Slashdot Mirror

And thank YOU, Jack9, for missing the fact that GROKLAW is neither a news site, nor an op-ed site, that the posting on the blog site had NO opinions or editorials added by the author of the site (PJ) but were entirely the work of the eye-witnesses, and that spoonyfork should not have mangled their work. Notice the disclaimer at the bottom of the page (just above the creative commons license which he also seems to have disreguarded) where it states All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. For the uninformed, that means eggplant37 owns the copyright to their writing, the narative in question.

Of course, if spoonyfork were also present in the court room and wanted to post their narative in whatever manner they wanted, they are welcome to do so, but from the carping I hear from spoonyfork, they were not in the courtroom.

I don't think breaking copyright laws to remove parts of a work you don't like qualifies as a "Good post" even if it does "giv[e] us the facts succinctly as opposed to the facts mixed with the meaningless subjectivities

You and spoonyfork are both wrong.

You seem to have missed the point that

1) this is not a news site,

2) the person writing specifically stated it was a narrative of what happened ("Here's my narrative of what happened in court: ")

and

3) this is not a news site.

Several more things just for education.

1) PJ is not a news columnist. Not in real life, nor on the internet. She does not claim to be one, and for you to hold her to that standard is foolish.

2) GROKLAW is not a news site. It is not an op-ed site. it IS a blog that many people read. It should be held to blog standards. If you want to visit NEWS sites and complain about their editorial policies, go ahead, but visiting an amateur non-news site and complaining about it not being professional or not having editorial policies equivalent to professional news sites is either dis-ingenious, immature, or just foolish - like going to McDonalds and complaining when you can't get a Whopper(c). You want news (Whopper)? Go to a news site (Burger King). You want to go to Groklaw (McDonalds), you get what is there. Complaining about what you DON'T get is just stupid.

3) For those to lazy to RTFA, here's a couple excepts[sic] that I left out... except you forgot to let people know they were not from PJ, but from the person writing about what they did and saw in the court room - i.e., PJ did not edit their writing, just printed it on her site.

4) Others (by way of moderation) find opinions in news to be annoying and completely unnecessary. I can agree with this, but feel compelled to point out that, in this case at least, there was not opinions added by PJ to the reports. I must assume you are bitching because the eye-witnesses were more verbose than you wanted. Sucks to be you.

The following is the eyewitness account report #1 by eggplant37 from the groklaw article but without the stupid commentary.

SCO v DC was 18th of 22 cases on the motion callsheet for the morning. At 0841, the clerk called the SCO v DC attorneys up for a brief discussion, during which I was able to overhear the clerk tell them that he would "like to get [them] in and out."

At 0850, the clerk came over to the SCO side of the bench and spoke briefly with them, telling them "five minutes", I think stating the amount of time that each side would be granted for arguments. DC's attorneys came over and confirmed with the SCO attorneys what the clerk had to say.

SCO v DC was called at 0942. Barry Rosenbaum arguing for SCO and James Feeny arguing for Daimler, and motions were heard to admit Heise and Steven Prout?? pro hac vice for SCO, and also to admit Mark Masuchak from Massachussetts pro hac vice for Daimler, which the Judge granted.

Mr. Rosenbaum argued Daimler's summary dispo motion, noting from the outset that this was a more technical case, dealing with software and licensing agreements, and that he would frame the case briefly, in about 30 seconds. Chrysler says that the case is about whether or not section 2.05 of the SA requires a certification of compliance with detailed enumeration of extraneous facts outside the agreeement, or whether it simply requires a brief certification that licensee has complied with the terms of the license agreement.

Mr. Rosenbaum then went on to recite the language of Section 2.05. He stated that the letter requesting the certification from SCO went quite far outside the unambiguous language in section 2.05 when it asked to enumerate information regarding DC's use of Linux. Daimler didn't file the certification until after SCO filed it's lawsuit, which on its face appeared to be about the contract provisions being breached due to DC not giving SCO their compliance certification in a timely fashion.

Mr. Rosenbaum then went on to recite paragraphs 2 & 3 of DC's response letter, stating that there were no cpu's running SCO's software, that not providing a list of cpu's that weren't in existence and hadn't been used in more than 7 years was more than sufficient to comply with the language of 2.05. Since the language of 2.05 is unambiguous, there is sufficient grounds to grant summary judgement on all assertions in SCO's complaint.

