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 Uses Legal Documents from Groklaw and Tuxrocks
Friday, March 25 2005 @ 09:04 PM EST

Well, well, what have we here? SCO has put up its own legal documents page after all. Evidently the generic brand anti-Groklaw websites that coincidentally sprang up just when theirs didn't were not a huge success. So they have put up their own page here: http://www.sco.com/scoip/

All they have there so far are some of the legal documents in all their cases. But Frank Sorenson noticed one little thing: it appears the defenders of their most holy IP grabbed the PDFs from Groklaw and Frank's tuxrocks.com site, without giving us credit for doing the work of obtaining the documents from the court and scanning them to create the PDFs. Oops.

Update

SCO has now acknowledged the fact that they have used our documents. I commend their honesty.

Frank's explanation:

Very interesting, especially since all they did was post the PDFs that I'd scanned earlier and posted to my web site at sco.tuxrocks.com. Sure, some of them are available through PACER, but the ones that aren't available from PACER all appear to have come from either my site or Groklaw (click on the 'info' link next to each document on sco.tuxrocks.com to see my source for the document--some of them came from other volunteers, and I've attempted to credit them whenever possible).

For example, compare SCO's #156 with the copy from my site. Note (using pdfinfo) that they were both scanned with "AXIS 700 Scan Server" (the scanner/copier at my office), they were both scanned at the same identical time ("Fri May 28 16:51:21 2004"), and that they both have the sme size (85387 bytes). Also note that they both have the same md5sum (3c1064ecedb19073e2194cd88507c349).

Another example is the Declaration of Ira Kistenberg (compare with the copy I obtained, scanned, and posted). In the upper right-hand corner of the page, you can see my handwriting where I noted which particular document this one was (236-G) so that I could remember when I got home from making copies at the courthouse.

You can check Groklaw's IBM-156 and Declaration of Ira Kistenberg as well. Now, Frank and I have spent good money obtaining those documents, money that SCO didn't have to spend, because they get all the documents for free. And Frank and I both go to a lot of trouble to make these available to you. SCO, instead of scanning them in themselves, evidently grabbed Frank's work that he did for Groklaw and his own site.

Update: Frank has noticed another example:

#37 is AutoZone's Emergency Motion to Stay and Memorandum in Support, with Exhibits A-C attached. I downloaded the file from the Nevada PACER site, then split out the appropriate pages to the various Exhibits.

Here is the Groklaw article about the Motion and the link from my site. I sent to Groklaw the motion/memorandum itself (AZ-37.pdf) as well as the Exhibits (AZ-37-A.pdf, etc.), which Groklaw also posted in that particular article. On Groklaw's Legal Docs page, the Motion-Memorandum is also listed separately from the Exhibits.

SCO evidently copied our split-out versions of the file (the files are identical). Again, their posted version does not match the Pacer PDF as *they* filed it. Here's the link to SCO's site. If you have a Pacer account, you can verify the version there. SCO could have downloaded the file from PACER and used that (and it would have had the exhibits attached as part of the file), but they didn't. They could have used a utility to split out the exhibits to their own documents, but they didn't. They appear to have just copied what we had. Very funny.

Methinks there are pirates on the horizon, matey, and they have outdone themselves in smarmitude this time, if there is such a word. If there isn't, I plant my little IP flag as inventor and defender of my rights in the word, which I worked so hard to invent and create. Creativity is worth stone cold cash, you know.

Just horsing around. I *want* people to spread knowledge of SCO everywhere. But the point is this: it's funny. And it's typical. They have been telling folks that the right place to get the documents is from their site, as opposed to Groklaw, yet they get *their* documents from us themselves. It just made me laugh. If SCO is getting their documents from us, you might as well follow their lead. After all, we had them first.

: )

I'm sure Frank would want to join me in thanking SCO for this wonderful endorsement of our websites.


  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 )