decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Report from the March 1 hearing
Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:13 AM EST

A little later than initially planned we have Chris Brown's report from yesterday's hearing. Thanks go to Chris for going to the courthouse again and staying up late to type the report. -- MathFox

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

Today, March 1st, Judge Kimball heard oral arguments on IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Third Cause of Action For Breach of Contract and IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Copyright Claim. While I'd reported that the last hearing in SCO v. Novell had the highest turnout so far, this one easily eclipsed that. Both parties had a full house of lawyers and aides of perhaps 9 or so on each side. With an above-average number of spectators, Judge Kimball's courtroom was pretty packed.

First Motion - Contract Claim

IBM speaks first

The contract claim was heard first, with IBM's David Marriott arguing. He identified the four contracts underlying SCO's breach of contract claim. He cited the four technologies of JFS, RCU, LTP, and "Negative Know-How".

Mr. Marriott said that there are several reasons IBM is entitled to summary judgment on this motion.

The first reason he wanted to make clear at the outset is that none of those are Unix System V technologies, that they are independent, original software created without reference to Unix. None are a modification or derivative work of System V.

He explained how SCO contends they control IBM's original software since it touched, peripherally, software derived from SCO's Unix. He then presented a video montage of deposition excerpts from individuals who were party to the original software agreements at issue. This included 5 people from AT&T/USL/Novell, 3 from IBM, and 2 from Sequent. Each deponent stated that AT&T's code is AT&T's and that code developed by the licensee was its own. Further they stated that the licensee maintains control of its own original code, not AT&T. This video was probably 5-8 minutes long, although Mr. Marriott indicated he's presented Judge Kimball with a disk containing about another 3.5 hours should he wish to review it.

He explained, using a graphical chart representation of Linux code (titled: Linux Kernel v. 2.6.11.8 "Woozy Beaver") how JFS constitutes but a part of the total system. He likened SCO's claim to one where an automaker licenses technology for a chassis from a company for use in its car and then claims to control the entire car right down to the fuzzy dice on the mirror, claiming such automaker would then be prohibited from taking the Sony radio out of the car to use elsewhere.

He said that SCO's interpretation is contrary to copyright law and would lead to absurd results.

The second reason is that SCO is estopped from pursuing because for twenty years the contract was interpreted by both parties in a manner contrary to SCO's interpretation. Further those alleged breaches have been waived for the same reasons. Mr. Marriott also claimed that Novell, under rights granted under the APA, waived the alleged breaches on SCO's behalf.

Also, SCO shipped each of the four technologies as part of its Linux product, distributed under the terms of the GPL. The United Linux agreements required assignments of any copyrights owned in the United Linux code to United Linux LLC. He said the GPL authorizes and requires making the source code available, also constituting a waiver. He reiterated, however, that the four elements at issue are IBM's original code.

He claimed SCO's RCU allegation is additionally barred by the statute of limitations under New York law, that the RCU technology was revealed in a 1993 patent application (granted in 1994). The LTP allegation fails because SCO claims it came from Dynix, which it did not. Of the "negative know-how" claims, several are based on IBM employees having "experience" with Unix. He pointed out the agreements do not preclude IBM employees from such disclosures. Further, Judge Wells ruled SCO did not provide particularity on these items and excluded them.

SCO's turn

SCO's Stuart Singer argued next. He stated that the Unix operating system was AT&T's crown jewel, that SCO licensed Unix technology to vendors desiring to develop their own flavor of Unix under strict non-disclosure terms.

He said that a trial on SCO's claims is required and gave several reasons: That there are 40,000 pages of exhibits. That contrary to IBM's earlier video presentation, he said that 14 years ago, Otis Wilson provided quite different testimony in the USL v. BSDI case, that Mr. Wilson stated that anything written with reference to Unix System V must be protected. He claimed that IBM submitted declarants with depositions that did not match their words. That in one instance a declarant refused to sign at all, and in another IBM and the individual went back and forth many times until he was worn down and signed anyway. He said that this must go to trial to allow cross-examination of witnesses such that the truth may be found.

