|
Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
... so PJ can find them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections here, please - # Novell press release titled, "Novel1 Challenges SCO Position ..." - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 06:48 PM EDT
- 141. == 148. - Authored by: Rudisaurus on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:14 PM EDT
- Corrections here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:21 PM EDT
- Corrections here, please - Authored by: Steve Allen on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 08:19 PM EDT
- 539 Under Seal, but not stricken - Authored by: IMANAL on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 11:13 PM EDT
- Number 306 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 11:28 PM EDT
- Link for item 147 seems to be dead (N/T) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 11:39 PM EDT
- Exhibit 70 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 01:11 AM EDT
- Number 76 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 02:50 AM EDT
- Corrections here, please - 52 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 03:03 AM EDT
- Corrections here, please - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 07:08 AM EDT
- item 146 & 167 - Authored by: WhiteFang on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 08:30 AM EDT
- 52 + 46 broken links + Attention PJ!!! (Keyboard warning) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 08:38 AM EDT
- 272 broken link, has an 'a' tag with no href n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 02:19 AM EDT
- Corrections here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 04:57 AM EDT
- 236 @ 237 link broken - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 05:18 AM EDT
- #226 is damaged - Authored by: TimMann on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 11:13 PM EDT
- Corrections here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 11:53 PM EDT
- Links for exhibits 484 onwards - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 13 2006 @ 02:14 AM EDT
- 595 does not link correctly - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 13 2006 @ 07:25 AM EDT
- 4.O -> 4.0 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 13 2006 @ 06:35 PM EDT
- End of Declaration is Missing - Authored by: RFD on Friday, October 13 2006 @ 07:58 PM EDT
- Links 300-400 checked - Authored by: RFD on Friday, October 13 2006 @ 08:28 PM EDT
|
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 06:35 PM EDT |
Clicky links if you've got them. Instructions on the
bottom of the submit
page.
--- You just can't win with DRM. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- None of that changed Yarro's affection for his departed mentor? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 06:46 PM EDT
- OOo Legal Spelling Dictionary - Authored by: dhcolesj on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 06:59 PM EDT
- The Eight Billion Dollar Mistake - Authored by: fudnutz on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:33 PM EDT
- Marketplace chats with Scott McNalley - Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:42 PM EDT
- Kernel developer arrested! - Authored by: Aim Here on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 08:03 PM EDT
- Remembering Ray Noorda - Authored by: grundy on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 08:31 PM EDT
- Ray Noorda - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 08:42 PM EDT
- Studio 60 and SCO Linux Distribution - Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 08:57 PM EDT
- wow SCOX last trade up to $2.28 at 3:50PM ET - Authored by: ZenDragon on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 08:59 PM EDT
- Baystar/RBC connection - Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 01:27 AM EDT
- Open source a Billion Dollar Market - Inquirer - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 05:54 AM EDT
- Hans Reiser arrested on murder charge - Authored by: The Simulator on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 07:56 AM EDT
- Wii! hoax. Caught me too :-) - Authored by: jplatt39 on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 08:32 AM EDT
- US and Canadian customers can now claim a settlement from Sony BMG - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 09:07 AM EDT
- EFF Sues for Information on Electronic Surveillance Systems - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 09:11 AM EDT
- Daniel Lyons on Baystar, Goldfarb, Hollywod studios and SCO. - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 09:06 AM EDT
- Eudora To Go Open Source - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 03:24 PM EDT
- SCO's "Our suit is too frivolous" defense - Authored by: E-man on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 04:31 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 06:40 PM EDT |
Free Speech without attribution! What a concept. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Or..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:01 PM EDT
- But to clarify.... - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:23 PM EDT
- Pseudo-Anonymous? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 09:09 PM EDT
- Or..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:42 PM EDT
- Or..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 08:04 PM EDT
- Or..... - Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 08:18 PM EDT
- Or.....in cases of saying it how it really is aka - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 09:26 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 09:35 PM EDT
- Or..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 02:46 AM EDT
- Or..... - Authored by: mpellatt on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 06:01 AM EDT
- Or..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 07:27 AM EDT
- Anonoymous Posters pat yourselves on the back here: - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 08:00 PM EDT
- One big advantage of logging in - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 06:09 AM EDT
- Apparently things are only Free when properly licensed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 09:08 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
Looking forward to several of those exhibits.
Any news on Counterclaim 10's redacted memo?
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stats_for_all on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
203. Email from Kim Jenkins to bbench@sco.com and molson@sco.com,
regarding
"SCO-Battery 1.3ppt - Better Version", dated October 11, 2002 and
bearing Bates
number SCO1592478 (Under Seal)
Kim Jenkins is the main Morgan Keegan
Investment banker. The
Contract revision between Jenkins and McBride, at the time of the Sun and
Microsoft negotiations is available online.
The October 2002 date
places this document before the supposed Darl and
IBM failed negotiations that
occured in December 2002.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- So: - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 05:10 AM EDT
|
Authored by: stats_for_all on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:23 PM EDT |
401. Document titled "The SCO Group, Inc, Intellectual Property Compliance
License for SCO UNUX [sic] rights", bearing Bates numbers SCO1304158-65
(Under
Seal)
This was an observation originally made by SpanishInquisition.
