SCOrched Earth

mm0mm writes "Just hours after we read Darl's open letter on copyrights, Groklaw has another breaking update on SCO up on their website. SCO's Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Compel Discovery is now available. (original document here) The memorandum requests court to order IBM, the defendant, to provide evidence and support their case against ....IBM. :D When I was young, it was the plaintiff who was responsible for preparing enough evidence to present to the court, but in Darl's world, with army of lawyers who will be given 20% of the proceeds from the settlement or of 'a sale of SCO during the pendancy of litigation', apparently rules are different." Lawrence Lessig has a great piece reviewing Darl's nonsensical letter.

Comments

Hmmmm

[Kulaid982]

Here's the gun I want to shoot you with, will you load it for me?

Re:Hmmmm

[Amiga Lover]

Here's the gun I want to shoot you with, will you load it for me?

wtf. that's dumb. I'm calling the police.

mind helping me dial 911?

Re:Hmmmm

[SpaceLifeForm]

SCO would be willing to help,
but they can't find the eleven.

Re:Hmmmm

[SoSueMe]

I'd like to see them find "Chapter 11".

Online mentions in IBM filing

[rkhalloran]

Kinda cool to see a reference to a Groklaw URL in IBM's filing. At least ONE of the legal teams knows where to look.

SCO's team, on the other hand, probably starts chewing the rug everytime there's an update...

Re:Online mentions in IBM filing

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I wish someone would deliver something like 32 tons of horse shit to th SCO offices. Just DUMP it in front of the swinging glass doors.

Re:Online mentions in IBM filing

[gmack]

Because the moment they offer that it makes the smaller shops an easy pawn for SCO. They could just sue one of the smaller shops and force IBM to either divert resources or risk them getting a less competant legal staff and having to pay a settlement.

As for your tin foil hat theory INAL but if IBM were to do what you say and secretly settle with SCO then anyone forced to fork out a licence fee would have to take a look at the company that put the code there to retreive their damages. HP would probably get the damages etc right back from IBM in court.

IMO their behavior amounts to a bit of short term pain for the long term gain of reminding people why no one in their right mind sues IBM.

And hay.. if this finally gets the GPL court tested the rest of us may come out winners as well as it will remove a rather popular target to throw FUD at.

Re:Online mentions in IBM filing

[mcc]

Just tinfoil hatting a bit, but could IBM use this opportunity to badly hurt HP, their nearest competitor? ...

OK, this is a misconception I keep seeing, and I would like to clarify.

IF SCO code is inside of Linux, it is NOT LEGAL for ANYONE to distribute Linux until the SCO code is removed.

If SCO code is in Linux, SCO doesn't own Linux. They just own the bits of code they own; the entire REST of the linux kernel still belongs to the individual authors.

The individual authors have only agreed to let the bits of code they own be released under the GPL. The GPL says that if you distribute GPLed code, you MUST be able to state that ANYONE will be able to redistribute the code with NO extra limitations besides those of the GPL (with the only exception being that people *may* be prohibited from distributing into countries where the code is illegal under local laws).

So: IBM *cannot* just settle out of court with SCO and continue on while HP gets whacked. If IBM gains the right to distribute the hypothetical SCO portions of the kernel, then HP automatically gains the right as well. And if HP does not gain that right, then that means *IBM does not have the right to distribute Linux at all* because they would be violating the license rights of every single kernel contributor EXCEPT SCO [and themselves].

In fact, it would mean that until that limited, GPL-incompatible SCO code is removed, *no one* would be able to distribute Linux legally. This is the problem. SCO can *never* collect license fees for any hypothetical code it has in Linux, from IBM, HP, or anyone else, because the instant that code is revealed to be real, it must immediately be removed from Linux, period.

Now, once it is removed, SCO could try to claim damages from HP for the time its code spent in Linux, but between the fact that in this hypothetical case 1) HP would be an unknowing transgressor and 2) HP was using code that IBM had in apparently good faith presented to HP as being owned by IBM, HP could brush off any lawsuits easily. When you add the 3) problem SCO failed to mitigate damages at all and 4) SCO very probably *granted* HP an unlimited GPL license to distribute SCO's "poisoned" code by distributing Caldera, HP would be able to laugh such a case out of court even more easily than IBM is going to laugh the current contract-based case out of court.

