Slashdot Mirror
SCO Asks IBM To Make SCO's Case For It
acousticiris writes "According to an analysis of Friday's memorandum from SCO on Groklaw: 'If I had to characterize it in a brief sentence or two, the sentence would be that SCO tells the court, "How are we supposed to know what code IBM misappropriated? It's up to them to prove our case for us."...' It's also interesting to note that in Friday's memorandum, footnote 4, SCO uses Eric Raymond's Jargon File entry for FUD to take pot shots at IBM (footnote 4). Evidently, Eric was not pleased, according to the updated entry."
...ok, so how do you know they misappropriated *anything*? Case dismissed.
--
Finder.
1-800-759-0700
It seems somehow fitting that SCO would link to FUD in the jargon file, since the previous entry in the jargon file is "fuck me harder". After all, isn't that what SCO is doing to their shareholders?
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
can't SCO get the linux source code, and compare it to their own closed source code, and see what is the same? i thought their claim was that IBM just dumped a bunch of their UNIX code into linux... wouldnt it be easy to find?
In a desperate attempt to prevent interested parties from reading their crap, SCO has apparently taken it upon themselves to slashdot Groklaw. Impressive.
If we can't read it we have to believe them!
IANAL, but isn't the plaintiff required to point out exactly where copyright or trademark has been infringed? I think the burden of proof is on SCO.
Why does SCO keep getting away with talking nonsense in both press and court?
all your bandwith belong to .........I am not alowed to post mirrors so somebody do it please..
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
SCO files a court document which includes (to provide support for their claim) a link to a web page controlled by someone they KNOW to hate them?
"Your Honor, we demand he change it back. We ummm didn't know website text can be changed"
The mind boggles...
Finkployd
I don't always agree with him but sometimes when he takes a stand, you just have to applaud.
What, it IBM guilty until proven innocent now? SCO's tactic is the oldest in the book, and certainly not the way the American legal system works.
They don't even have evidence for christ's sake.
-p@!
Ya know, I just thought of something. These legal maneuverings by SCO are just SO absurd that the lawyers involved HAVE to know that. So I'm wondering - is SCO just being taken advantage of by unscrupulous lawyers, wanting to bilk stupid-ass SCO execs into thinking they can win anything?
- when bottomfeeders and IP portfolios mix, one shouldn't be surprised by such actions... - sadder however, is that the U.S. court system allows this case to continue to be played out... - the big warning here is that no future technology endeavours or independent software developers are safe from venture capitalists, investment brokers, and reptiles that have passed state bar exams...
ANYWAY, I really am shocked that this has been going on unchecked as much as it has. Im sure enough people have said something to warrent a investigation of SCO's activities, yet still no word on them being investigated for Stock fraud just as their is no word on what real code was actually stolen, (to which we now get its up to them to prove it... huh??? self incrimination????? YEAH THATS GOING TO HAPPEN EVEN IF THEY DID STEAL CODE WHICH I NOW FEEL WE KNOW THEY PROBABLY DIDNT.)
Anyway what I find quite annoying is that the press has been treating it as if SCO has a case, not one person has actually talked to anyone in the tech field who knows they are lying. Its always some "tech analist" who couldnt analize his or her way out of a paper bag. Would us sending these slashdot stories to the major cable news outlets make a difference????
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
nope.
I'm reminded of this Slashdot piece on Microsoft claiming Apple is monopolistic.
Prove the case for them? WOW! How utterly embarrasing can one company get? Those dumb wops.
Criminal cases != being sued.
This is just getting stupid. At some point, can't one side or the other just go all in per se, and call the other player out?
If IBM's case is as strong as it appears, why are they drawing this out? Call their bluff and make them show their hand. It was entertaining for a while just for being completely ridiculous, but now it's tired. Put this horse down.
This is a civil case. These amendments do not apply.
Um, it's a civil case, not a criminal one.
their stock is going through the roof - what are you talking about?
Dear Eric, please rethink those added lines. Yes, they are true, but sometimes the true needs to be explained more politly or otherwise lawyers will chew your bones.
As english is only my second language I won't give advice. But like my ol' teacher said "whenever a complete moron of a student produces one heap of shit after another I tell his parents 'it looks like he isn't able to follow expectations'".
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
Yet another off-by-one error!
This case becomes more and more ridiculous. I wonder - could someone with appropriate standing subpoena information regarding SCO's $50 million to see if it really did come from Microsoft? If Microsoft were funding this, would that not be a pretty clear anti-trust matter?
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Looks like there will be a new edition to "Slashdotted" in the Jargon File, containing today's server logs just before the server undergoes complete and utter disintergration. Yay!
Hate me!
And the entire Canopy Group, too, if they can.
So IBM's going about this very methodically, and they aren't missing anything.
And get this: even if SCO's claims are dismissed, IBM's counterclaims will still have to be tried....
From the jargon file: "... SCO has become a nest of liars and thieves..."
ESR is a man of carefully restrained, diplomatic judgements. Look at it this way, he is saying SCO is so bad it can only improve.
Would you buy software from a company with this reputation?
This is a civil case. These amendments do not apply.
The bit about due process certainly applies, and due process encompasses trial by jury, burden of proof, and the like.
I hate SCO just as much as the next guy, but the Amendments you cited are for criminal cases, and apply only to the government. This case is a civil matter, and therefore use a different set of laws. IANAL, so I believe SCO still has to prove its own case, but it isn't compelled to by those Amendments you listed above. -geoff313
The whole thing might well be a lawyer-driven move, but not in the way you describe it I think.
Far more likely is that the lawyers are simply raking in the money in full knowledge that no matter what kind of good or bad advice they give SCO, no mud will stick on them, and the longer the case draws out the more money they will have earned.
Highly conspicuous by its absence is any sort of condemnation of SCO's moves by the legal fraternity where it matters (ie. at judicial level, not advocacy), or indeed even here on Slashdot. They know on which side their toast is buttered, and it's not on the side of promoting sanity nor doing the right thing quickly.
In a world where the legal profession was not an accomplice in misdeeds, SCO would have been legally mandated to shut up until the case is heard, in order to prevent causing damages beyond their ability to recompense. But we're not living in that kind of world.
Defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering [Amdahl] products." The idea, of course, was to persuade them to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software. See IBM. After 1990 the term FUD was associated increasingly frequently with Microsoft, and has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon.
[In 2003, SCO sued IBM in an action which, among other things, alleged SCO's proprietary control of Linux. The SCO suit rapidly became infamous for the number and magnitude of falsehoods alleged in SCO's filings. In October 2003, SCO's lawyers filed a memorandum in which they actually had the temerity to link to the web version of this entry in furtherance of their claims. Whilst we appreciate the compliment of being treated as an authority, we can return it only by observing that SCO has become a nest of liars and thieves compared to which IBM at its historic worst looked positively angelic. --ESR]
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
IANAL, but as I understood things, the case is about contract disupite and not a criminal case. You are still correct that SCO can't just say "you're guilty, now confess your sins!" but the clauses of the bill of rights you cited do not apply since it is not a criminal case.
However, it is still SCO's job to prove its case against IBM, and all the specifics of their accusations will come out in discovery.