Mr. Singer said that there is a disputed fact about JFS, whether it originated in OS/2 or System V. He said SCO has testimony that JFS originated in AIX.

Using an enlarged excerpt of the contract language, he read Sections 2.01 and 7.06 and said that they are contrary to IBM's interpretation.

Mr. Singer said that SCO does not believe they need to rely on parole evidence to support their arguments but the parole evidence indicates there are differences of testimony, which calls for a trial. He said the contract contains an integration clause that prevents the use of parole evidence.

Regarding Novell's purported waiver he said that this interpretation would make a mockery of the terms of the APA. He showed contract verbiage that he claimed would not make sense if Novell were permitted to make such a waiver.

He argued IBM's RCU patent protects IBM's use of the technology preventing use by others, thus preserving it for IBM, not Open Sourcing it.

Mr. Singer used only half an hour of his permitted 45 minutes and asked that the balance of time be reserved for rebuttal.

IBM responds

Mr. Marriott then reiterated that what IBM is alleged to have improperly disclosed is not part of some derivative work. It is original code of IBM's.

Regarding Otis Wilson's testimony, he quoted him stating in USL v. BSDI (and also 14 years later) where he said USL had no desire to control licensees' original work.

He said that the contract's integration clause does not undermine the declarations and actions of participants' interpretation of the agreements of the last twenty years.

SCO's final reserved rebuttal time

Mr. Singer rebutted, saying his "short answer" is that JFS, RCU, and LTP are not like dice on a dashboard; they are integral to Linux. If they are incidental, take them out and see if Linux works. He quoted Linus Torvalds in a Linux version release stating that RCU was fundamental to that release.

Judge Kimball took the arguments under advisement. He then said he would hear the next motion on the copyright claim in 30 minutes at 4:30 pm. The courtroom mostly emptied and a jury was brought in to render their verdict in a criminal case.

Motion 2, summary judgment on SCO's copyright claim

IBM first

When court reconvened, argument was heard on IBM's request for summary judgment on SCO's copyright claim in which SCO claims IBM infringed its copyright by continuing to distribute AIX after SCO purportedly terminated their rights to do so.

Mr. Marriott presented five reasons IBM should be granted summary judgment. SCO cannot prove infringement. SCO has not demonstrated a predicate breach, SCO cannot terminate, SCO cannot prove it holds the copyrights at issue, and SCO misused its copyrights.

He said that since the beginning of the case IBM requested, and Judge Wells ordered, that SCO identify the code IBM is alleged to have infringed. He briefly reviewed the history of interrogatories, motions and orders to compel. He said that SCO has not identified such.

He said that SCO has not demonstrated a predicate breach of contract to terminate.

Saying that the copyright claim turns on JFS, he says that JFS came from IBM's OS/2 operating system, not their AIX product, that there is no AIX code, method, or concept in JFS, that IBM owns JFS and SCO concedes this. IBM maintains copyrights to this code and IBM can do what it wants with its copyrighted code.

He explained how Novell waived SCO's right to terminate and that Novell retained the right to do so for SVRx licenses. He said that the agreement Novell had with Santa Cruz allocated 95% of the royalty stream to Novell and that it's no surprise that Novell would retain a mechanism in the agreements to protect that income. Mr. Marriott said that IBM's contract is an SVRx license and that even SCO's Mr. McBride acknowledges in a letter to Novell that the license in question is an SVRx license.

Mr. Marriott stated that SCO assigned any copyrights it held in the Linux product to United Linux LLC. SCO, in its product announcement for the United Linux product touted the inclusion of JFS.

The IBM contracts, excluding the side letter, say that the only grounds for termination must relate to a material breach. JFS is not SVRx code and therefore cannot be a material breach.

