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
SCO and IBM Serve Expert Rebuttal Reports on Each Other
Friday, September 01 2006 @ 04:58 AM EDT

Both SCO and IBM served each other their Experts Rebuttal Reports by the August 28th deadline, and their Certificates of Service are available on Pacer now. Here they are as PDFs:
SCO's

IBM's

As you'll notice, SCO seemed to feel a need to rebut a lot more than IBM, or at least they used more people to do the job. If you don't remember all the experts' names, we can briefly review. Here's the funny part. After all SCO's talk about MIT deep divers, the only MIT people that show up in the case seem to be on IBM's side of the aisle.

The complete list of IBM's experts is here. Additional information on Dr. Randall Davis can be found here. There is also an interesting article about him here. Would you like to see a picture? Here you go, along with his MIT bio. More information on Brian Kernighan can be found in this PDF, his declaration filed in 2004. Here's his bio page at Princeton University and at Bell Labs. And here is one of the books he's written, the one he wrote in 1988 with Dennis Ritchie, who wrote Unix with Ken Thompson. You can find information on Professor J. R. Kearl here. He's the expert on economics, a professor at Princeton, the one whose resume fills 11 pages.

SCO's experts are listed here, with links to biographical info. Additional information on Marc Rochkind is here. I note that SCO's expert, Dr. Thomas Cargill, is not too shy to rebut three of IBM's experts -- Davis, Kernighan and M. Frans Kaashoek. Kaashoek is a computer science professor at MIT. Dr. Peter Salus informs us that he is "also quite expert on the *comparison* of OSes." Information on Dr. Cargill is here, where SCO describes his expertise by saying he is "a software consultant and former computer science professor and UNIX developer." That page also has Dr. Evan Ivie's credentials.

I see SCO didn't find any expert to rebut Andrew Morton. Well. Really, who could they possibly find who credibly could? Linus? I think *he's* unlikely to help SCO out.

I thought about doing a table, with all the experts listed and their bios, so you could compare the two sides' arsenals, but it felt mean.

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

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (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,

v.

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 C. Wells

___________________________

I hereby certify that on the 28th day of August, 2006, true and correct copies of the following expert reports:

Rebuttal Expert Report of Professor J.R. Kearl, dated August 28, 2006

Report and Declaration of Brian W. Kernighan and Randall Davis, dated August 28, 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 31st day of August, 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

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

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH


THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of each of the following: (1) Rebuttal Report of Marc Rochkind; (2) Response to the Reports and Declarations of IBM Experts by Gary Pisano, Ph.D. (3) Rebuttal Reports of Dr. Christine A. Botosan; (4) Reports of Dr. Thomas A. Cargill in Response to the Report and

Declaration of Brian W. Kernighan and Randall Davis, to the Report and Declaration of Randall Davis, and to the Report and Declaration of M. Frans Kaashoek; (5) Expert Rebuttal Report of Dr. Evan Ivie; (6) Rebuttal Report of Dr. Jeffrey Leitzinger; and (7) Rebuttal Report of Avner Kalay, were served on Defendant, IBM on the 28th day of August, 2006 by Hand Delivery and US Mail to:
David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]

And

Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer
[address]

DATED this 31st day of August, 2006

BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC

By: /s/ Edward Normand

Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.

2


  


SCO and IBM Serve Expert Rebuttal Reports on Each Other | 216 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
tipoes Go Here
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 01 2006 @ 05:25 AM EDT
Weeeee

---
Clocks
"Ita erat quando hic adveni."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Der Offs Topics (O/T)
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 01 2006 @ 05:27 AM EDT
Uh, yeah, the off topic stuff. Like whether or not SETI is really relevent to
today's distributed computing environment.

---
Clocks
"Ita erat quando hic adveni."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't like where this is heading
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 01 2006 @ 06:09 AM EDT
This is getting close to character assassination of the experts. Groklaw
coverage should not have an influence on who agrees to have a look at a party's
case and how to make it.

