|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: MDT on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:23 AM EST |
Make all links clicky types, thanks...
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A waste of time really... - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 06:23 AM EST
- If PJ "works for IBM" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 06:41 AM EST
- Any word on GPL3? - Authored by: hawk on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 07:07 AM EST
- Germany: Microsoft FAT patent is null and void. - Authored by: energyman on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 12:20 PM EST
- OT: Church Law - same song - different verse - Authored by: jimwelch on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 01:14 PM EST
- Novell financial results - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 02:56 PM EST
- OOXML contradictions disclosed - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 02:56 PM EST
- US DOT, FAA shuns further Microsoft upgrades - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:08 PM EST
- Spoilation denied - Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:26 PM EST
- Conference call - Authored by: BobinAlaska on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 06:25 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: MDT on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:25 AM EST |
Yep, the ubiquitous corrections thread. :)
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- conceeds -> concedes - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:50 AM EST
- ammendment -> amendment - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:51 AM EST
- declaratnt -> declarant - Authored by: jbb on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:53 AM EST
- cluase -> clause - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:53 AM EST
- o fthose -> of those - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:55 AM EST
- Corrections Here (if any) - Authored by: jmc on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 04:03 AM EST
- Linux Thorvalds -> Linus Torvalds - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 04:13 AM EST
- contract_s --> contracts - Authored by: talldad on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 04:13 AM EST
- ATT --> AT&T? - Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 04:14 AM EST
- it's -> its - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 04:42 AM EST
- Several corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 04:45 AM EST
- aids -> aides - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 04:46 AM EST
- breeches -> breaches - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 04:47 AM EST
- Parole Evidence -> Parol Evidence n/t - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 06:01 AM EST
- Heading inconsistency - Authored by: macrorodent on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 06:40 AM EST
- Corrections Here (if any) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 07:45 AM EST
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AlanMilnes on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:38 AM EST |
| Thanks for your efforts Chris - much appreciated. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:40 AM EST |
Thanks Chris for a comprehensive write up.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GriffMG on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:45 AM EST |
Fantastic, thank you!
B-)
---
Keep B-) ing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