(And of course, all of this assumes SCO's "stolen" code is real. I see no more or less reason to take such an idea seriously than I see a reason to believe the works of H.P. Lovecraft are actually true.)

Soon to be decided

[x-router]

They are in court at this moment sorting this out.

Hopefully the judge will take one look at this this and ask SCO exactly why they arn't prepared to say what they have on IBM.

That's how discovery works in litigation

[Darth_Foo]

Sorry to break it to everyone but it works that way for both sides under the federal (and most state) rules of civil procedure. Each side is entitled to request information and materials from the other. If you decline to provide the requested information or material (documents, etc.), the requesting party has the option to ask the Court to force disclosure. You have to have a pretty good reason (usually some kind of legal privilege) to justify noncompliance or you risk sanctions (like monetary fines or the Court making a factual finding against you or perhaps even dismissing your case). However, the rules are the same for both parties and even though SCO is the "Bad Guy" here, don't forget IBM can do the same if SCO fails to comply with THEIR discovery requests.

Re:That's how discovery works in litigation

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all well and fine for specific evidence. But it's a bit different when they ask IBM
to do things like "support their case against [IBM]". They can't force IBM to do the
research/build their case for them because they refuse to disclose what specific sections
of code are in violation.

Re:That's how discovery works in litigation

[pubjames]

But isn't there a problem with this?

Say I am a fizzy drinks manufacturer. I want to know what Coca-cola's secret formula is. I start a case against them saying that they've copied my formula, and that they have to give me their formula so I can prove it.

I would imagine source code is esentially a trade secret. A competitor has asked IBM to hand over their trade secrets, because they may have copied theirs. Doesn't seem right to me. If SCO cannot provide some other proof that copying has occurred - for instance, evidence from an IBM employee - then I don't think they should be allowed to see IBMs trade secrets.

Re:That's how discovery works in litigation

[MrResistor]

While your general point is correct, you seem to be missing an important fact. Discovery is not a fishing license. When you request information you have to do so in a specific manner. SCO, on the other hand, is basically saying "give us everything you think might incriminate you". There's nothing specific about that request, and IBM has rightly refused to comply with it unless and until they specify what it is they're looking for.

There are 2 reasons why IBM is right to refuse in this case. The first is that, in essence, SCO is demanding that IBM make their case for them. Under no sane theory of law is it the defendant's job to prepare the plaintiff's case.

The second is that such a non-specific request places an unreasonable burden on the side which is to supply the information. Just think of the mountain of documents a company as big and as old as IBM has, then think of being that guy that has to go through every one of them looking for anything that might, even in the vaguest way, be related to the case. Now think how much easier that job would be if they were asking for something specific.

SCO is treating discovery like a fishing expedition in which they have no idea what they might catch, or even if there is anything to catch at all. There's plenty of legal precedent that says that's not OK.

Re:That's how discovery works in litigation

[Abcd1234]

This is a non-issue. If IBM were forced to release trade-secret material during discovery, those court documents may very well be sealed at the end of the trial (or, at least, that material may be excised). Moreover, if SCO tried to leverage trade-secret material after the fact, IBM could take them to court for trade secret violations.

So, no worries... the legal system has considered these things. :)

Re:That's how discovery works in litigation

[stewball]

Confession: I am a lawyer

That's true as far as it goes. Most of the costs of large-scale litigation are related to discovery, and endless and vitriolic fights about what will and won't be allowed in. EVERYONE starts out with the everything-under-the-sun requests, and then, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, and months and months of time it gets winnowed down to the at-least-marginally-relevant.

And as far as the Coca-Cola recipe example, there's a whole subset of fights (and procedural rules) about whether trade secret information can be discovered, and under what conditions, etc., etc. Those fights are the nastiest fights in most lawsuits between technology corporations. I could dig up the Federal and CA state rules on that, but I think everyone would rather I didn't.

Re:That's how discovery works in litigation

[rkhalloran]

That's one of the ludicrous things in this case: the trade-secret laws say once it's out in the open, it's no longer a trade secret. You can sue for damages for revealing it, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. But SCO, after offering source for years, is now trying to claim trade-secret protection on this as-yet-undislosed code.

