decoration decoration
Stories

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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Appendix A: SCO's "it was accurate at the time" defense.
Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 09:00 AM EDT

Here's SCO's Appendix A [PDF], attached to their Objections to Judge Brooke Wells' Order, as text. I call it their "it was accurate at the time" defense, trying to justify and explain all the public statements to the press that don't seem to match the evidence before the court.

SCO says the statements were "true when made" but were they? Let's take a stroll together through the Groklaw Quote Database, shall we, and compare it to SCO's Appendix A. Here's the Chris Sontag page, and here's what I might whimsically call The Collected Wisdom of Darl McBride, a collection of his public statements in the press back in 2003 particularly. First, let's start with the MIT team SCO said they'd hired. Oh, they didn't say that? Not according to Appendix A. So, let's take a look.

Here's the article by Robert McMillan, in which he mentions the MIT guys:

SCO was able to uncover the alleged violations by hiring three teams of experts, including a group from the MIT math department, to analyze the Linux and Unix source code for similarities. "All three found several instances where our Unix source code had been found in Linux," said a SCO spokesman.

Notice that the article puts it as a direct quotation by a SCO spokesman. That usually means Blake Stowell. Later, some MIT folks looked into the claim and debunked it:

The company has so far declined to disclose most of these examples publicly. But it has said that three teams of experts have confirmed its assertions -- including one team of mathematicians from MIT.

“They said they hired three separate independent teams of experts to analyze their code, including one from MIT, and that the findings appear to corroborate the fact that the code had been taken from Unix and put into Linux,” said Laura DiDio, a senior analyst at The Yankee Group in Boston.

“It was kind of weird, because they told me they had hired a team at MIT,” said Robert McMillan, a correspondent for the IDG News Service. “And then they kind of backpedaled.”

SCO Senior Vice President “Chris Sontag told me that [they] had a group of mathemeticians ‘who were at MIT’ working on this,” McMillan wrote in an e-mail after checking his notes. “In subsequent interviews SCO said that these guys had been at MIT and were no longer there.”

Paul Hatch, a SCO spokesman, wrote in a statement to The Tech, “To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT. Unfortunately, due to contractual obligations, we cannot specifically name the individuals.”

Later, SCO’s director of corporate communications, Blake Stowell, confirmed that “at least one of the groups was a link to MIT” but did not respond to a request to make the experts available for interview.

Informal inquiries with the mathematics department did not find anyone who said they knew of a colleague working to verify SCO’s assertions.

Notice that it was said not only to Robert McMillan, but it was also said to Laura DiDio, and Blake Stowell even tried to salvage what was said. And what does SCO cooly say in Appendix A?

4. 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 instances where our Unix source code had been found in Linux." (Order at 5, 6.)

This attributes to SCO a statement it did not make. SCO did not hire a group from MIT's math department to perform analysis, but did hire a group previously affiliated with MIT to perform such a function. SCO also hired other individuals to perform this function independently.

Which is true? I'll let you be the judge. If those guys at MIT hadn't checked and debunked the story, would it have been clarified? To help you, note what Chris Sontag had to say back in August of 2003, as quoted by eWeek at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1224274,00.asp although the link no longer works. It did at the time. [And here's a signature that quotes it -- Update: a reader, Roger, found it]:

"We have rocket scientists who have applied their spectral recognition and pattern analysis to software, which has yielded amazing results. We have found needles in the Mount Everest-sized haystack," Sontag said.

Ahem. And where might that amazing evidence be? For that matter, where are the amazing rocket scientists? I know, but I enjoy watching SCO twist in the wind, trying not to let those guys be deposed or cross examined, I guess. Or how about this Sontag promise of specificity?

"Their assertions are incorrect. The source code is absolutely owned by SCO," said Chris Sontag, general manager of the company's software licensing arm. "In fact, SCO knows exactly which version of System V the code came from."

No kidding? Then do tell the court right away, will you? We're all dying to know. He said it again on August 21, 2003, at the time quoted in the Globe and Mail at http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030821.gtlinuxaug21/ BNPrint/einsider/?mainhub=GT although that link no longer works but now viewable here:

"In fact, SCO knows exactly which version of Unix System V the code came from and which licensee was responsible for illegally contributing it to Linux," said Chris Sontag.

Wow. Pre discovery, they had all that?! So, where are the coordinates now? You know, line, file, etc.? There was so much infringing code, he said: "The amount of Unix code in Linux could be greater than 25%." More than a million lines of code he told the media. What they showed at SCOForum in 2003 was just "the tip of the iceberg" and SCO was "saving our very best examples for the courtroom, where we will ultimately have to try our case." So true. That's the right place to show it. So, where are they now, those millions of lines of code? Did they evaporate, like snow in the warm sun? Darl McBride used the same phrase:

But the unlicensed use of its Unix shared libraries was just the "tip of the iceberg as there are so much IP we're dealing with here, ranging from copyright, trade secrets, patents, source code and licensing issues.

SCO has no Unix patents that I've ever heard of, at least none in the litigations. So was he just talking out of his cowboy hat? Why, he told us he couldn't wait to show his evidence to the court:

"We feel very good about the evidence that is going to show up in court. We will be happy to show the evidence we have at the appropriate time in a court setting," McBride said. "The Linux community would have me publish it now, (so they can have it) laundered by the time we can get to a court hearing. That's not the way we're going to go."

That was then. This is now. It is time to show this code. He told us, "it's not an insignificant amount of code." He talked about the three teams they hired allegedly, in a Face to Face interview partially transcribed by Groklaw:

And during the period of time shortly after filing the lawsuit until recently when they came back and responded, we had a 60 day period there where we turned 3 different teams of code programmers loose on the codebases of AIX, Unix and Linux. And they came back with - independently - we had the three teams - one was a set of high-end mathematcians, rocket scientist, modeling type guys. Another team was based on standard programmer types. A third team were really spiffy on agent technology and how all of this technology was built in the first place. So the three teams came back independently and validated that there wasn't just a little bit of code showing up inside of Linux from our Unix intellectual property base. There was actually a mountain of code showing up in there.

