More on Pacer, this time on SCO v. IBM. I think I need more hands and a dual-boot brain. All I can think about today are the tacks Novell has just thrown on SCO's path in that case, and it's mighty hard to focus on anything less ephochal.
Here's the latest:
Notice of Removing Counsel from Service List
Docket Text: NOTICE of REMOVING COUNSEL FROM SERVICE LIST filed by Anthony L. Marks, Mark A. Wagner.Attorney Anthony L. Marks, Mark A. Wagner will no longer receive notice from the court in this case including final judgment. (blk, )
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (blk, )
Motion for Leave to File
Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to File Declaration of Marc Rochkind filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk, )
Filed & Entered: 04/12/2006
Notice of Hearing on Motion
Docket Text: AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re:  Defendant's MOTION to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material: Motion Hearing previously set for 4/14/06 at 3:00 PM has been reset for 4/14/2006 at 11:00 AM in Room 220 before Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells. [PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE].(jwd, )
So, Intel's lawyers bid the SCO litigation a fond farewell, after squishing SCO's subpoena like a bug. Also note the time change, those of you planning to attend the hearing on Friday regarding IBM's motion to limit SCO's claims. And SCO seems to have finally dredged up an expert willing to help them with Friday's hearing by submitting a declaration, if the court will allow his declaration at the last minute.
SCO's proposed expert wrote a book on Unix in 1984, "Advanced UNIX Programming," and here's an article he did when he updated it 20 years later, "Has UNIX Programming Changed in 20 Years?" Here's what he did during those intervening 20 years, including becoming "a big fan of Linux". My question, as if to a little child, would have to be, "How big?" Being a fan of Linux is not the same as being an expert in Linux, of course. He admits in this article that he first got involved, strictly as a user, in Linux five years ago, and like many nonexperts in Linux, he wrongly thinks Linux started as an effort to morph Minix and he doesn't know the difference between the GPL and the BSD licenses in their effect. He was the original author of SCCS, however, so no doubt that will be the area of his relevant expertise. You can see on this part of his article why SCO wants him with them. And here's his blog. There you'll find a link to articles he's written in the last thirty years, only one of which, he says, is about computers. Here is what he writes about that:
The Source Code Control System
This is a really well-known paper, and if you Google "Source Code Control System" in quotes you get about 155,000 hits. It's the system that all modern version-control systems are based on: RCS, CVS, SourceSafe, Subversion, you name it. SCCS itself is still used, too.
What happened was that I was hired by Bell Labs in 1970 as a Mechanical Engineer, but I really wanted to work only in software, so I managed to get myself transferred to a software division of the company two years later, and they asked me to do something about their source code mess. I was only about 24, had zero experience with large software projects, so, not knowing any better, I came up with SCCS.
There's no text file for the article; the PDF is a scan of a copy of the paper I had in my file cabinet. Sorry for the long download time.
SCCS has had one permanent effect on the way I work now: Whenever I have a few versions of the same source code file laying around in various directories, I say to myself, "You really should be using some version control." And, sometimes I actually do.
He's probably a very nice fellow, but he isn't Randall Davis. It's the Randall Davis Declaration that SCO is clearly worried about and is trying to counter here. They must think IBM is favored to win its motion on Friday, absent some effort on SCO's part to raise a factual dispute of some kind. Any kind.
SCO's Motion for Leave to File Declaration of Marc Rochkind reads like this:
Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), respectfully moves for leave to file the Declaration of Marc Rochkind in opposition to IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Motion to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material.
SCO's Motion arises out of IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims, filed on February 13, 2006. Considering that IBM had not relied on any proposed expert testimony in support of that Motion, SCO did not submit any expert testimony with its Opposition Memorandum, filed on March 7, 2006. In support of its Reply Memorandum dated April 4, 2006, however, IBM submitted the Declaration of proposed expert Randall Davis. Accordingly, SCO seeks leave to address the issues raised in that Declaration by filing the Declaration of expert Marc Rochkind, and through this Motion gives IBM sufficient notice to consider that declaration in advance of the hearing on IBM's Motion, scheduled for April 14, 2006.
Well, we'll see if the court views it as sufficient notice. SCO's motion is dated April 10. But what it means to me is that SCO is worried it will lose this motion, absent some way to raise a dispute regarding Randall Davis' Declaration. If you are planning to attend this hearing, be sure to call that morning to confirm it is really going to happen on the 14th. There could be some last-minute scrambling.