MOD PARENT DOWN. This is not a criminal case. It's a civil case.
Fucking morons.
The issue isn't access to the source, the issue is that they're starting to falter and inadvertantly let it slip that they themselves have no idea what is infringing, if anything, nor do they have the resources to determine it, so they're hoping IBM will do their jobs for them. When they're getting to the point that they're supposed to serve up the meat and potatoes, they're finding their larder's empty and are now begging the dinner guests for food.
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
SCO is pursuing civil remedies, not criminal.
It's been said before and will undoubtedly be said again: Don't ask for legal advice on Slashdot. The parent is a glowing example of why.
These Amendments apply to criminal cases, not civil ones. Complex civil laws are best left to attorneys. However, even a high school civics class should provide enough knowledge of the basic structure of the American Constitution to understand that this does not apply. IANAL does not apply; I failed high school civics may be an acceptable excuse.
Holy Cow! He'll shoot them with his GUN! He's an open source HERO! All Hail Eris^Hc!
I keep getting this error message:
/public/private/groklaw/system/databases/mysql.cla ss.php on line 108
Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in
Cannnot connect to DB server
Please don't read my journal
That group includes Troll Tech/QT.
Score 5: Look how stupid I am
Remember when SCO was whining that the open source model didn't provide adequate 'protections' to SCO's business model? This was where they quoted Linus to the effect 'don't check to see if the code is patented' within the context of if you did, found the algorithm to be patented, and still used it then you would be liable for triple damages. And this - in SCO's view - allowed IBM to insert SCO "derived" code into Linux unfairly.
Well what about the story that ran earlier today - Silicon Valley where in the linked NYTimes article on the second page it contains the following paragraph:
In April 2001, after discussions with Microsoft fell apart, InterTrust filed a patent infringement suit contending that the company illegally used InterTrust's technology in its Windows Media Player and other products. The suit is pending.
This just goes to show that there aren't any protections in the commercial area as well.
Shh.
[There is no text; only Zuul.]
Uhhh-huh-huh. He said infringer. Huh-huh-huh.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Innocent until proven guilty...????????????????
This better not be how it unravels.
SCO sucks.
ogg
Black cat, searing pain, flames...? I must be in Heaven! - Homer Simpson
SCO's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery Friday, October 24 2003 @ 07:11 PM EDT
Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery October 23, 2003
The SCO Group ("SCO") submits this memorandum of law in opposition to International Business Machines Corporation's ("IBM") Motion to Compel Discovery.
INTRODUCTION
It has been said that things have both an ostensible and a real reason. Ostensibly, IBM filed its motion to Compel to force SCO to answer interrogatories and produce documents because it had failed to do so. The reality, however, is that SCO not only timely responded to IBM's discovery requests, it then engaged in weeks of lengthy conversation, correspondence, and emails to resolve and clarify discovery issues and ultimately agreed to supplement its responses. But supplemental responses were not all that IBM was seeking. If that were the case, IBM would have waited until today, when supplemental responses were promised and were in fact served. No, what IBM really desired was a forum within which it could construct its stilted and inaccurate mischaracterization of SCO's claims, behind which it could hide its own failure and refusal to provide meaningful discovery responses. As detailed below, IBM's motion is without merit and should be denied.
At its core, IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery asks for answers to interrogatories that fit its own mischaracterized theories of the case, rather than answers that relate to the actual allegations made by SCO in the Complaint. IBM's baseless arguments begin as an effort to smear SCO and end with a newly created justification of why IBM has failed to provide any meaningful discovery responses itself. While IBM's improper litigation tactics are discussed in detail below, the Motion to Compel can be denied on the simple basis that SCO has actually provided supplemental answers, pursuant to earlier agreement, and this motion is therefore moot.
THE LAWSUIT
Contrary to IBM's efforts to recast SCO's Amended Complaint as one limited to trade secret violations, the Amended Complaint contains six counts--the first three counts are for IBM's numerous breaches of licensing agreements. The remaining counts, including Count VI for misappropriation of trade secrets, flow from this transgression and are ancillary to the breach of the license agreements. Thus, notwithstanding IBM's mischaracterization, trade secret misappropriation is not the gravaman of the Complaint (IBM Mem., p. 2), but it is merely one count that recasts one aspect of the injuries caused by IBM's breach. These injuries would exist even in the absence of any trade secret misappropriation.
In its Amended Complaint, SCO alleged that IBM and Sequent (now part of IBM and herinafter collectively referred to as IBM) were licensees of UNIX System V source code ("UNIX"). As part of this license grant, IBM was given certain rights and also agreed to certain restrictions upon its use of UNIX. IBM agreed, for example, that UNIX code and methods would be solely for its own internal business purposes ( 2.01), [1] that UNIX code and methods would not be used for others and by others ( 2.05), and that IBM would maintain the code and methods related thereto in confidence ( 7.06). Similarly, IBM further agreed it would not sell or otherwise dispose of UNIX in whole or in part ( 7.10). Significantly, IBM also agreed that any modifications or derivative works of UNIX prepared by IBM, would be treated by IBM "as part of the original Software Product." ( 2.01). Thus, all of the foregoing restrictions on UNIX also apply equally to any modifications or derivative works created by IBM. [2]
Pursuant to these restrictions, IBM agreed that AIX, IBM's "own version of UNIX" (IBM Mem., p.2 n.1), and Dynix, Sequent's version of UNIX, would be used solely for internal business purposes, would be maintained in confidence, and would not be disposed of in whole or in part. IBM, contrary to these clear and unambiguous limitations on its use of UNIX, incl
But IBM doesn't take kindly to this kind of shakedown attempt, nor should they.
If you check my posts, you'll see that I am far from a SCO apologist.
However, in this instance, I think Groklaw and others are misrepresenting SCO's filing. Not in terms of the derivative code issues--that representation is on target.
But, SCO is not asking for IBM to show it where the infringing lines are.
In IBM's discover, IBM asked SCO to be specific as to what is infringing. They also asked SCO to tell them who at IBM infringed and when. In SCO's response, they are saying that they do not know who had access to it and which specific IBM employee donated the code. They do say that once IBM answers some of SCO's discovery requests, then they will be able to answer the who/when. If you look at the relevant section Groklaw quotes from SCO, it says:
As a result, some of the information IBM requested will be known only to IBM, so the specifics of who at IBM was involved with improperly contributing this code to the public, how they did so, and the like will not be known until SCO gets the information from IBM, the party who contributed the protected materials in violation of its contractual obligations.
While I think SCO are a bunch of weasels who have probably not been specific as to lines of code. I do think that this particular objection to IBM discovery requests is quite reasonable and understandable. SCO isn't saying that IBM has to tell them what code was contributed just who did it how and when.
I also think that we as a community have to be very careful about trying to view SCO's statements with an open mind so that we don't sound like total idiots to disinterested parties because I think that is a danger in this instance.
I say that guardedly, view it with an open mind so we can understand what they are saying and debunk it.
