Slashdot Mirror

'Borland last week filed suit against Microsoft, alleging that the Redmond, Wash., giant has been systematically recruiting Borland developers in an attempt to eliminate the company as a competition'

"if we break their apps when we install, it will serve them right. guess they took the approach of shoot first, explain later"

The site I'm thinking of was Zen's Den, which announced the documents at 10:30pm, ET on the 27th of April. Groklaw's article on the same documents were at 07:57 PM EDT on April 28th. There's at most a 1 hour difference between ET and EDT, so that's a considerable time difference. I actually thought the difference was much less meself, but there you go.

Tuxrocks and Scofacts often beat Groklaw to the punch too. Groklaw isn't usually the first site to carry the SCO documents; it does, however, have the most comprehensive archive and usually the best analysis.

One of the many reasons SCOG changed names was to cause confusion in the market as well as the court room and it worked based on what you posted (with the exception of your last sentence). The SCO Group != Santa Cruz Operation (SCO). The name changed after they filed as can be seen from http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/complaint3.06.03. html when they filed as Caldera. The whole idea was to cause as much confusion as possible making their claims seem more plausible. Just keep in mind, the SCO Group exists only for litigation from start to finish.

B.

Most of SCO's claims are premised on the allegation that AutoZone is running programs on its Linux servers that include copies of OpenServer libraries. As set forth in more detail in Exhibit A, AutoZone's intention in its migration from OpenServer to Linux was to recompile all of its application programs using a Linux compiler so that none of those programs would contain any OpenServer libraries. (Celmer Deposition 26:5-13, attached hereto as Exhibit C.) AutoZone was surprised to find when it analyzed its servers during discovery that approximately 127 programs existed on its store servers (out of thousands of programs on AutoZone's typical store server) that were compiled under OpenServer and therefore included SCO libraries. (See Letter from David Stewart dated October 27, 2004.) Of these programs only two appear to have been used on any of AutoZone's servers at any time since the migration process was completed: Compx, and Decompx.

• SCOvIBM: In the wake of the recent opinion issued by Judge Kimball, fact discovery will continue until 27 Jan 2006, and the parties must disclose with specificity all "allegedly infringing materials" by 22 Dec 2005. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the privilege log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due approximately 28 Sept 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is expected around 17 July 2005.

Pending/Recently decided motions:

• SCOvIBM:
  • SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery - fully briefed, awaiting hearing date.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - sealed]

SCOvNovell:

• Complaint
  • [SCO's complaint] [Novell's answer - expected 14 Jul 2005]
• Novell's Motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
  • [Motion] [Memo] [Novell Declaration of Bruce Lowey] [Novell Declaration of David E. Melaugh] [Opposition] [Reply] [Novell Declaration of Kellie Carlton] [Eyewitness Reports of Hearing] [Order]

RedHatvSCO:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 28 Sept 2005).
  • [Red Hat letter - 30 Jun 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 6 Jul 2005]

SCOvAutoZone:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 17 July 2005).
  • [AutoZone letter - 10 May 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 18 Apr 2005]

Please note that I've started construction of a motio

• SCOvIBM: In the wake of the recent opinion issued by Judge Kimball, fact discovery will continue until 27 Jan 2006, and the parties must disclose with specificity all "allegedly infringing materials" by 22 Dec 2005. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the privilege log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due approximately 28 Sept 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is expected around 17 July 2005.

Pending/Recently decided motions:

• SCOvIBM:
  • SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery - fully briefed, awaiting hearing date.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - sealed]

SCOvNovell:

• Complaint
  • [SCO's complaint] [Novell's answer - expected 14 Jul 2005]
• Novell's Motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
  • [Motion] [Memo] [Novell Declaration of Bruce Lowey] [Novell Declaration of David E. Melaugh] [Opposition] [Reply] [Novell Declaration of Kellie Carlton] [Eyewitness Reports of Hearing] [Order]

RedHatvSCO:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 28 Sept 2005).
  • [Red Hat letter - 30 Jun 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 6 Jul 2005]

SCOvAutoZone:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 17 July 2005).
  • [AutoZone letter - 10 May 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 18 Apr 2005]

Please note that I've started construction of a motio

PJ 'blogs' the facts, albeit sometimes with a fierce preserve for open source, but nevertheless, the FACTS.

Well, no, she blogs her opinion. Sometimes she intermixes facts with her opinion. Sometimes she doesn't. Really, it's just a blog. It's not the fount of all wisdom.

Honestly, if you want a site that gives the facts you'd be better off with scofacts.org, especially something like the SCO Score Card. There is also Frank Sorenson's pages. He has all the court documents, not just the ones that PJ can spin into a story. Frank has been responsible for obtaining the majority of court documents hosted on Groklaw.

