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
Segment of Darl's Harvard Speech - Exhibit 5 to IBM's Report on SCO Compliance
Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 10:08 PM EST

Here is Exhibit 5 to IBM's Report on SCO's Compliance, a portion of Darl McBride's speech at Harvard.

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

Rough draft of portion of transcript from Darl McBride's Harvard Speech

ROUGH DRAFT - NOT PROOFREAD BY REPORTER

the product is already out there, inactive a copy of the Linux 2.6 kernel right here in my hand, what do you have to lose by telling people these are exactly the parts that are infringing. Because as I understand it, and (inaudible) you guys refuse to tell me, except in your MBA, which portions you believe are infringing. I'm not a lawyer, but I know if someone was doing something I thought was (inaudible), I would try and stop it as quickly as possible.

MR. McBRIDE: Has SCO shown the code? First of all, SCO owns intellectual property at System V level, when we said we licensed in thing 6,000 times, we've licensed it and people are under very tight restrictions about not being able to show that. If we go out and just throw it out in the public, we are basically violating our own commitments we have with our licensees. Now, with respect to code that we have shown, let's follow the bouncing ball here for a moment. Last summer we came out with code that was very clearly replicated and showed that last August. It was done under NDA because we didn't want to violate our own agreements, a number of people saw it. And s hor tly after that, a Linux leader, in fact Linus came out and said that code has been removed from Linux. We then had some other code tied to it, and Silicone Graphics came out and said that was System V base code, it wasn't supposed to be in there, and we took it out. So there's two occasions.

Again, SCO said it was in when it wasn't supposed to be in there, we took it out. We didn't take it out of the thousands and m illions of servers running around the world, so even at that level you still have an infringement problem. But they did take it out of future versions.

We then said there is roughly a million lines of code that tie into contributions that IBM has made, and that's subject to litigation that is going on. We have basically supplied that. In fact, that is going to be the subject of a hearing that comes up this Friday in the Utah courtroom. We supplied them with ample evidence in terms of where those infringements came from.

And finally, a month ago we came out, or December I guess it was, we published 75 header files that showed up inside of Linux that tied to not just intellectual property agreements, but to the DSD settlement agreement from back in the '90s. And the settlement agreement says, what does it says Chris?

MR. SONTAG: It says basically there is a set of files that has to be removed from BST, there is a set of files for which copyright at transactions to AT&T U.S.A. and effectively SCO had to be placed on those set of files. And there was another set of files for which there was no issue. Those files that had to have the copyright attribution, portions of those files ended up in Linux, which is a problem. Which means they have copyrighted work that was

LEGALINK MANHATTAN [phone]


  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 )