They had found a mountain of code. It was blatant copying of hundreds of thousands of lines. There was so much infringing code, he said, if you took it out, you couldn't use Linux in the enterprise any more:

"This isn't a matter of changing a line or two of code. If all of the infringing code were removed today, Linux would have little multiprocessor code left and would be totally ineffective for enterprise use," McBride said.

It was unthinkable to try to pull out so much code:

Replacing the illegal code seems unimaginable, even if we would be the first to approve such a solution. But we're talking about millions of lines of code and not a few dozen. On top of that, the pieces that were taken are precisely what makes Linux a viable solution for enterprise deployment, like SMP and NUMA. We therefore invite enterprise users to properly license Linux by purchasing our run-time-only Linux license or downgrading to a version of Linux prior to 2.4, which will probably be enough for some companies.

That's a translation of this:

Remplacer le code incriminé ne paraît pas envisageable, même si nous serions les premiers à approuver une telle solution. Mais il s'agit de millions de lignes et non de quelques dizaines. De plus, les parties empruntées sont précisément celles qui ont rendu Linux apte au déploiement en entreprise, comme SMP ou Numa. Nous invitons donc les entreprises à se mettre dans la légalité en achetant notre licence pour l'utilisation du code binaire de Linux, ou en revenant à une version de Linux antérieure à 2.4, qui suffira probablement à certaines sociétés.

As for Chris Sontag, some gems I noticed include this statement from May of 2003, about UnitedLinux:

SuSE's argument that its UnitedLinux contract protects it from SCO legal action is baseless, he added. "That simply is not the case at all," Sontag said. "Public statements to that effect (are) the farthest thing from the truth."

And he added this to IT Week:

I have reviewed the agreements we have with SuSE. I would not characterise them in any form whatsoever as providing SuSE with any rights to our Unix intellectual property. They are dead wrong on that issue.

Funny, Judge Kimball's recent Order in the Novell case seemed to say the opposite. He quotes from the agreements:

The UnitedLinux members agreed that each member would have a broad license to use the technology included in the UnitedLinux Software, including any related intellectual property rights of the other members. The contracts provided that "All intellectual property rights related to the UnitedLinux Software (with the exception of certain "Pre-existing Technology" and "Enhancements" thereto) shall be assigned by the members to a new company, UnitedLinux, LLC. In addition, the contracts provided that "[e]ach member shall have a broad, royalty-free license to all intellectual property rights in the UnitedLinux Software, entitling each member to "use, copy, modify, distribute, market, advertise, sell, offer for sale, sublicense . . . in any manner the Software, including the rights to make derivative works of the Software, to provide access to the Source Code and/or Object Code to any third party, to incorporate the Software into other products or bundle the Software with other products for its own business purposes and any other unlimited right of exploitation." The contracts further state that the UnitedLinux Software shall be subject to any existing "open source" licenses.

Well, Sontag is not a lawyer, but still, the wording seems clear to me, and I'm not one either. Without any doubt Mr. Sontag made many sweeping statements about the amount of code SCO had allegedly found in Linux. "It's all over the place," he said:

Sontag specifically claimed that there is "significant copyrighted and trade secret code within Linux".

When asked for examples of infringement, Sontag said, "It's all over the place" but did not characterize any one subsystem as containing more infringing code than others. Infringement is present not only in distributions and vendor kernels, but in the official kernel available from kernel.org. Code has been "munged around solely for the purpose of hiding the authorship or origin of the code", he said.

"I can't at this point lay out all the evidence", Sontag said [....]

[...] "We specifically excluded the BSD-derived code", Sontag said. "There is post-BSD UnixWare source code origined [sic] with SCO, and that is of issue."

It's all over the place except for the one place it needs to be, in front of the judge. And he was quite specific as to SCO's ability to pinpoint where the methods and concepts showed up in the codebase, although SCO now tells the court it can't possibly do that:

After sifting through e-mails from the Linux developers' mailing list, Sontag says SCO has examples of programmers from AT&T licensees offering to write UNIX code into Linux, and can identify where those UNIX fragments turned up in the codebase.

Really? Then... why didn't SCO do that? In fact, didn't they tell the court they didn't know where the methods and concepts could be found in the code and that it wasn't necessary to point to code when it came to methods and concepts?

And finally, as long as we are collecting quotations, how do you like this one from Bill Gates?

Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates said the intellectual property battle between SCO and IBM is hurting the business of Linux.

Gates, speaking to financial analysts at the company's Redmond, Wash., headquarters Thursday, said it's unclear if Microsoft is benefiting from customer worries about the liability of deploying Linux when the lawsuit between SCO and IBM hasn't been resolved.

However, Gates said the controversy has exposed a fundamental weakness of Linux--that the General Public License (GPL) makes it difficult for companies to engage in the cross-licensing deals that have become standard in the software industry.

That's a big Achilles heel, Gates said.

Gates predicted that the intellectual property and GPL issues will eventually create enough inertia to hurt Linux's acceptance in commercial settings.

That is from July 25, 2003 from an article entitled, "Gates Says SCO's Case Against IBM Will Harm Linux’s Commercial Prospects Contends Microsoft IP likely violated by open source code" so it was said before the world found out that Microsoft was involved in the BayStar funding. Was that perchance the intended point of this lawsuit? Perhaps McBride said it best, after SCO tried to tack on fees to running Linux:

"Because Linux is replicating Unix ... Linux plus fee equals Unix," he said. "It sort of begs the question of why don't you just run Unix?"

With that introduction, here is Appendix A:

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

APPENDIX A

Citing an IBM memorandum filed earlier in the case, which references various publications, the Magistrate Judge's Order cites several statements attributed to SCO. The statements were not addressed in the briefing regarding the IBM Motions underlying the Order. Nevertheless, the Magistrate Judge's Order simply assumes that the statements were made as quoted and, perhaps more importantly, that the statements relate to the disclosures challenged in IBM's underlying motion.