SCO has based a legal argument on evading the GPL on licensing its own
Unix
IP rather than Linux per se. This is despite plain language in press
releases
and websites that identified the license as IP compliance for
Linux.
The document with a mispelled title License for SCO UNUX [sic]
rights is best explained as a hack white-out and strike over job on the pre-
existing Linux rights license. IBM gleefully submits the goof as an
exhibit. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
You should just be able to cut the content of the lists and paste.
489
through to 490.
493 through to 501
-
U.S. Patent No.
6,111,572
- U.S. Patent No.
5,202,971
- U.S. Patent No.
5,175,852
- U.S. Patent No.
5,421,011
- U.S. Patent No. 5,428,171 [Ed:This reference is almost
certainly wrong - this patent is for 2-substituted quinoline dioc acids. Check
the DVD.]
- U.S. Patent No.
5,442,758
- U.S. Patent No.
5,185,861
- U.S. Patent No.
6,038,677
- U.S. Patent No.
6,279,034
503 through to 504
509 through to 512.
515 to 531
- U.S. Patent No.
5,875,306
- U.S. Patent No.
6,581,104
- U.S. Patent No.
5,754,763
- U.S, Patent No.
5,584,023
- U.S. Patent No.
4,809,168
- U,S. Patent No.
6,662,205
- U.S. Patent No.
5,819,251
- U.S. Patent No.
5,608,893
- U.S. Patent No.
5,727,209
- U.S. Patent No.
6,219,690
- U.S. Patent No.
5,133,053
- U.S. Patent No.
4,761,737
- U.S. Patent No.
5,142,622
- U.S. Patent No.
5,261,053
- U.S. Patent No.
5,655,122
- U.S. Patent No.
5,745,763
- U.S. Patent No.
5,802,578
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:50 PM EDT |
And this should be
<li><a
href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF
&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=
50&s1=5,428,771.PN.&OS=PN/5,428,771&RS=PN/5,428,771">U.S.
Patent No. 5,428,771</a>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tyche on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
Thank you very much for all your hard work.
Craig
Tyche
---
"The Truth shall Make Ye Fret"
"TRUTH", Terry Pratchett[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 08:52 PM EDT |
First, thank you anon for all your hard work that probably seemed like it was
going anon anon anon... :-)
I'm laughing reading the SCO letter to Lucio Noto at IBM, explaining to IBM how
programmers are vetted to work on operating systems, and so on ad nauseum. I
just thought the irony of SCO telling IBM about developing OS code was a bit
much.
...D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 09:13 PM EDT |
On DVD or not. I'm sure glad I'm not the judge having to review all of that! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 09:20 PM EDT |
Once more. This time clicky thanks to jseigh.
489 through to
490.
493 through to 501
- U.S.
Patent No. 6,111,572
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,202,971
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,175,852
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,421,011
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,428,771
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,442,758
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,185,861
- U.S.
Patent No. 6,038,677
- U.S.
Patent No. 6,279,034
503 through to 504
509 through to 512.
515 to 531
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,875,306
- U.S.
Patent No. 6,581,104
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,754,763
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,584,023
- U.S.
Patent No. 4,809,168
- U.S.
Patent No. 6,662,205
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,819,251
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,608,893
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,727,209
- U.S.
Patent No. 6,219,690
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,133,053
- U.S.
Patent No. 4,761,737
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,142,622
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,261,053
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,655,122
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,745,763
- U.S.
Patent No. 5,802,578
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 09:25 PM EDT |
From Novell's 1993 10-K: "Novell also supplies the UNIX operating system
source code to other UNIX system vendors."
If Novell is/was in the business of supplying source code to other companies, it
seems reasonable that it would not transfer ownership of the copyrights. After
all, it would want to sell the same source code to several other companies. I
wonder if those contracts would cast light on the Santa Cruz contract.
Even a casual reading of the 10-K shows that Unix was completely integrated in
Novell's overall operations. It is also clear that Novell understood the nature
of the problem posed by Microsoft.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Novell's 1993 10-K - Authored by: jdg on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 12:13 AM EDT
- Intent? n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 07:41 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 09:34 PM EDT |
Item #594 is a press release, and it's under seal. I'm a bit confused how that
can happen.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 09:42 PM EDT |
I believe that since the entire DVD was released from the courthouse (was it
copied or was a copy given?) and that the materials appear in a public case that
they can be freely redistributed. Groklaw itself re-distributes many of the
items... What about creating a bittorrent for the DVD? That would save your
servers some bandwidth and get all of the exhibits out there quickly.
Just a
thought... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sk43 on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 09:48 PM EDT |
From Exhibit 109, Santa Cruz' Form 10-K for FY 1996, one of the canonical
WARNING statements:
"The Company's strategy is to offer products that conform to industry
standards. Industry standards may be established by organizations composed of
vendors, by government agencies, by academic institutions, or by market
acceptance. Industry standards typically are based on specifications for which
there can be competing implementations. Because standards are open (not
proprietary), competitors can readily access the technology to include in their
products, and SCO does not believe that offering products conforming to industry
standards will provide SCO with a competitive advantage."
Clearly Santa Cruz is not talking about the ELF standard.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LegalIdiot on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 11:16 PM EDT |
23 # Document titled "IBM-SCO Family Unix Technical Proposal", dated
September 2, 1998 and bearing Bates numbers SCO1310620-37 (Under
Seal)
Probably referrs to the first quoted block in this
story.