That's when a guy pulls down his pants, and spreads apart his legs and takes his balls and hits them against someone's head. So if I teabagged you, I would be over top of you and hit you in the head with my nuts!
hahahah, glad to help. You won't find that in the dictionary.
ogg
Black cat, searing pain, flames...? I must be in Heaven! - Homer Simpson
October 23, 2003
The SCO Group ("SCO") submits this memorandum of law in opposition to International Business Machines Corporation's ("IBM") Motion to Compel Discovery.
INTRODUCTION
It has been said that things have both an ostensible and a real reason. Ostensibly, IBM filed its motion to Compel to force SCO to answer interrogatories and produce documents because it had failed to do so. The reality, however, is that SCO not only timely responded to IBM's discovery requests, it then engaged in weeks of lengthy conversation, correspondence, and emails to resolve and clarify discovery issues and ultimately agreed to supplement its responses. But supplemental responses were not all that IBM was seeking. If that were the case, IBM would have waited until today, when supplemental responses were promised and were in fact served. No, what IBM really desired was a forum within which it could construct its stilted and inaccurate mischaracterization of SCO's claims, behind which it could hide its own failure and refusal to provide meaningful discovery responses. As detailed below, IBM's motion is without merit and should be denied.
At its core, IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery asks for answers to interrogatories that fit its own mischaracterized theories of the case, rather than answers that relate to the actual allegations made by SCO in the Complaint. IBM's baseless arguments begin as an effort to smear SCO and end with a newly created justification of why IBM has failed to provide any meaningful discovery responses itself. While IBM's improper litigation tactics are discussed in detail below, the Motion to Compel can be denied on the simple basis that SCO has actually provided supplemental answers, pursuant to earlier agreement, and this motion is therefore moot.
THE LAWSUIT
Contrary to IBM's efforts to recast SCO's Amended Complaint as one limited to trade secret violations, the Amended Complaint contains six counts--the first three counts are for IBM's numerous breaches of licensing agreements. The remaining counts, including Count VI for misappropriation of trade secrets, flow from this transgression and are ancillary to the breach of the license agreements. Thus, notwithstanding IBM's mischaracterization, trade secret misappropriation is not the gravaman of the Complaint (IBM Mem., p. 2), but it is merely one count that recasts one aspect of the injuries caused by IBM's breach. These injuries would exist even in the absence of any trade secret misappropriation.
In its Amended Complaint, SCO alleged that IBM and Sequent (now part of IBM and herinafter collectively referred to as IBM) were licensees of UNIX System V source code ("UNIX"). As part of this license grant, IBM was given certain rights and also agreed to certain restrictions upon its use of UNIX. IBM agreed, for example, that UNIX code and methods would be solely for its own internal business purposes ( 2.01), [1] that UNIX code and methods would not be used for others and by others ( 2.05), and that IBM would maintain the code and methods related thereto in confidence ( 7.06). Similarly, IBM further agreed it would not sell or otherwise dispose of UNIX in whole or in part ( 7.10). Significantly, IBM also agreed that any modifications or derivative works of UNIX prepared by IBM, would be treated by IBM "as part of the original Software Product." ( 2.01). Thus, all of the foregoing restrictions on UNIX also apply equally to any modifications or derivative works created by IBM. [2]
Pursuant to these restrictions, IBM agreed that AIX, IBM's "own version of UNIX" (IBM Mem., p.2 n.1), and Dynix, Sequent's version of UNIX, would be used solely for internal business purposes, would be maintained in confidence, and would not be disposed of in whole or in part. IBM, contrary to these clear and unambiguous limitations on its use of UNIX, including modifications and derivatives thereof
You know, the mice that were running the show in the first place ...
Infuriate left and right
The analysis.
Fridays memorandum
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
SCO Tells IBM: No, You Show *Your* Code First
Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 06:22 AM EDT
It's time to analyze SCO's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery, which we posted as text yesterday. If I had to characterize it in a brief sentence or two, the sentence would be that SCO tells the court, "How are we supposed to know what code IBM misappropriated? It's up to them to prove our case for us. It's not for us to hand over the code; it's up to them to show us every bit of code they ever donated to Linux. Then, we'll go over it and find whatever we can find. And anyway, we've given them plenty of stuff just today, so who needs a motion to compel? Let's just forget the whole thing."
In short, they don't want to show the code this exact minute.
They bad mouth IBM some more, tell a fib or two, by my reckoning, and then sit down, saying the motion should be denied. Let's go over the document piece by piece.
"It has been said that things have both an ostensible and a real reason. Ostensibly, IBM filed its motion to Compel to force SCO to answer interrogatories and produce documents because it had failed to do so. The reality, however, is that SCO not only timely responded to IBM's discovery requests, it then engaged in weeks of lengthy conversation, correspondence, and emails to resolve and clarify discovery issues and ultimately agreed to supplement its responses. But supplemental responses were not all that IBM was seeking. If that were the case, IBM would have waited until today, when supplemental responses were promised and were in fact served. No, what IBM really desired was a forum within which it could construct its stilted and inaccurate mischaracterization of SCO's claims, behind which it could hide its own failure and refusal to provide meaningful discovery responses. As detailed below, IBM's motion is without merit and should be denied."
Here SCO tells the judge that there is no need for any Motion to Compel. They told IBM they'd give them their supplemental answers (that they should have given them from the beginning but didn't until after "weeks of lengthy conversation, correspondence, and emails" made them agree to do it) by today. We did, so why did they file a Motion to Compel? There are pretend reasons used as a cover, they say, and then the real reason. And the real reason was so IBM could have a forum to mischaracterize SCO's claims and so it could hide from their own failure to give SCO meaningful answers to *their* discovery requests. In short, the defense is, IBM hasn't answered all our questions either. Never mind that IBM sent its interrogatories to SCO weeks before SCO sent IBM its interrogatories.
This is certainly a novel way to respond to a Motion to Compel Discovery. SCO has been accused of refusing to turn over information and documents it must turn over, and their answer is, well, they didn't either. Their secondary answer is that although they had not turned the materials over by the date of the filing of the Motion, IBM should have been able to trust SCO's word. Heh heh. IBM already told the judge in its Motion to Compel that the reason they were filing was because SCO had absolutely refused to tell them that they would produce the materials requested, not that they were pokey.
So now, somebody's mistaken or lying. Either SCO told IBM it'd turn over everything IBM asked for by the 23rd, or they refused to commit themselves to doing so, which is IBM's story. So, who do you believe? I think the rest of the document makes clear that when SCO says it offered supplementals, it still didn't mean it would answer all IBM's questions or provide everything IBM asked for.
"At its core, IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery asks for answers to interrogatories that fit its own mischaracterized theories of the case, rather than answers that relate to the actual allegations made by SCO in the Complaint."
IBM is asking us things that don't relate to our theory of the case as presented in our complaint, they whine. I
Combine this with the Licensing of Large companies first. SCO is going to try and bend the law a bit. My guess is that they will try and find a friendly judge (hence utah or federal court) and use parts of methodology patents. That is to prove that they are right, they will get a number of companies to license linux from them. They will use this to prove to a judge that other "technology smarter" companies know what is going on and the license is market-viable. This current stuff is simple stalling tactics by them, hoping that IBM lawyers will make a mistake.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
some company was suing MS, and MS was forced to turn over emails, effective proving the other companies case?... I think that's how our legal system works, and that's how it will apply in SCO vs IBM.