In this Appendix, SCO addresses the statements cited by the Magistrate Judge and demonstrates why they provide no support for the sanctions imposed, and indeed, are quite irrelevant to the issues before the court. Those statements by SCO employees, moreover, were true in all material respects when made, were based on work that had been performed by technical consultants and experts. The statements about copied lines of source code relate to many Items identified in SCO's December Submission that are not the subject of IBM's Motion -- there are over 90 items in that category -- and do not correlate to the methods and concepts at issue in the Magistrate Judge's Order. They are therefore irrelevant, but because they are being used as a source upon which to draw inferences against SCO, they are addressed here in detail:

1. SCO identified four categories of alleged misappropriation: (1) literal copying ("[l]ine-for-line code copies from System V into Linux kernels 2.4+"); (2) derivative works which arose from "[m]odifications of System V created by vendors contributed to Linux kernels 2.4+ in violation of contracts"; (3) obfuscation ("[c]opying, pasting, removing legal notices, reorganizing the order of the programming structures"); and (4) non-literal transfers ("[m]ethods, structures and sequences from System V contributed to Linux kernels 2.4+"). Finally, to the presentation SCO also gave "one example of many" of line by line copying between System V Code and Linux kernel code. (Order at 4.)

This statement, made by SCO executives at the SCO Forum in Las Vegas in August 2003, was true, was based on technical consultant work, and has been substantiated by SCO in discovery. SCO did not and say that it had source code coordinates for any disclosed method or concept. The methods and concept items were identified by SCO's experts later. SCO has identified misappropriations in the December Submission that fit into the categories identified above. For example:

a. Misappropriation in the form of line-for-line code copied from System V into the Linux kernel (Item Nos. 183-185, 205-231) as well as line-for-line code copied from System V into the Linux tool chain used to compile and operate Linux (Item No. 272) and line-for-line code copied from System V into STREAMS modules used by, among others, enterprise Linux customers to operate "Carrier Grade Linux" (Item Nos. 150-164);

b. Misappropriation in the form of line-for-line copied code from derived works of System V created by IBM (or otherwise protected under the contracts) and contributed to Linux in violations of the IBM and Sequent Software Agreements (Item Nos. 1, 2, 113-142):

c. Misappropriation in the form of changed or revised code (Item Nos. 183, 184, 205-231);

d. Misappropriation in the form of non-literal transfers of methods, structures and sequences from System V contributed to Linux (Items Nos. 38, 112, 149, 165-177, 180); and

e. "One example of many" of line by line copying (Item No. 185).

2. 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." (Order at 5).

This is an accurate statement of comparison work performed by SCO in advance of public statements. There are, in fact, instances in which SCO's proprietary System V code was simply copied and pasted into the Linux kernel or associated libraries that were then included in a Red Hat distribution. (Item Nos. 183, 184, 272.)

3. In June 2003 SCO took "its case against the Linux operating system and IBM on the road." 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." 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." [Order at 5.)

This is an accurate record of a statement made by Mr. Sontag. The specific example shown by Mr. Sontag is found in Item No. 185.

4. 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 instances where our Unix source code had been found in Linux." (Order at 5, 6.)

This attributes to SCO a statement it did not make. SCO did not hire a group from MIT's math department to perform analysis, but did hire a group previously affiliated with MIT to perform such a function. SCO also hired other individuals to perform this function independently.

REDACTED

REDACTED

6. 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. 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." (Order at 6.)

This is a correct record of a statement made by SCO. The code identified in this letter was part of the October 2005 Submission (Item Nos. 201-203) and a material part of the code identified in this letter was part of the December 2005 Submission (Item Nos. 183, 184).

7. Also in December, Darl McBride and Chris Sontag were asked during an interview, "Have you identified exactly what code is at issue here?" In response Mr. Sontag stated, "We've identified 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 decided to take at least one example and show it." Order at 6, 7.)

This statement is accurate and irrelevant to the instant discovery dispute. Mr. Sontag does not claim to have identified all of the code at issue, let alone code related to method and concept disclosures that -- at the time of the statement -- were not yet identified by SCO's experts.

8. 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." (Order at 7.)

This is an accurate record of a statement made by Mr. Sontag. This statement relates to Item No. 185, which demonstrates verbatim copying of 80 to 100 lines of code.


  


Appendix A: SCO's "it was accurate at the time" defense. | 437 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 09:05 AM EDT
So they can be fixed

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

it was accurate at the time" and even more today
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 09:10 AM EDT
For once the SCOG doesn't lie.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Appendix A: SCO's "it was accurate at the time" defense.
Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 09:13 AM EDT

Ha, ha, ha! Ho, ho, ho!

Do I get to guess that the [REDACTED] is hundreds of lines
of code?

"All hat and no cattle," Darl?

---
Peter H. Salus

[ Reply to This | # ]

Appendix A: SCO's "it was accurate at the time" defense.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 09:23 AM EDT
Guess they needed the MIT guys to come up with a new system of math where 80 -
10 > 1,000,000.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Have I got this right?
Authored by: rdm on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 09:24 AM EDT
So they are saying that the past has changed?
i.e. "When we said we had evidence, it was true, but now we don't."
What happened? Did the dog eat it, for crying out loud?!
-R (the astounded)

---
Reality might not get out of Beta, today. (O.Timas, "Bot" - S.Gange)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 09:29 AM EDT
Please make links clickable

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Appendix A: SCO's "it was accurate at the time" defense.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 09:34 AM EDT

Did they evaporate, like snow in the warm sun?

But snow in the sun doesn't evaporate. It either melts or sublimates, usually a bit of both, depending on temperature, relativity and so on.

Just one more example of PJ's lies and obfuscations, and a perfect example of why SCO will prevail!

;-) ;-) ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Very Minor Pointserve==MIT update
Authored by: stats_for_all on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 09:39 AM EDT
It now should be common knowledge that the MIT Code "Spectral Analysis" was an effort of Michael Anderer and G. Edward Powell of Pointserve. They submitted a provisional patent application in Sept. 2003 with a SCO powerpoint presentation of code samples as the specification. Anderer serves as a Pointserve director, McBride was CEO in 1999-2000

Previously unreported (?) was the action by the British dot-com Scoop (aka SCO !) in Jan 2006 to sell its 6.4% stake in PointServe for $250,000. The buyer was not named by a VC firm called Sand Hill Group is now reporting PointServe in its portfolio. This indicates that Pointserve has a small, but residual enterprise value.