As to the latter, IBM offers a Shaughnessy declaration that
the JDA "specifically gave IBM a royalty-free license to include such
UnixWare/SV4 code in its products, including AIX for Power", and a memo, dated
September 10, 1998 from Geoff Seabrook, Santa Cruz's Senior VP for Development,
memorializing the parties' understanding on that point:
Both
companies [Santa Cruz and IBM] will exchange technology to be used in [Santa
Cruz's] UnixWare 7 on the IA 32 and [IBM's] AIX on PPC [Power]. The purpose of
these exchanges is to create a compatible family of products, together with the
resultant IA64 product [that was to be developed jointly by Santa Cruz and IBM].
It is intended that the efffective value of these exchanges will be equivalent,
and that no royalties will be due to either company as a result of these
exchanges. The zero royalty agreement is also to allow our engineering teams to
freely select the best available technology, without worrying about any royalty
impact.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 11:36 PM EDT |
Boy, talk about a tour-de-force. The Croc Dundee line just keeps popping into my
head.
I'm not sure how the judge will react, but this has GOT to set BS&F back on
their heels. Somebody(ies) at IBM wants to make a point. How long does TSCOG
have to respond to this?
Just looking at the list is satisfying.
---
Deja moo - I've heard that bull before.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 11:55 PM EDT |
I haven't heard of that "Social Contract with the open source
community" before. Does anyone have a copy of that? Could a "social
contract" be binding. It is bizzare that IBM is pulling up history from
the 70's to prove their point. How could a case like that go on for so long?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Night Flyer on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 12:55 AM EDT |
Just for my own curiosity I started to count the number of documents under seal
by IBM and under seal by SCO. (Recognizing that this is not, in any way, a
measure of the legal impact nor a competent way to judge the merits of the
case.)
SCO was winning the count hands down when I ran out of available time. Of note,
I was unsure of which had sealed some of the documents, based on the information
given and I made a third group labeled "?".
I am seeing this as SCO continuing its campaign to keep the general population
(read this as GROKLAW) from doing an independent scrutiny of its position(s).
---
Veritas Vincit - Truth Conquers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Under seal - IBM ?? or SCO ?? - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 01:30 AM EDT
- I almost pee'd meself! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 01:56 AM EDT
- Under seal - IBM ?? or SCO ?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 02:55 AM EDT
- SCO's actions are offensive and ... - Authored by: jdg on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 03:07 AM EDT
- Under seal - IBM ?? or SCO ?? - Authored by: AlanMilnes on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 04:09 AM EDT
- It's even funnier if ... - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 04:44 AM EDT
- Don't gloat! - Authored by: cybervegan on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 05:26 AM EDT
- Under seal - IBM ?? or SCO ?? - Authored by: WhiteFang on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 05:27 AM EDT
- Under seal - IBM ?? or SCO ?? - Authored by: Stumbles on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 06:30 AM EDT
- Under seal - IBM ?? or SCO ?? - Authored by: analyzer on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 07:36 AM EDT
- LOL - Authored by: tuxi on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 09:05 AM EDT
- LOL - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 06:41 PM EDT
- Cannot argue with Set 7, forth in the list - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 07:37 AM EDT
- Was this a 30(b)(6)? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 07:52 AM EDT
- Darl says IBM interfered with SCOX(E)'s relationship to Groklaw? - Authored by: PSaltyDS on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 10:02 AM EDT
- and the piece de resistance - Authored by: tangomike on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 10:18 AM EDT
- Under seal - IBM ?? or SCO ?? - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 11:14 AM EDT
- The Punch Line - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 11:56 AM EDT
- Chicago 7? - Authored by: NetArch on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 11:57 AM EDT
- IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 01:18 PM EDT
- Sorry to hear this PJ.... - Authored by: mram on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 11:48 AM EDT
- Under seal - IBM ?? or SCO ?? - Authored by: Ed L. on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 01:34 AM EDT
- Under seal - IBM ?? or SCO ?? - Authored by: jplatt39 on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 07:55 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 01:44 AM EDT |
"594. Caldera Systems, Inc. press release titled "SCO and Caldera
Release Technology Preview of AIX 5L-64 Bit UNIX OS for Intel Itanium
Processors", dated April 23, 2001 and bearing Bates numbers SCO1395324-26
(Under Seal)"
How can a press release be sealed?
Google located something with that title and date at:
http://ir.sco.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=41314
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 04:51 AM EDT |
Anyone know who, if anyone, turned up for the deposition of Microsoft about its
relationship with SCO and BayStar etc? That declaration should make interesting
reading.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: alasmi on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 06:20 AM EDT |
Groklaw gets a mention in exhibit 51 "Persons or Entities
Whose Relationship with SCO IBM Is Alleged to Have Interfered with, Such that
SCO Was Damaged, that Are the Subject of SCO's Claims against IBM -
Identified by Mr. McBride at Deposition", marked as Exhibit No. 1035 to the
December 2, 2005 Deposition of Darl McBride
Set 10:
Media
Groklaw
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mpellatt on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 07:04 AM EDT |
Exhibit 557 is available at http://www.dogs-chod.co.uk/how
to/21ann.txt [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 07:15 AM EDT |
Such a huge list of exhibits. How can lawyers do that to a judge? Now there is
no way he can rule within a year.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Disagree - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 07:53 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 08:07 AM EDT |
This is Ryan Tibbitts' list of companies that IBM allegedly interfered with...
the list that was later largely abandoned and which Ryan Tibbitts didn't seem to
know much detail of.