Goddamn you're an idiot. Mod this illiterate down.
No it isn't.
Teabagging is when someone takes a man's nutsack into their mouth.
in theory, sco should be able to tell ibm who did it. all they have to do is check out the copyright notices in the code. for example in: we have:so sco really just needs to identify which sections of code they think ibm help create with sco's "technology" and use the info in the copyright notices to inform ibm which employee has been bad. seriously just do the following:
grep -ir ibm.com
-- john
Maybe, but can SCO really prove him wrong?
Hey, Timothy, did you read the memo before citing it? Frankly, I hope not: if you did, then your headline is slanderous, instead of merely biased and deceptive.
One of the straegies which IBM has been test firing in the press is boils down to "you can't identify the person who released this code. How can you prove that it isn't you?" Assume, for the moment, that SCO is telling the truth. (And whatever your individual biases may be, the court must assume that neither party is lying. Contrary to the Slashbot mantra, that's actually plausible at this point.) Would this defense work? Yes. Would it be fair? No. So civil process in the United States allows a plaintiff and a defendent to engage in discovery. In this case, SCO has every right to ask IBM for any information that could identify the perpetrator. That's not asking IBM to make its case for it; that's asking for SCO's rights to be protected.
Meanwhile, IBM is asking for a chance to delay releasing that information for as long as possible. SCO is refuting, in particularly scathing terms, that motion to delay. I can't speak to the facts of whether or not SCO has actually already released the information in question, or whether IBM's original motion was premature, as I don't know the court schedule, but it is kind of worth pointing out that the judge will. Guess what? If the facts are as SCO alleges, then the motion should be deneid in pretty strong terms.
Not that I really agree with you but this is poetical geeky if true.
Self referencing is a hallmark of geekdom. Like GNU = Gnu Not Unix
Help fight continental drift.
If you accuse me of being a thief, while knowing that I am not, I have the right and the duty to call you a slandering jerk.
This situation is no different.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
I'm happy to see that you aren't manipulating the Jargon File towards your own political ends. Nope, it's still nice and objective and totally in line with actual word usage rather than political motives.
Actually, if you read the thing carefully, I think what they're really saying is that it's not a matter of anything copied from SysV, but rather of copying of code and 'ways of doing things' from AIX and the AIX development team that didn't come from SysV. It seems their new theory (their theory of this case does seem to change every other statement) is that what IBM did wrong was to bring stuff from AIX to Linux, and that even though they don't have a copy of AIX to check, they nonetheless legally control all of AIX as a derivative work of SysV.
The original contract actually does seem to read that way, but IBM has long had amendments that clearly say that what they've added on their own is theres and, more importantly, they can do anything they want to with it. (It would be possible for them to own it but still have contractual limitations on how they use it, without the amendments that would probably be the case.) Now this line of argument has long been anticipated, but the amendments clearly KO that line of argument so no one really expected them to have a chance with it - all they can do is stall a bit more while they sell off stock and try to get McBride his bonus. But the interesting thing here is that they're now saying the Sequent contracts are important - those contracts don't have the same amendments and it looks like they're going to try and hold IBM to those, rather than to IBMs own contract. Still quite loopy, really, I can't imagine a Judge ruling that because IBM paid for the license twice they have less right over their own technology than they would have if they'd only paid once, but so far it does seem to be their best line of attack, and if you read the memorandum closely that does seem to be where they're going.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Congratulations, you just made my foes list.
I hope you realize what an idiot you are.
All this pointless litigation is ...
Getting bloody annoying!
Make graduation from law school a hanging offence.
Even though hangins to good for the shyster scumbags!
AAAAAAGGGGG!!!!
(The red mist at the mention of the word SCO
made me post this damn comment in the wrong
thread once already.)
siggy played guitar
Ah, Eric. Always the pinnacle of restrained wit and tact.
Seriously, he could be charged with libel for his "SCO has become a nest of liars and thieves" comment, and probably should. At any rate, he keeps missing a major point of open source: If you release it to the general public under a given license, then everyone who abides by that license can use it. Military (domestic and foreign both), IBm, and SCO. SCO, for instance, can use the jargon dictionary just fine, and he doesn't HAVE to like it! He made his own bed, now he can lie in it.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
It would be possible for them to own it but still have contractual limitations on how they use it, without the amendments that would probably be the case.
Even without the amendments, SCO would still have to defend it's ridiculous idea of what a "derivative work" is. Their whole case for contract violations seems to rely on the theory that IBM-written code is a derivative work of System V because parts of it were once distributed along with System V code.
If this theory were to be applied to anything other than computer code, it wouldn't pass the giggle test. Imagine if one author in a short story anthology tried to claim that all the other stories were "derivative works" of his story, or if a television producer claimed that a movie was a "derivative work" of his show because the movie producer had run a trailer during one of the TV show's commercials.
You just know that's coming. Then the plantiffs will break into the SCO Riverdance tap fest. Clickety-clickety-click-click-click, tapa-tapa-tapa Yeah! Nothing about this case would surprise me anymore.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Has that stopped them before?
Veracity is a sufficient defence against a charge of libel.
IANAL and I'm not a US citizen. Anyways, now I'm not up on US law to ANY respect but from what I remember from the last time I saw was that US law in a civil trial does not operate under British code - basically it's not assumed that the defender is innocent until proven guilty.
What this means in a civil trial is that proof can come from either party and that usually only sufficient evidence has to exist for an infraction rather than complete proof of infraction.
Basically - SCO can do this.
It's up to the judge on whether they can get away with it though.
Civil trials do not work under the same rules as criminal trials.
Actually I suspect (not sure) but they work under the Napoleonic code (guilty until proven innocent) which is the code a lot of US law is based on - or perhaps vice versa as (IIRC) a number of US founders were involved in Napoleon's government...
Different definitions I guess, I saw the movie Pecker and that's what they were doing in the show. Both terms are rather vulgar. Just don't get teabagged if your a man, and see if you can do it to your girlfriend. :-)
ogg
Black cat, searing pain, flames...? I must be in Heaven! - Homer Simpson
I don't know how the hell you came up with this analysis but whatever you were smoking at the time must be really good stuff.
1) SCO filed suit against IBM for allegedly contributing "millions of lines" of proprietary SCO code to Linux. Not the other way around.
2) SCO supposedly had a team of people somehow vaguely related to MIT who supposedly ran pattern recognition analysis to identify the purportedly donated code.
3) SCO has shown the code to several hundred people (at last count) who would sign a non-disclosure agreement.
At this point SCO has accused IBM of a civil crime (breaking contractural and licensing agreements), has said they have proof. IBM has said, fine, show us the proof and SCO has come back with, "You know what you did so tell us and the court."
Last time I heard, the burden of proof is on the accuser in both civil and criminal cases. If SCO can not provide evidence of the acts they have accused IBM of doing, *there is no case*. All IBM has done is call SCO's bluff and say, show me the code that you claim violates our agreements. At this point, it is up to SCO to show that a contract or license was broken; not continue spreading FUD about how tainted Linux code is and how IBM gave away their secrets.
