|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:14 PM EDT |
Heh. That is beautiful. I assume they will ask for more time, considering that
IBM is asking for a EVERYTHING to be documented. :) It'd be lovely to see a
response Weds. though. I love the the $30 for copying fees. Is it typical of a
legal firm to offer to reimburse a subpoenaee, btw?
Wolffen[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:26 PM EDT |
| Hello fellow Groklaw readers,
It appears that the PDF of the subpoena didn't have OCR done on it, leaving my
screen reader with nothing to read... sigh. Maybe LWN could post a text copy or
something like they did with that other Paser document, I forget what it was
exactly. Looks like I've found something else to rant about besides Sco,
grin.
Garrett[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:29 PM EDT |
Interesting article at the register:
http://www.theregister
.co.uk/content/55/32714.html
Has some mention of how subpoena's work USA style.
Hope the html tags work...
Steve McI[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:34 PM EDT |
So then, this is the shot across the bow of Canopy and its principals. From my
untrained eye, it would seem that now is the time where Canopy can blow it big
time by failing to produce material which is known to exist. As I recall, there
are some folks who recently got into far more trouble by hiding information than
they ever would have if they had just come forth with it up-fromt. (Marta
Stewart comes to mind...)
Marty[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:34 PM EDT |
Hehe. On one hand, it's delightful to think that SCO's business is now entirely
about their staff emptying filing cabinets, photocopying pages, and packing up
boxes. Hey, finally their salepeople have something to do! On the other hand,
it's disappointing to recognise that this will inevitably drag out a resolution
even longer. On the other other hand, it's nice to see that Darl et. al. will be
squirming on the hook for a lot longer, too, knowing all the while that IBM is
finding every piece of dirt that SCO tried to sweep under the FUD rug. 'Day of
reckoning' never sounded so good!
Belzecue[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:37 PM EDT |
| 'Twill be interesting to see if Canopy, et. al., appeal provisions of the
subpoena -- and which ones.
Will make for interesting consiracy theories, no?
D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:39 PM EDT |
| One word here. damn.
Is this classic big suit tactics to demand the universe of documents or is this
unusual?
They have until the 10th. Man you couldn't copy this stuff by that time if you
could get your hands on it all.
Can Canopy delay? Do they have to comply? What happens if they don't give IBM
something on the list?
I really like number 20. If they show more later are they in trouble?
BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:41 PM EDT |
| Can somebody knowledgeable tell me what happens next and/or this means
Do Canopy have to respond by the date? Can they get an extension? Can they
contest whether they have to provide all or part of the information? If they can
contest, what happens next?
I can understand why IBM would want to know all this stuff, but I don't
understand the process that happens next.
quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
To get out of a suppoena all you have to do is say the docs don't exist even if
they do. You literally have to find a disgruntled former employee who retained
docs in order to find any evidence against the other side. Subpoenas don't mean
much in terms of evidence. Right pj?
sam[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:43 PM EDT |
Darl's letter news
http://news.com.co
m/2100-1016_3-5072884.html?tag=cd_mh
quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:47 PM EDT |
| Regarding this:
<>
I don't know, but keep in mind that SCO/Canopy has had this list for longer than
we have.
Jeremy Stanley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:48 PM EDT |
| Eh, what happened to the stuff in the brackets?
My comment is in regard to "Do Canopy have to respond by the date?"
Jeremy
Stanley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:52 PM EDT |
| What a pity they misspelled Yarro in #15. (The Yarrow spelling is very common
but mistaken.)
I hope it won't cause any issues for the subpoena.
Does the fact that Kimball approved this mean he agreed there is good reason to
go after these documents from Canopy or is it a meaningless procedural matter?
Wow, look, documents about Computer Associates is in there too.
Tossie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:03 PM EDT |
| from just glancing over this they went after every piece of paper, electronic or
anything else.they going for the throat
br3n
brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:13 PM EDT |
Typical discovery stuff. If SCO comes up with some of the stuff on the shopping
list and promises more soon, there won't be any adverse consequences. The way to
do this is to just copy everything, relevant or not, hand over a few hundred
boxes and let the people getting it spend the hours of time necessary to catalog
and evaluate what it is they've been given. IBM can afford the billable
hours.
