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
Trial Witness Lists/Exhibits from SCO v. Novell
Monday, July 21 2008 @ 08:46 AM EDT

The trial witness lists and exhibit lists filed by SCO and Novell at the beginning of the trial in April are available:
05/02/2008 - 535 - Trial Witness List. (kmj) (Entered: 05/08/2008)

05/02/2008 - 536 - Trial Exhibit List of Novell exhibits. (kmj) (Entered: 05/08/2008)

05/02/2008 - 537 - Trial Exhibit List of SCO exhibits. (kmj) (Entered: 05/08/2008)

It's worth going through them with a fine toothed comb, actually, because all of them together make up what the judge based his Order upon, and it's what the appeals court can consider, also, so if you spot anything that contradicts any factual conclusions, it's of interest. As you'll notice, the judge got to see more than we did, so if you find something online that matches the exhibit, it might be good to mention it. If any heroic soul can OCR it to get a text version ready, that would be wonderful.

I can't believe that we have to think about UnixWare and OpenServer again, but we do. So it's a good idea, if you spot anything of value, to keep a copy of the original, so it will be possible to prove things down the road. SCO doesn't allow Wayback to keep a record of its site, so that workaround doesn't work. That leaves you and me. If someday SCO sues someone over UnixWare or Open Server, we'll be glad we did the squirrel work. I have my first contribution to that effort.

In SCO's Memorandum in Objection to Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on its Fourth Claim for Relief SCO lumped three things together, and this is the story they told at trial also. According to SCO, when it says "Unix System V" it means Unix System V and UnixWare and OpenServer, allegedly because whatever was the latest in Unix System V code got put into UnixWare and OpenServer. That was SCO's story after Kimball ruled that the copyrights to Unix System V did not transfer to SCO, and Kimball appears to have bought it. Here's how SCO's lawyers put it in the memorandum:

Second, as noted above, contrary to Novell's core argument that SCO's concerns with the unauthorized use of "Unix System V" technology in Linux could not have pertained to UnixWare, UnixWare is the latest version of UNIX System V, not some entirely new and unrelated product. The APA distinguishes between the two operating systems and the SCOsource Agreements refer to both, but Novell's efforts to try to create some fine distinction between them for purposes of analyzing public statements regarding "UNIX" technology is unavailing. In referring to its "UNIX" or "UNIX System V" or "SVRX" rights, SCO was including the most current version of UNIX System V, UnixWare and OpenServer.

As often happens with SCO, that is almost true, but it's misleading. It might be plausible in 2008; it most definitely was not true in 2002 and 2003, when SCOsource began and SCO was talking aobut its UNIX System V rights. Here's one factual problem with this claim. OpenServer didn't upgrade to the latest, most current version of Unix System V until SCO launched OpenServer 6, or Legend, according to this article about it, titled "SCO OpenServer 6 Launches with Unix SVR5 Kernel" by Timothy Prickett Morgan in IT Jungle. The date? June 23, 2005, several years after SCOsource began:

The OpenServer base, despite the acquisition of the UnixWare product line from Novell in 1995, still represents the bulk of SCO's revenue stream. That is why SCO is fired up about the Legend release. While OpenServer 5.0.7 is notable in that it provided some limited support for UnixWare 7 applications, OpenServer 5 was based on the Unix System V Release 3.2 kernel, which is very old and has some pretty severe limitations in terms of threading, main memory, and file system support. That's why SCO bought UnixWare and the rights to the Unix operating system created by AT&T from Novell to have a more scalable Unix than OpenServer. To preserve backward compatibility with the large installed base of OpenServer customers--there could be as many as 1 million servers installed in the world that are running OpenServer and UnixWare--SCO has not messed with that kernel, even as Unix System V was updated to Release 4 and then Release 5. With Legend, that changes, and OpenServer now uses the SVR5 kernel while maintaining backward compatibility with all prior generations of OpenServer, Unix, and Xenix Unixes from SCO.

See what I mean? So prior to 2005, saying Unix System V couldn't mean Open Server in the sense of being identical, do you think? The story SCO now tells doesn't match that information. And as for UnixWare, if SCO suddenly 'discovers' infringed UnixWare code in Linux after all, half a decade into this saga, note who said it was unifying UnixWare and Linux. In a white paper, "Caldera Gives You a Choice", reported on back in May of 2003 by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, we find some details:

"Caldera's plan is to unify SCO UnixWare with Caldera's OpenLinux to create an LSB-compliant operating platform that will combine UNIX scalability with the application support of Linux to provide a common build environment for solutions that scale up or down, depending upon the business need. Caldera gives you a choice."

That paper disappeared from SCO's website, after which I found it in June of 2003 on Wayback, but it's gone now from there as well. See what I mean about saving whatever seems relevant?

And here's a Registration Statement, Form S-4, as filed with the SEC on March 26, 2001:

One key issue will be the integration of Caldera's Linux product offerings and SCO's UnixWare. This product line integration will involve consolidation of products with duplicative functionality, coordination of research and development activities, and convergence of the technologies supporting the various products.

According to this 2000 article in InfoWorld, Santa Cruz was working on merging UnixWare and Linux too:

A reorganization aims to increase investment in the company's Tarantella software and in Linux, and to reduce expenses in the company's core Unix server business. The California-based company expects to report "significant losses" after reorganization costs.

The new structure also will make it easier for each division to pursue the Linux market, Orr said. The company already has announced significant steps in the Linux market, including professional services and a version of Tarantella for Linux.

Orr said the company now intends to take portions of its UnixWare operating system and market them as layered products on top of other Unix versions and Linux. "That way, we get a bigger market for each product individually," Orr said. Programming interfaces for SCO UnixWare and Linux will be "virtually identical," he said, and added, "Increasingly, we will not care which one you use."

You can't find it online any more via a Google search, or at least I couldn't, so here are a couple of proof screenshots of the article which I saved long ago for a rainy day, first the title and date and then the relevant quotation:

As you can see, saving for a rainy day sooner or later does pay off.


  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 )