He asserted that IBM has an "irrevocable and perpetual" license. He gives numerous synonyms for irrevocable and perpetual and asserts that the terms are clear and unambiguous.

The original agreement (before amendment) gave the terms required to terminate, that SCO's notice letter accused IBM of misappropriating SCO's trade secrets. In open court, SCO has admitted there are no trade secrets in SVRx and subsequently withdrew that claim. IBM sent a letter to SCO requesting details of the alleged breach. SCO's Darl McBride replied with a letter saying they could only answer after IBM gave them more info, that SCO was asking IBM to tell them what they did wrong.

SCO therefore did not use their best effort and good faith to resolve the dispute.

SCO's turn

SCO's Brent Hatch replied. He said that the side letter is to buy out the royalty stream, that IBM would pay no additional royalty. That's what was being modified and perpetually, etc. was the royalty stream. It did not modify the contract's termination cluase. The contract does not use the words irrevocable, perpetual, fully paid up license. It says "irrevocable, perpetual, fully paid up rights to exercise." It says, as the wording goes on to say, that it does not modify the other terms of the contract (which includes the ability to terminate).

The agreement terms mean SCO cannot simply terminate the agreement willy-nilly, and that if IBM lived up to the terms, SCO cannot terminate it. But if IBM breaches the terms then SCO has its option to terminate.

Mr. Hatch talked at length about how SCO first found out IBM's intentions regarding Linux and SCO's notice.

He says JFS2 included files with source code originating in System V. That according to Mr. Baker's testimony, the first thirty files were from AT&T. Mr. Hatch claimed IBM is trying to rewrite history. In an email/note in CMVC, Mr. Baker says that over half the JFS files derived from the System V code.

He hands out exhibit 806, an internal IBM email and directs the court to the 3rd page. He reads that "we at IBM would like to make JFS available to Linux for several reasons." That the number one reason identified is the Linux community's need for a journaling file system. He says this doesn't sound like dice on a dash board as Mr. Marriott stated.

IBM's turn

IBM's Mr. Marriott replied, saying that contrary to Mr. Hatch's claim, there are not 294 items at issue -- there is just JFS.

Mr. Marriott said that Mr. Hatch implied that he'd conceded that AIX is a derivative of UNIX. He did not.

The testimony upon which SCO relies, saying that JFS came from AIX, was struck by Judge Wells. The overwhelming testimony of those involved say it originated in OS/2.

The email cited by SCO says that someone in the Linux community desired a journaling file system -- it is just that, a desire. The fact that someone found a technology desirable does not mean IBM breached a contract.

With regard to good faith, this court two years after the supposed termination expressed astonishment that SCO had not provided evidence, yet they assert IBM knew from before the case.

SCO responds

SCO's Brent Hatch replied, saying the testimony IBM wishes you to ignore is of the signatory to the agreement.

He says that regarding United Linux what Mr. Marriott fails to tell you is that SCO entered into an agreement to build something on the existing kernel. He says that IBM put JFS into the kernel unbeknownst to SCO, and IBM is saying that somehow this causes SCO to waive it.

Judge Kimball took this under advisement and said he looks forward to seeing us next Monday at 2:30pm.


  


Report from the March 1 hearing | 254 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT Here please
Authored by: MDT on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:23 AM EST
Make all links clicky types, thanks...

---
MDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here (if any)
Authored by: MDT on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:25 AM EST
Yep, the ubiquitous corrections thread. :)


---
MDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Curious silence from the bench
Authored by: MDT on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:38 AM EST
Either Judge Kimball is playing it close to the vest and not wanting to give
anything away, or our reporter didn't record any of his questions.

Given the good writeup on the lawyers, I'd say it's unlikely our reporter left
out the judge's questions (although a confirmation would be nice).

Now, if the Judge didn't ask any questions, or for any clarifications, I'd guess
(and it's just a personal opinion) that he's already made up his mind, and he
probably just gave the two parties the opportunity to bring up anything he might
have missed. I seem to remember PJ drawing a similar conclusion based on lack
of questions from the Magistrate Judge at one point.