Ruidh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:17 PM EDT |
Hey IBM you forgot their kitchen sink.
Roberto J. Dohnert[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:24 PM EDT |
| "Typical discovery stuff. If SCO comes up with some of the stuff on the shopping
list and promises more soon, there won't be any adverse consequences."
Perhaps, but they asked Canopy for this info - not SCO :)
JohnC[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:26 PM EDT |
Actually All these documents are common for SCO and Canopy to have otherwise
they wouldnt be able to do business and without some of this stuff they wouldnt
have a case, so I doubt they can claim that the documents dont exist.
Roberto J. Dohnert[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:27 PM EDT |
| It's notworthy that they are asking Canopy for all of this, including the stock
purchase and sales info.
In any event, even if IBM is completely rebuffed, it makes it unlikely that
these sorts of documents will be admitted later at trial.
Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:40 PM EDT |
| What was that about sharks in an earlier article?
The sharks are smelling Canopy blood. They aren't after simpy winning this
case, they are looking to turn Canopy into a smoldering pile of rubble, from
which the Feds can pick out the survivors for their sets of silver bracelets.
RavingLuni[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:43 PM EDT |
| Garrett,
I took advantage of my recent reading of "How to Create Accesible PDF Files" and
did some work on the subpoena for you. Adobe's accessibility checker still
reports lots of images without alt text and I can't vouch for the reading order
but your screen reader should be able to make something out of it now; if
that article is to be believed anyway...
You can find it at: http://servaism.tripod.com/t
emp/Subpoena.pdf
Hope that helps,
sven[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:47 PM EDT |
| Is it likely that IBM has already requested all this stuff from SCO in the
course of normal discovery (we just don't get to see the interrogatories), and
the subpoena is to see if Canopy also has something?
Part of me also wonders if maybe IBM is hoping to show that Canopy is managing
the litigation and to claim that SCO is Canopy's alter-ego (so that they have
someone to collect money from when SCO goes bankrupt).
Lev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:51 PM EDT |
| If anyone has access to Openserver or Unixware source code, it is possible to
compare it quickly with Linux to find if there has been any copying done from
Linux to SCO software.
A person with access could send the output of the ESR's comparator program.
The Hashes that the comparator creates cannot be used to see the original
code.
r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:52 PM EDT |
| This "discovery" might be for IBM counter suit; To identify those who may
have put SCO up to it. This is what I would to test a conspiricy theory.
IBM may next subpoena any recipient of communication from Canopy, with a similar
subpoena.
jog
Joe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:55 PM EDT |
what would make this a bigger soap opera is if Billy G gets dragged into this
with point #7 turning up something interesting.
manicheya[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:55 PM EDT |
what would make this a bigger soap opera is if Billy G gets dragged into this
with point #7 turning up something interesting.
manicheya[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
Be interesting to be a fly on the wall of the Canopy/SCO legal offices when they
got this.
It may be just a small opening shot, but it probably was not a popular document
when it arrived.
KPL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 09:20 PM EDT |
| I would believe it likely that Canopy might have some documents about SCO
because:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465903012299/j2045_1
0q.htm
Page 19 bottom. Page 17 top. Page 16 top I believe (not sure, but believe)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000104746903023599/a211
4384zs-3.htm
See Selling stock holders section
http://news.com.com/2100-101
6_3-1012947.html
Second last paragraph
quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 09:24 PM EDT |
| I forgot to say "some documents about SCO" is not necessarily the same as
documents on every subject that IBM is interested in.
I have no idea what documents Canopy might have, except I believe that if they
have been disclosed to be involved in certain areas, then I think it likely that
they probably have some documents relating to those same areas.
quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 09:35 PM EDT |
Actually, I think IBM is *trying* to get Canopy to contest the subpoena. Many of
the documents clearly fall under "disclosure of confidential commercial
information", and I dobt that a judge will allow IBM to see internal memos
discussing SCO's case. The advantage to IBM is that if Canopy does protest, then
they have admitted that they are intimately involved in the lawsuit, and thus
can be added to the countersuit. That way, even when SCO goes bankrupt (may it
be soon), IBM (maybe RedHat, too?) can punish those responsible.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Billy
Harris[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 09:38 PM EDT |
| This seems to be a legal thing where one party trusts the other to turn over
potentially incriminating documents under the court's supervision.