IPXCO, the new firm started by Powell and Anderer to commercialize the spectral analysis patent, has email addy of a Alabama investment banker appearing on the web, indicating some life in this enterprise as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Classical "pump and dump" tactics
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 09:54 AM EDT
Every one of these statements and tactics are the most typical classic
"pump and dump" tactics.

I was stuck at a "pump and dump" for about 2 years, and we did all
the same tactics.

The classic symptoms and signs to watch for:

1. any mention of "MIT" guys finding evidence
2. references to use of "rocket scientists"
3. the most classic! quoting: "spectral recognition and pattern
analysis"
4. quote "over a million lines of code"
5. "direct copying" or "absolute proof"
6. classic quote "we don't have to show the exact file, line, ..."
7. funding by a much larger corporation behind the scenes (Microsoft for
example)
8. the "pipe fairy" posting media statements designed only to pump the
stock
9. having a bunch of people doing their best to discredit you (ie: groklaw, etc)
- ANY attention to your company is good attention - which brings us to...
10. the MOST classic no matter WHAT gets posted in the media, your stock goes
UP! no matter how BAD the posting may be! any press is good press

Another typical tactic which is usually a sign the "End" is very very
near is if the company repeats press releases over and over again. I mean exact
to the "letter" postings!

Usually this means a press release about some new technology or product.

Important: Every time (and we do mean EVERY) the press release always refers to
a product or technology that is vaporware! A product that not only doesn't
exist, but never has and never will.

The company can actually have real orders on file recorded for these products.
There are people stupid enough to actually call and order them. Many times there
are even people stupid enough to prepay for such products.

Hint: the product will never ship. It's all fake.

A good clue the end is coming sooner is if these releases are coming more often
or they start doing it with more than one product or technology.

Remember, any attention is good attention, but more importantly, any press (even
bad press) is good press because it *WILL* pump the stock.

-from someone who's been there and knows...

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: thoughts on GPL v3
Authored by: pdqlamb on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 10:02 AM EDT

Gate's comments (down near the bottom) triggered some thoughts bouncing around in my head about the value GPL v3. GPL, in its first two versions, had some intrinsic political value (as Linus might say) in staking out the viewpoint that code should be shared and usable by everyone.

However, in business terms, there wasn't much value in the GPL, because there wasn't a whole lot of software available under it. There was the gcc, and emacs, and not that much else. For the overall business world, even the software business, GPL was a stake out in the sand.

Then along came Linus. Linux was both enabled by GPL and an enabler for the GPL. Linux would still be the hobby shop OS if Linus hadn't adopted the GPL. And after some years, there was this huge mountain of GPL software available; not just the kernel and the compiler, but the X system (who really used XFree before Linux?), glibc (see preceding X comment), gimp, and the thousands of little utilities that many of us use on a daily basis. Somewhere between 1998 and 2003 there was so much valuable software licensed under GPL that business had to pay attention.

I think this is the wave Eric Raymond was preaching about when he changed the focus from "free software" to "open source software." This "open source" attitude is apolitical in that its proponents place less weight on the "free speech" aspects of its use than on the "free beer" aspects. It's perhaps more comfortable for non-coders, including "suits" who have never written a line of software code in their lives, because they don't have to look too hard at the responsibilities they assume by using the code. Responsibilities like publishing changes to the code base made in-house or by contractors or consultants, or submitting bug reports to the maintainers, are harder to support when the suit is thinking, "I saved a bundle by not buying a proprietary OS!" OTOH, this was a liability, precisely because the license and expected quid pro quo was often forgotten or neglected.

So who's right, rms or Linus? Stallman certainly has the ability to place his stake anywhere he wants to. Linus certainly doesn't have to go there. But Stallman is short-sighted if he (and Eben Moglen) don't see the value of having the huge, valuable code base centered around Linux move to the new license he wants to propound, and work with Linus to insure that happens. Likewise, Linus is short-sighted if he throws a hissy about not being treated properly, doesn't see the worth of the license that makes the kernel he started so valuable, and work with rms and the FSF to insure that the openness he needed to build the Linux kernel is maintained.

(This paragraph is why I'm not a columnist. The conclusion just isn't punchy enough!) The bottom line is that the value of the GPL and the Linux kernel is so intertwined than both of them, separately, are worth much less than both of them, together. We, the community of software developers and users, need Stallman and Torvalds to work together. Maybe someone can sit the two of them down together with a few beers to work out their differences. Although, given the personalities, it might be better to keep them apart and get, oh, maddog and Eben to sit down together for a few drinks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Accurately *stated* != true
Authored by: rkhalloran on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 10:07 AM EDT
All through this appendix it notes "this is a correct record of a statement
made by SCO".

Yes, it's what they said at the time. It does *not* mean what they said happens
to be true. The identified code could be Yet Another copy of errno.h, which has
been shown repeatedly SCOX can't claim rights to. That they even claim it's
"their copyrighted code" is arguable given the Novell suit.

Once again, a legalese statement meant to distract from the facts.

SCOX DELENDA EST!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO are idiots though
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 10:46 AM EDT
it was obvious all along that this "mountain of code" was all BSD
code!

Maybe not obvious to SCO when Darl and Blake made all those ridiculous public
statements... but it should have been obvious after the disasterous showing at
SCOForum.

Even then SCO could probably have owned up, apologized and stopped bothering the
world and the world would have in turn left them alone. But instead they
pressed on with a hopeless case for *over two years*, delaying and delaying,
FUDing in the media and painting their worthless stock while they enriched
themselves with pre-scheduled insider stock sales.

No quarter now. Grind them into dust. They deserve no less.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is odd
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 11:08 AM EDT
This is a very odd statement it seems to me. Everything is in the past tense. If
the statement was true then why isn't it true now?

Some of the other statements are equally odd;

1. e. e. "One example of many" of line by line copying (Item No.
185).

That is an example of yet undisclosed material?

2. "many instances" referrs to items (Item Nos. 183, 184, 272.)

I tend to think of "many" as more than 3 from a list of at least 90
items remaining.

