Slashdot Mirror
SCO Code to be Protected in Closed Court
An anonymous reader writes "SCO public relations director Blake Stowell today said that the company had secured permission to present the code alleged to have found its way into Linux to a closed court. Once again SCO is refusing to tell Linux users just what code they claim is infringing on their IP rights, while still threatening to sue corporations running Linux."
The question, of course, is whether the claim is true or not -- it is coming from SCO, after all. There's a good chance it could be true, though, because a big part of SCO's claim is for trade secret violations -- which require the alleged secret to, well, remain secret (disclosure does not effect copyright, but it does trade secrets). It only makes sense for them to seek a protective order, and it does not really effect the case from the judge's and lawyers' standpoint. But that doesn't make it suck any less for the rest of us who want to see the code for ourselves.
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain
This protects the court, because if the code itself became part of the court records, SCO would have to sue the court itself for violation of SCO intellectual property.
"We find this Court to be in contempt of SCO!!!"
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
If they are proved to be wrong, the code will come out anyway.
If they are right, their valuable source code will be released on the internet and lose all its value if it is open court.
A court case shouldn't be allowed to trample over people's rights. It's quite normal for commercially secretive cases to be held in camera (but only for the sensitive bits) - such as trade secrets, and other similar issues.
I'm just quoting from memory, but an old press release said something like,
"Open source leaders have refused to take action [and remove the code]".
And then a few sentences later,
"We don't want them to take out the code because then we can't sue them".
Stupid bitches.
"We can't just open this up to the public. The minute we open it up we have in fact opened it up to the public and we can't restrict it in the future from a proprietary standpoint," said SCO CEO Darl McBride at conference in August this year.
The fact that I have seen your code does not make it part of the public domain. This is just silly.
Once again SCO is refusing to tell Linux users just what code they claim is infringing on their IP rights, while still threatening to sue corporations running Linux.
So far, SCO is only engaging in vague threats about future action. They haven't actually sued anybody over Linux-related copyright issues. Yes, that's still scummy, but until they actually do something, it's just a nuisance. I suppose someone like Redhat could sue them for business damages, but that's it, AFAIK.
Let's just wait and see if they try any specific threats without letting us know what code they think is in violation.
"We can't just open this up to the public. The minute we open it up we have in fact opened it up to the public and we can't restrict it in the future from a proprietary standpoint," said SCO CEO Darl McBride at conference in August this year. "
Besides which, this claim makes no sense -- letting people see the code doesn't give people the right to use the code -- SCO would still have the copyright on anything that they wrote (or, to be more accurate, bought the rights to). That's like arguing that you can't publish books because people could read them and publish copies.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
As several sources, including Bruce Perens' fine analysis of code fragments thus far disclosed, have indicated, some of what SCO is claiming as their IP in fact stems from material that were in the public domain as far back as the 70's. If this can be established beyond the shadow of a doubt in court, then they should have no right to keep private that which is already public and the codes can ultimately be disclosed.
It's somewhat similar to my attempting to keep the contents of "Encyclopaedia Brittanica" secret by claiming IP rights, only to realize later that I never owned it, do not own it, and will never own it. Therefore, I would have no right to keep it confidential since my original claim of ownership is debunked.
What really blows me away about this whole debacle is the value of SCOX. At around $15/share, this same time last year it was only a few bucks per share. Someone's buying this crap and someone's going to get raped. People better check to see their mutual fund managers aren't taking them for a ride. All these shady court arrangements are only prolonging the inevitable decline of SCO, and when that happens a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money. I hope the SEC is looking into the stock dealings.
Judge Damon J. Keith, in the Cincinnati ruling, opined that "Democracies die behind closed doors."
Little surprise, Darl figures SCO will survive behind closed doors.
And it is true that SCO will survive only as long as it is behind closed doors. Open the doors, let the light shine, and let people pore over the code .... SCO is then as good as dead ....
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Not only is it normal, but I imagine if the magistrate initially opened the court up, it could lead to a charge of prejudice and a reversible error on appeal.
The court does not get a copy of discovery materials. They only see what the parties choose to submit into evidence. However, the next hearing will likely discuss that evidence in enough detail that, unfortunately, it makes sense for the hearing to be closed.
I suppose that IBM could move to have the transcript released if they can claim that there was nothing covered under the protective order discussed. And, particularly given that Kevin McBride admitted in court the last time that they have no evidence from Sys V and that they don't have a copy of AIX, I would imagine that any evidence SCO submits will only come from Linux and that it would then be easy for IBM to argue for opening the transcript.
Under the terms of discovery, the discloser may
label certain parts "confidential." If challenged
the onus is on the discloser to justify the
confidentiality.