Microsoft destroys its docs as seen in its antitrust trials and tribulations so
I don't see what truly prevents SCO/Canopy from doing the same and getting away
with it.
If they've got emails ala "Dear Microsoft, we like your offer of x million
dollars in return for using our useless crap IP in order to launch a legal
barrage that will destroy Linux and the Open Source Community and look forward
to conducting these illegal activities on your behalf. Please send that fat
check directly to me, Darl McBride, via my offshore account in the Cayman
Islands." I'd assume they'd simply destroy these documents if they didn't do so
immediately upon receiving/sending them.
As Sam et al above mentioned, they can also deny the existence of various
documents which gives them more time to find and destroy them.
If they destroy the most damaging of these, it doesn't really matter what
penalties they have for a handful of slightly damaging documents that might turn
up later under investigation.
I can't imagine SCO being so dumb as to NOT destroy this evidence. Its a common
event we see in spy movies ala James Bond so I'm sure they're familiar with it
and if not, Microsoft would have warned them or taught them.
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 09:41 PM EDT |
| Does the fact that IBM has subpoenaed Canopus mean that IBM thinks Canopus is
the party responsible for pulling SCO/Caldera's strings? Conspiracy Theory Hat.
Canopus knew SCO was going down the gurgler. Canopus used another one of their
companies (a "pattern recognition" company) to feed lies and BS to SCO
management. SCO management is a little stupid so they went off half cocked and
sued somebody with deep pockets. Stock speculation causes SCO stock to soar.
Canopus manipulates figures to get rich off of SCO's stupidity. When SCO goes
bankrupt (which is inevitable given the evidence SCO has provided so far)
Canopus gets to keep the money and nobody is the wiser. Investors are screwed.
Canopus is rich.
Has IBM twigged to this game? Thus the reason for subpoenas against Canopus
directors? Or should I simply cut back on the sugar in my tea at lunch :-/
Nathan
Hand[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 10:03 PM EDT |
| I can hear the paper shredders from here!
"Many of the documents clearly fall under "disclosure of confidential commercial
information", and I dobt that a judge will allow IBM to see internal memos
discussing SCO's case."
No such thing. Unless they had a lawyer present and claim it to be
attorney/client priviledged communication, they HAVE to turn over all this info.
Microsoft had to turn over internal memos in their cases (the ones they hadn't
erased). The only time a business document is priviledged is if it concerns
national security. Even if it concerns trade secrets, they are still required to
produce it... unless they have REALLY deep pockets, like Coca Cola fighting to
avoid divulging their "secret ingredient" during one of their lawsuits.
Really, I think the reason IBM pushed for such a quick date was to give
SCO/Canopy no time to be picky about what they shred. They either shred
EVERYTHING and hope it doesn't bite them in the butt, or run the risk of
accidentally letting something through they don't want IBM seeing. I would be
shocked if it isn't revealed that SCO/Canopy didn't erase/shred much of the
items requested.
J.F.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 10:27 PM EDT |
Or they claim not to have something that IBM can otherwise prove that they did
have.
jog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 12:02 AM EDT |
| IANAL, and even as an interested lay person, I don't know much about this
particular area of law. So what I'm about to say is even more armchair
guesswork than usual. :)
First IBM asks for documents. Then Canopy negotiates down the set of documents
which it must produce. The subpoena gets negotiated and modified until
eventually a judge says "that's it, now cough up".
Then Canopy produces a set of documents and asserts, on pain of some legal
penalty, that these are all the documents it has.
Later on, if Canopy finds a document which was covered by the subpoena but was
not produced to IBM, and Canopy attempts to introduce such a document in court,
then they would get slapped by the judge. So yeah, Canopy could (illegally)
shred documents, but if they do, they can't use any such documents later in a
court case -- and it would be dangerous to use such a document even in their
media attacks.