---
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 | # ]

MIT Mathematicians
Authored by: BassSinger on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 11:16 AM EDT
Perhaps they were referring to the Milan Institute for Technophobes - a small
sanitarium in Northern Italy dealing with fear of computers. Perhaps they were
called mathematicians because they were in there due to an additional fear of
numbers. Hmm. Yeah. Then it makes sense. ;-})

---
In A Chord,

Tom

Proud Member of the Kitsap Chordsmen
Registered Linux User # 154358

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stop laughing so hard
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 11:22 AM EDT
Everyone please refrain from... Ha..ha..ha (sorry) ha..ha..ha..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why it matters
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 11:36 AM EDT
"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." Judge W's judgement
granting in part IBM's request to limit SCO's claims.

The judge's reasoning might be paraphrased as follows: SCO said they had a lot
of evidence. The court ordered SCO to produce the evidence. SCO did not do so.
Since they said they had a lot of evidence, they are willfully disobeying the
courts orders. Willfulness is grounds to dump the claims.

She said: “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

So, Judge W. used SCO's public statements as the basis for dumping most of their
claims.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Appendix A: SCO's "it was accurate at the time" defense.
Authored by: wharris on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 11:44 AM EDT

To me their most interesting statement comes at the beginning:

The statements about copied lines of source code relate to many Items identified in SCO's December Submission that are not the subject of IBM's Motion -- there are over 90 items in that category -- and do not correlate to the methods and concepts at issue in the Magistrate Judge's Order.

SCO thus seems to be admitting that the Judge Wells has done an excellent job of not discarding SCO's evidence if the mountains of evidence they were talking about was for different items than the ones that got thrown out. SCO can't have it both ways. If these quotes are about other claims, then their moutanins of evidence remains part of the case and it looks like only peripheral, unsupported side items were pruned from the case. And if they *are* about the items that got thrown out, then SCO's refusal to disclose is a blatant violation of court orders.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Item 185, again
Authored by: tz on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 11:52 AM EDT
They cite it as the universal response to IBM's question.

The 80-100 line needle in the million line haystack, or the single example of
the million lines of infringing code.

I find it ironic that it has to be in Linux somewhere, and that is GPL, but we
don't know because it is under seal. Anyone can look at it today, but wouldn't
know it. Yet those lines have and are causing untold damage to SCO because of
the IP violation.

It is like saying someone forgot to pay for a ten foot section in a 20 mile
length of freeway, but won't tell you which 20 feet and is asking to own the
entire section. (Or that they do really own the entire section but only are
showing a 20 foot example - SCO keeps changing their story).

Yet it is these 80-100 magic lines buried somewhere in Linux that will steal
victory from the jaws of an eraged Gnu?

How long was errno.h again?

Or does anyone else have a guess (The SGI miscontribution has already been
suggested)?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Appendix A: SCO's "it was accurate at the time" defense.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 12:11 PM EDT
morons all of them - everyone that is quoted in this article - they are all
nothing but get rich yuppies that could care less about actual techology - they
are just looking for ways to get into people's pocket book with so called
innovations/upgrades cough cough!. I wish the press would stop genuflecting
everytime they write an article about microsoft. makes me want to puke. I
could care less what bill gates has to say about technology - I think their
technology stinks - linux blows them away.

I wish they would all just jump in the river - the technology world would be
better off without them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

6 degrees of separation = MIT "affiliation"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 12:11 PM EDT
I've figured out the MIT link! SCO is using the "6 degrees of
separation" theory. They figure that within one of the groups that they
might or might not have hired to look at code, one of the people must have had a
6-degree link with *someone* from MIT. Or at a mimimum, soneone in one of these
teams must have either visited himself / herself, or have a 6-person link to
someone else who himself / herself has visited the MIT campus at least *once* in
their life.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The best examples aren't in the lst
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 12:32 PM EDT
IMHO the best examples came from a SCO conference call and associated press
release on 13th August 2003, in which, IIRC SCO's lawyer (Mark Heise) took
part.

http://ir.sco.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=115995


Here is the 2nd paragraph of that release:

SCO's System V UNIX contract allowed Sequent to prepare derivative works and
modifications of System V software "provided the resulting materials were
treated as part of the Original [System V] Software." Restrictions on use
of the Original System V Software include the requirement of confidentiality, a
prohibition against transfer of ownership, and a restriction against use for the
benefit of third parties. Sequent-IBM has nevertheless contributed approximately
148 files of direct Sequent UNIX code to the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels,
containing 168,276 lines of code. This Sequent code is critical NUMA and RCU
multi-processor code previously lacking in Linux. Sequent-IBM has also
contributed significant UNIX-based development methods to Linux in addition to
the direct lines of code specified above. Through these Linux contributions,
Sequent-IBM failed to treat Dynix as part of the original System V software, and
exceeded the scope of permitted use under its UNIX System V contract with SCO.



Notice that they cite 148 files, a precise number of lines of code and
identification of specific versions. So the question is, are the specifics
underlying this level of detail in their disclosures? And if not, why not?

"Sequent-IBM has nevertheless contributed approximately 148 files of direct
Sequent UNIX code to the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels, containing 168,276 lines of
code."



Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

so, it's ok to lie then?
Authored by: skip on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 12:38 PM EDT
So, when it comes to court case involving (potentially) billions of dollers,
it's ok to lie through your teeth, and get caught out without it effecting your
ability to win in a court case related to those lies?

I'm a tad confused by this. Ok, I've got a nasty case of flu, and I've dragged
myself out of bed to read groklaw, so perhaps I'm not up to speed on this, but
it still sounds unbeleivable.

Incidentally, I am a rocket scientist, in that I am involved with, and write
software for, autonomous spacecraft research, and I fail to see how any part of
the math we use can be used to identify infringing code. That's just stupid.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Haystack?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 12:52 PM EDT
Isn't this a bit insulting to the kernel developers? If I would create a
beautifully-coded, very userfriendly, fully functional website, and afterwards
someone compared it to a haystack, I'd be irritated at the comparison...

Just a little aside... but still OT, I think.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Natural Born Liars
Authored by: lsmft on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 01:10 PM EDT

But why lie at all? There are some good reasons that probably go back 5 million years, said Keenan, director of the university's Cognitive Neuroimaging Laboratory.