Groklaw pointed out the other day that for years, the AT&T Unix code had *NO* copyright notices for just this reason - they were trying to protect it as trade secret. It was only after the breakup when they were trying to 'marketize' it that the "THIS IS UNPUBLISHED SOURCE CODE OF AT&T" comment blocks went in.

Re:That's how discovery works in litigation

[jonblaze]

Say I am a fizzy drinks manufacturer. I want to know what Coca-cola's secret formula is. I start a case against them saying that they've copied my formula, and that they have to give me their formula so I can prove it.

Ah, then you'll want to read Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Shreveport, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 107 F.R.D. 288 (D. Del. 1985). There, the court held that Coca-Cola's secret formula was not immune to discovery once the plaintiffs had made a showing of "relevancy" and "necessity." Of course, this did not mean that Coke's secret would then become a matter of public record. Courts have the power to issue protective orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to limit the dissemination of information procured through discovery. The court deferred ruling on the scope of such a protective order until the parties had time to consider and negotiate the issue.

Darl gets his ass kicked.

[rice_burners_suck]

Darl McBride: The Most Dangerous Man in the Technology Industry(1). There was an article in the Nov. 24, 2003 issue of InformationWeek.

Here is my favorite quote from that article:

But McBride, a self-described cowboy, isn't about to back down. He once had his administrative assistant return the call of someone who challenged McBride to a fight--to get a time and place. "We have developed thick skin," he says.

My comments on that quote: I'd be willing to bet that whoever challenged Darl to a fight would have actually done it, but Darl, upon finding out that he was about to get his ass kicked, chickened out.

What do you think?

(1) These were some of the words off the magazine's cover. The entire title is: "Is SCO Group's Darl McBride THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN in the technology industry? With a lawsuit imminent, Linux users are about to find out.

--
Reference: "You May Be Next" by John Foley, InformationWeek, Nov 24. 2003, pp 20-22.

$CO sux0rz!! Linux r00lz!!

Re:Darl gets his ass kicked.

[mckniglj]

Darl getting his ass kicked?

Now there's something I pay $699 to see.

Re:Darl gets his ass kicked.

[PhuCknuT]

Darl getting his ass kicked?

Now there's something I pay $699 to see.

No, there's something I'd pay $699 to DO.

Re:Darl gets his ass kicked.

[zero time ghost]

"Hello, this is Mr. McBride's office. Mr. McBride will fight you, but first he asks that you kick your own ass, in order to prove that Mr. McBride can kick you ass. After that, we'll schedule a time for Mr. McBride to kick your ass sometime in the year 2035."

Related to Earning Reports?

[Target Practice]

Could someone with financial background tell us if this is related to SCOX waiting to report their earnings for another two weeks?
Any correlation? How would these moves affect their reports?
*dons tinfoil hat*

SCOdot

[jcrosby]

I have a question for all of you...

Since cases that do actually make it to trial take about two years, are we doomed to seeing everything out of McBride's mouth, everything on Groklaw, and every other passing thought about SCO for the next two years on slashdot?

I've been a member for a long time, and the content seems to be degenerating into a groupthink zealot factory with its own set of dogmas and censors.

This is a real question to this community so please don't join the groupthink mass and moderate this as flamebait just because it goes against the hive mind around here.

Thanks.

Re:SCOdot

[RocketSHE]

Suggestion for parent: Go to your slashdot preferences and filter out caldera stories. You will never have to see mouse-ears-on-a-globe again. As for me, bring 'em on!

Re:SCOdot

[mattgreen]

I've been a member for a long time, and the content seems to be degenerating into a groupthink zealot factory with its own set of dogmas and censors.

Truer words haven't been spoken. Every slightest rant (no matter how small or insignificant the speaker is) against (insert holy technology here) is put on the front page for all to read and publically decry, but then every move by (insert evil entity here) is also posted so we can all rehash the same arguments again and again and complain that (far superior technology) is not number one.

Anyone know of a more balanced news site? I'm getting tired of reading about how Open Source will change the world every day and why I should convert my manager.