Props to our man Frank in Utah! PJ, if you ever need a stringer in New York
City to dig up physical documents, just shout out. Hell, I bet if you asked,
you could get a stringer anywhere in the world that you needed one.
mec[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:06 AM EDT |
| mec, thanks for the offer. Do I have your email?
On the subpoena, they can object and if you take a look at the PDF, toward the
end, IBM tells them the rules on that. It's ultimately up to the judge, but they
surely can't avoid producing the bulk of it. No wonder they've been so quiet.
Note the date was August 26 or 28. I reeeeally wonder about the DoS "attacks"
now and wonder if a lot of stuff disappeared from their web sites during the
down time. Maybe that is why Darl's open letter makes such deliberate reference
to it, so as to make it seem factual. Who knows? In time, we will.
It'll be a dance, but what IBM has done is tell them: we know what you did and
who you did it with. You don't ask for documents in a subpoena unless you have
reason to believe they exist. Notice the names and the companies they want
Canopy to produce information about. Clearly, IBM must believe HP and Sun are in
on this, among the usual suspects. The USL reference is another unknown
element. If we focus on those new clues, I'm thinking we will find something
interesting.
No doubt SCO is being asked to produce similar stuff, but you don't need a
subpoena to get it. They had to get a subpoena to get Canopy stuff, because
they aren't a party to the lawsuit. But they are the primary stockholder and
Yarro is a Director, as are other Canopy people.
The most interesting thing about this subpoena is that if you step back and look
at the big picture, you see IBM's case laid out to a large degree. Notice too
that they ask: what code are we talking about? Tell us by September 10. SCO
can ask the judge to let them keep in private from the public, but they can't
just say no. It's really getting interesting now.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:08 AM EDT |
| "Later on, if Canopy finds a document which was covered by the subpoena but was
not produced to IBM, and Canopy attempts to introduce such a document in court,
then they would get slapped by the judge."
This is the main point of discovery - not to magically get all the documents
that exist, but to force both sides to put their cards on the table. In
particular, note:
"9. All documents concerning plaintiff's alleged evidence of UNIX in Linux."
This is the no-win situation we have known about ever since the case started. If
Canopy denies it has this evidence, then it's been committing trade libel and
various other nasties. If it produces it, the evidence can be evaluated and any
infringing code, if it exists, removed.
Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:27 AM EDT |
| I think it will be interesting to see how the deals with Microsoft and Sun were
made. Last year SCO also destroyed the Microsoft documents from the Dr DOS
trial. I wouldn't be surprised if that that was a part of the deal as well.
I'm also interested in "17. All documents concerning the decision to commence or
pursue this lawsuit or other lawsuits relating to plaintiff's alleged rights
relating to UNIX or Linux." Darl was saying stuff about suing people from the
moment that he was hired, but was that the reason he was hired? Was that the
reason Ransom Love quit? Heck, wouldn't it be interesting if Microsoft
suggested it first? ;)
Obviously this lawsuit against IBM is going to be the end of SCO. How do you go
about proposing that at a board meeting. "Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we
give up a multi-million dollar business and start a stock market scam?" You'd
have to be a pretty fast talker to get everyone to agree with that.
error27[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:34 AM EDT |
| pj >> Note the date was August 26 or 28. I reeeeally wonder about the DoS
"attacks" now and wonder if a lot of stuff disappeared from their web sites
during the down time.
Makes me really wonder because wasn't www.canopy.com down as well during the
so-called DoS? Perhaps the cleaning was really going on over there but all the
hand waving was to www.sco.com to distract us... wouldn't put it past them.
Adam Ruth[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 02:09 AM EDT |
| pj, I thought you could see all the commenter's e-mail addresses. Anyways, mine
is <mec@shout.net> . It's already public
enough that I don't mind posting it here.
Adam, I checked www.canopy.com periodically during the service outages on
www.sco.com. www.canopy.com was always up, every time I checked. Unfortunately
I didn't keep a contemporaneous log so it's just my memory speaking, not a
written record.