"Lying has played a key role in our evolution, in making humans, human," he said. "It's one of the most amazing, sophisticated, advanced cognitive abilities we have. All evidence indicates that we are genetically programmed to lie. The liar has such an advantage over you. So the gene is passed on."

Keenan points to the recent presidential election. "The party that lied better had an advantage and won," he said.

link

"We are far from the only dishonest species, but we are surely the most dishonest, if only because we do the most talking."

If you reinforce your version of 'the truth' to yourself enough times, says Dr Skinner, you might actually start to believe it. "There are people who want to believe their lies so much that it does actually become a truth in their reality." So what might start out as lies and fantasies ends up - in your own memory at least - as the truth.

link

This incorporation of the lie into schemes of evolutionary advantage is a concept treated in the study of Game Theory of Evolution. Game Theory of Evolution assumes that creatures are often in resource conflict or in predator/prey realtionships with each other and develop strategies for advantage gain or loss reduction.

link

Who Lies?

Saxe believes that anyone under enough pressure, or given enough incentive, will lie. But in a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, DePaulo and Deborah A. Kashy, Ph.D., of Texas A&M University, report that frequent liars tend to be manipulative and Machiavellian, not to mention overly concerned with the impression they make on others

li nk

Occasionally, a student of psychologist and lying expert Bella DePaulo,Ph.D., will insist that he or she can be entirely truthful for three or four weeks. But no one ever succeeds.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19960901-000008.html

I want to stop lying but I need help. I have all these things I made up and I dont want to tell my friends because they will hate me. I know the thing is I should stop lying but I dont want to. Its like im addicted to lying. could it be possible to be addicted to lying. so hears the question: How do I stop myself before these lies go to far and what are some keys to help me get by? like when i know im about to lye what should I think anything that would be helpful sincerly, Lilly http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/addictions/helping-stop-lies-29539.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

"it was accurate at the time" quote
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 01:25 PM EDT
Just where does SCO claim these were "true when made" and "it was
accurate at the time"? Those seem to be quotes not referenced in the SCO
filings. (I do not doubt for a second they were made, but I think a reference
to them would help).

So, what would happen if the judge (either one), where to ask the question that
several other's here have asked: "SCO, why is it that these statements were
'true when made' and 'accurate at the time', but they are no longer true or
accurate?"

What kind of response would SCO be able to make without looking like complete
idiots? If they try to defend the statement by saying they were true and
correct but are no longer, that can not logically be true. And if they admit
that they were not true and correct then they are admitting that they lied in a
court filing.

Wouldn't this put SCO in the old "So, have you stopped beating your
wife?" position?

[ Reply to This | # ]

MIT Scientists
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 01:26 PM EDT
MIT Scientists

I thought MIT Scientists meant Missing Integrity
Transference Scientists which one would presume to mean
that The SCO group had hired a group of scientists to
ascertain why there was a complete lack of integrity
transformation from AT&T to The SCO Group.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • MIT Scientists - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 08:20 PM EDT
Slow news day?
Authored by: markpmc on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 01:33 PM EDT
Nothing seems new here by my count. We've seen this one before.

But...

Speaking of counts. Has IBM bothered to report a count of the disputed lines? I
for one would like to see that little tidbit dribble out into the press. I can
see the headlines now...

"SCO claimed millions, show 2 hundred"

It's important that we note who doesn't pickup the story.

mark

[ Reply to This | # ]

The problem with lying
Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 02:12 PM EDT
SCO's case reminds me a woman who was asked to return the
pot she had borrowed. Her defense had three claims:
1) "I have never borrowed that pot."
2) "I have already returned it."
3) "When I borrowed the pot, it already had a crack."

One of SCO claims sounds like it came from the above story:
>"We have found needles in the Mount Everest-sized haystack"

According to this claim there is a "Mount Everest-sized
haystack" of *clean* code in Linux. Getting the needles
(assuming they exist) out should not be too painful.

[ Reply to This | # ]

    Aw, The Poor Bidness Model Faw Down Go Boom
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 02:16 PM EDT
    Hey, everybody!

    The part of the article that jumped out at me was Gates' statement that the GPL
    hurts cross-licensing that has become standard in the industry.

    Yeah, what a shame you can't license a piece of code that makes a program work,
    you have to share it with everyone.

    I regard this as proof that the whole suit was not about stopping Linux per se
    (that was just the most obvious target) but an attempt to legally shut down a
    competing business model. This is about protecting what amounts to an extortion
    racket. "Sorry, to make this program access a JPG from another running
    program, you have to license this bit of code. Cough up."

    What a shame. M$ may have to start making software that actually justifies
    spending so much money for a change.

    Dobre utka,
    The Blue Sky Ranger

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Rebuttal Expert Reports due Aug 28th?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 02:25 PM EDT
    Hello,

    The IBM Timeline page indicates rebuttal expert reports were due on August 28th.
    Has anyone seen or heard anything that indicates what might have been filed?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Lanham Act?
    Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 02:54 PM EDT
    IANAL. Am I correct in thinking that these out of court utterances by Sontag and others will be used as evidence in the inevitable Lanham Act action? It seems to me that they were very bad things to say in the circumstances (lies always are!), but also rather stupid, as it must have been known that it would be impossible to substantiate them later. Or am I missing something?

    Or were the SCOundrels so supremely confident that IBM would buy them to shut them up, rather than take them to court, that it did not matter what they said?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Items not challenged?
    Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 03:03 PM EDT
    Certainly SCO's statements are ridiculous and they have totally failed to mitigate their damages by attempting to have the code they claim they own (or control) removed from Linux. That in itself should get their claims thrown out. They didn't even attempt to get people to stop using or distributing Linux. They want people to use Linux and had a grand plan to get Linux users to pay them licensing fees without having to do anything themselves.

    When you see cases in the news about copyright or patent infringement, what's the first thing you see? Usually the plantiff attempts to get an injunction preventing the further distribution of their works. That didn't happen here, heck SCO didn't even want to go ahead with the case involving Red Hat. They refused to specify even how Linux was supposedly infringing on their government-granted monopoly.