Mr. Rosenbaum finished by stating that the original letter didn't request a list of CPU's running SCO's software. Since there were no CPU's running SCO's products, DC felt it was immaterial as to whether or not they responded within 30 days.

At 0951, Mark Heise then argued the SCO side of the case. He felt that DC's SA gave them full access to the source code and that DC had been given the right to use, modify and create derivatives for their own internal use, and that the SA required that they keep the software confidential, that it should not be exported outside the US -- which in this case seems to be a concern since Chrysler's recent merger with Daimler Benz of Germany.

Heise went on to argue the point that DC's answer to the request for certification was not timely nor was it adequate in that SCO has fears that the source code still lives on disk on some computer somewhere at DC and they are entitled to know where it's stored. He also stated that DC is not alleviated from the terms of the SA once they have decided to take the CD's or tapes or whatever of the source code and toss them in a closet somewhere, and that they needed full certification that the software had been held in confidence by DC.

He went on to recite the terms of section 6.02 of the SA, stating that Chrysler, upon ceasing use of the software, was bound to either destroy all copies or return the software and to notify SCO that they did same. Again, he expressed his concern that in DC's use of the Linux software they were worried that they may b

Hint:

G R O K L A W

What do you mean, you didn't know about Daimler's motion to strike the Broderick affidavit?

Hint:

G R O K L A W

What do you mean, you didn't know about Daimler's motion to strike the Broderick affidavit?

Hint:

G R O K L A W

What do you mean, you didn't know about Daimler's motion to strike the Broderick affidavit?

Hint:

G R O K L A W

What do you mean, you didn't know about Daimler's motion to strike the Broderick affidavit?

Hint:

G R O K L A W

What do you mean, you didn't know about Daimler's motion to strike the Broderick affidavit?

Hint:

G R O K L A W

What do you mean, you didn't know about Daimler's motion to strike the Broderick affidavit?

Hint:

G R O K L A W

What do you mean, you didn't know about Daimler's motion to strike the Broderick affidavit?

Hint:

G R O K L A W

What do you mean, you didn't know about Daimler's motion to strike the Broderick affidavit?

No, you're the one who's wrong about dates. It was filed nine months before 2.6.0 came out.

Lawsuit filed against IBM: March 2003
Release of 2.6.0: Decemeber 2003

I think the title of this July 05, 2004 article from Groklaw answers alot of your questions SCO Spent $2,414,000 Buying Back Its Own Shares Last Quarter --Sifting Through SCO's 10Q and S3

Back on Saturday there was a far more interesting Groklaw article discussing Red Hat's letter to the judge in their case. They lay out in clear detail the contradictory stories SCO has been telling in the different courtrooms across the country in an effort to convince her to lift the stay and let them smoosh SCO's Linux copyright claims into the mud. This, I think, is probably where we'll want to be paying some attention next.

like the article mentions this all happened at the beginning of this week, groklaw had it on tuesday autozone stay pj commented all this with a somewhat different point of view but why not read it for yourself (in case you still care).
me, I still enjoy the show, watching them drown slowly...

According to Groklaw, this is not true. They say the issue of transfer is undecided. That is different than denied AutoZone's request to transfer.

I agree with you. Head on over to Groklaw where this theory is being debated. The Yahoo board has comments as well.

...and this Roland Piquepaille guy is really flattering the GROKLAW web site design.

steveha

Has the FSF ever won a verdict in court?

No, because they have never needed to. In a move sure to please those who think the US is too litigious, the FSF has chosen to work with infringers so they are no longer infringing upon the FSF's copyright license. I would cite a document stating this, but this comes from Brad Kuhn, executive director of the FSF, who came to a college near where I live and spoke about the history of free software including how the FSF reacts to copyright infringement.

One of the GNU GPL's biggest strengths is that people and organizations of all sizes have been using the GPL for the better part of two decades and only recently has anyone been willing to pursue anything close to a GPL infringement case. Lawyers have studied the license and apparently concluded that it is solid. Eben Moglen has spoken on this at his Harvard talk and his two articles on the topic of enforcing the GPL.

He's right; it's one of IBM's counterclaims against SCO. Of course, if any part of SCO's motion to bifurcate (split off the patent suits), IBM could elect to drop it and later dispose of the patent somehow. You can read a transcript of the relevant hearing here on Groklaw.

