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
IBM's Experts Reports Served
Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 12:27 PM EDT

IBM has filed its Certificate of Service of Experts Reports [PDF] showing that IBM sent them to SCO on the 17th. Maybe now SCO will get a clue. Or not.

Andrew Morton is on the list, by the way. I'd love to read his report, and I hope we can someday. I fear all that expertise is lost on SCOfolk, though. They trudge straight forward to their doom, no matter what anybody tells them.

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

SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorensen (8947)
[address, phone, fax]

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

_________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

________________________

THE SCO GROUP, INC.

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-
Defendant,

vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-
Plaintiff.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
OF EXPERT REPORTS

Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

I hereby certify that on the 17th day of July, 2006, true and correct copies of the following expert reports:
Report and Declaration of Randall Davis, dated July 17, 2006
Expert Witness Report of Dr. Earl K. Stice, dated July 17, 2006
Report and Declaration of Andrew K. Morton, dated July 14, 2006
Report and Declaration of Lorin M. Hitt, dated July 17, 2006
Report and Declaration of M. Frans Kaashoek, dated July 14, 2006
Report and Declaration of Jonathan Eunice, dated July 17, 2006
Expert Witness Report of Dr. Jonathan D. Putnam, dated July 17, 2006
Report and Declaration of Timothy F. Bresnahan, dated July 17, 2006
Expert Rebuttal Report of Professor J.R. Kearl, dated July 17, 2006
Report and Declaration of Robert D. Willig, dated July 17, 2006
Report and Declaration of Brian W. Kernighan and Randall Davis, dated July 17, 2006
were sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following:
Edward Normand
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

/s/ Todd M. Shaughnessy

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF EXPERT REPORTS was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system this 18th day of July, 2006, and thereby served upon the following:
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]

Robert Silver
Edward Normand
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

/s/ Todd M. Shaughnessy

3


  


IBM's Experts Reports Served | 180 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here, Please
Authored by: The Cornishman on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 12:47 PM EDT
Redundant, I know, but tradition is everything

---
(c) assigned to PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-Topic Thread
Authored by: The Cornishman on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 12:48 PM EDT
Please post off-topic items here, and use the guidance on the Comments page to
make links clickable.

Thanks

---
(c) assigned to PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

Expert thumbnails
Authored by: stats_for_all on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 01:04 PM EDT
Lorin M. Hitt--Wharton professor on IT economics

M. Frans Kaashoek -- MIT CS professor, student under Tannenbaum

Dr. Jonathan D. Putnam-- Assistant Professor of Law and Economics of Intellectual Property at the University of Toronto’s Centre for Innovation Policy. writes articles such as: “On the Incomparability of ‘Comparables’: An Economic Interpretation of ‘Infringer’s Royalties.’”

Timothy F. Bresnahan -- Stanford Econ professor, IT and Silicon Valley economics, Microsoft anti-trust papers and testimony

JR Kearl --"He is an expert in economics. He went to both Harvard and MIT and now teaches at BYU." (PJ on his deposition)

Robert D. Willig --Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School and the Economics Department of Princeton University, a position I have held since 1978. Before that, I was Supervisor in the , Economics Research Department of Bell Laboratories.

[from an El Corton post] Stice is an accountant and will presumably be testifying about potential damages, either to SCO or IBM. He happens to be co-author of several academic papers and a book with K. Fred Skousen:

Book Coauthored with Ex-SCOX director Skousen

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Experts Reports Served
Authored by: The Cornishman on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 01:09 PM EDT
Earl K Stice is a professor of accounting, according to this, with a research interest in financial markets.

Professor Lorin Hitt's CV says

His current research is on the relationship of organizational and strategic factors to the value of IT investments, ... the nature of competition in electronic markets, ... and methods for evaluating IT investments. [my ellipses]

Is it possible that IBM's expert reports include some which address the matter of scale of damages?

---
(c) assigned to PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trudge forward to their doom? Or a job well done.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 01:55 PM EDT
They trudge straight forward to their doom, no matter what anybody tells them.

ISTM they were probably contracted to sustain a FUD campaign keeping Linux in questionable legal status until some other vendor can get their OS finished - with perhaps extra points for getting some other companies to spend a lot of time and money on this nonsense. In that light, I'd say they're doing a job well done.

I suspect their backers see Darl and Boies more like the defenders of The Alamo, who were doomed from the beginning with a losing position, but held on long enough distracting the Mexican Army for Sam Houston to gather the troups needed to eventually win the war.