And yes I read both the motion from SCO and P.J.'s analysis of it on Groklaw. Did you?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
But that isn't what they're asking for. If you look at their question, they're asking for everything that anyone at IBM ever released without confidentiality agreements. They don't even restrict the request to things that happened since IBM licensed SysV, or to people associated with Linux, or anything. That's a grossly overbroad request, and there's no reason that IBM should have to answer it. The process really should go something like:
That's the reasonable way for things to proceed. Instead, it sounds very much as though SCO hasn't actually done much of anything to identify what from IBM has been contributed to the kernel, or they would have made stronger claims than they have. Instead, it seems they're waiting for IBM to give them a list of everything that IBM has ever contributed, at which point they'll claim that everything on the list is improper. That's not the way that things are supposed to work; the plaintiff has to make specific claims of wrongdoing before the defendant must respond.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Nicely put Coward.
ogg
Black cat, searing pain, flames...? I must be in Heaven! - Homer Simpson
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer...
Since when is IBM a person ???
It wasn't that SCO quoted or used the Jargon file.
It was that SCO *LINKED TO* the Jargon File.
That notice wasn't there because ESR wanted to state he was upset he'd been quoted. The notice was there because if the judge follows SCO's link, he will see ESR's notice.
At any rate, ESR doesn't have the right to stop SCO from using the Jargon File, and he isn't trying to stop them. He does however have every right to be *annoyed*.
I think that this might get ESR the award for sabot of the year (if there is such an award, he definitely needs to be nominated).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
"In a civil trial the standard of proof is said to be on the balance of probabilities.
So, a judgment is made for plantiff if, on the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not that the plaintiff's story is true."
Yes AC got it right! The term in US civil cases is "preponderance of evidence" which the textbooks equate to mean that all it takes is 51% of the evidence to prove who is the winner.
In criminal cases, the rule is "beyond a reasonable doubt". That means if anyone of the jury ( being composed of 12 theoretically "reasonable persons") has a doubt, then the defendant is innocent.
That is one story of why OJ walked free, but payed a civil settlement!
There was just enough doubt to his guilt, therefore he was judged innocent. But there was enough evidence to make him pay in civil court for unlawfull death.
. . You show us yours, and then we'll show you .... yours.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
He stole it.
He appropritated public property for his own profit.
It's extremely hypocritical of him to criticize SCO's use of public-domain materials.
If it thinks like a weasel, it is a weasel. "isn't my name" is a weasel.
Try SCO is not being reasonable to ask IBM to tell them everyone who's worked on "infinging" code without first identifying infringing code. THERE IS NO INFRINGING CODE, you weasel.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
God I love to have my balls sucked on...
'nyff said
How do you think they would prove a libel case without first winning the IBM case?
In the extremely unlikely case they win the IBM case, will they care what ESR wrote about them?
Taking this approach we could even blame Herman Hollerith because without the punch card records couldn't have been kept at all, at least not by IBM which relied upon them. I'm sure digging deep enough we could find parts from all types of corporations around the world that contributed to tanks, guns, heating and more. Good or bad use of the product isn't up to the manufacturer, but the individual that uses it.
Ahh.. opinion is protected from libel suits.
-------------
Whilst we appreciate the compliment of being treated as an authority, we can return it only by observing that SCO has become a nest of liars and thieves compared to which IBM at its historic worst looked positively angelic. --ESR]
------------
He Observes that SCO......Same as he thinks that.
I think McBride is an egotistical ass.
That is my opinion, I have a right to it.
Now if I claim that I researched school records and police records and positively state that he is a reformed felon, a highschool dropout, and an unreformed bigamist; then I would be guilty of libel.
It will be trivial to show esr is a liar, thus "Veracity" is going to be a tough sell to a judge.
> Instead, it seems they're waiting for IBM to give them a list of everything that IBM has ever contributed, at which point they'll claim that everything on the list is improper.
SCO's claim seems to be that everything IBM contributed without confidentiality IS improper!
This request by SCO is the sick continuation of SCO's "we control everything" theory. If IBM wrote it, and SCO in fact "controls it", then how can SCO police their precious rights if IBM doesn't turn it into SCO?
By this logic SCO faces a chicken or egg problem. IBM has not been informing SCO as to what SCO "controls". The contract does not require notifications, but does ultimately grant SCO "control" over just about everything IBM does. But, now that IBM is asking, SCO's response is (naturally) "everything" and only IBM knows what they've been creating. SCO says they surely cannot provide these details until IBM enumerates for SCO everything IBM published outside of a proper confidentiality agreement.
Yes, SCO will claim everything on that list is a material breach of the contract. That's their entire legal theory behind the suit.
SCO theory holds that IBM became totally behold'n to secrecy the moment it signed the AT&T license. And not just for the Unix stuff. Forever and without exception, everything that IBM did, created, thought about, refined, theorized upon, ad nauseum, was subordinate to secrecy. Never, ever, again could IBM release one single iota of information pertaining to computers without an appropriate secrecy agreement. Not one, even the smallest, tidbit regarding any product or method used anywhere within IBM. You see (SCO says), the Unix code and methods, and their derivatives, ultimately pervaded everything IBM (and now Linux, and most of everything else in the world). SCO says all, every bit of every single thing IBM does, is polluted by knowledge gained from AT&T and encumbered by the AT&T contract, and thus conscripted to everlasting secrecy.
Basically, SCO is claiming the contract allows IBM to do whatever the hell it pleases, with the single exception that no IP of IBM's (however remotely, indirectly, or minorly scented by AT&T/SCO Unix -- read "everything IBM has done") can ever be made public.
I'm starting to wonder if they even have real lawyers involved. At least, their Friday babbling 1) misused "moot" to mean "no longer relevant" (instead of "arguable") and 2) used "gravaman" twice in place of "gravamen".
These may seem like obscure points, but what would you think of code samples that used "while/else" and pointers to chair?
-- MarkusQ
Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 06:22 AM EDT
It's time to analyze SCO's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery, which we posted as text yesterday. If I had to characterize it in a brief sentence or two, the sentence would be that SCO tells the court, "How are we supposed to know what code IBM misappropriated? It's up to them to prove our case for us. It's not for us to hand over the code; it's up to them to show us every bit of code they ever donated to Linux. Then, we'll go over it and find whatever we can find. And anyway, we've given them plenty of stuff just today, so who needs a motion to compel? Let's just forget the whole thing."
In short, they don't want to show the code this exact minute.
They bad mouth IBM some more, tell a fib or two, by my reckoning, and then sit down, saying the motion should be denied. Let's go over the document piece by piece.
"It has been said that things have both an ostensible and a real reason. Ostensibly, IBM filed its motion to Compel to force SCO to answer interrogatories and produce documents because it had failed to do so. The reality, however, is that SCO not only timely responded to IBM's discovery requests, it then engaged in weeks of lengthy conversation, correspondence, and emails to resolve and clarify discovery issues and ultimately agreed to supplement its responses. But supplemental responses were not all that IBM was seeking. If that were the case, IBM would have waited until today, when supplemental responses were promised and were in fact served. No, what IBM really desired was a forum within which it could construct its stilted and inaccurate mischaracterization of SCO's claims, behind which it could hide its own failure and refusal to provide meaningful discovery responses. As detailed below, IBM's motion is without merit and should be denied."