The transcript of the court session is public and
this standard protective order is the only thing
mentioned. I am quite certain there was no
further side-deal with the magistrate.
While I would not put it past SCO to label
everything confidential, that would be an abuse
of the process. I doubt the magistrate would
allow it.
Stowell's announcement is just SCO's usual
disingeniuty in reporting the facts. Remember
that this is the person who claimed the judge
"flipped a coin" in deciding to rule in favour of
IBM's motion to compel discovery.
I have trouble believing Blake Stowell's clams...
Then don't listen to the man's clams. What do mollusks know about jurisprudence anyway?
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
In other words, this is typical SCO FUD and misrepresentation of the facts, and in this case, facts that are already old and well known to those following the case. SCO has not won any victory here; quite the contrary. The alleged code (if it exists at all) will almost certainly be available after some very standard legal procedures.
There is truly nothing to see here; zdnet got suckered by a SCO press release. Regrettable, as they should have known better by now, but aside from allowing Darl et. al. to defraud some day traders and invenstors for another few days, it really doesn't amount to anything at all.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
If they do in fact have code which is protected by copyright, then they have nothing to fear. Copyright still protects things that have been seen by the public -- it's called publication. It seems to me that the only reason copyright exists in the first place is to encourage people to publish their works by allowing them to still own a work once it is in the open.
If, on the other hand, SCO believes that it's control over the code is only based on its status as a trade secret, then they have no recourse against the Linux community, only (theoretically) IBM. Keeping any infringing code secret wouldn't help.
It seems to me that there are only a few possible reasons that SCO wants to keep all this secret, which are unrelated to their stated reasons:
1) They need Linux to continue infringing as long as possible. My guess is that the length of infringement, which will stop 24 hours or so after public disclosure, will directly affect any increase the damages paid by IBM.
2) They want to catch IBM in a contempt of court charge. If the code is sealed by the court, and it becomes suddenly removed before being made public, then SCO can say that IBM leaked information, and so is in contempt of the secrecy order. This makes IBM look very bad, and gives SCO a strong argument that IBM has clearly shown itself to be untrustworthy with information. It's an interesting gambit, relying on the fact that the information will need to be widely available within IBM for its defense, and bets that at least one of those people will spill the beans.
3) They have no idea who actually contributed the code in question. If they open it up to the public, there's always the possibility that some expert in the field will stand up and say, "No, I wrote that code, not IBM, and I have never seen SCO's code". Opening the code suddenly gives IBM a very large army of people who will study and scour the code SCO releases to find any evidence in IBM's favor whatsoever. With it secret, the burden is entirely on IBM, and so the process will take longer and evidence may be missed. This also plays into #2 above.
4) There is no code. SCO's allegations have been a delicate web of half-truths and bravado, exposure of which will mean certain death to the company. It will lose its case, it will not be purchased, and its lawyers will not be paid.
The executive board of SCO consists of:
Darl C. McBride
Chris Sontag
Robert K. Bench
Reg Broughton
Sean Wilson
Larry Gasparro
Jeff Hunsaker
Ralph J. Yarro III
Steve Cakebread
Edward E. Iacobucci
R. Duff Thompson
Darcy Mott
K. Fred Skousen
Thomas P. Raimondi, Jr
If you see any of these people in years following the implosion of SCO, do not give them a job. Do not enter into contracts with them. Do not loan them your car. They have proven themselves incapable of planning for the future of a company and incapable of behaving like mature partners in the sphere of business. At a time when SCO desperately needs to be investing in research and development, these people are plunging the company into bankruptcy. They're taking a tremendous gamble with their shareholders money, a gamble which even if successful would only mean residuals on existing Linux implementations in the US, and a painful migration for everyone else to OpenBSD. They're betting everyone else's money on a long shot, and should be held accountable for their irresponsible actions.
Once again, those names are
Darl C. McBride
Chris Sontag
Robert K. Bench
Reg Broughton
Sean Wilson
Larry Gasparro
Jeff Hunsaker
Ralph J. Yarro III
Steve Cakebread
Edward E. Iacobucci
R. Duff Thompson
Darcy Mott
K. Fred Skousen
Thomas P. Raimondi, Jr
The ______ Agenda
"SCO characterises the licenses as a source of 'immunity' from future intellectual property claims."
If I were to say "I own a lot of code in Microsoft's OS" and then offer a license to Windows users offering "immunity" from me suing them, and all the while not revealing any evidence in order to prevent Microsoft or the users from eliminating the components I say are causing them to owe me $$, how would that be looked upon by the press and the courts? What if I generated a lot of press saying:
"My ancient DOS code is the core of Windows! End users should pay me a license fee or face lawsuits!"
"I can't reveal why my code justifies this demand or what it is since that would damage my ability to leverage my IP."