SCO's answer to IBM's counterclaims accuses it, among other things, of selectively enforcing it. I'm not quite sure what basis there is in law for using that as a defense, however, or if that was just boilerplate text in SCO's reply.

ELEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM

Patent Infringement

174. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 173, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

175. IBM is the lawful owner, by assignment, of the entire right, title and interest in United States Patent No. 4814746 ("the '746 Patent"), duly and legally issued on March 21, 1989 to Miller et aI., entitled "Data Compression Method". A copy of the ' 746 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit X.

176. Upon information and belief, SCO has infringed, contributorily infringed and/or actively induced others to infringe the '746 Patent within this judicial district and elsewhere in violation of35 U. C. 9271 by, without authority or license from IBM, (a) making, using, selling and/or offering to sell products, including Unix Ware and Open Server, that practice one or more claims of the '746 Patent and (b) actively, knowingly and intentionally causing and assisting others to infringe one or more claims of the' 746 Patent.

177. Upon information and belief, SCO will continue to infringe, contributorily infringe and/or actively induce others to infringe the '746 Patent unless enjoined by this Court.

178. IBM has been and continues to be damaged and irreparably harmed by the aforesaid acts of infringement of the '746 Patent by SCD, and will suffer additional damages and irreparable harm unless this Court enjoins SCD from further infringement.

179. Upon information and belief, SCO's continued manufacture, use, sale and/or offer for sale of the infringing products, including UnixWare and Open Server, following receipt of notice from IBM of SCO's infringing activities was and is willful, and such activities by SCO prior to receipt of such notice also have been willful if, after reasonable opportunity for discovery, evidence arises that SCO had actual knowledge that its actions could constitute infringement of the '746 Patent, making this an exceptional case and justifying the assessment of treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, and the award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285.

That complicates matters somewhat. But if the conventional wisdom on this is correct and there's no way IBM's patent would hold up in court, this is going to be tossed out anyway. Better perhaps to drop it now and continue fighting SCO on the stronger grounds. Fighting fire with fire has always seemed inappropriate to me, but maybe that's because I'm not a lawyer...

So how about it, IBM? You've got nothing to lose! Want to make a lot of geeks happy and release that final patent into the public domain?

Actually that patent is being used in IBM's (second amended) counterclaims in the SCO v IBM case.

Please

Microsoft bringing the crap from the Alexis DeTocqueville institute to their seminars is a troll. Pointing out the strong points of the philosophical differences between FOSS and Microsoft is not. BTW just make it clear FOSS:= you own your computer and your informaton. Microsoft:=Microsoft owns you and if you think different your just naive

The Inquirer: "A plan by the European Council of Ministers to force the continent wide adoption of the Directive on Software Patents suffered a blow yesterday when the Dutch Parliament ordered a minister to withdraw the country's support".

Groklaw says "The Dutch parliament is making news. It has just withdrawn its vote for the Directive on Software Patents. It's a proof-of-concept vote, you might say, the first time such a move has been taken in the history of the EU, demonstrating that other countries are free to do the same, as we reported on June 22.".

In Germany, Heise covers the story. In the Netherlands, the story is making headlines all over the place, lik e for example on webwereld and Tweakers.net.

This sudden change of direction is a long story, in which a classic case of desinformation of the Parliament triggered a whole process of debates and motions.

Regarding open source alternatives to Lexis-Nexis et. al., I think that we're starting to see the emergence of these sources with the Groklaw project. Groklaw right now is confined to a narrow issue, but it publishes primary source material and commentary that is superior to many paid services, and in an open source fashion. It is only possible for Groklaw to do this, however, by focusing on a single issue.

I hope that we will see more open source political projects like Groklaw in the future for other important issues.

This story was featured by Pamela Jones on the Groklaw site here.

It's a wonderful story, and lends a *METRIC ASSLOAD* of information that gets inside why The SCO Group decided to change uniforms and start playing for the wrong team in the middle of the game. Darl's just a litigious sonofabitch who happened to find another litigious sonofabitch to help dream up this scheme whereby we try to make money off *everyone else's* ideas.

• Andy told him so several times.
  
• Bruce Perens, editor of the Prentice Hall series cited by Brown, told him so.
  