Here SCO tells the judge that there is no need for any Motion to Compel. They told IBM they'd give them their supplemental answers (that they should have given them from the beginning but didn't until after "weeks of lengthy conversation, correspondence, and emails" made them agree to do it) by today. We did, so why did they file a Motion to Compel? There are pretend reasons used as a cover, they say, and then the real reason. And the real reason was so IBM could have a forum to mischaracterize SCO's claims and so it could hide from their own failure to give SCO meaningful answers to *their* discovery requests. In short, the defense is, IBM hasn't answered all our questions either. Never mind that IBM sent its interrogatories to SCO weeks before SCO sent IBM its interrogatories.
This is certainly a novel way to respond to a Motion to Compel Discovery. SCO has been accused of refusing to turn over information and documents it must turn over, and their answer is, well, they didn't either. Their secondary answer is that although they had not turned the materials over by the date of the filing of the Motion, IBM should have been able to trust SCO's word. Heh heh. IBM already told the judge in its Motion to Compel that the reason they were filing was because SCO had absolutely refused to tell them that they would produce the materials requested, not that they were pokey.
So now, somebody's mistaken or lying. Either SCO told IBM it'd turn over everything IBM asked for by the 23rd, or they refused to commit themselves to doing so, which is IBM's story. So, who do you believe? I think the rest of the document makes clear that when SCO says it offered supplementals, it still didn't mean it would answer all IBM's questions or provide everything IBM asked for.
"At its core, IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery asks for answers to interrogatories that fit its own mischaracterized theories of the case, rather than answers that relate to the actual allegations made by SCO in the Complaint."
IBM is asking us things
> This would be abuse of the court system.
No problem in most jurisdictions. SLAPP laws are the first to try to stem the tide on this sort of thing, but they are fairly sparce and have seen difficult going on the road to passage. They face even harder times in the courts trying to get them applied.
Not much you can do once the case is past the summary dismissal stage. You do need some form of "evidence" to get past this, well, maybe not evidence but more like a plausable story. Ok, so it just ain't that hard.
Abuse of the legal system for commercial gain is so old that nobody's even tried to patent it asa a business model. Too much prior art.
a href="http://tubgirl.com">potty training for Darl McBride
They claimed it wasn't Microsoft. But they also list Microsoft among their top ten investors (#8) and Vulcan Ventures (Paul Allen, IIRC) as #1. It's on page three, the same page where they talk about confidentiality of the source of funds as among the advantages of their PIPEs.
And even if the 60% of the money that didn't come from Baystar came through RBC, that doesn't mean it didn't start out the day in Redmond.
-- MarkusQ
Am I alone with the thought that he should have replaced the jargon file entry with a flashing "SCO-FUD" inside a goatse image?
Well, the evidence against IBM is more substantial than simply the fact that IBM Hollerith machines were used. It's that IBM engineers collaborated with Nazi officials in designing, building and subsequently leasing the machines to Germany with a full appreciation of their intended use.
;)
Regardless of whether or not you buy Black's entire argument, it is clear that IBM is not completely innocent. In contrast, the worst that SCO can be implicated in is spouting lies and stock mischief. The two are incomparable, IMHO.
My first -1, however, so that must count for something
Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
This circular argument will get SCO lawyers no place fast. I would be suprized if they don't get told to grow up by the Judge in the case, if he doesn't then IBM will have a field day with all his rulings if they have to appeal. SCO's argument equals "Show us what you think we think you stole." IBM's answer "nothing you boobs."
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
I supposed definition 4 applies to the SCO fee troll... Hehehe... I love it when an a-hole like that opens his mouth just a little farther than he should.
Un-news
I'm just not sure how many.
But you'll need a share or 2 so you can find a lawyer who'll take on SCO in a class action stock lawsuit.
The person who actually submitted the code is public information from lklm posts. So SCO, assuming that they actually have specific lines of code to claim, already know at least one name involved. Given those names, going up the chain for project leaders and managers and whatnot to see who actually gave the authorization is totally legitimate, but thats not what they're doing.
Umm, do your own research before complaining.
A visit to modern dictionaries show that moot has had several meanings over time, including "Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled" and "Of no practical importance; irrelevant."
( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moot)
In fact, not only is it in dictionaries in the meaning you disliked, but according to Garner's authoritative "Modern American Usage", the meaning "of no practictical importance" in American English, "is the predominant sense of 'moot'". See the 2003 volume for an extended discussion of this word's transformation over time since its original sense of "arguable".
You may not like it, but some words have several meanings. Use 1 or 2 dictionaries or usage guides before criticizing.
S-peculative
C-rap
U-ncertainty
D-oubt
This phrase invented here on Slashdot is released under the GPL. Any and all rights & benefits pertaining to its copyright are assigned to the Free Software Foundation.
I intended it to be obvious that I was joking.
I was thinking....
In keeping with the Bill Gates as Borg theme, maybe Slashdot could create an icon to represent SCO of a Borg Sphere colored like the current Caldera icon.
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
Perhaps that fragment is out of context but I read it as:
"Only IBM knows where and when they beat their wives so we can't give you specific instances until they tell us, those wife-beating bastards"
Surprisingly, everything ESR said in the Jargon File entry about SCO can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt (i.e. Almost every one of the numerous PR releases that SCO has made or public pontifications happen to be mis-statements, half-truths, or outright whoppers.)/
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Actually the proof that the prime numbers series is infinite is trivial.
... 199 211
Suppose it is finite then you take all those numbers, multiple them together add 1 and opps that number isn't a interger multiple of any prime so far and thus is prime or has prime number factors greater than what is in your set so far. Add more numbers to your set of primes even. rinse lather repeat.
for example
2 3
gives 7
2 3 5 7
gives 211
2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31
gives you yet bigger prime(s)
next finite series of prime number = biggest prime so far
yet bigger prime
Apparently SCO is not familiar with the United States justice system. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. We do not live under Napoleonic Code here!
What SCO wants is a copy of the AIX code base, after all Longhorn is late. You don't think SCO got 50 million for nothing, do you?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
There is so much smoke around the SCO v IBM that it seems that the basic issue that SCO has with IBM has been lost. The basic issues are their claims that 1) IBM derived some functionality such as JFS from the code that SCO licensed to IBM and that 2) the license prohibits IBM from contributing such functionality to Linux. The point is that simply looking at Linux doesn't rule in or out SCO's claims. They hinge on the specifics of the license and side letters and such and in that context SCO seeks information from IBM - that only IBM can know - that will illuminate just how the JFS and any other similar functionality arose. In other words can IBM demonstrate (as I recollect they have claimed) that the JFS which they contributed to Linux was in fact developed without infringing the derivative works conditions of their license from SCO? The GROKLAW article claims that the issue of deriviative works is in fact moot since the side letter negates it. This issue and the above issue are in fact not matters of simple analysis of public Linux. They are matters of legal interpreatation of existing agreements and results of discovery. It is completely appropriate for IBM to request SCO to reveal what specific functionality SCO believes IBM derived from the licensed code and subsequently contributed to Linux and it is equally appropriate for SCO to request IBM to demonstrate the internal information that reflects how the contested functionality was derived. As to which claims - SCOs versus IBMs - need to be answered, if at all, and in what temporal order, are the questions before the court.