The first thing that strikes me as odd is the title on every page "Alleged
IBM Interference Subject of and to Discovery 12/15/2005". In other words,
right before the end of fact discovery, SCO appears to be saying more discovery
is needed. On all these companies. There are about 4-8 entries per page, over
14 pages, with some entries representing multiple companies... in other words, a
lot of discovery.
Some other things that strike me as odd (apart from the fact that the majority
of items cut and paste identical text) - I won't list them all, just a few
highlights:
pp2 - Connectiva - Brazil: Jacques Rosenzvaig mentioned to Darl McBride that
IBM would cut off all business with them if they continued to work with SCO
(January 2003); Connectiva stated that "IBM would make our life very
difficult if we continue working with you" (April 2003)
So you would think Darl McBride would be one of the witnesses? Right?
In the Witness column it says "Daniel Amato Andy Nagle" (both of whom
work or worked for SCO)
pp10 - AutoZone - IBM successfully induced AutoZone to cease using the SCO
software and to use Linux with IBM's version of UNIX. AutoZone ultimately
decided not to pay SCO the annual fee to continue to maintain SCO products. In
addition, Darl said that he was preparing for an early 2004 meeting AutoZone,
and then Larry called and said that AutoZone had been talking to IBM and they
aren't going to do anything, they'll just listen to us and send us on our way.
Witness: John Maloy.
My Questions: How is IBM selling to AutoZone supposed to be illegal? Why is it
all on first name terms (Larry?)? What happened to the SCO Open Server shared
library allegation (which is mentioned in Sherwin Williams which is the line
above)?
pp12 - Novell - IBM interfered with the APA claiming Novell could waive and was
waiving breaches of license agreements by various licenses, including IBM. IBM
invested $50 million in Novell to support NOvell's Linux initiatives. IBM
pressured Novell to challenge SCO's ownership of UNIX copyrights.
Witness: Darl McBride
My Question: Was Darl there when "IBM pressured Novell to challenge SCO's
ownership of UNIX copyrights"? for example... how can he be a witness?
pp13 - Progress - Refused to engage in business relations with SCO for almost a
year after the lawsuit had been filed.
My Question: Where's the mention of IBM? This one (like some others) don't even
allege IBM did *anything*, let alone anything illegal.
pp13 - Enterprise DB - SCO entered into discussions for joint business ventures,
and they gave SCO a strong commitment. Enterprise DB then backed out, telling
SCO that their investors could not approve of a deal because of the lawsuit.
My Question: Where's the mention of IBM? This one (like some others) don't even
allege IBM did *anything*, let alone anything illegal.
pp13 - CNBC - Darl McBride was invited to serve as a key panelist on a CNBC
panel to speak abou intellectual property issues in Fall 2004. One week before
the event, CNBC retracted its invitation.
My Question: Where's the mention of IBM? This one (like some others) don't even
allege IBM did *anything*, let alone anything illegal.
pp14 - RedHat - At the beginning of Project Monterey, IBM told SCO that SCO
would be the volume play in Monterey. Behind SCO's back, IBM cut deals with Red
Hat to do the distributions.
Witness: Darl McBride
Feel the irony...
My Question: Darl didn't work for IBM or old-SCO at the beginning of Project
Monterey - so how could he be a witness? How could he be a witness to deals that
were supposedly "cut behind [his] back"?
pp14 - Rob Enderle (with Gartner) - Rob Enderle stated that he was working at
Gartner Group and the high-level Gartner executives treated him unfairly because
he supported SCO's side of the lawsuit.
Witness: Darl McBride
My Question: Where's the mention of IBM? This one (like some others) don't even
allege IBM did *anything*, let alone anything illegal.
My 2nd question: Isn't this hearsay anyway?
My 3rd question: Where's the allegation of any damage to SCO as a result, even
if it were true?
pp15 - Informix - Informix was ready to support SCO's software on Open Server 6.
When IBM found out, IBM told Informix that they could not work with SCO.
Witness: Blank!
My Question: Even if it were true, how do SCO know if there was no witness?
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 08:13 AM EDT |
I wouldn't like to be on the deck of the Good Ship SCO right now. We've been
waiting all this time for IBM to let rip with their cannons. Now we realise the
couple of shots we've seen so far were just bracketing. Here's the broadside.
We won't be able to see the Good Ship SCO sink for all the smoke and spray.
I didn't realise how big this case had got. Glad to see IBM have really done
their homework. They done good.
---
I would rather stand corrected than sit confused.
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it on the accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wow!!! - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 06:29 PM EDT
- Wow!!! - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 08:54 PM EDT
- Wow!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 13 2006 @ 03:13 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 08:36 AM EDT |
From Exhibit 51...
Another must read - "Persons or Entities Whose Relationship with SCO IBM is
alleged to have interfered with, such that SCO was damaged, that are sbject to
SCO's claims against IBM - Identified by Mr. McBride at Deposition"
Of course it is different from Tibbitts' list
I won't retype it all (particularly since I've typed a good part of it once,
then lost it already once)
Set 1: Members of United Linux - Turbo Linux, Connectiva, SUSE, The United
Linux Organization
My comment: Didn't SCO themselves say they were withdrawing from United Linux?