    However, there are still nearly 100 items that IBM agreed were provided with enough specificity. I believe that IBM will have them all thrown out on summary judgement, but they are there nonetheless. Go back and read IBM's motions for partial summary judgement on the breach of contract and declaration of non-infringement .

    IBM does a great job of showing just how ridiculous SCO's claim of ownership of IBM and Sequent authored works is. SCO relies on the term "derivative works" used in one section of the contract to claim broad rights to anything IBM or Sequent ever added to their own versions of Unix. Basically SCO is claiming that they can charge license fees for Linux because it contains software developed by IBM and Sequent (NUMA, JFS).

    Even if EVERYTHING SCO claims is true, including their ridiculous interpretation of the contract, they would have no right to charge licensing fees to Linux users. IBM would have violated the contract, but SCO admits (in declarations filed in response to their opposition to IBM's motions for summary judgmeent) that they don't own IBM's code in those derivative works. Their best hope would be to recover money from IBM.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    This is better than the "Chewbacca Defense"
    Authored by: Juggler on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 03:07 PM EDT
    I guess I watch too much TV.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    You're all looking at the wookie
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 03:26 PM EDT
    I know, it's hard not to look when the man in the funny hat screams "Look
    at the wookie!", but still.

    It's not about the accuracy or even the truth of SCO's public statements.

    The only place that I find any reference to these statements in the Judge's
    order is in the section dealing with willfulness. She never makes any conclusion
    based on whether the statements were true or not, only on the indisputable fact
    that SCO had made assertions on many occasions that they had identified literal
    copying, with coordinates (e.g. files and/or lines) as specified in the
    discovery orders. Therefore, they must have understood the orders and thus the
    lack of specifity in their discovery reponses must be intentional or willful.

    The only true response SCO can have is what the Judge herself already alluded
    to: "is this all you've got?" Obviously SCO can't _say_ "Yes,
    your honor, this is all we've got", so they've resorted to pointing at the
    wookie--raising all kinds of misdirection about the issues, when the only
    question on the table is: did you comply with the court's order? And the clear
    answer is "No, and moreover we knew right along we weren't compliant."

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Appendix A: SCO's "it was accurate at the time" defense.
    Authored by: jazzyjoe on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 03:34 PM EDT
    I was wondering...
    What SCO is saying is: "Judge Wells must retract her order limiting SCO's
    claims because the statements SCO made were inaccurately interpreted."
    What SCO *isn't* saying is: "Judge Wells must retract her order limiting
    SCO's claims because SCO actually has proof that those claims are valid."
    So, what are the chances of Jugde Wells retracting her order solely on the
    grounds that the interpretation of SCO's statements was incorrect, thus letting
    claims back in that lack validity?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO would be better off... in the short term
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 04:00 PM EDT
    SCO would be better off in the short-term saying: "We made it all up, we
    didn't have all the evidence that we claimed!"

    That way, for the purposes of the current motion, they could plausibly argue
    that they weren't holding anything back in discovery, and therefore shouldn't be
    penalized by having so many of their allegations struck.


    Quatermass
    IANAL IMHO etc

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    When did you first know SCO was lying?
    Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 04:12 PM EDT

    There are a lot of things they've said that could have stemmed from honest mistakes or differences of opinion. So my question is, when did you first know for sure that SCO was blatantly and deliberately lying?

    For me, it was when Darl gave his talk at Harvard back in late '03. (Too lazy to hunt for the link right now, but it's on GL.) He told a little story about how he first heard of Linux at a talk at BYU, and how the speaker explained that Linux was going to crush SCO (or words to that effect), and Darl said to himself, "SCO? That's us!" And decided he'd better go deal with this threat.

    The problem with this story is that Darl was hired by Caldera, a Linux company--not by SCO! The name was changed to SCO after Darl was already running the place! There's no way that Darl managed to get hired to run a Linux company without having heard of Linux! So, if this talk was the first time he'd heard of Linux, it must have been before he got hired by Caldera/SCO, and he couldn't have said to himself "SCO? That's us!"

    Now, that may not be a question on which the case will hinge or anything, but it was clearly a blantant lie designed to get the audience's sympathy. And it was the point where I stopped asking, "are they lying?" and started asking, "what else are they lying about?" And I'm curious: what, if anything, caused others to stop questioning their sincerity and start searching for more lies?

    ---
    Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Linux = Unix - fee
    Authored by: dwheeler on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 04:26 PM EDT
    Darl McBride claims that "Linux plus fee equals Unix.. It sort of begs the question of why don't you just run Unix?"". But wait a minute, let's look at that statement. Mathematically, that's:

    Linux + fee = Unix

    Subtracting fee from both sides, we have:

    Linux = Unix - fee

    Almost everything else McBride has said has been nonsense, but that at least is partly true (though I doubt he understood it). Clearly Linux (and the *BSDs as well) are Unix, from the point of view of customers, but without the high fees of most proprietary Unix systems. They aren't completely free to use in the monetary sense - you still pay (in time or money) for training, system maintenance, and so on. But they're far less expensive to have and maintain than previous Unix systems. And in many environments, according to a number of reports, they're far less costly than MS Windows systems too. There's no question-begging here; the answer is contained in the question!

    When you have a free market, where vendors compete for business on a level playing field, prices tend to go down and service tends to go up. That should surprise no one. Not only is freedom a good thing for its own sake - it's good for the bottom line.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The alternate worlds science fiction defense
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 05:04 PM EDT
    Hmm, it was accurate then but not now. Let me see, over a million lines of code
    vanished, but where? Whole teams have disappeared. There's only one place they
    could be. Those poor SCOX saps have wandered into an alternate universe and
    they are still struggling with denial.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Not merely a "terminological inexactitude", but "terminologically non-contemporative"
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 07:13 PM EDT
    I have waited 20 years to see someone to use this defence.

    1. It wasn't a lie it was a "terminological inexactitude"

    2. Your Honor, my client's admission to being the gunman was
    "terminologically non-contemporative". He could not possibly be the
    gunman that the police have actual film of discharging the weapon, because as
    you can clearly see in this court, he isn't holding the gun NOW!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    "Plausible affirmation"
    Authored by: ine on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 07:55 PM EDT
    At the time they were uttered, the statements "could have been" true.