---
MDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Report from the March 1 hearing
Authored by: AlanMilnes on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:38 AM EST
Thanks for your efforts Chris - much appreciated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks Chris,
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:40 AM EST
Thanks Chris for a comprehensive write up.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Report from the March 1 hearing
Authored by: GriffMG on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:45 AM EST
Fantastic, thank you!

B-)

---
Keep B-) ing

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks Chris
Authored by: john82a on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 04:11 AM EST
Let me join in with everyone else in thanking you for your report: clear and
concise.

Too concise, but that's only because Kimball didn't deliver an Old Testament
decision: at least a murrain upon Darl's "cattle", as well as the
plagues, floods and pillars of salt - hmm, also apposite for Utah.

john

[ Reply to This | # ]

Report from the March 1 hearing
Authored by: comms-warrior on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 04:21 AM EST
MY guess from this?


*SCO ARE ALREADY DOOOMED!!!!!*


*HARR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!!*

Seriously now...

Their goal is to put just enough FUD into the judges ear that they will get a
trial, under the assumption that this will help them.

I fear, by this report, they didn't strike a chord with the judge - I would say
they went backwards at some rate....


Regards,

mr. Ford - The comms warrior.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hatch "says that IBM put JFS into the kernel unbeknownst to SCO"
Authored by: mnuttall on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 04:49 AM EST
Chris, thank you for the report.

Did you really hear Hatch say that SCO didn't know IBM had donated JFS to Linux?
That's pretty brazen, given it's an uncontested fact that SCO announced the
inclusion of JFS in their products.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So the question is ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 05:15 AM EST
Did SCO manage to provide enough evidence of doubt that the judge cannot find this as a summary matter? That is, is there enough on the table that indicates a chance they might be able to win the case on the evidence?

Personally I don't think so, nothing SCO has offered really rebuts IBM's arguments supporting summary judgment. But the judge must be careful that the conditions for summary judgment are clearly met, otherwise he's asking for the neverending appeal scenario.

Thanks Chris, great job.

J

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks Chris.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 05:26 AM EST
Many thanks for the report. Is it correct that the judge asked no questions, and
did not need anything to be clarified?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Excellent Reporting
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 05:30 AM EST
Clear and easy to follow. Great work!

Thanks for your efforts.

---
I would rather stand corrected than sit confused.
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Summary Judgement
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 05:40 AM EST
The only questions in my mind are: how many of these will get weeded out from
going to trial by summary judgement and how much wiggle room SCO will have on
the ones that go against them. With SCO being SCO, I'm sure they'll find new
ways of not accepting "no" for an answer. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum.

---
I would rather stand corrected than sit confused.
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

AIX and Unix
Authored by: crs17 on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 06:36 AM EST
Towards the end of this report we get the statement:

"Mr. Marriott said that Mr. Hatch implied that he'd conceded that AIX is a
derivative of UNIX. He did not."

This surprises me. I always thought that it was obvious and universally agreed
that AIX at least started out as a derivative of Unix. That's what the
irrevocable Unix license is all about. AIX, Dynix, Dynix/ptx, HP/UX, and others
all started out from companies that had separately licensed the Unix code back
in the AT&T days. Why is IBM disputing this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Report from the March 1 hearing
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 06:49 AM EST

That in one instance a declarant refused to sign at all, and in another IBM and the individual went back and forth many times until he was worn down and signed anyway.

Ah. Now TSG's eleventh-hour filing from Brent Hatch on Wednesday makes more sense. It appears they wanted to get that on the record so they could use it at hearing, apparently without giving IBM a chance to file a response.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Report from the March 1 hearing
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 07:00 AM EST

SCO's Brent Hatch replied, saying the testimony IBM wishes you to ignore is of the signatory to the agreement.