Re:SCOdot

[h00pla]

I've been a member for a long time, and the content seems to be degenerating into a groupthink zealot factory with its own set of dogmas and censors.

I don't think this is the fundemental problem. This case needs to be talked about rationally and I think Groklaw (and in a way Slashdot) are providing a forum for this.

The problem to me is that SCO is obviously using the publicity to their advantage, both bad and good. Every time SCO is mentioned in the press, for good or ill, their stock starts climbing. And that's clearly what they are after. Everybody, including McBride, Yarro and their minions know the case is a fraud, but while the stock keeps climbing, it doesn't matter to them.

What we need to avoid is to talk about SCO just for the "tabloid" value inside the Linux community. You may have a point that some of this discussion borders on that, but as long as we keep to the purpose of revealing SCO's true intentions, then talking about SCO here is a good thing.

Re:SCOdot

[SubtleNuance]

I've been a member for a long time, and the content seems to be degenerating into a groupthink zealot factory with its own set of dogmas and censors.

I don't think this is the fundemental problem.

Actually, the rise of the internet and ease of publishing in general, this *is* a problem.

People will seek out sources of information that *reinforce* their world-view. We will build these feedback loops and vertical chimneys where every group becomes more isolated from reasonable, objective opinion that they become convinced that anyone who disagrees with them is grossly misinformed and stupid.

I dont know what to do about it, I find myself reading websites and books that really just reinforce my own ideas.... in time, Idont know what the consequences of this behaviour will be. Polorization? Extremism? Where, how and who will faciliated comprimise and understanding?

Re:SCOdot

[Pike65]

Since cases that do actually make it to trial take about two years, are we doomed to seeing everything out of McBride's mouth, everything on Groklaw, and every other passing thought about SCO for the next two years on slashdot?

Darl speaks out of his mouth?

Well you learn something new every day . . .

Monkeys... trained monkeys....

[Asprin]

Check out this snippet from the footnotes at the end:

[1] Object or binary code is the code computers use and appears as a series of is and Os.

Someone please explain to SCO's attorneys that:
i != 1
and
O != 0

Don't they have ANYONE in their office who knows enough about computers to proofread this stuff?

Re:Monkeys... trained monkeys....

[pb]

SCO probably doesn't, but in this case the fault probably lies with the OCR software and proofreading skills of some Groklaw-loving linux user; the original PDF looks fine.

Re:hmmm

[JCMay]

The Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination applies only to criminal cases, not civil suits.

Lessig Misquoting McBride? Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

God forbid any /.er say anything in opposition to Lessig's argument, but even Darl McBride should be quoted correctly. Lessig writes:

McBride's argument is grounded in the Constitution. (Well, close to the constitution. He quotes the text of the constitution to be:

Congress shall have Power [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, open-source advocates argue against copyright and patent laws, and whatever measures they take to by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Actually, the framers didn't say anything about "open source advocates.")

I only found the pieces that make up McBride's quote in his letter, not the whole thing in a single sentence. He has to at least quote the guy correctly, or credibility for the remainder of the response is lost.

FIRE!!!

[darkmayo]

OK somebody has to have some DeathHeads to rain upon SCO's tank.

I think I understand now...

[3Suns]

It seems that Darl & Co. have a very specific (and obviously very wrong) idea of what the GPL actually is. They seem to believe that Open Source advocates think the GPL applies to everything, just automatically. This is in accordance to their paranoid beliefs that Linux is actually SysV Unix that was "stolen" with the GPL. I can just imagine this happening in court:

IBM: "No, actually Mr. McBride, the GPL can only be applied by the copyright holder. Just like any other license."

Darl: "Umm, you mean... So the GPL... Hey, look over there!" *flees the country*

SCO's motion is bullshit....

[Dunark]

The good stuff is from IBM:

http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/Doc-86.pdf

It's "put up or shut up" time for SCO. Read and enjoy.

Darl does NOT deserve ANY respect.

[rice_burners_suck]

It appears that instead of developing software, they have changed their mission statement to, "Litigate everybody out of business."