However, Canopy has never provided much detailed information on their site;
unlike SCO, they don't have a customer base that needs tons of information. I
doubt there ever was anything at www.canopy.com that would be harmful to
Canopy.
PJ, the USL reference is because USL (Unix System Labs) was a spin-off company
from AT&T to market Unix. As far as I know, the chain of title is: ATT -> USL
-> Novell -> Caldera. USL sued a small company in Berkeley, BSDI, over Unix
copyrights. Dig in:
http://cm.bell-l
abs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdisuit.html
Computer Associates is relevant because Canopy + Center 7 just settled a lawsuit
that they filed against CA ($40 million, August 2003).
Hewlett-Packard might have been involved in Project Monterey. I can't find any
evidence of their involvement, but they certainly were important in ia-64 cpu
development. I have no info on whether HP has any involvement with SCO
source.
Hey, Caldera used to have a big section on Monterey at:
http://stage.caldera.com/monterey
But now I get a "Forbidden" error! And it's not just a 404 ("not found"). SCO
doesn't want anyone to see those pages any more! They are still in the google
cache.
Project Monterey is a whole topic in itself. Wish I didn't have to sleep.
Lastly, of course Sun is in on this, they were the first SCO Source licensee and
they received warrants to purchase SCOX stock.
http://news.com.c
om/2100-1016_3-1024633.html?tag=fd_top
mec[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 02:15 AM EDT |
| One more comment from this insomniac:
In the subpoena, in section A, "definitions", there are 17 terms defined, but
none of them is "Linux". Is it just me, or does that look like a serious
omission?
mec[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 02:31 AM EDT |
I think Compaq (now part of HP) was part of Monterey.
LER[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 02:51 AM EDT |
| mec, I also saw that canopy.com remained up. I just checked and I did save from
Aug. 23 a traceroute on VisualWare's thingie, the report it generated, and the
one done at the same occasion showing sco.com and sco.de unreachable.
I wasn't asking you to post publicly. If you note the envelope on the
homepage...just click, and you can email me. I don't have the ability to see
your email addresses. They are not retained.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 03:23 AM EDT |
| mec, a slight correction there
AT&T(USG) -> USL -> Novell -> SCO (Original) -> Caldera (transmogrified into SCO
Group).
Novell sold much of their (failing) UnixWare business to SCO (Original) at about
1995, because my copy of "The Magic Garden Explained", an explanation of Unix
System V Release 4's structure, was published in 1993 with the blessing of
Novell. They had originally been involved in a joint venture with the Unix
System Laboratories (USL) called Univel, which fell through.
Wesley Parish[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 03:25 AM EDT |
Holy Cow! They have to get all this together by tomorrow?!?
Steve Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 03:27 AM EDT |
Verified by a google search on project monterey compaq that compaq was part of
monterey, FWIW. So, that explains HP in the requests.
LER[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 03:42 AM EDT |
| Speaking of project monterey, I find tonight that Wayback Archive is reporting
that SCO has a robot.txt file now, blocking them from archiving. If anyone has
this page, I'd like to see it:
http://stage.caldera.c
om/monterey/facts/page6.html
Here's results when I try to get it on Wayback:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://stage.caldera
.com/monterey/facts/page6.html
Robots.txt Query Exclusion.
We're sorry, access to http://stage.caldera.c
om/monterey/facts/page6.html has been blocked by the site owner via
robots.txt.
Read more about robots.txt
See the site's robots.txt file.
Try another request or click here to search for all pages on
stage.caldera.com/monterey/facts/page6.html
See the FAQs for more info and help, or contact us
Here is their robot.txt file:
User-agent: *=20
Disallow: /
ht
tp://web.archive.org/web/20030404132103/stage.caldera.com/robots.txt
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 04:47 AM EDT |
I noticed the bit about any comments on the WWW and message boards... I wonder
if Ledite & Co will be on today?!?!?! (Yahoo Finance Message board for SCOX
!!!)
mark[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 05:07 AM EDT |
It figures SCO would try this, as they were finding it hard to rewrite history
when everyone remembers what they have said before with such accuracy. I think
this public digital "shredding" and the private one probably going on at
Canopy/SCO will only further undermine their credibility.