It doesn't matter who signed it. If Judge Wells struck it, it's stricken.

He says that regarding United Linux what Mr. Marriott fails to tell you is that SCO entered into an agreement to build something on the existing kernel. He says that IBM put JFS into the kernel unbeknownst to SCO, and IBM is saying that somehow this causes SCO to waive it.

Pretty big claim of ignorance on the part of a vendor of Linux software. So, they copied and sold software without even checking to see who owned the rights to that software? Not a thing I'd want to admit in open court.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

EU Commission warns (again!) Microsoft
Authored by: boxopen on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 07:12 AM EST
Brussels, 1st March 2007

Competition: Commission warns Microsoft of further penalties over unreasonable pricing as interoperability information lacks significant innovation ...

The Commission's preliminary view is that there is virtually no innovation in the 51 protocols in the 'No Patent Agreement' where Microsoft has claimed non-patented innovation, and that Microsoft's current royalty rates for this agreement are therefore unreasonable.
This takes into account the advice of both the Monitoring Trustee (see IP/05/1215) and the Commission's technical advisors, TAEUS, who both consider that there is no innovation in any protocol in the Gold and Silver categories.
These protocols represent more than 95% of the price of the total Technical Documentation.
The Trustee considers that of the total of 160 claims, only four, relating to relatively minor Bronze protocols, represent even a limited degree of innovation.

As regards each of the other claims, the Trustee advised that:

"all of the described features were considered either to have been Microsoft implementations of prior developments by others, or to have been anticipated by prior developments and to be immediately obvious minor extensions to that prior work." ...

http://europa.eu/rapid/pr essReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/269&format=HTML&aged=0&language =EN&guiLanguage=en

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Splat! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 10:30 AM EST
  • I like this trustee! - Authored by: RPN on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 04:27 PM EST
  • But the fines are peanuts - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 04:35 PM EST
    • But..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 05:36 PM EST
      • My suggestion. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 07:37 PM EST
        • My suggestion. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 03 2007 @ 01:20 PM EST
tSCOg wrong and wrong again !
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 07:15 AM EST
Mr. Singer rebutted, saying his "short answer" is that JFS, RCU, and LTP are not like dice on a dashboard; they are integral to Linux. If they are incidental, take them out and see if Linux works.

For a start, that is the wrong analogy, IBM compared them to the radio in the car, not the fluffy dice. And second, I am pretty sure Linux would run just fine without JFS, RCU and LTP code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Negative No How?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 10:19 AM EST
I recall that Magistrate Wells somewhat reluctantly allowed the "Negative
Know How" to stay in.

Did I misunderstand that? If so that doesn't match the report on the hearing.

---
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 | # ]

Something seems missing from SCO's case
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 10:20 AM EST
IBM argues that SCO distributed Linux and signed an agreement to transfer any
copyrights it owned to UnitedLinux. It sounds like SCO didn't try to refute
that argument. Does that mean they are conceding the point to IBM? Does the
GPL 'thing' moot everything else? It would be shocking if SCO let something
like that slip past.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Actually SCO is responsible for any of SCO's IP (sic) in linux
Authored by: kh on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 10:32 AM EST
If SCO had told us where the copied code was (presuming there ever was any) then
it would have been rewritten fairly quickly.

So if it ever was in there (and it is really, really doubtful) it is only still
there because SCO refused to specify what it was.

You could say that if there is any copyright code in linux it is only in there
because of SCO and SCO has been fully responsible for it staying there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Report from the March 1 hearing
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 11:53 AM EST
I went to the first part of the hearing (up to the break). Here's my favorite
argument that SCO gave:

Mr. Singer argued that IBM raised a bunch of issues in its reply brief that
weren't in the initial disclosures. He said that SCO isn't required to respond
to those issues, since they were raised in a reply.