This is what worries me about SCO: That their army of lawyers will wreak terrible legal havoc, not because SCO was right, or because SCO suffered damages--I strongly believe that neither of these is the case. Their army of lawyers will pull off Bill Gates style, "I don't understand your question," when the question is, "Does X concern you?" They'll pull off Bill Clinton style, "That depends on what 'is' means." They'll find loopholes and language in the law that nobody ever thought was there, with newly made-up implications that no legislator intended or thought would occur, to cause as much damage as possible to the Linux community and the free software community in general.

The longer I think about this, the more apparent it becomes to me that they do not want to profit from litigation. It's like the old story of people who are seated at both sides of a long table covered with the most wonderful foods in the world. The only problem is that the silverware is a yard long, and nobody's arm is long enough to fit their spoon or fork into their mouth. So somebody comes up with the idea that everyone should feed the person seated across from him. That way, everybody gets to eat. But Darl says, "What?! I will feed somebody else?! NO WAY! Sure, it means I won't eat but he won't eat either!!" That, I strongly believe, is the nature of Darl McBride, and the new SCO.

They do not want to profit. They do not want to rectify damages (which I strongly believe never occurred). They do not want to protect their copyrights (which I strongly believe were never violated). They are focused on one solitary goal, and that is to destroy (or damage, to the greatest extent possible) Linux.

Request SCO source

[Camel Pilot]

SCO has requested "all versions or iterations of AIX". Why can't IBM request all recent versions or iterations of SCO products to look for inclusion of GPL code? There has been some evidence that such inclusions or copying has occurred.

SCO seems uneducated about IP rights

[fw3]

From the Lessig commentary: If he chooses to give his property away, that does not make it any less a property right. If he chooses to sell it for $1,000,000, that doesn't make it any less a property right. And if he chooses to license it on the condition that source code be made free, that doesn't make it any less a property right.

Precedent: Rudolf Diesel patented the Diesel cycle engine in 1898. One of the reasons that the far less efficent Otto cycle (4-stroke gasoline) engine was/is more widely deployed is that Diesel would only license his patent for what he considered 'best use', requiring that Diesel engines must inject fuel continuously into the combustion chamber thoughout the combustion/power stroke.

This dictated a much lower power:weight ratio in early Diesel engines, which is appropriate to stationary power genaration but represented a distinct disadvantage for traction-power and automotive use.

Diesel's approach to license was probably not the most lucrative either for himself or society at large, however the *property right* granted by patent (and copyright) law let him make that determination.

To my mind whether commercial EULA, BSD, GPL, Artistic, all licenses fundamentally serve the purpose of allowing the *Author* a degree of control over the application and distribution of his/her work.

This is also how we get an OSS environment where two different Authors (say Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman) have the right to apply the same license (GPL) according to their own wishes.

Process rights are a good thing. SCO's making the best case it can but I really think it's going to backfire on them. Their rhetoric really doesn't stand up to analysis.

Pamela Jones and GROKLAW

[trick-knee]

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

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

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

Enough already!

[Frodo420024]

Instead of the (twice-)daily SCO item, isn't it time to have an 'SCO vs. IBM' box that carries the big load of SCO messages instead of posting everything to the main page. Or even a GrokLaw one, that's where you read 90% of the stuff anyway.

Then post to the main page when there's something really big coming, and otherwise let everyone else go on with the usual kernel rumours, Ogg design wins, etc. etc.

I enjoy GrokLaw a lot, and I'm (trying to) read /. for more general news items.

[Rant off :]

"Fishing" is not allowed.

[khasim]

IANAL

You cannot request EVERYTHING. The stuff you request has to apply to the case.

That's why it shouldn't matter what IBM has in versions of AIX that were NOT released.

As for the stuff about demanding that IBM identify all the code it contributed to Linux........

That is what SCO originally claimed. SCO says that IBM contributed code that IBM did not have the righ to contribute without SCO's permission.

Now SCO is demanding to see the code that IBM contributed.

This is what is known as "Fishing". You demand EVERYTHING and hope to find SOMETHING that is actionable. And "Fishing" is not allowed.

Re:"Fishing" is not allowed.