Set 2: Customers - ...., A Certain NY Taxi Company, IBM Japan
My comment: "A Certain NY Taxi Company" - is that the name of a
company, or does SCO not even know which company it allegedly had a relationship
with?
My comment: How did IBM interfere with SCO's relationship with IBM... What?
Set 3: Third-Party Software and Hardware Vendors - ......, Cybase, ....
My comment: Cybase with the same spelling is also in Tibbitts' list. The
implication in Tibbitts is that Cybase is a database company. Except the
database company is Sybase (with an S), and Cybase (With a C) is a UK ISP
Set 4: Industry Event Companies - ......, Entity Above A Certain OpenSource
Business COnference, Company Sponsoring John Terpstra's OpenSource Conference
My comment; Again two unnamed companies - doesn't SCO know the names? In the
first one, do they not even know which conference (how will they ever identify
it?)?
Set 6: Industry Analysts - ROb Enderle (With Garner), OSDL, Laura Dido (with
Yankee Group)
My comment: BWAHHHAHAHHA!
Set 8: Standards Bodies or Companies Related to Standards Bodies - Open Group,
Free Software Foundation, OSDL, Cygnus
My comment: Double BWAHHHAHAHHA!
Set 10: Media - Groklaw
My comment: Triple BWAHHHAHAHHA! Did you know, PJ, that IBM interfered with your
relationship with SCO?
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mpellatt on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 09:05 AM EDT |
Exhibit 44
SCO disputes that POSIX and XPG (inter alia) are
"standards".
Maybe I would like to see this before a jury after all. Perhaps
SCO would like to dispute whether driving on the right hand side of the road in
the USA, supplying electricity into the home at 110V AC 60Hz (for single phase),
etc, are "standards" as well.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Cornishman on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
I noticed an exchange of letters in amongst the sealed
items:
#244 Letter from Kimberlee A. Madsen to Ronald A.
Lauderdale, dated June 6, 2001 and bearing Bates numbers
171037001-03
and
#220 Letter from Ronald A.
Lauderdale to Kimberlee A. Madsen, dated June 19, 2001 and bearing Bates number
1110073906
Lauderdale is the IBM Assistant General Counsel, and
Madsen is the nominated contract coordinator for SCO, named in the Project
Monterey Agreement. The exchange occurred the month after the Agreement was
terminated, in May 2001.
This would be about the time that SCO was
conspicuously failing to notice the planned availability of AIX-on-Power about
which they were later so shocked. --- (c) assigned to PJ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
PJ, have you thought of bittorrenting the DVD?
--
BMO[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
Stealing someone's thunder, but here you go.
http://www.e-consultancy.com/news-blog/28784/sco-and-caldera-release-technology-
preview-of-aix-5l-64-bit-unix-os-for-intel-itanium-tm-processors.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: elcorton on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 11:23 AM EDT |
Exhibit 44 is SCO's Response to IBM's Seventh Set of Interrogatories.
Interrogatory no. 23 asked in part:
Regarding SCO's Final
Disclosure of Allegedly Misused
Material ... please state with specificity --
separately with respect to each
version, file, and line of code, method and
concept identified by SCO:
(a) by whom it has been, and currently is owned,
when, and from whom it
was acquired...
SCO responds with a
table listing the items in the Final Disclosures. Every
one of the items
acquired from Sequent -- including, of course, all the
material from Dynix --
is shown as being owned by IBM.
In the first round of dispositive motions,
SCO's brief in opposition to
IBM's motion for summary judgment on CC 10
introduced the Liu theory,
according to which there was a disputed fact as to
whether SCO owned the
copyrights to Dynix:
The Sequent License
Agreement Also Creates Genuine
Issues of Fact on the Issue of Copyright. If
the Tenth Counterclaim
remains in the case, SCO’s License Agreement with
Sequent creates an
additional fact issue precluding summary judgment, because
the agreement is
ambiguous as to whether SCO holds copyright to
Dynix.
This argument played an important role -- maybe the
decisive role -- in
persuading Kimball to resist what he called the "temptation
to grant IBM's
motion" before the end of discovery.
Now discovery is over,
and it seems that SCO no longer thinks there is a
dispute as to who owns Dynix.
When SCO files its opposition to the renewed
CC 10 motion, watch carefully to
see whether it tries to use the Liu theory
again as a defense. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- My pet theory - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 11:46 AM EDT
|
Authored by: GLJason on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 07:34 PM EDT |
The declaration of
Steve Best is an interesting read, and goes to show how ridiculous SCO's
contract interpretation is. OS/2 contains no SYSV code. JFS was developed in
OS/2, not using SYSV code. Steve Best lead the programming effort to port it to
Linux and in the process added more code to JFS. OS/2 based JFS code was added
to AIX around the same time, giving some the mistaken impression that IBM's JFS
contributions to Linux were from AIX. A Caldera employee (Christoph Hellwig)
was the main outside-IBM contributor to JFS in Linux.
