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.


To read comments to this article, go here
SCO Says Court Agrees to Keep the Code Secret
Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 04:55 AM EST

There is no corroboration on this yet, but Andrew Colley of ZDNET Australia is reporting that Blake Stowell says that when SCO shows its code next month, it won't be open to the public. According to him, the court has given them permission to show the code to a closed court. IBM, the article says, insisted that the code be revealed publicly, and at first the judge agreed, but now, according to Stowell, that has changed.

"'We can't just open this up to the public. The minute we open it up we have in fact opened it up to the public and we can't restrict it in the future from a proprietary standpoint,' said SCO CEO Darl McBride at conference in August this year.

"However, SCO public relations director Blake Stowell today said that the company had secured permission to present the code to a closed court.

"'In other words, SCO will present this evidence to the jury, the judge and to the defendant (IBM), but it will remain confidential. No one in the public will get to see this code,' said Stowell.

"It's the first clear sign that the open source community, which has long been frustrated with SCO's secrecy over the code, will never get a chance to see the code nipping at the heart of its development ethos."

"Never" might be a stretch. And I'm not so sure it's a "clear sign" if it's only coming from SCO, but it's something to start to track. The parties to this dispute are not the only ones with an interest in this code. So, if this news proves true, there may very well be those who will be asking the judge to change her mind by contesting the protective order.


  View Printable Version


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 )