[Darth_Foo]

IAAL . . . (although I'm probably not licensed in your jurisdiction) ;-) You can discover ANYTHING which is admissible or REASONABLY CALCULATED TO LEAD TO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, subject to only a few areas privileged agaist discovery (e.g., attorney-client communications). That means that "fishing" IS de facto allowed, subject to the rules of evidence (which are pretty damned liberal). In complicated cases it often comes down to exactly what is going on here: the trial court judge is asked to rule on what is and is not to be handed over. The Coke Formula analogy above is not a good one because courts can (and often do) allow discovery of trade secrets but subject them to protective orders limiting who has access to the material, how it is to be distributed and copies, how it is to be handled (returned or destroyed, usually) after the litigation, etc.

Re:Look at Note [1]

[slunk1]

it's appropriate i think, given that 'i' is an imaginary number. seems to fit right in with SCO's philosophy.

I Like Linus's Reply

[gowen]

"If Darl McBride was in charge, he'd probably make marriage unconstitutional too, since clearly it de-emphasizes the commercial nature of normal human interaction, and probably is a major impediment to the commercial growth of prostitution."

-- Linus Torvalds

There's nothing wrong with SCO's request.

[siskbc]

Look, all SCO wants is the AIX and DYNIX source code. Oh, also linux. And I forgot Unix. That's right, and they want every version. What's that? Every nightly CVS update too? OK. Also, they would like IBM to print the source for each of these out, and highlight with a yellow pen the parts they stole. Also, if they'd just circle those parts with a red pen, and write the words "We stole this," that'd be greeeeeaaat.

And they should just, ah, hand that in with the TPS reports.

What's unreasonable about that?

Re:There's nothing wrong with SCO's request.

[KDan]

I think they should print all that out, and then dump it all on top of Darl McBride from a giant cargo plane (might need a flying oil tanker for so much content, though...). That'd teach him.

Daniel

Re:hmmm

[buelba]

This is not quite correct. A party to a civil suit can refuse to answer any question (at trial, in a deposition, or an interrogatory) only if the answer might incriminate them. You can't refuse to answer for no reason. In practice, it isn't a viable option for companies like SCO and IBM to say "we are crooks, therefore we won't answer your interrogatory."

The fifth amendment privilege cannot, however, prevent you from handing over evidence. So if I seek a memo from you, and the memo indicates that you may have committed a crime, you have to cough it up. The amendment protects against forced testimony, not forced production of information already written down.

Yes, IAAL, but not a criminal lawyer.

The Glaring Flaw in Darl's GPL argument

[Schlemphfer]

I suffered through reading Darl's open letter last night, and I just read Lessig's response. A few observations:

In my experience, when somebody has a strong argument about why they have been wronged, the argument is fairly easy to make and usually reads clearly and with a logical flow. But since SCO won't put up or shut up regarding the allegedly pilfered code (and what little they put up was thoroughly debunked) -- Darl is stuck making this hard-to-follow argument about why his company's business practices are what the Founding Fathers fantasized about when writing the constitution.

So instead of getting clear and convincing evidence that SCO's code was stolen, we get this poorly written argument that the GPL is immoral and illegal.

Let me make a comment on the GPL that Lessig hasn't made, and that I think gets to the heart of why Darl's arguments are pathetic.

I think Darl would have a great case that the GPL is illegal if the terms of the GPL license conferred greater privileges to the software developer than do licenses that come with store-bought proprietary software. But the fact is that, under the GPL, the developer is voluntarily surrendering some of the rights he would gain under normal copyright. And he's not claiming any other rights beyond what's normally handed out under the copyright law.

This is where Darl's anti-GPL argument breaks down. He's given no convincing explanation why a software developer can't voluntarily surrender some, but not all, of the rights gained by copyright.

Frankly, the only reason everybody's not tearing gaping holes in Darl's open letter is that it's so poorly written that it's hard to know what the hell he's talking about.

How can IBM provide what SCO is requesting?

[daviddennis]

When I write software, I certainly don't save every version of every program I've ever written. And I delete old backups on a continuous basis to save disk space.

So there's no way in the world I could even comply with such a request, since the information just isn't there.

IBM might well save every daily backup tape because they're so huge they can afford to without breaking a sweat. Maybe they should just dump every single tape for every single version of every operating system they have, and let SCI sort it out.