I won't be surprised if Business History sees this SCO gambit as a brilliant strategic move where a large company used unorthodox means and a wide network of partners ranging from the investment community (baystar) to former competitors (sun) to all work together to defend it's market against competitors.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Experts Reports Served
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 02:30 PM EDT
Andrew Morton? What has HE ever done to be counted an expert? Did he talk to
computer science students while he was taking business courses and working as a
lab monitor in a sectarian liberal arts college? Did he ever read the
documentation for IBM's source control system? Did he ever "implement
strict lock-down procedures" for a maintenance release of Unix? What does
he know about Fourier Analysis of standard include files? How many lines of code
can he fit in a briefcase? I bet he's not even a rocket scientist!

You call THAT an expert? Fegh!

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Report and Declaration" versus "Expert Witness Report"
Authored by: Trollsfire on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 02:35 PM EDT

What exactly is the difference between "Report and Declaration" and "Expert Witness Report"?

IANAL, and I appreciate that terms can have specialized technical meanings, so someone please correct me if I get anything wrong here. I assume the report in "Report and Declaration" is just shorthand for "Expert Witness Report". That is "Report and Declaration" means Expert Witness Report and Declaration. If I'm right so far, this means that all of these people have submitted Expert Witness Reports, and some have also submitted Declarations. From previous declarations, would these declarations be ways that supporting (3rd party?) material is submitted? Am I close, or is there some significance I'm missing?

--Trollsfire

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re experts
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 02:40 PM EDT
IBM has 10 experts listed here;

Professor Randall Davis
Dr. Earl K. Stice
Andrew K. Morton
Lorin M. Hitt
M. Frans Kaashoek
Jonathan Eunice
Dr. Jonathan D. Putnam
Timothy F. Bresnahan,
Professor J.R. Kearl
Robert D. Willig
Brian W. Kernighan and Randall Davis

===

Davis is well documented here.
Kernighan needs no introduction.
Morton needs no introduction.

All these are *very* impressive experts.

I suspect the remained are also very impressive but thier names dont mean a lot
to me. My fault I know.

Can anyone here fill us in on these people are please?

--

MadScientist

[ Reply to This | # ]

Robert D. Willig
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 02:41 PM EDT

Robert D. Willig holds the position of Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, where he teaches in the Economics Department and in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and serves as the faculty chair of the Masters of Public Affairs program. He served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, from 1989 to 1991. Before joining the Princeton faculty in 1978, he was Supervisor in the Economics Research Department of Bell Laboratories. Willig is married and has four children. He received his Ph.D. in Economics from Stanford University in 1973, an M.S. in Operations Research from Stanford in 1968, and an A.B. from Harvard in 1967.

Professor Willig has served as a consultant and advisor for the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice on antitrust policy, for OECD, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the World Bank on global trade, competition, regulatory and privatization policy, and for governments of diverse nations on microeconomic reforms. He has been a visiting member of the faculty of Harvard's Institute for International Development. He has provided expert testimony to Congress, Federal administrative agencies, Federal courts, state courts, and state Public Utility Commissions on antitrust matters and issues concerning regulation and deregulation of telecommunications, transportation, energy, and other industries. He has advised many corporations on antitrust and regulatory issues, and on pricing, costing, and business organization.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jonathan D. Putnam
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 02:49 PM EDT

Ph.D. Economics, Yale University

Jonathan D. Putnam, Vice President, is an expert in intellectual property, industrial organization, applied microeconomics, and technological change. Dr. Putnam is currently Assistant Professor of Law and Economics of Intellectual Property at the University of Toronto’s Centre for Innovation Policy. He has provided expert testimony in several patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation actions, and before the Federal Trade Commission. He has also provided econometric analyses in differentiated products mergers approved by U.S. antitrust authorities. Dr. Putnam has taught at Vassar College, the Columbia University Schools of Law and Business, Yale College, and the Boston University Graduate School of Management. He received an NSF Small Business Innovation Research grant for methods of valuing the patent portfolios of firms.

Link here

[ Reply to This | # ]

James R. Kearl
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 03:00 PM EDT

James R. Kearl is a professor at Brigham Young University

A. O. Smoot Professor of Economics, Brigham Young University Assistant to the University President for the Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern

Books published:

Contemporary Economics: Markets and Public Policy (Scott Foresman, 1989)

Principles of Economics (D.C. Heath, 1993) also published in a micro/macro split

Principles of Microeconomics (D.C. Heath, 1993)

Principles of Macroeconomics (D.C. Heath, 1993)

Principles of Economics (Simon and Schuster, 1998)

Economics and Public Policy: An Analytical Approach (Pearson, 2003; 2nd edition, 2004)

Workbook for Economics and Public Policy (Pearson, 2003, 2nd edition January 2004)

Finding God at BYU (Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2001; co-edited w/ S. K. Brown and K. T. Hanson)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOX=knife, IBM=cruise missiles
Authored by: rkhalloran on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 03:05 PM EDT
The relative standing of IBM's experts vs. SCOX' is breathtaking to behold.