• Robert Swartz, founder of Mark Williams Co, authors of Coherent, also told him so.
  
• Ilkka Tuomi and several other scientists and historians told him so.
  
• Richard Stallman told him so too.
  
• No less than Dennis Ritchie told him so.

That's funny, but how about trying the other way? Like linking SCO to something informative.

The editors don't need to allow them to make their case. They are making it in a court of law, and badly from what I've read.

Taken from the SCO Q2 Conference Call transcript on Groklaw, could these be Darl McBride's famous last words?

Mark my words, there will be a day that will come when you will all see many, many documents that will directly contradict IBM's current public posturing.

Taken from the SCO Q2 Conference Call transcript on Groklaw, could these be Darl McBride's famous last words?

Mark my words, there will be a day that will come when you will all see many, many documents that will directly contradict IBM's current public posturing.

Agreed, but how much of that "high-end Solaris" is under SCO license restrictions?

Great question. Probably some substantial part of it is covered, if Sun thought it was worth paying $100M for it over the years.

So here's a good question for people looking at Solaris: do you really want to be using a technology licenced from litigious bastards who might try to change the licencing terms, or sue end users at any point, and who believe that "contracts are something you use against partners"? Or would you rather have a nice Unix that's been extensively and expensively proved to be absolutely free of SCO code? The second looks much less risky to me.

File suit - 20:00
Fact Discovery - 22:30
Initial Report - 22:45
Opposing Experts' Reports - 23:00
Counter-reports - 23:15
Expert Discovery - 24:00
Dispositive Motions - 0:30
Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures - 4:00
Exchange of proposed jury instructions - 4:00
Special Attorney Conference and Settlement
Conference - 4:15
Final Pretrial Conference - 4:30
Filing of proposed jury instructions - 4:30
5-week jury trial - 5:00

Now that's a nice schedule!

(with apologies to Judge Kimball)

Of course, after watching just about every U.S. paper and news channel turn into a miniature propaganda ministery during the Iraq War, only to crawl back tearfully when things start hitting the fan, the question is why anyone still bothers.

Thank God for PJ.

Actually you missed a story, Novell filed for copyrights.

"Accordingly, Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's slander of title claim for failure to specifically plead special damages is granted without prejudice."

Their request for the case to be dismissed on reasons of falsity was denied, their request to have it dismissed as inadequately pled was GRANTED. The conclusion section also reads that way. They didn't have to win both of them, just one in order for the case to be dismissed.

Actually, not all dismissed cases can be refiled. If it is dismissed without prejudice, as this one was, they can refile the suit, and in fact the judge went so far as to say they have 30 days to do so. If he had dismissed it with prejudice, the case would be completely thrown out and could not be refiled.

There is also another opportunity which the judge hinted at in his order and which PJ at Groklaw pointed out. He said that he cannot completely throw the case out at the dismissal stage, but that Novell had made some persuasive arguments. The hint is that once SCO amends its complaint, Novell should file for a summary judgement. That will produce a ruling on the case's merits (or lack thereof).

You're right, we don't really want a dismissal. We really want a judgement, and I would expect Novell will ask for exactly that in the very near future.

This sure smells like the minority owners (Canopy) are bleeding cash out of a publicly-traded company (SCO) by selling it a loser.

Canopy has done stuff like this before. When one of their companies goes bankrupt, they (Canopy) wind up with the assets that matter, whether or not the company was publicly traded. They do this by making sure that the company that is going under owes Canopy money, so that Canopy is a creditor at bankruptcy time.

In other words:
1. Create a private company (company A).
2. Take company A public. Company A now has lots of money.
3. Create another private company (company B).
4. Sell company B to company A.
5. Profit!

But wait, there's more...

6. Make sure company A owes you money.
7. Let company A go bankrupt.
8. Using the assets that you get back from the bankruptcy, go to step 1!

Have you considered documenting the experience for grokdoc?

Judge Wells has denied SCO's Expedited Motion for Protective Order, in which it asked that three depositions be postponed.

Here's a Groklaw link

Read more Groklaw.

The article parent links to discusses a separate motion to delay depositions--which, yes, was denied-- not delay the overall trial schedule. The motion to bifurcate the trial, and the motion to extend the Discovery/Deposition period before trial, are reported as being taken under advisement.