But I'm curious about the interim versions, since I would think that it would not be a copyright violation unless the code was in the distributed version ... would it?

D

Does anyone other than me....

[geomon]

feel that PJ would be an asset to any law firm? Who did Boies hire? The C- paralegal?

Just another example of open source producing world-class professionals.

SCO's noncompliance started this!

[TrentC]

However, the rules are the same for both parties and even though SCO is the "Bad Guy" here, don't forget IBM can do the same if SCO fails to comply with THEIR discovery requests.

"If" they fail to comply? SCO filed their Motion to Compel after IBM filed theirs.

IBM is annoyed because, among other things, IBM requested SCO's source code and a description showing what files and parts of files have been copied, in a form making it amenable for searching. SCO responded by printing out large chunks of Linux source code files and effectively said "it's in there, somewhere". (And then had the gall to complain about how much it cost them to print out that code!)

SCO filed their Motion to Compel Discovery in response and are basically saying "Well, we can't know for sure what infringement has occurred until we see the code from IBM."

On one hand, SCO claims in the media to have solid evidence of "line-by-line copying" of "millions of lines" of code, that discovery is progressing along and they're preparing to sue Linux end customers and bill Linux users, making them sound like an unstoppable legal juggernaut (and sending their stock price through the roof).

On the other hand, in the courtroom, they hang their head and say "we're not sure what all has been done to poor poor us", they whine about having to conduct three lawsuits at once -- their suit against IBM, IBM's countersuit, and Red Hat's suit -- and try to play one case off on the other and file delay after delay in all three cases, stalling for as much time as possible before they have to admit that, they have no case, no proof ,and no claim.

Groklaw is an amazing read. PJ is smart, she's thorough, and has a great body of volunteers helping her with research into SCO's claims, transcribing legal documents, and tracking down old emails and newsgroup postings. Comparing what SCO says in the media to what they say in court, it's obvious that Darl McBride has a reality-distortion field that makes Steve Jobs' look like a weak soap bubble.

Jay (=

Horse poop isn't that bad.

[whittrash]

Pig shit stinks more, the stench sticks to your skin - truly nasty! Perhaps you may want to consider 'liquified' manure as well. This can be brought next to their building and be pumped in through any opening at high pressure. The poultry shit is truly nasty, with a high enough ammonia content to make your eyes water. Horse and cow shit are not that bad and don't stink long, go for the nasty stuff, pig, poultry and dog shit. properly applied, some of this shit can actually kill a man.

Advertisers, Take Note!

[sethadam1]

Want to reach the IT Community? Want to get to Linux users? Have an important message you simply must convey in serious terms to IS Professionals?

We have the answer! The staff of ATTORNEY DAVIS BOIES will sue anyone - AND WE MEAN ANYONE! - to get your message across. Don't have a case? That's okay, we don't care! We expect to lose.

Nothing will get your word out faster and with a more poigant stab than a lawsuit. We managed to get our three-quarter dead client SCO the front page of popular news site Slashdot over a hundred times this year alone!

Here are some quotes from our clients:

"We were just about to go under, so with the help of ATTORNEY DAVID BOIES, we went ahead and claimed ownship of the whole of UNIX! We probably won't win, but our stock is up thousands of percents!"
-Chris Sontagg, unnamed tech company

"I am a stupid monkey, but all up-to-date IT professionals know my name. Did I just say up to date? David, quick, patent that term so we can sue Red Hat!"
-Darl McBride, professional Ass Hat

You too can get the word out! Just call ATTORNEY DAVIS BOIES at 1-888-US-FRAUD!

IBM 2 SCO 0 Motions to Compel granted

[PB8]

See comments on Groklaw or Yahoo! SCOX BBS.
SCO has 30 days to provide their evidence.
Both IBM motions to compel granted.
None of SCO's.
Boies & Heise were no shows.
Darl's brother Kevin argued.

Re:IBM 2 SCO 0 Motions to Compel granted

[isn't my name]

One other juicy piece to add to the above. All other discovery is halted while SCO is forced to comply to IBM's two motions to compel. So, until SCO ponies up, SCO cannot make and IBM doesn't have to respspond to any discovery requests.