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.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
My code is intermingled with Red Hat's ... | 197 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
My code is intermingled with Red Hat's ...
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 10:32 AM EDT
I would have thought that would be a pretty decent case of "information and
belief".

Yes it is a bit of a fishing trip, but if you go to a Judge and say "this
previous case resulting in the plaintiff folding spectacularly and it's this
code that appears to be involved ... I own a chunk of that code ... can you give
me discovery on just that to see if I can find anything ..."

It's not a fishing trip if you can point at a particular piece of code and say
"that looks suspicious". (Plus, how many external consultants does Red
Hat use? Would they keep silent? Would Red Hat want to or be able to buy them
off? What if those consultants actually personally own a load of code Red Hat
paid them to write?)

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

now that they know
Authored by: tknarr on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 02:09 PM EDT

In this case I'd think a good path would be "RedHat has done discovery on the code in question, and has informed me that they've found code matching mine at these locations in these files in Twin Peaks' software. I have a sworn affidavit from RedHat attesting to this.". That should be sufficient grounds to get at least discovery on that specific code, and if you find copying that should give grounds for doing discovery on the entire codebase.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )