
This is more than just a statement that SCO hasn't given enough specifics, it's a nod to the amount of time that passed in between their original claims (and public statements!) and this December deadline. They were given instructions as to what to do based on those claims and statements, and they didn't do it, at least in regards to these particular items. This particular item may seem small, but I believe it to be an understanding by the court of the difference between the scope of SCO's bluster and the actuality of the claims. I'm hoping that this realization by the court may also help bolster the Lanham Act claims.
Finally, after IBM received SCO’s interim alleged misappropriated submissions, IBM informed SCO that the submissions were not specific enough. IBM warned SCO that if the final submissions were of the same level of specificity court intervention would be sought. Tellingly, SCO did not seek court guidance as to the required level of specificity after IBM disagreed with SCO’s interpretation of the court’s orders.

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that SCO has had ample opportunity to articulate, identify and substantiate its claims against SCO. The court further finds that such failure was intentional and therefore willful based on SCO’s disregard of the court’s orders and failure to seek clarification. In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put "all evidence . . . on the table."119
And now we finally see that IBM's careful dotting of Ts and crossing of the Is finally pays off. We have seen evidence of IBM's meticulous contacts with SCO before (although forgive me if I don't bring up citings of it). From what we've seen they always contact SCO first to tell them what's next unless they get what they want. IBM never has wanted to appear to the court like it wasn't playing nice on the playground. We have gotten indication that SCO sometimes does this, and other times, it ignores IBM depending on what the motion is about. But in particular, it's interesting to see that SCO didn't talk to the court about this. Of course, the general theory is that SCO had planned from the beginning of hopefully passing these non-specific claims through to the jury case, so they didn't really want to go to the court for guidance. But what it did instead was to make SCO look bad from a willfulness angle.

I want to frame the second paragraph and hang it above my fireplace. (After correcting what I'm hoping is a typo: "...identify its claims against IBM.") I'm sure that it will certainly find its way into many future motions by IBM. I don't think that SCO will be quoting it quite so often. This quote is the best indication that the court gets what SCO has been up to.
The court finds SCO’s arguments unpersuasive. SCO’s arguments are akin to SCO telling IBM sorry we are not going to tell you what you did wrong because you already know. SCO received substantial code from IBM pursuant to the court’s orders as mentioned supra. Further, SCO brought this action against IBM and under the Federal Rules, and the court’s orders, SCO was required to disclose in detail what it feels IBM misappropriated. Given the amount of code that SCO has received in discovery the court finds it inexcusable that SCO is in essence still not placing all the details on the table.123 Certainly if an individual was stopped and accused of shoplifting after walking out of Neiman Marcus they would expect to be eventually told what they allegedly stole. It would be absurd for an officer to tell the accused that "you know what you stole I’m not telling." Or, to simply hand the accused individual a catalog of Neiman Marcus’ entire inventory and say "its in there somewhere, you figure it out."

Without the code, however, there is no way to ascertain exactly what the impact is of prior disclosures that may involve the code at issue in the instant case.
I'm really surprised to hear Wells make an analogy like this. It's the most common way for a technical person to try to explain something not immediately understandable to a non-techie. In short: She gets it. This is dead on accurate, and a great explanation of the real problem. There was always a danger that the court might not quite understand the reasons why the specificity was asked for. Indeed, it is a big point in the IBM reply motion that this is no minor detail. This is the real issue at stake.

In conclusion, there's a lot to celebrate here. Based on the evidence above, I would call this a Rational Exuberance!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Still feels good
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 04:51 AM EDT
After pondering this momentous Court Order for 24 hours now, I'm still feeling
elated. It's slowly beginning to sink in, the gravity of what has happened
here. This, I'm sure, is the turning point of the case. I think Wells turned
this into an epic because she realised this was it - and it would be what she is
to be remembered for.

An' she done good.

---
Shampoo for my real friends, real poo for my sham friends - not Francis Bacon
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does Wells Get It?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 06:14 AM EDT
'unpersuasive'
'inexcusable'
'interpretation....taken out of context'
'sought to hide its case (to gain) unfair advantage'
'damages... nominal instead of in the billions'
'code (may) already (have been) disclosed'
'quite a tenuous position'
'Given SCO's track record'
'actual evidence-or complete lack thereof'
'vast disparity between SCO’s public accusations and its actual evidence'

Yeh....She gets it, and its now on record for anyone to quote.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"jaw-crunching roundhouse right"
Authored by: Laomedon on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 08:30 AM EDT

Bob Mims minces no words in a blistering article for the Salt Lake Tribune:

Judge voids most SCO claims

Linux: The Utah company was found to have refused to detail its allegations against IBM

By Bob Mims
The Salt Lake Tribune

A trial in The SCO Group's $5 billion lawsuit against IBM isn't set until February 2007, but the tiny Utah software company's case may have been dealt a crippling blow already.

In what SCO critics hailed Thursday as the courthouse equivalent of a prize fighter's jaw-crunching roundhouse right, U.S. Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells struck down two-thirds of the Lindon firm's claims in its suit alleging Big Blue leaked SCO's Unix code into the freely distributed Linux operating system.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Never Make A Move Too Soon"
Authored by: sproggit on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 11:09 AM EDT
It may take us days or even weeks to see the true implications of this order.
It's like receiving one of those Russian Dolls, which contains another, which
contains and third, a fourth, and so on. Except in this case each level of
understanding about this motion gives us greater insight as to what has been
going on here.