You're getting completely confused here. There are an infinite number of prime numbers, this was proven thousands (yes, thousands) of years ago, and there is absolutely no controversy about the fact. It isn't even one of the subjects where the nature of "proof" gets argued philosophical...to the extent that anything at all can be proven mathematically, primes have been proven to be infinite.
The oldest and easiest proof is simple. If primes are finite, then there must be some prime N that is the biggest. Multiply together all primes and add one: x=1 + 2*3*5*7*...*N. This resulting x is not divisible by any prime...it has remainder 1 when divided by 2 or by 3 or by 7...up to N. But that means that x is prime, yet it is obviously bigger than the biggest prime N. Contradiction, therefore our premise, that there is a largest prime N, is false, therefore there are infinite primes.
Maybe you're thinking of the strangeness exhibited by "grue"?
The "grue" property is defined as:
x is grue if and only if x is green and is observed before the year 2000, or x is blue and is not observed before the year 2000. This is a "weird" property but there is no obvious reason why we couldn't make up such a property. Now, let us pretend that the x referred to above are actually emeralds. Further, pretend that we have observed many emeralds and they have all been green and thus have had the property "grue". Then, intuitively, this should increase our belief that the next emerald we observe will be green and that it will be grue. This intuition is fine until New Years Eve in 1999. Now our pretend emeralds observed in 2000 should be grue and therefore blue and not green. (quotation source )
Web search on Nelson Goodman for more on that.
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
so sco really just needs to identify which sections of code they think ibm help create with sco's "technology" and use the info in the copyright notices to inform ibm which employee has been bad. seriously just do the following:
/usr/src/linux-2.4/arch/s390/*
grep -ir ibm.com
That's totally unreasonable. You're expecting SCO to know how to use UNIX?? I mean, seriously, "Grep"? What do you think they are, some kind of UNIX software company or something?
" he could be charged with libel for his "SCO has become a nest of liars and thieves" comment, and probably should"
You can't be "charged" with libel. You can be sued for libel.
Honestly, you are reason 1 why we need to privitize schools.
The GPL is not public domain.
/. anymore. You're so stupid that you're causing my eyes to bleed.
The fact that you don't know that puts you in that elite category with forest gump and other people who are just fucking morons.
Please don't use
huh? yes it is. you're being sued by the state.
"I say that guardedly, view it with an open mind so we can understand what they are saying and debunk it."
And I say you take everything given to you by the enemy and use it as a means to destroy them.
Legalities be damned.
Just destroy SCO.
Destroy Darl.
Destroy the lawyers involved with SCO.
Everything. Leave only one left to as a warning to the others.
No, I'm not joking. You do everything within your power to win. Nothing is off bounds.
SCO isn't saying "We don't know what code you put into Linux, so give us everything you have." If you would bother to read the document and not just the replies, you'd see that SCO is looking for the individuals responsible and trying to find out when the code was put into Linux.
The analogy is that people were exposed to toxic materials, but didn't know how. SCO's code was supposedly exposed to Linux, but they don't know how. They want IBM to find out who put the code in, and when, and then tell them. Never is any code mentioned anywhere in that particular paragraph.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
First, a civil trial is to determine responsibility, not guilt. There's a difference in that a person could be found innocent of murdering someone but civiliy responsible for wrongfully causing their death (see OJ Simpson). However, the respondant (what a defendant is called in civil court) is assumed not responsible until proven otherwise.
Now, you are correct that a civil trial has a lower standard of evidence. You only need to prove something to what is called a perponderance of the evidence, which more or less means your evidence was a little better than the other guy's.
However, the onus is still on the plaintiff. If you bring a case, the first thing you have to do is show that you even have sufficient evidence to merit the claim. Any competent lawyer will file a motion for summary judgement (meaning the judge dismisses the case with no trial) and if you can't show at least some evidence, it'll be granted. You also can't use the court as a fishing expedetion. You can use it to subpoena information that you don't have access to that is needed to prove your case, but you can't use it to just fish around for evidence.
Whilst we appreciate the compliment of being treated as an authority, we can return it only by observing that SCO has become a nest of liars and thieves compared to which IBM at its historic worst looked positively angelic.
Um, OK. It's true that SCO has at this point become nothing but a fraudulent company that deserves only to be dissolved, consider exactly what ESR is saying.
If we want to look at IBM's "historic worst", we would have to go back to World War II. At that time, IBM provided a fair amount of hardware to a certain German political party of that era. I believe we all know which one I'm talking about. Regardless, even nowadays, with the executives of that era long gone, there is still a not inconsiderable amount of bad blood between IBM and certain groups because of the support given.
Could Eric's update, therefore, be considered an indirect invocation of Godwin's Law?
Rule 11 requires that a plaintiff's attorney conduct a reasonable investigation before filing suit to ensure that the claim is not frivolous. Once discovery is started, both sides have basically equal opportunities to ask for whatever they want. You are correct that SCO should already have any evidence of infringement that they'll need. They could still discover evidence of willfullness, which would entitle them to punitive damages.
Great.
IBM can just plead the fifth and that'll be the end of this whole sad afair.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Godwin's Law...
Absolutely
"Try SCO is not being reasonable to ask IBM to tell them everyone who's worked on "infinging" code without first identifying infringing code. THERE IS NO INFRINGING CODE, you weasel."
Who is to say?
I mean honestly, where is all the manpower on SCO'S side to come from in order to build a technically well founded case? How many software engineers with a deep UNIX background are available on the market to do the grunt work on looking at every single line of code, compare it to innumerable other versions of source code from various other OSs?
This is not a technical case, it's a business case and it's going to fly for SCO as long as the American legal system allows cases like that to drag on for years without getting into the heart of the matter.
So far we have not seen any well researched, sound and reasonabble technical paper from SCO's side and I very much doubt we are going to get to see anything like that in the foreseeable future.
Instead we are going to see an endless legal battle with turns and twists, delays and lots of FUD all over the place. The recent 50$ USD investment of hard cash into the company will provide for an excellent team of highly paid lawyers and stock brokers.
Qui bono?
I can only see one serious candidate to feel very happy about an ongoing FUD campaign against Linux in particular.
The oldest and easiest proof is simple. If primes are finite, then there must be some prime N that is the biggest. Multiply together all primes and add one: x=1 + 2*3*5*7*...*N. This resulting x is not divisible by any prime...it has remainder 1 when divided by 2 or by 3 or by 7...up to N. But that means that x is prime, yet it is obviously bigger than the biggest prime N. Contradiction, therefore our premise, that there is a largest prime N, is false, therefore there are infinite primes.
No, x does not have to be prime. 2*3*5*7*11*13+1 = 30031 = 59*509. What the proof says is that you take the set of all known primes, multiply them together and add 1. Since x is not divisible by any of the known primes, the set can not be complete, i.e. there must be more primes. But it can *not* be used to find primes, as the counter-example above shows.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So if I teabagged you, I would be over top of you
No, no. I'd be over the top of *you*
and hit you in the head with my nuts!