If SCO's viral
contract theory were held to be true, IBM's 20 year old contract with AT&T
would be able to control their OS/2 business. Granted, I believe OS/2 is nearly
dead, but imagine if it wasn't and it was a thriving competitor to Windows. Not
only would IBM still have to maintain the entirety of OS/2 secret, they would
also owe SCO processor-based licensing fees for SYSV for every processor they
ran OS/2 on. All because they took something FROM OS/2 and added it to their
flavor of UNIX. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 08:34 PM EDT |
Check out exhibit 158, Ronald Lauderdale's (IBM's ) letter to Darl McBride,
dated June 13th 2003. It is in response to Darl's letter of the previous day
(telling them that SCO would terminate IBM's AIX license).
The letter ends:
As previously stated, IBM has an irrevocable, perpetual license to the software
in question. We regret that you have chosen to commence litigation against IBM,
to make repeated meritless public statements about this matter and to promote
fear, uncertainty and doubt in the open source community and among our AIX
customers. I understand our respective ligitation counsel have discussed
scheduling for the litigation, and I expect that the resulting proceedings will
ultimately resolve this matter between our companies.
The last sentence: "...and I expect that the resulting proceedings [in
court] will ultimately resolve this matter between our companies.", seems
very clear to me: We're going to resolve this in court.
Somehow SCO missed or ignored the meaning.
Because BayStar invested after this letter was sent (in Fall 2003).
And somehow BayStar got the impression from SCO, that IBM was getting ready to
settle to this, out of court, in short-order.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sk43 on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 09:23 PM EDT |
Exhibit 154 is SCO's letter to Sequent giving notice of intent to terminate
Sequent's SVR4 license. It is dated May 29, 2003. Darl states "... we
will provide you two (2) months to remedy all violations ... of the Agreements.
Should you fail to do so, your rights ... will be terminated as of September 2,
2003..."
Except Sept. 2 is three months after Darl wrote the letter.
Failing to understand Darl's lack of skills in basic arithmentic and calendars,
in Exhibit 155, which is SCO's letter of Aug 11, 2003, Sontag informs IBM that
the license agreement was terminated on July 30, 2003. Sontag, at least, can
count. However, he failed to consult rule 2:
Rule 2: If the boss is wrong, see rule 1.
Rule 1: The boss is always right.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 03:36 AM EDT |
This one is a must read: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-835-Exhibit_221.pdf
Randsom Love backs IBM on all points. He is the former CEO. This is really game
over for SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
Read #224 for the EV1 story.
In light of SCO's lack of evidence to back up the copyright case I would say
that the letters signed by Ryan E. Tibbitts Esq. approach extortion. Especially
as Tibbitts should be aware of abstraction and filtration requirements to claim
copyright.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sprag on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
Linus' declaration (272) ends with quite the closer:
"Prior to commencing this lawsuit, SCO and its predecessors were heavily
involved in Linux development and promotion. But for their effords, Linux
would not have progressed as rapidly as it did to be come an enterprise ready
operating system"
Cute![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linus' take - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- A Disappointment - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 04:25 PM EDT
|
Authored by: AndyC on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 04:35 PM EDT |
PJ,
Due to the sheer number of exhibits, might it not be an idea to keep this on the
front page longer than the usual 2 or 3 days?
Andy
P.S. I've read so many comments on this thread, I may have missed someone else
saying the same thing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
There are many depositions from individuals taken in 2006 - AT&T employees,
ex-Caldera employees, etc. that all say the same thing:
AT&T never intended to restrict IBM's use of the code
Caldera was deeply involved in Linux development and much of what they claim was
done by IBM was actu7ally done by Caldera or with Caldera's knowledge. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 07:27 PM EDT |
The statement lists the date of the Ex. 209 Letter from Curtis Drake to Ed
Normand as November 1995 but the letter is dated November 2005. Will
Shaughnessy have to file a corrected letter?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jdg on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 08:51 PM EDT |
I have just been reading a number of the declarations and now I know why the new
training sessions at BSF have such high attendance rates even though they are
voluntary. I just learned that the three main activities are: 1) practice in
avoinding the short straw; 2) optimal choices in the rock/scissors/stone
decision model; and 3) how to get to a chair quickly when the music stops and
the music is going to stop soon.
However, a selection of individuals that were not doing well on the testing have
found an alternative game -- how to send out 1000 resumes that do not mention
work on the SCO/IBM case.
---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL][ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jdg on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
As I read Para 76 (+77 and 78), one sentence alone indicates that SCO has no
casae and no damages.
"In the Strategic Business Agreement, Caldera promised IBM that it would
hold harmless and indemnify IBM from claims that the deliverables or services
infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties."
77 and 78 Under that license, IBM has the right to use the source code that
Caldera's Linux products." and "as I understood it, the GPL afforded
IBM the protection from the claim of infringement by Caldera relating to the
contents of Caldera's Linux products."
Now, isn't this sweet, Caldera (now rolled into tSCOg) indemnify IBM from
tSCOg's claims regarding infringement of intellectual propery rights.
---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL][ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
In Exhibit 237,
we find that SCO claims the IBM employee Hien Nguyen contributed to (among other
files) kernel/printk.c (which Hien Nguyen denies).
printk() is a function used
solely to print debug messages to the system console. It does not affect the
actual functioning of the kernel. (It is very similar to the ISO/ANSI C library
function printf() ).