Of course, it is fine to pick apart the arguments. But this background snooping
reminds me of "this is relevant for this case of rape, since we are trying
to establish that the defendant is a tramp, anyway".

In the end, the soundness of arguments is what should carry the case, not the
background of the witnesses.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO and IBM Serve Expert Rebuttal Reports on Each Other
Authored by: odysseus on Friday, September 01 2006 @ 06:44 AM EDT
"... but it felt mean"

lol

Very loud in fact :-)

Thanks PJ, I needed a real good laugh, its been a long
hard day...

John.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO and IBM Serve Expert Rebuttal Reports on Each Other
Authored by: eggplant37 on Friday, September 01 2006 @ 07:47 AM EDT
I thought about doing a table, with all the experts listed and their bios, so you could compare the two sides' arsenals, but it felt mean.
PJ, it's not mean to present the facts as they stand. If SCO can't summon up enough expert help for their case to array against IBM's most awesome expert team, then too bad. It's just one more indication of how truly insincere this litigation has been when IBM is the only side that can pull out MIT people to defend themselves.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So what I want to know?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 01 2006 @ 09:40 AM EDT
I seem to remember there is still an IBM motion on the table to limit SCO's
experts' testimony to items disclosed in the December Final Disclosures.

As far as I know, this motion hasn't been decided yet.

The questions:

1. Do IBM's experts rebut based on (a) the assumption that SCO's experts'
testimony will be so limited, or (b) SCO's experts' testimony as it currently
is without the limitation imposed.

2. If 1(a) applies, what happens if SCO's experts' testimony is limited. It
would seem in this case, SCO's experts' testimony would be unrebutted.

3. If (b) applies, then it seems that IBM's experts' rebuttal testimony is at a
severe disadvantage as they got no discovery from SCO on items that weren't in
the December disclosures.

4. If (b) applies, then it seems to me likely that SCO would argue that IBM has
waived their right to object on the basis that SCO's experts testimony wasn't in
the December Disclosures. Would this argument likely go anywhere?


Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Minor correction (not a typo)
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 01 2006 @ 11:57 AM EDT
The FIRST edition of "The C Programming Language" by Brian W.
Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie was published in 1978, not 1988. The second
edition in '88 is the ANSI version. I have a copy of the original on my lap
now. It is marked as follows:

Copyright (C) 1978 by Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced... blah blah
blah

This book was set in Times Roman and Courier 12 by the authors, using a Graphic
Systems phototypesetter driven by a PDP-11/70 running under the UNIX operating
system.

UNIX is a Trademark of Bell Laboratories.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's experts are chosen to impress a Utah jury
Authored by: turing_test on Friday, September 01 2006 @ 01:35 PM EDT
In trying to figure out why SCO has chosen the experts it has, one must bear in
mind the game plan they've apparently had ever since the original plan (get IBM
to settle for big bucks) failed.

Their current plan could be to get past summary judgement, so they can put some
of their claims before a jury. Then they outmaneuver IBM in jury selection and
end up with a stupid and highly suggestible jury. Then Boies casts his
Svengali-like spell on the jury, and SCO gets its multi-billion dollar
judgement.

Given this, SCO wants to be able to point at the IBM experts from those
highfalutin' colleges, and make it seem that IBM is saying that BYU just isn't
as good as MIT. The jury will then rise in indignation at this affront, and
ensure SCO's big payday.

You don't need to tell me that this plan has more holes than a Swiss cheese,
since I am fully aware of it. But if SCO wants to preserve at least the
illusion that it might win, their current strategy is probably as good as any.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More about Frans Kaashoek
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 01 2006 @ 01:36 PM EDT
Don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but Frans Kaashoek is mentioned quite
a bit in Andrew Tanenbaum's Operating Systems books (he was one of Dr.
Tanenbaum's PhD students). In case anyone is wondering who Dr. Tanenbaum is,
he's the guy that led the effort to write Minix and the Amoeba distributed OS.

[ Reply to This | # ]

That's not an expert, THIS is an expert!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 01 2006 @ 02:49 PM EDT
Sorry, couldn't resist!

[ 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 )