Contrast this
to the Linux community putting together an archive of Historic Linux.
If
your are a person of integrity and honesty , the truth is your shield, as it
shall set you free.
If you are person of trickery and deceit, the truth is something to be
feared, as it will hang you from a nearby tree.
Supa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 05:14 AM EDT |
| I noticed Computer Associates is listed in the group of companies in the
subpoena. The day after SCO announced the first "Linux licensee", the Fortune
500 company, I noticed that CA settled a lawsuit with Canopy for $40 million. I
surmised that "purchasing" a license was part of the deal and thus they were the
mystery licensee. They are a Fortune 500 company and the timing seems awfully
strange, since two weeks before that CA was making statements about defending
the suit vigorously. Then suddenly they do a complete 180, and the day after
SCO announces a Fortune 500 licensee a Fortune 500 company (CA) settles a suit
with Canopy.
Could this be what IBM is after with CA or are there other reasons for
requesting information on CA?
RavingLuni[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 07:32 AM EDT |
PJ, I get a 404 not found using wget on http://stage.caldera.c
om/monterey/facts/page6.html
KPL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 08:34 AM EDT |
| While we're talking about things HP, IBM and Caldera (pre-SCO) did together,
don't forget the Trillian project for the creation of a 64-bit Linux distro.
What I'm going to say next is pure speculation, but what if some of the alleged
code copying from SCO to Linux took place during the Trillian project? If that's
the case, and Caldera either knew about it or was involved, then they probably
have unclean hands.
The Trillian project stuff may be important for other reasons too. I suspect
it's been under-researched.
Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
| Today, McBride admitted publicly that SCO had come under a DOS attack. As far as
I am concerned, a DOS attack purely relates to networking, there's no reason to
believe that any data loss would have resulted from it. Even if there were
(web-server) data loss, there's no reason to believe that it could have had an
adverse impact on internal email servers, especially how such servers are
normally routinely backed-up. Furthermore, didn't SCO recently state (on the
record) that they had notified the FBI of the attack and were working with them
to find the culprits? It would be interesting to see whether the FBI have
actually been notified.
This brings me to anyother point: according to ESR, he had been contacted by the
perpetrators of the DOS, and communicated to them to stop. He doesn't however,
have any proof that they were indeed responsible for the attack -only their
word. What if there wasn't an attack and it had been SCO all along (remember the
networking statistics concerning the attack are very suspect), and one of their
employees played the hacker to ESR?
Stephen Henry[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 10:15 AM EDT |
| Regarding the destruction of documents: Wouldn't an ethical company go
through an annual (or every other year, or every four years) audit? I know my
company does.
Part of the audit process, in fact, is a thorough review of our disaster
recovery plans. Surely we have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that our
business can survive past a natural disaster.
So we have backup tapes going back a year or so, that contain all of our
important financial information as well as critical business correspondence.
This may be off-topic, but in general, how does law apply here? I mean, do
companies actually have a LEGAL responsibility to keep backups so that their
shareholders don't get screwed in the event of a disaster?
It really seems like a subpeana like this would be a lose-lose for the
recipient. Either you admit that you never made backups of critical business
documents that obviously must have existed at some point, and that you are
therefore not doing well by your shareholders, or you give over the
documents.
Just a thought I had.
CSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 10:17 AM EDT |
| Today, McBride admitted publicly that SCO had come under a DOS attack. As far as
I am concerned, a DOS attack purely relates to networking, there's no reason to
believe that any data loss would have resulted from it. Even if there were
(web-server) data loss, there's no reason to believe that it could have had an
adverse impact on internal email servers, especially how such servers are
normally routinely backed-up. Furthermore, didn't SCO recently state (on the
record) that they had notified the FBI of the attack and were working with them
to find the culprits? It would be interesting to see whether the FBI have
actually been notified.