I couldn't stop myself from chuckling, which, since I was sitting on the SCO
side of the room, caused a bit of head-turning among the SCO staff. Isn't there
an old saying about a pot and a kettle?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The UNIX file system is Berkeley
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 01:54 PM EST
Fast file system.

S5fs is deprecated, justifiably. Look at the file listing from the settlement
with the Regents of UC.

usr/src/cmd/fs.d/ufs/ is all Berkeley. Kernel hooks are in the set of files that
"contain material USL contends is derived from or based upon the UNIX
System" (whatever that means). If they want to retry the unnoticed
publication of the ancient UNIX code, the "mental contamination"
nonsense and all the other gibberish it should have been done many moons ago.

[ Reply to This | # ]

RCU Patent does what?!?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 02:15 PM EST
I am astounded by this particular argument:
...IBM's RCU patent protects IBM's use of the technology preventing use by others, thus preserving it for IBM, not Open Sourcing it.
Are SCO actually claiming that patents cannot be licensed as the holder sees fit? If that stands up, there are a lot of companies in serious trouble!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Transcript
Authored by: Wardo on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:14 PM EST
Report is great, any idea on how soon we can see a transcript?

Thanks,

Wardo

---
Wardo = new user();
Wardo.lawyer = FALSE;
Wardo.badTypist = TRUE; //don't bother to point out tyops
Wardo.badSpeller = TRUE; //or spelling misteaks

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • History indicates.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 05:37 PM EST
  • Transcript - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 05:55 PM EST
Show us the code!
Authored by: th80 on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 05:14 PM EST
"He says JFS2 included files with source code originating in System V. That
according to Mr. Baker's testimony, the first thirty files were from AT&T.
Mr. Hatch claimed IBM is trying to rewrite history. In an email/note in CMVC,
Mr. Baker says that over half the JFS files derived from the System V
code."

So does this mean the code in question is in the JFS2 source code? Does anyone
know where this is located? I think we should put the code here up on Groklaw.

If JFS is simply a derivative and not verbatim code I don't see how their could
be any copyright infringement. But then again, IANAL and the focus of the SCO
case has shifted to "methods and concepts".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scox never refuted IBM's claims that scox has no evidence
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 10:28 PM EST
Scox had an answer for almost everything. A stupid answer maybe, but an answer.


Except for one thing: whenever IBM pointed out that scox has not provided
evidence, scox just went off an a tangent - scox never directly refuted those
claims.

This should stick out like a sore thumb. No evidence == no case. How can Kimble
not grant the PSJs, when scox has no evidence to back up their specious claims?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"AT&T's Crown Jewel"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 11:40 PM EST
Was that actually said with a straight face? AT&T's crown jewel is their
network plant. Saying its AT&T's crown jewel begs the question why it was
sold.

[ Reply to This | # ]

LTP Integral to Linux?
Authored by: GLJason on Saturday, March 03 2007 @ 01:29 PM EST
Mr. Singer rebutted, saying his "short answer" is that JFS, RCU, and LTP are not like dice on a dashboard; they are integral to Linux. If they are incidental, take them out and see if Linux works. He quoted Linus Torvalds in a Linux version release stating that RCU was fundamental to that release.

It is my understanding that LTP is the Linux Test Project, which is a series of applications that test system calls. I don't believe those applications are installed by default and certainly don't have to be running for Linux to work. That is a moronic statement, it's like saying Emacs is integral to Linux.

JFS is just one of many filesystems available for Linux. I've used Linux on several computers, none of which were running JFS. It is certainly NOT integral to Linux. Mr. Singer is outright lying to the court here.

RCU is part of the kernel and would be difficult to take out. It has improved performance on multi-core and multi-processor systems, however it could be removed with some work and a new method could be used. That doesn't really matter though since it is IBM's copyrighted and patented work. It was developed by Sequent years after they received UNIX code from AT&T/USL, and it isn't even particular to Unix-like systems. It is a method for handling memory updates that could be applied to any operating system.

[ 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 )