The other news sites 'report' what they decide is 'news', and that 'news' can be swayed by whatever/whoever is paying them to say it.

Groklaw is no different. You are just biased because Groklaw says what you want to hear.

I heard an eloquent analogy recently. Science starts with the facts and draws a supported conclusion. Creationism starts with a conclusion and tries to find the supporting facts. I think Groklaw is much more like creationism than science. Now before you jump all over me, that's not to say they're wrong. I think they're right. But they're not approaching the problem in a scientific way. They're using a very religious methodology to "prove" their point.

PJ has done the world of 'IANAL' geeks proud - and I would even say without a doubt without PJ and her blog, the SCO FUD would have worked and we would all be in the shit.

Are you trying to claim that without Groklaw, IBM would have just rolled over and said "SCO is right". I don't think so. None of the companies being sued by SCO would have rolled over. Groklaw provides information to a very niche crowd; the overly interested Linux geeks. It has kept us informed of the goings on. I don't think it has had significant influence outside that tiny niche. I don't think it's existence or lack thereof would alter the conclusion of this SCO debacle either way. SCO doesn't have a case. We all know that. Reality would triumph over SCO with or without somebody's written opinion on a blog.

Sound like they're trying to get a Groklaw+Tuxrocks+Yahoeuvre+Legal Scorecard, but without the commentary.

Losers.

Oh, well. Guess it could get hilarious if they add their spin to things.

Even as SCO describes the case -- by directly quoting (without attribution) a Westlaw headnote...

I'm amused at:

"SCO's opposition papers thus seek only to perpetuate fear, uncertainty and doubt is has fostered reguarding Linux." (On page 14 of IBM memo to support summary judgement.)

FUD is now a legal term! :D

Linux doesn't exist, and were not even sure in 'Finland' is a real place.

Actually this is more SCO fud. Its funny how in thier court documents SCO swears that linux does not infringe SCO copyrights, this is just about IBM and its contracts with SCO. In court SCO sats that they haven't started to compare UNIX and Linux in any real way, and that it would take 25,000 man years to do it anyway.

In the press they say the opposite!

Its nice that IBM points this out to the court as well.

Linux doesn't exist, and were not even sure in 'Finland' is a real place.

Actually this is more SCO fud. Its funny how in thier court documents SCO swears that linux does not infringe SCO copyrights, this is just about IBM and its contracts with SCO. In court SCO sats that they haven't started to compare UNIX and Linux in any real way, and that it would take 25,000 man years to do it anyway.

In the press they say the opposite!

Its nice that IBM points this out to the court as well.

I was reading the filing (the link for which I found at groklaw, naturally) and was shocked at the sheer volume of code copyrighted to IBM in the kernel, 700,000+ lines. They have a great deal invested in the littel kernel that could. Its a no-brainer they are defending it. Still, how health is it for one entity, a private entity at that, to have that much code in the kernel?

On a lighter note, page 18 of the filing has the first wedding dress reference I have seen in this case.

"This public display of plaintiffs' bridal dresses and copyrighter lacee designs...."

Note: The aforementiones lace reference has been taken out of context for your amusement.

Memorandum in support, pages 26-28. A must read!

It turns out that in the Memorandum in Support, IBM does invoke part of the GPL--specifically, the part that says "no relicensing":

63. The GPL and LGPL provide that a person may rely on the GPL or LGPL as a license or grant of permission (to copy, modify or distribute code covered by the GPL or LGPL) only if the person abides by the terms of the GPL or LGPL. The GPL and LGPL expressly provide that any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the code licensed under the GPL or LGPL "is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License".

66. SCO has . . . attempted to copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the code licensed under the GPL or LGPL other than as "expressly provided under [the GPL or LGPL]". [list of 14 violations follows]

So while it's not the whole shebang, it looks like we can at least expect part of the GPL to be discussed.

We have evidence that portions of UNIX System V software code have been copied into Linux and that additional other portions of UNIX System V software code have been modified and copied into Linux, seemingly for the purposes of obfuscating their original source.

We believe that Linux infringes on our UNIX intellectual property and other rights. We intend to aggressively protect and enforce these rights.

Groklaw has a story on the SD Times FUD Award, as well as some comments from Red Hat's new counsel regarding FUD activities as responses to the disruptive technologies of Open Source, and that Red Hat will defend against it in the future.

Also, IBM has just filed a memorandum opposing SCO's motion to extend the court schedule. It sounds boring, I know, but what it basically says is that there is no reason to extend the court date, because any delays in the schedule have been caused by SCO's own malfeasance, and IBM intends to ask for summary judgement on everything anyway.

Here are some of the choicer quotes:

"As stated, the most egregious example of SCO's discovery misconduct is SCO's persistent refusal to identify with specificity the UNIX System V source code that forms the basis of its claims against IBM."

