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?
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
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...
I'm reminded of this Slashdot piece on Microsoft claiming Apple is monopolistic.
That is exactly what IBM was trying to do. The case is in discovery and IBM had asked for exactly what lines of code SCO is saying they stole from SysV and put into Linux. When SCO wouldn't show the code IBM filed a motion to force them to submit it. This is SCO's reponse to that motion saying the motion needs to be denied because they are waiting for IBM to show them what parts of Linux came from SysV.
Nifty eh?
-- Ed Bugg --You have freedom of choice, but not of consequences.--
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
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....
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
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
I place the blame squarley on the executive running SCO. the lawyers they hire are doing their job. Now, a moral lawyer might turn down the job, but as we all know, large corporations have no morals including large law firms. A large corporations only guiding principal is MAKE MONEY without breaking any laws (or at least not getting caught until you stole enough to stay out of jail).
Anarchists never rule
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
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.
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.
[1] Actually the intergalactic equivalent of it
[2] Practically indistinguishable from mice, except for the fact that schmice and mice can't crossbreed for some reason.
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
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
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.
Not really, no. Canopy only owns about 5% of Troll Tech. There are other investors. Most of Troll Tech is owned by the employees (whom I'm sure would love to find a way to force Canopy to dump its shares).
-- Alastair
This is closer to asking your hostages for some bullets because you forgot yours.
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
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...
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
. . You show us yours, and then we'll show you .... yours.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
SCO sells software?
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
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
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.
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?
when the code
WHAT code???????? SCO has not identified any such code.
"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
...
prev: fuck me harder - FUD - next: FUD wars
prophetic, even...
my
The filing in question quite clearly states that the claim against IBM at this point is not for infringement, but for misappropriation of trade secrets. As far as that goes, SCO argues that the evidence already in the public record is conclusive: JFS and IBM's implementation of NUMA/cc were released into Linux. If the release was covered by the broad wording of the original AT&T license, then there's infringement. If it wasn't, then there is no infringement.
Now, obviously, the facts may be other than SCO would have us see them, and IBM may show that at trial. However, to get to the point of discovery, SCO only needs to show that the case wasn't clearly frivolous. It seems to me that they have done that, no matter what the final outcome is.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
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
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