I don't think Darl's dream of prolonging the FID will come to any fruition. The court has replied to one of their attempts at delay, as reported on Groklaw today:

"Court hears arguments and DENIES the motion due to lateness of the objection and inconvenience to the parties scheduled for deposition."

IBM had argued that SCO didn't need a delay because "two of the witnesses scheduled next week ... are former employees of AT&T, not IBM. .... Similarly, Mr. Rodgers was employed by Sequent, not IBM, and IBM does not have any of his documents. The final deponent, BayStar, is an investor in SCO, wholly unrelated to IBM, and that deposition apparently will not go forward." Today Judge Wells agreed and denied SCO's attempt to prolong the FUD. This guy really seems to understand the importance of getting these decisions out sooner rather than later, since the claims are enormous and the business impact could be huge. Their arguments to postpone the trial date are equally without merit, so expect more embarassing setbacks for SCO soon.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200406090 20821429

Gotta love them Groklaw folks, especially PJ, who totally rocks.

Sunny Dubey

This story is a bit old already. See groklaw.

and SCO is absolutely within its rights to tell Sun

For an even funnier laugh, I recommend reading this one Is Brown Really the Father of Samizdat? - A Parody by Justin Moore to counter the Fake Research, hmm did I mention about their Fake Research?

You forgot the most important SCO link.

If the spammers are linking text like " " or "." to hide their activities, google will easily be able to identify those and block those sites but then spammers will start linking words.

How about we relink any spam we find from http://www.spamsite.com/ To: http://www.searchenginespammers.net/bb-spammer.cgi /http://wwww.spamsite.com/ After linking, 1) click the link (or better have a program visit it with the correct referrrer string or report the link via a web form on the cgi) and 2) move the link to your search engine accessible spam page. Actually, reporting via a web form is better than clicking the link if you are doing it manually because you don't increment the sites hit counters and you don't expose your computer to malware.

Of course, someone would need to register searchenginespammers.net and install a cgi there that would basically display a page describing the criminal practice of bulletin board/wiki spamming, and then lists all the referrer strings that have brought it to this particular page.

This will help search engines like google identify the wiki spammers and purge their sites from their search results. In the short term, searches for the keywords they tried to drive to their site would now take them to searchenginespammers.net and once the folks at google take action they can use it to activiate a filter mechanism. Other sites besides google can use the information. Someone could start a PICS or DNS based blacklist based on listings at searchenginespammers.net that people could use to prevent patronizing such sites. Email filters could use the list to help identify spam.

Like any site that lists spam URLs, there is the possibility that people will spam other peoples URLs to discredit them, so that needs to be taken into account.

Also, this thread is a reminder that when mentioning a company we dislike ( SCO, MPAA, RIAA , Macrovision , Microsoft, George W Bush, etc. should either not link their name or link their name to a site that describes their misconduct; we don't want to help them get better search engine rankings.

...is to take to heart the old dictum don't feed the trolls. He wants you to feed him stuff he can attack the community with. Anonymous, out of context defamation is his cherished goal. DON'T GIVE IT TO HIM. He wants government to buy it.

PJ's reaction should give a useful heads-up. The Gilbert and Sullivan parody should be mandatory singing all day today!

That seems to be only the tip of the iceberg of where his reasoning falls short. I got a personal reply from him today when I sent a message expressing my concerns. He seems to be one genuinely deluded individual. He acknowledged that Dennis Ritchie response on Groklaw and does not see anything 'incorrect, wrong or invalid' about the way he is presenting the material.

Besides all the email he responded to today, he had time to put forth the garbage being exposed here. He tries to take the high moral ground and talk about 'trust' but it looks more like a hatchet job.

To write Samizdat, I worked with (and quoted) many individuals directly or indirectly familiar with Linux development. AdTI will continue to interview people within the open source profession about open source. It would be skewed and bias to only quote people that are anti-Linux or anti-open source. I have done this for years, and will continue to do so, regardless of what a source thinks of my theories.

It seems like he enjoys playing word games as evidenced by his need to talk about "Hybrid source code" which is a term they invented. His described purpose for writing this book is to suggest a better way for the legal community, the science community, the business community, and government to get along.

If he is sincere in wanting to get along better maybe Slashdot could send him the 10 highest moderated questions.