Several people posting to this article have discussed the idea that the court
effectively gave TSG enough rope to hang themselves, or were generous for fear
of being overruled on appeal.

I think Judge Brooke Wells is far more subtle - and devastating - than that.

The Court has plainly watched, listened, noted, and waited for the right moment
to act - a moment that has now come. The Court might have cited many examples in
this one document, but if we can be sure of one thing, it is that many more were
noted.

Judge Wells has not written this in response to the motions from IBM and TSG [at
least she has done this only indirectly]. This ruling effectively cuts off lines
of escape, and does so with precise efficiency.

Were I party to meetings between BSF and TSG [and I am not] I'd suspect that the
former are advising the latter that now is the time for an urgent discussion
with the Judge and the Counsel for the Defense in Judge's chambers to negotiate
a cease-fire in the home of limiting the impending counter-attacks.


IANAL, so I have no idea what happens in a situation where a losing party in a
Court case finds themselves bankrupted by a victor. I don't know what would
happen to TSGs "IP Rights" i.e. "Assets" if the counter-suit
by IBM simply grinds them into dust.

But right now I'm hoping that a Court would grant right of title [of whatever's
left] to IBM, and that IBM would, in turn, donate everything to the Open Source
community, say care of the FSF or another suitable organisation.

That would be the most perfect outcome to this little fairy story...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Methods and Concepts, what an (abstract) idea!
Authored by: ray08 on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 12:08 PM EDT
I would guess that a lot of us here at Groklaw are software developers. Most of
us have heard of and are familiar with object oriented programming (OOP).

Methods and concepts is an obfuscated way of saying "ideas". In OOP,
this is analogous to classes vs objects. A class is an idea, an object is a
tangible form of the class (the idea), meaning the object is a physical
realization of the idea. The object is an instantiation of the class. So, a
"methods and concepts" without source code is like the class, just an
idea, an abstact entity, nonrealized.

IANAL, but I believe software patents are required to protect ideas (methods and
concepts) and copyright protects the source code. Does SCO hold ANY patents for
UNIX ideas? Probably not.

---
Caldera is toast! And Groklaw is the toaster! (with toast level set to BURN)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank you PJ
Authored by: RPN on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 01:54 PM EDT
Today has seen you work overtime and then some!

I have to admit I started reading the PDF at work and gave up quickly because of
the quality and my eyes but thankfully my boss didn't see just how much time I
spent reading the comments to the first article you posted. Now I'm at home,
I've read the test version and it is a gem. Surely the beginning of the end.

After a very long time here I do really appreciate the efforts you have made and
the contributions of everyone who participates here. It's the one blog/forum
that has endured over three years in holding my interest. Even though IANAL, or
a programmer or a UNIX/LINUX freak. I'll be here until SCO bites the dust and
boy will I celebrate when it does!

Richard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Thank you PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 02 2006 @ 10:09 PM EDT
SCO FINALLY PRODUCES CODE... ;p
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 03:02 PM EDT
10 print "hello world"
20 goto 10

In newer news, groklaw sues slashdot for look and feel...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Reactions: Enderle, Didio
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 30 2006 @ 03:54 PM EDT
Finally some reactions from a few analysts who have been mentioned here on Groklaw once or twice ;-)

Enderle: "it will be vastly more difficult for them to get funding going forward as a result of the perceptions [stemming from] this decision" "And they are burning through their cash reserves very quickly." (plus quote from PJ at bottom)

Didio: "I recall earlier rulings where the judge issued scathing comments to SCO. The onus is on SCO to show the smoking gun."

Doesn't seem like quite the tune they used to sing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Typical
Authored by: PeteS on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 01:31 PM EDT
I go for a week away, completely web-less, and look what happens ;)

I got in at 2am this morning, but couldn't go to bed until I had read the ruling
(to the sounds of my wife asking just what was holding me up).

I like the analogy, but I particularly liked the part where Magistrate Judge
Wells chides SCO
"...On more than one occasion SCO has argued that it could not respond to
IBM's requests without further production from IBM. Thus, it really should come
as no surprise to SCO that they were required to produce version, file, and line
information to substantiate their claims."

Excellent ruling, and I have absolutely no doubt she consulted Judge Kimball on
a great deal of it - I don't see much chance of SCOX getting this changed, let
alone reversed.

PeteS


---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity

[ Reply to This | # ]

Looking ahead
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 08:06 AM EDT
So, as SCO faces additional setbacks in the months to come, losing more motions
and receiving additional sanctions, losing appeals, not to mention being faced
with the Everest of evidence that their claim of any kind of proprietary rights
to Unix and it's derivatives and "children in spirit" is wishful
thinking at best, the thought of settlement negotiations arises.

So, kiddies, let's hear your suggestions for IBM's counsel. What should they
throw on the table to help SCO and friends avoid the penalties and costs they
face by losing at trial.

I'll start it off:

No costs, no penalties (to SCO or it's lawyers), not one dollar. They can stay
in business (if you can call it a business, whatever it is that they sell).

All they have to do is place ALL (I mean every last line of code, piece of
documentation, even their logo) under the GPL.

That's all. No big deal.

:)

[ 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 )