This is not as pointless a complaint as the one about
header files (since there actually is code in printk()), but almost.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL on Friday, October 13 2006 @ 12:52 AM EDT |
The sheer number of people in different companies, with first-hand experience,
all pointing in the same direction. Ransom Love and Steven Sabbath's
statements... Brilliant! Could SCO's answer be much more than a
obf-tlkgl-glt-ga-ga-ga...?
But, then again I am no lawyer.
---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Friday, October 13 2006 @ 01:25 AM EDT |
.
Exhibit 60 # Letter from Edward Normand to Todd M. Shaughnessy, dated December
8, 2005
Dearest Todd:
I write because we obviously no longer trust each other's recollections and
your pile weighs more than our pile.
Depositions:
Give us a date for Louis Gerstner. Don't you dare limit us to 7 hours without
a protective order. When for Martin Bligh, Tony Befi, Roger Swanson, Jeffrey
Mobley, and Bryan Harold? As to Dipankar Sarma, we will not give him documents
before his deposition, just like everyone else.
Due to your night-before cancellation of Jay Petersen, there is no deposition
scheduled. Let me know your plans since the deadline is January 27, 2006.
SCO's Fifth Request for Documents:
You admit you haven't produced; you do not dispute that we have produced data;
you demand specifics from us but you don't tell us specifically what the pile
you sent means. We will move to compel. And your silence about my 11/11 letter
means you agree we don't need to respond to a damages interrogatory now but at
expert time.
SCO's 30-b-6 notices:
I'm waiting for witnesses and dates on the 29 topics we demanded in our 2
letters. Notwithstanding your stonewalling in the December 1 letter, you've
already agreed to some of this, so move. You're overdue. We've produced ours
and continue to.
IBM's 30-b-6 notices:
Your night-before cancellations of Nagle and Broderick nasty, but not
unexpected. Propose new dates. Sontag will be available on 12/21. There is a
"rolling production" of documents re his topics. We don't agree with
your 11/11 letter, but we gave relevant stuff today and yesterday. I'll respond
to your letter when I feel like it.
Sufficiency of SCO's Previous Document Production:
SCO's 11/23 production contained two doc's as supplements referred in my 11/11
letter and doc's responsive to IBM's 7th request. So when are you going to
begin your supplemental production?
SCO's 7th Request for Production of Documents:
Let's meet. How about 12/12 a 2 PM Utah time. RSVP.
IBM's 7th Request for Production of Documents:
Whatever we don't object to, we will pile and produce, even No. 127.
Deficiencies in IBM's CMVC Production:
You can't say you have answered our questions and complied re deficiencies and
say we are not at an impasse re deficiencies and then say there is nothing more
to discuss. Come across on 12/13 with our 8th request.
Deficiencies in IBM's 150 Programmers:
Sames as CMVC. We ask and you don't explain. You are maintaining a
non-existent argument re meet-and-confer obligations that the record makes
clear, though not in your head, have been satisfied.
IBM's Failure to produce Pre-1991 AIX Source Code:
I take it from your stonewalling that you haven't looked on the main frame in
NC. We're gonna tell the Judge.
The Privilege Log Objections:
What about redactions on documents but not on your privilege log?
Discovery 1/17 to 3/17/06:
We agreed on scope save for our updated responses by 12/22/06.
Requests for Admissions:
What about 3/06 as I said before? You don't respond but ask us to admit Darl's
public statements before his second day of deposition. We agreed on unlimited
requests, but reasonable. We'll do it if you agree on March 2006 to serve
requests. How about it?
SCO's Disclosures and Interrogatory Responses:
Re your 12/5 letter, we will comply with the Court's Orders re deadlines as
best we can despite your stonewalling. We'll also see if we can give you
anything in "usable electronic format." In October, you could do text
search. We'll see about the "native" format IBM prefers. We couldn't
in October so don't get your hopes up for December.
McBride's Testimony:
In your Dec 5 letter you are mistaken. I'll ignore your 12/8 deadline and tell
you Hunsaker's 30-b-6 testimony does not confirm a lack of interference save
those named in interrogatories. You are wrong. Hunsaker's topic was only
"SCO's business relationships" NOT "interference with SCO's
business relationships." You don't mention our objections in your letter.
We've discussed them both before and during the depositions. We have to stick
to the scope of the topics.
Hunsaker had companies. We objected on ambiguity and breadth. Tibbitts will
testify on interference. You all knew and acknoledged that. Tibbits was the
interference man who might name more companies and relationships that aren't on
the list.
As you will certainly do, our supplementary interrogatory responses will be
consistent with our 30-b-6 testimony. You expect overlap of interrogatory and
30-b-6 responses from SCO, but object to providing it yourself. There is room
to discuss this point so don't impose it. Your mistaken effort to attack us for
inconsistent responses in our initial interrogatories has no basis. Same for
our proposed 30-b-6 topics.
You demand McBride's emails and all responsive documents in 3 days. Let us
respond with a familiar, to you, "Palmisanic" objection, i. e. not all
documents are responsive. I will search but you also haven't given us enough
time. I will get back to you promptly, say mid-January at the earliest.
Sue my clients. Thank you for your prompt and repeated attention to these
matters. How are the kids?
Sincerely,
Edward Norman(d) signed by J.S.
