Here it is. The Declaration of Marc Rochkind [PDF], the redacted version. They hired him in May of 2005. That means he knows who the folks are who are paying him and what they stand for. By then, the Canopy-Noorda lawsuit had happened, SCO had claimed the GPL was unconstitutional and written to Congress about it, Darl McBride had claimed the MyDoom virus was probably written by Linux folks when it turned out to be Eastern European criminal spammer gangs using Windows and he never apologized, SCO had claimed loudly and publicly that it already had a mountain of evidence of IBM's copyright infringement before even beginning discovery, and SCO and Maureen O'Gara et al had attacked Groklaw outrageously,. And he still agreed to be hired.
So have a look, folks, at what he has to say. There is no mountain, for starters, not even a hill of beans. 5 billion dollars in damages for this little puny list? Hence Judge Wells' "Is that all you've got?" question to SCO. And with regard to IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims, those items IBM wishes to toss out are all about methods and concepts, Rochkind says. That's it? As far as I can see, IBM has the contractual right to use methods and concepts, but maybe this expert didn't read those contracts. That's not his job.
They have found emails, on the Internet, I gather, where IBM employees, or more probably Dynix guys, allegedly revealed Dynix code while schmoozing about how to code things. So this is about Dynix, I gather. It doesn't even appear to be about IBM, as a company, officially doing a thing, just about some emails by individuals who they claim worked for IBM in the sense that IBM eventually bought Dynix. And that's all this case is about? We'll have more to say about the email, because I think we have found the email referenced by SCO's lawyer Stuart Singer at the April 14 hearing, and to my eyes, there isn't anything there to complain about. More to come.
You can always find experts willing to take any side. Experts get paid. And remember, experts lined up to dutifully claim Microsoft wasn't guilty of antitrust offenses too, and it didn't save Microsoft from a guilty verdict in the US antitrust litigation.