Does this addition to normal teabagging protocol happen *before* or *after* you've sucked my balls?
In SCO's response, they are saying that they do not know who had access to it and which specific IBM employee donated the code. They do say that once IBM answers some of SCO's discovery requests, then they will be able to answer the who/when.
SCO should have known who <sarcasm> violated their methods </sarcasm>, before they decided to sue. The discovery is about finding details but finding out who to sue is something that should happen before the trial.
First "STFU, Fent!" reply.
...
prev: fuck me harder - FUD - next: FUD wars
prophetic, even...
my
It's only libel if it's not true.
I think all reasonable people can agree that SCO executives have lied extensively and stolen millions of dollars from investors.
They wouldn't believe that you hadn't sinned that week so you had to make up sins in order to be told how many times to pray for forgiveness.
godwin's law doesn't apply to conversations about nazis.
otherwise, it would be an excuse to ignore the past.
godwin's law was an argument against people frivolously tossing nazi around as an epithet. ibm, it seems, had an actual relationship with nazis, so, bringing it up is apropos given the context.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
When I said "use" I meant it in the sense of companies using the source in their own works, through modification or inclusion into their codebase, which would need to be sanctioned by the copyright holder, not "use" in the sense of compile and use the program.
This will likely be a long case, ideally (from SCO's point of view) never going to trial. There is no point to putting the best effort into court filings until closer to the actual arguments.
He's not a liar on this point, troll.
It sounds so interesting to ask somebody to proof that himself/herself is guilty.
I cound never think of such innovative work.
Kudos SCO!
aaaaaaaaa......
SCO linked to a jargon file entry that links back to them. I can hear the death of webspiders recursing infinitely until they die they die the "lack o memory" death
I Don't Work Here
I would think this is fairly straight forward.
First, state what is infringing.
Second, state what source you used to determine if this is infringing.
In the case of the standard kernel, detailed change logs are kept in regard to what has changed in a source file and WHO made that change. The same goes for the major individual distributions.
By the way, the kernel maintainers and related groups have repeatedly asked for item one all along. These groups would police themselves quickly IF a true issue was brought before them.
You know with all the documentation that we have to read and understand its a wonder that there are still so many ignorent opinions out there.
1 91141102
m l /*
These two paragraphs from the linked article here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031024
all you have to do is READ!!
Now find a diffrent way to do what they did its been 3 years im sure there is a better way by now.
Or you could go, try and help the new GNU HURD kernel.
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.ht
In its Amended Complaint, SCO alleged that IBM and Sequent (now part of IBM and herinafter collectively referred to as IBM) were licensees of UNIX System V source code ("UNIX"). As part of this license grant, IBM was given certain rights and also agreed to certain restrictions upon its use of UNIX. IBM agreed, for example, that UNIX code and methods would be solely for its own internal business purposes ( 2.01), [1] that UNIX code and methods would not be used for others and by others ( 2.05), and that IBM would maintain the code and methods related thereto in confidence ( 7.06). Similarly, IBM further agreed it would not sell or otherwise dispose of UNIX in whole or in part ( 7.10). Significantly, IBM also agreed that any modifications or derivative works of UNIX prepared by IBM, would be treated by IBM "as part of the original Software Product." ( 2.01). Thus, all of the foregoing restrictions on UNIX also apply equally to any modifications or derivative works created by IBM. [2]
Pursuant to these restrictions, IBM agreed that AIX, IBM's "own version of UNIX" (IBM Mem., p.2 n.1), and Dynix, Sequent's version of UNIX, would be used solely for internal business purposes, would be maintained in confidence, and would not be disposed of in whole or in part. IBM, contrary to these clear and unambiguous limitations on its use of UNIX, including modifications and derivatives thereof, has publicly touted its contributions of AIX and Dynix into Linux, the free, "open source" operating system that IBM has heavily supported, both financially and technologically. [3] Specifically, IBM improperly contributed these protected UNIX materials into the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels (in lay terms, the "brain" of the operating system)--a decidedly public disposition of these protected materials. This action is a clear breach of IBM's obligations under the agreements with SCO governing the use of UNIX, and derivatives such as AIX and Dynix.
*/
Of course there are wrong statements in the proof - that's how proof by contradiction works! You start by assuming that what you want to disprove ("If primes are finite") and you eventually come up with a contradiction (that there is a prime which is "bigger than the biggest"). At any step after your false assumption, you may come up with more falsehoods (like "1+2*3*5*7*...*N ... is prime"), but those don't make your proof wrong, they're just more consequences of using deductive logic on a false assumption.
OK, my GIMP skills suck, but I was bored (meaning I had something else to do :-)) and put these together anyhow:
Just different filters; I couldn't decide which one I liked. HTH.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
As I read PJ's comments on Groklaw an interesting thought come up. Is SCO fishing for IBM's AIX and related source code? SCO wants IBM to supply all kinds of IBM code as part of discovery, ostensibly so SCO kind find infringing derivative works or some such. SCO's (remaining 2 or 3) coders will have access to it, without NDA or non-compete or the like. SCO could then incorporate IBM's IP into UnixWare in the future, possibly making UnixWare semi-marketable.
Think about it. UnixWare sucks. Sales have been down every year for some time now. SCO can't figure out how other Unix licensees make a better Unix than the One True Unix, which is SCO's. (Original AT&T codebase at least) So the decide to steal it, right out in the open with a U.S. court watching them do it.
Crazy you ask? Does anything SCO has done so far look entirely sane?
I have to go polish my tinfoil hat now...
You live and you learn. Maybe Granny Brooks was secretly a member of the Stunt Smocking Team or something, she always did seem unnaturally peaceful at home. (-:
BTW, nice to see PJ make it into the Jargon file with that article. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...so it seems fitting that the evidence should be too.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
No no, you got it all wrong. The website is linked to by SCO code, so now it is obviously owned by SCO!
Irrespective of whether or not moot means "arguable," "supposition" has two P's.
And I know most of you weenies won't read it, so here's my synopsis:
I'm stunned. But not so stunned that I can't synopsise SCO's entire argument so far for those who haven't been paying attention:
Darl, next time get an actual lawyer to write your motions, not one of your press flacks.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
It's not libel -- he's merely expressing an opinion.
Correct. He is also free to state his displeasure, as he did in the above-mentioned quote. BUT as he was stating an opinion ("...observing...") his speech is protected.
An example:
In my opinion, you are a reactionary fool who trolls worse than a four year old; you also enjoy murdering minorities and sodomizing infants.
Vile words! Go ahead, take them to a lawyer and see if ya can charge me.
=============
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Supposedly, the term WOP comes from a lot of Italians showing up at Ellis without their paperwork. They'd get a little mark on their info card that said "WOP," as in "WithOut Papers"
This is how it was explained to me, anyhow, being half-WOP myself.
For a nice ref to perjorative slang on italians, see The Godfather:
"..I don't care how many Dago Guinea-WOP greaseball Goombahs you have coming outta the woodwork..."
Of course, the guy that said that wound up with his prize animals bloody head in his bed the next morning. If you havent seen The Godfather all the way through in its original cut, you owe it to yourself to set aside 3 hours and do so.
s'wut i sed.