This brings me to anyother point: according to ESR, he had been contacted by the
perpetrators of the DOS, and communicated to them to stop. He doesn't however,
have any proof that they were indeed responsible for the attack -only their
word. What if there wasn't an attack and it had been SCO all along (remember the
networking statistics concerning the attack are very suspect), and one of their
employees played the hacker to ESR?
Stephen Henry[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
Oops, oh well. For anyone intersted in that "accessible" version if the PDF,
forget about it. Now that I'm awake enough to consider such matters I had a
closer look at the file. I had run it through Adobe's Paper Capture Online
which is supposed to OCR image only PDFs and it worked to an extent.
Unfortunately in the sections I spot checked it appears that about 1 word in 5
didn't OCR and remained images, rendering the PDF an unreadable (by screen
readers) mess....
sven[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
| 21. All documents concerning the relationship between plaintiff and The Canopy
Group.
Boy, that is going to be one very tall stack of papers. Think of how long
Canopy has been majority owner of SCO, and how many different things they must
have talked about with each other over the years.
david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
| PJ, I found this:
http://dbforums.com/arch/183/2
003/3/714031
Search for page6.html, in a comment by Jeff Liebermann
I have read this page6 in the past and Jeff Lierbermann's quote matches my
recollection of who does what. Specifically, SCO was to provide Unix-on-Intel
expertise, and IBM was to provide NUMA and other "enterprise technologies". I
wrote a post about this on Yahoo Finance, SCOX message board, under the handle
alien_investor_2, some time between March 6 2003 and June 13 2003, but that
board is really unsearchable -- someone would have to write a bit of Perl to
bulk-download the SCOX board and then make it searchable.
Also the wayback machine has an archive of http://www.projectmonterey.com (which
is now defunct). And maybe wayback has something underneath
www.ibm.com/servers/monterey ?
Legally, I bet that IBM and SCO had a contract about Monterey, but neither side
has filed that contract with the court yet.
mec[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
| PJ, I found this:
http://dbforums.com/arch/183/2
003/3/714031
Search for page6.html, in a comment by Jeff Liebermann
I have read this page6 in the past and Jeff Lierbermann's quote matches my
recollection of who does what. Specifically, SCO was to provide Unix-on-Intel
expertise, and IBM was to provide NUMA and other "enterprise technologies". I
wrote a post about this on Yahoo Finance, SCOX message board, under the handle
alien_investor_2, some time between March 6 2003 and June 13 2003, but that
board is really unsearchable -- someone would have to write a bit of Perl to
bulk-download the SCOX board and then make it searchable.
Also the wayback machine has an archive of http://www.projectmonterey.com (which
is now defunct). And maybe wayback has something underneath
www.ibm.com/servers/monterey ?
Legally, I bet that IBM and SCO had a contract about Monterey, but neither side
has filed that contract with the court yet.
mec[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 10:37 PM EDT |
| Still looking for page6.html. In the meantime, here is:
http://stag
e.caldera.com/partners/developer/core10/scoibm.htm
SCO and IBM Form Broad Strategic Alliance
...
Important Elements of the Announcement
. IBM will supply SCO with AIX enterprise technologies for UnixWare 7
...
That is SCo, acknowledging that IBM owns its "AIX enterprise technologies" and
SCO doesn't.
I would really like to see the contractual language regarding this engineering
effort!
mec[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 03:23 AM EDT |
Aside from HP and Compaq being licensees of Unix Sys V, HP was also involved in
a Monterey-style project with SCO back in 1995/6 (pre-UnixWare 7). The
relationship with HP failed, and SCO then turned to IBM for Monterey
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">munchola[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 03:23 AM EDT |
Aside from HP and Compaq being licensees of Unix Sys V, HP was also involved in
a Monterey-style project with SCO back in 1995/6 (pre-UnixWare 7). The
relationship with HP failed, and SCO then turned to IBM for Monterey
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">munchola[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 03:23 AM EDT |
Aside from HP and Compaq being licensees of Unix Sys V, HP was also involved in
a Monterey-style project with SCO back in 1995/6 (pre-UnixWare 7). The
relationship with HP failed, and SCO then turned to IBM for Monterey
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">munchola[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 03:24 AM EDT |
am I repeating myself?
munchola[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