"IBM believes that discovery in this case should be conducted according to the schedule to which the parties agreed almost a year ago. In fact, as we will lay out in forthcoming submissions most (if not all) of the claims in the suit can be resolved on summary judgment without more discovery. SCO should not be allowed, through its own misconduct, to prolong this case merely to serve its own interests in cultivating the fear, uncertainty and doubt SCO has created regarding Linux and IBM's products."

"In the instant case, SCO has not shown "good cause" for extending fact discovery in the case for an additional nine months and putting off trial until September 2005. ... [E]ach of SCO's stated reasons for requestinfg the extension are attributable entirely to SCO's own stalling tactics during the course of discovery and reflect an utter lack of diligence."

A tiff of the full document can be found at Pacer's public SCO v. IBM page.

The PDF can be found at Frank Sorenson's sco.tuxrocks.com site.

Easy to read pdf version on TuxRocks IBM-148.pdf

SCO Digging from Humor

We DO know who bought licenses from SCO. In Mark Heise's response to IBM's letter about missing discovery items, he says there are only three that he knows of, Computer Associates, Questar and Leggett & Platt. Links here or here.

This document describes SCO's case (or lack thereof) in more detail than any other piece of info so far. Lots of stuff for the Linux community to pick apart. Most especially a description of the "millions of lines of code" that they claim they own.

Link to mirror

The absolutely best hypothesis is that they're doing it to purge the bad news off the newssites. There was news about the motion to compell hearing (which wasn't SCO's finest hour. Read the transcript here. Check p55 if you're in a hurry) and about the SCO - Boies - Investor-relationship which also was very bad news for SCO, because they want people to belive Boies is on a continguency (apparently that implies 'faith in the lawsuit').

Where is that now? Gone.

Instead we have stories about poor, poor SCO being attacked by those evil linux users.

How many companies release Press Releases about being under attack?! On the same day, no less!

I'd like to point out that the work that Pamela Jones & Co. at GROKLAW is clearly of some real use to IBM in this case. another poster has already mentioned that IBM has specifically cited a transcription GROKLAW produced in their recent filing.

I would also like to remind others that there's a little paypal donation button on the front page of GROKLAW, as mauryisland pointed out elsewhere.

click that button. give her a holiday bonus, just enough to make it hurt you a tiny little bit. and let's see just how robust PayPal's servers are.

Take a look at this document (note: it's a PDF file). It's written in legalese, but if you read between the lines, it shows what happens when a lawyer loses patience. Basically, IBM's law firm can't call SCO a bunch of liars, cheats, four-flushers and shysters in a court document, but this document sure makes it sound like they wish they could. Highly entertaining, and highly recommended.

I always maintained that there is an analogy between the software technology and scientific knowledge. Just like science is the basis for our civilization, software underlies the expanding digital sphere of our lives. The development model of both science and sofware can vary between proprietary and public, and the society has to make a policy choice about supporting the right mix.

Even though scientific and technological knowledge started as proprietary, we as society made a historical choice, dating back to the age of Enlightenment, to develop knowledge in a collegial, public fashion. This model, of course, works rather well, and no one seriously argues that it should be rolled back to some kind of proprietary science development.

Similarly, I argue that software, whose importance tracks the growing influence of computing on our lives, must be developed in a public model; the Free Software is currently the closest approach, which eventually will be augmented by some sort of peer-reviewed public commitment, just as is the case for scientific research.

The analogy of software and science is not perfect; but I argue that, firstly, the negative effects of closed software are almost identical to negative effects of closed knowledge: it forces duplicate work, creates artificial monopolies, and slows down progress. Secondly, because software IS the infrastructure of the digital age, there is the issue of public interest, and the development model must accomodate that.

In this context, the strategy of SCO in their Linux lawsuit is especially retrograde. Their position, as laid out in their recently issued letters seems to counter the very idea of a public stake in technical knowledge. It occurred to me to modify their argument, substituting human knowledge' for 'software'. Here's what we'd get:

As you may know, the development process for public scientific
knowledge has differed substantially from the development process
for other enterprise scientific research. Commercial research is
built by carefully selected and screened teams of scientists
working to build proprietary scientific results. The process is
designed to monitor the security and ownership of intellectual
property rights associated with the knowledge.

By contrast, much of human scientific knowledge has been built
from contributions by numerous unrelated and unknown scientists,
each contributing a small scientific discovery. There is no
mechanism inherent in the public science development process to
assure that intellectual property rights, confidentiality or
security are protected. The public science process does not
prevent inclusion of knowledge that has been stolen outright, or
developed by improper use of proprietary methods and concepts.

Put this way, their argument is nonsensical, and would find no support in anyone even a tiny bit familiar with the scientific process, which arguably forms the basis of our civilization.

can be found here.