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
"This Is About *Your* Response To The Order" - Judge Wells
Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 04:13 PM EST

We'll be able to get a transcript soon, but while we wait, Bob Mims has a delicious morsel. It seems that SCO tried at the hearing to argue that they couldn't tell the court what lines of code in Linux are infringing with specificity unless they get to see AIX first. Again with that argument. It didn't fly. Again.

The judge, bless her heart, told them that her order already answered that question: *they* were to go first. Period.

Here is the exchange, as he reports it, starting with SCO attorney Heise:

"But to provide the 'line by line' evidence IBM is now demanding, he said, would require Big Blue to release AIX and Dynix code -- as SCO has requested in its own discovery motion.

   "Wells interrupted: 'The requirement of the court is that you provide those source codes; this is about your response to the order.'

"Heise insisted, however, that without IBM's compliance, 'it is literally impossible' for SCO to itself provide direct proof of the Unix-to-AIX/Dynix-to-Linux continuum it argues exists.

   "'We're at an impasse and we can't be at an impasse and have this case remain at a standstill,' Wells responded. 'You've made your point -- I'm just not certain I agree.'"

If you recall, SCO told journalists with a straight face that this hearing was going to be about IBM turning over AIX. Was it?

So, SCO picked a fight with IBM without have any proof of actual infringement? They still have no proof that IBM sent AIX code to Linux? And they stand before the judge and say it is "literally impossible" to prove that code went to Linux from Unix via AIX unless they get to look at IBM's code?

Remarkable. Let me get this straight. They filed on a hunch, because they just figure it must have happened somehow, knowing they had no proof of copyright infringement. And for that they would like a billion dollars or so, give or take a billion? Or 50 billion or whatever.

More remarkably, they get headlines everywhere today in the mainstream press about SCO adding a copyright infringement claim, as if it were a serious threat. They added the claim based on a hunch that they admit they can't prove. You think they'll collect?

When Heise asked for all the AIX code from the founding of the world and said, one more time, that SCO can't reveal the code without giving away their precious, supersecret IP that the whole world isn't interested in using any more, judging from their SEC filings, IBM's Dave Marriott said all they need to do is go on the Internet, because Linux is public, drawing this response:

"Heise countered that "not everything they have put into Linux is public. . ."

I can't wait to read the transcript in full. This is better than a movie. No kidding. I'd pay to watch this play out, if it wasn't free. Darl is pitching to the press that the Linux community hates him, but speaking for myself, this is more entertaining than anything I've ever paid to watch in my whole life.


  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 )