    In the sense that some people could be induced to believe them.

    The truth is whatever I can get away with. If it is plausible, and others cannot
    disprove it, it is true.

    SCO Truth

    (Someone here, with a better memory than I, may note the reference to Nixon and
    "plausible denial" - I cannot remember the details of that episode,
    but I remember the phrase.)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    So eventually SCO found something...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 08:01 PM EDT
    ... thicker than their lawsuit -- warm air. Congrats :-))


    cb

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Item 185
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 09:06 PM EDT
    So, SCO (I know you're listening!):

    You've presented "one example of many" of "line by line
    copying". I believe you. It was definitely copied line by line from
    somewhere.

    Whether it was copied from something you own is another matter though, isn't it?
    But let's say you do own it (just for a laugh). That'll get you a few thousand
    bucks and a promise to remove it - if you're lucky.

    You probably won't be lucky though, because the court will note that you
    wilfully failed to take any action to mitigate the (alleged) damage to your
    business (if any). Like sending a polite letter to IBM, identifying the code in
    detail and asking them to discuss the matter.

    Courts don't like wasting their time sorting things out that could and should be
    handled elsewhere. And they don't award silly amounts in damages where the
    "injured" party did nothing to help themselves.

    But you probably don't need to worry about all that. After all, if Item 185 is
    just "one example of many" then of course you've supplied the court
    with *all* the other examples you've found haven't you.

    Haven't you?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Appendix A: SCO's "it was accurate at the time" defense.
    Authored by: Zarkov on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 09:11 PM EDT
    So...

    SCO == Spectral Code Obfuscation??
    "..its all over the place..."

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Why math expert ?.
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 09:13 PM EDT
    "SCO was able to uncover the alleged violations by hiring three teams of
    experts, including a group from the MIT math department, to analyze the Linux
    and Unix source code for similarities"

    SCO should hire computer scientist, right ?.
    My guess, SCO were trying to find simalarities in Linux and Unix using
    statistical comparation, such as :
    - Count every a, b, c, etc in each linux module
    - Count every a, b, c, etc in each unix module
    - Compare the result
    - Conclusion : the number of the alphabet a, b, c, etc in linux and unix is not
    signicantly different.

    Darl read it the wrong way : Linux is similar to unix

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    This Situation Really Stinks!
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 29 2006 @ 09:50 PM EDT
    SCOGx has no evidence of any wrongdoing (except by SCOGx itself).

    SCOGx makes endless claims of evidence but when told to fork it over
    they say you already have all the evidence they got.

    SCOGx defends their prior claims by saying they had the evidence (they
    would not show) at the time of their statements and you have it all.

    All SCOGx has is mountains of irrefutable facts that BSD4.2lite and Linux
    are free of infringements. SVR4 is completely obsolete and worth less
    than the 7 M$ Caldera paid for it. SCOGx has never connected anything
    they own to anything in Linux.

    SCOGx should be punished for lying to the public, all the judges in
    many cases, their shareholders, and Groklaw.

    I can see SCOGx making their next public statement: the Federal
    judges have decided that Linux infringes when they upheld our
    vacuous claims. See SCOGx does not even need evidence.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Table summarize SCO's claims
    Authored by: mwexler on Wednesday, August 30 2006 @ 01:58 AM EDT
    There was a table posted here earlier that listed all the SCO claims and the
    information known about them.
    Does anybody have that link handy?
    Has it been updated based on the information supplied in this document?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Verbatium
    Authored by: Davo.Sydney on Wednesday, August 30 2006 @ 02:51 AM EDT
    From Item 8 in the Apendix: "This is an accurate record of a statement made by Mr. Sontag. This statement relates to Item No. 185, which demonstrates verbatim copying of 80 to 100 lines of code."

    HAHA This is funny as Wikipedia includes in the definition of Verbatium as "The same words appear in exactly the same order, with no paraphrasing, substitution, or abbreviation of any kind, not even any trivial changes that wouldn't have affected the meaning in any way."

    Hmmm... What gets me is that SCO's defination of Verbatium can include 80-100 lines of code... is it 80 lines, 100 lines, somewhere inbetween... (surely it's not 80-100 = -20 lines) But this is the problem isn't it..."SPECIFICS"
    D/\/O

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Verbatium - Authored by: stan ackroyd on Wednesday, August 30 2006 @ 03:33 AM EDT
    • Verbatium - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 30 2006 @ 04:20 AM EDT
      • Verbatium - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 30 2006 @ 08:36 AM EDT
    • Verbatium - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 30 2006 @ 04:58 AM EDT
    SCO Group to Release Q3 Financial Results, Host Conference Call After Market Close, 9/6/06
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 30 2006 @ 09:19 AM EDT
    "The SCO Group to Release Third Quarter Financial Results and Host Conference Call After Close of Market on September 6, 2006" . Apparently "The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) is a leading provider of UNIX software technology and mobile services". With a market valuation of approx $50 Million, tSCOg is a leading provider. I wonder what superlative could be used to describe IBM with their paltry $124 Billion? . Should make for an interesting pump and dump

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Appendix A: SCO's "it was accurate at the time" defense.
    Authored by: winkey on Thursday, August 31 2006 @ 01:32 AM EDT
    Wow a I think I would like to see these people go down more than sco

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Bill's Quote
    Authored by: seanlynch on Thursday, August 31 2006 @ 04:42 PM EDT

    "However, Gates said the controversy has exposed a fundamental weakness of Linux--that the General Public License (GPL) makes it difficult for companies to engage in the cross-licensing deals that have become standard in the software industry."

    I don't know, but this "weakness" seems to be Novell's Ace in the hole in their lawsuit against SCOX. The GPL and the cross licensing specifically gives Novell/SuSE the right to use intellectual property that the other United Linux members, such as Caldera/SCOX, have published under the GPL.

    And Caldera SCOX have released it all under the GPL. Kernel 2.2, 2.4, 2.6.

    The fact that Caldera/SCOX have published under the GPL will also protect IBM in the end.

    So I just don't get Mr. Gates point, unless you are interested in making money through lawsuits.

    [ 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 )