---
webster
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: grahamt on Friday, October 13 2006 @ 05:50 AM EDT |
Article titled "StoreBusters Inc. to Deliver Next-Generation Online Se1ling
System Using Caldera Systems' OpenLinux E-business Platform", dated August 11,
2000 and bearing Bates numbers SCO1244467-68 (Under Seal)
http://ir.sco.com/r
eleasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=38486
and here...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2000_August_11/ai_6406
0050
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, October 13 2006 @ 08:23 AM EDT |
Google this: caldera site:linux.ittoolbox.com
Then note
these:
-
Caldera
Systems whitepaper: "OpenLinux and Open Source"
(PDF:625K)
-
Caldera Systems whitepaper:
"Linux and UNIX Are Coming Together"
(PDF:987K)
-
Caldera Systems whitepaper:
"Our Social Contract with the Open Source Community"
(PDF:54K)
These
are jewels!
As these were actually written by Caldera, that must mean Darl
is the ultimate pointy-haired boss. He must have his head in the
clouds where the sun don't shine.
--- I would rather stand
corrected than sit confused.
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it on the accuser. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Friday, October 13 2006 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
Exhibit 144 is a letter from SCO to Judge Kimball explaining their discovery
deficiencies. In it, they claim that although IBM asked for the results of any
code comparisons, they did not have to provide them:
(6) "The
code comparisons performed by consultants retained by SCO, the results of which
were publicly discussed by SCO."
These documents were created by consulting
experts who have not been designated to testify in this case. As a result, such
documents are protected from disclosure under Rule
26(b)(4).
So did SCO not have to produce those documents?
What is the basis for such a claim of privilege? I would think IBM should be
able to get those documents as it goes to their counterclaim for unfair
competition. Normally I could see where this might be the case that you don't
have to produce expert reports not planned on being used at trial. However, in
this case SCO publicly touted the strength of their infringement claims and
mentioned and relied on those reports when making those statements. In
addition, SCO failed to disclose any of this evidence in their interrogitory
responses, claiming they needed more discovery from IBM before they could find
anything.
I think this instance would fall under the exceptional
circumstances exception:
[...] or upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to
obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other
means.
IBM cannot obtain facts or opinions on the same
subject really because the subject is not whether Linux infringes or not, the
subject is what evidence that SCO had that Linux infringed when it
made its public statements, and why they would withhold that information when
IBM sought it in discovery if they had it. How can SCO keep claiming that the
had teams of experts finding truckloads of infringement, yet not be required to
produce any evidence?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 13 2006 @ 05:53 PM EDT |
This is deadly to the SCO claims as it refutes every key statement about "no
knowledge" of included code.
While SCO makes a clear point of
specifying Kernel 2.4 and above as tainted, here is evidence that SCO caused the
info released, well before that kernel release.
It's pretty sad when
Caldera/SCOG ex-employees make statements like this regarding their work
and knowledge of Linux and SVRX. This was work done before Caldera morphed into
SCOG, well before the lawsuit.
As noted before, there is a clear
disconnect between development staff and management knowledge. It seems everyone
knew about Ransom Love's goal of merging Unix and Linux except for the
NEW board members and selected office staff.
#278 --
Declaration of Bart Whiteley, dated September 19, 2006
...
Para 20 --
United Linux Version 1.0 contained ELF/SVID ..., SMP, ... and other capabilities
similar to UNIX System V release 4. I know because I ran the product on an SMP
box on my workstation and related documentation indicated that the system calls,
API, and other capabilities of UnitedLinux came from System V. Caldera
ultimately included these in its United Linux distribution.
Para 21 --
Caldera knew exactly what was in the United Linux code. The compay's engineers
were very familiar with what was in Linux and knew what code and technologies
were included. ....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 13 2006 @ 08:21 PM EDT |
This deposition of K.Y. pretty much puts the kibosh on any arguments about ELF
and certain header files not being available for unrestricted public use. It
also matches my recollections having been on the Open Group committee that
produced SPEC1170 and the Single Unix Specification.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 13 2006 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
You can download the article #538 from
www.usenix.org in either ASCII or Postscript [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 12:12 AM EDT |
Please leave the strikeouts. I like them. It makes it easy to tell which items
were sealed (initially I wondered why there were missing exhibits).
Reply briefs in 2 weeks. Yeehaw!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Erwan on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 01:33 AM EDT |
And any comments made after Update 2.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 03:13 AM EDT |
I read most (if not all) of the declarations available and made notes on them.
I'm attaching the notes as a reply so they don't all show up on the main page.
It really is staggering how everyone involved with the Software Agreements, on
BOTH sides, has the same story. This includes people from IBM and Sequent that
negotiated the contracts, people from AT&T that negotiated the contracts,
people that administered those contracts at AT&T, USL, Novell, Santa Cruz,
and Caldera, and people that negotiated the Amendments. Until Darl came along,
everyone involved in all of the contracts were of the same Mind, AT&T only
controlled its licensed code, not modifications.
Actually, I think Darl and the lawyers only came up with that whacky theory
after they realized that Linux did not in fact infringe on UNIX copyrights. A
misinterpretation of one sentence in those contracts was all they had to hold on
to. They've effectively prevented IBM from seeing the results of the
"three teams" they supposedly hired that found tons of infringement in
Linux, so they can claim whatever they wish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|