As a former AT&T employee myself, I'm particularly amused by SCOX' response
to Dr. Kernighan's brief from some associate professor from Colorado that wrote
a C book about 15 years ago.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Experts Reports Availibility
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 03:17 PM EDT
Unfortunately I doubt we'll ever see the entirety of IBM's expert reports. The
size alone makes filing them unlikely. I would image given the volume of SCOG's
allegations the technical reports must be at least several hundred pages long.

---
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 | # ]

SCO no longer has anything to lose
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 03:44 PM EDT
So there is no hope except to continue litigation and maybe get a miracle.
Unfortunately, prolonging the litigation only means they will be liable for even
more attorneys fees when all is said and done. On top of that this was a
scortched earth tactic right from the start. They knew if it didn't work SCO
would be worthlesss, a pariah.

That is why it continues.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's Experts Reports Served
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 03:53 PM EDT
I think the battle is won, in a sense. If you want to contribute your own work
to Linux, you can. If you want professional services, like a Fortune 500
corporation might well do to run their supply chain, then you sign a contract
with Microsoft or with IBM or with others for exactly what you want.
Personal computers come with Windows; Sony Playstations will come with Linux;
Xboxes have a confidential instruction set but if you sign an agreement with
Microsoft then they will tell you what it is.
Along the way, IBM sold off its PC business, and its OS/2 business, but I don't
think SCO affected those decistions; they were destined to happen anyway.
Quite annoying to people who just want to get on with their auto parts
businesses, but I think they are getting on with their businesses anyway.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lemings, perhaps???
Authored by: jbeadle on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 04:37 PM EDT
They trudge straight forward to their doom, no matter what anybody tells them.

Heh...

-jb

[ Reply to This | # ]

Response to IBM's Experts Reports Served
Authored by: SeismoGuy on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 04:38 PM EDT
Looks like SCO's website has IBM-370.pdf. I'll be interested in know more about SCO's experts :-)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by SCO Group (1) Report of Dr. Thomas A. Cargill In Response to the Report and Declaration of Dr. Brian W. Kernigham; (2) Response of Dr. Jeffrey Leitzinger to the Report and Declaration of Professor J.R. Kearl; (3) Response to Report and Declaration of Professor J.R. Kearl by Christine A. Botosan, CA, Ph.D; and (4) Rebuttal to the Report and Declaration of Professor J.R. Kearl by Gary Pisano, Ph.D

[ Reply to This | # ]

question about experts
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 05:10 PM EDT
IBM's list of experts is impressive. SCO's experts are a stretch and are not
even comparable to IBM's. Now my question is this. Although SCO has
considerabley "weak" experts. Does the title expert get them on the
same plane as IBM? As long as SCO can find someone who just scrapes by being
qualified as an expert, does it equal the same as on of IBM's experts. Does the
jury know the qualifications of the experts? To me if they are weak experts but
get the same playing field as a really good expert, it seems unfair to IBM?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kernighan, Thompson, and Ritchie
Authored by: emperor on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 06:32 PM EDT
PJ,

We seem to have continuing confusion over just what role who had in the birth of
UNIX and "C."

While myself and Dr. Salus have repeatedly corrected folks on their confusion of
Thompson and Kernighan in the forums here, I would like to implore you to do an
article exploring this topic and laying out the facts for the folks that
continue to be confused on the topic.

Ken Thompson is said by many, including Ritchie and Kernighan, to have written a
large majority of the actual UNIX and C code. Despite this fact, he continues to
be slighted and marginalized, to the point that a poster above suggests that his
wikipedia entry that correctly attributes his co-authorship of "C" is
incorrect!

Given the readership of Groklaw, I think it would go a long way in setting this
straight if you were to do an article on it.

The man deserves more regard and credit than he is being given. Kernighan would
be the first to agree I'm sure.

Please see my post in the "SCOX=knife, IBM=cruise missiles" thread for
more information on the subject.

-roman

---
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.
And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. -
Nietzsche

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rapid dominance
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 08:55 PM EDT
I think would be IBM's legal equivalent of shock and awe

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did SCO ever list Linux Contributions
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 10:59 PM EDT
Did SCO ever list its contributions to Linux?
I am pretty sure that IBM asked for this at some point.

Certainly the phrase "any claim over code in Linux" would include any
code sourced by employees of SCO and placed in Linux under the GPL.

I would bet that some of Andrew Mortons contribution is to document all the
contributions that SCO made to the development of Linux.

Will SCO be once again found to have come up short in the production of
details?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What About TSG's Expert Reports?
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 11:10 PM EDT
(sigh) As far as I know, we're still waiting for Judge Wells to set a hearing
date for IBM's Motion to Limit / Exclude TSG's expert reports. I seem to recall
that Judge Wells granted IBM's motion for expedited hearing on this... what
happened?


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

[ 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 )