"Microsoft cannot release a patch or update to resolve this issue - the code is too deeply entrenched. Plus, the rest of Windows is a derivative work, including things like NTFS."
The responses would be a) Windows is at fault, not the End Users and b) No tikee, no laundry. Show evidence or booted out the court door. Now, this is what SCO is doing to Linux, but somehow the fact that the author's price for Linux is $0 makes the End Users responsible????? What makes $0 special as opposed to $X? Why are End Users suddenly no longer as innocent in Linux as they are in Windows?
Oh, and now apparently acting decently and acting in good faith are now liabilities. Allowing someone a chance to fix a problem or a mistake is against corporate policy since it's more profitable to try and make them pay through the nose for it for eternity. Oh, and make anyone who benefits from that mistake, however unknowingly, also pay. Yay corporatism.
This whole thing is a crock. The saying "No good deed ever goes unpunished" certainly seems to be true for the open source community. But of course, "good deeds" are a threat to commercial suppliers of helpful services and products, and therefore are no part of a proper capitalistic system. Lord, what a messed up world we (or at least SCO) live in.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
It is my understanding that this is one risk of "trade secret". If someone develops something the same time as you, but independently ('course, there could be issues of determining independence), then you don't have any claim to the idea because you did not disclose it. This is one aspect of patents, actually: you are making some technology public, but the patent gives you exclusive rights for the patent term. You are trading public knowledge for exclusive use. If I develop some widget in my basement, and some guy on the other side of the country does the same and we both sell it without protecting the idea, we don't have any mechanism for protection.
The fact that SCO is claiming "trade secret" could possibly be an advantage: "Hey folks, well their code was secret so we had to come up with our own way to do it, and we did. But since it was math, there was only really one way to do it, so it looks the same." (This you might be able to prove by giving 6 people some differential equations and having them solve it - my guess is they will all arrive at the same answer (if they know what they're doing, at any rate)).
So, in summary, do "trade secrets" have any protection if they are not stolen? If I make a competing technology for one that is a "trade secret" that does the same thing but without copying the guts, is there any grounds on which the offended party may seek damanges? Is that not part of the risk of keeping an idea "secret"?
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Tonight on BBC 4: Clamofibophobia -- are bivalve mollusks lying to you?
As a public service to the /. community, let me review the relative truthfulness of various members of the animal kingdom.
A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
So Ralph J. Yarro III is a member of both.
Doesn't that mean that we should get rid of Qt in all open souce projects?
Maybe it'd be a good idea to not only avoid "business" with SCO and their boardmembers but even any business related to the other companies whos boards they occupy.
k2r
Ah, another victim of SCO's dishonesty.
Look back over the case that SCO filed against IBM. SCO is not claiming that IBM ripped off code SCO wrote or already owned.
I want to say that again because it's the crux of SCO's lies: SCO is not claiming that IBM ripped off code that SCO wrote or already owned.
What SCO is claiming is that code that IBM wrote for SCO was also included in Linux, allegedly contrary to IBM's license.
Essentially, SCO is claiming IBM had a "no compete" clause somewhere in that license. I don't know if they did or not. Even if they did, I don't know if they contributed code to Linux in contravention of the clause.
But please let's not let SCO distort the question of fact: they have never claimed that pre-existing code owned by SCO was added to Linux. They have claimed that code was simultaneously added to Linux and (I think; somebody correct me here) AIX in violation of IBM's license with SCO.
All's true that is mistrusted
In lawsuits in federal district courts (and most state courts as well), the rules of discovery provide that opposing parties can get the other side to produce any information that is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(b)(1). This means that litigants have some leeway. They are not limited to asking for evidence that is admissible in court but rather can get ANY information that would LEAD to the discovery of admissible evidence. In other words, litigants do not get free, unfettered access to each others' files, but can go on limited "fishing expeditions" so long as they can show that they have some reasonable expectation of finding fish where they are fishing.
That said, assume (as the judge must at this stage of the litigation) that SCO actually does have some trade secret or confidentiality interests to protect in its source code. That secret or confidential status would be forever lost if disclosed to the world. SCO should not lose any valid rights it has simply because it sued to enforce those rights. (Take it easy flamers - we're making assumptions here still - keep reading!).
Obviously there are tensions among the right of a party to get information from an adversary to defend itself, the right of an opposing party to protect its trade secrets or confidential information, and the public's right to have judicial proceedings in the open. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure balance these interests in Rule 26(c) which proivides for protective orders. Such orders are issued to keep confidential information from becoming public. There are several features which ensure that the use of such orders is not too problematic:
-
The material produced under such an order must still be produced to the other side (and potentially the court if the litigation goes that far. In this case, I think everyone agrees that IBM has a substantial interest in gettin gthe information to defend itself. I also think most Slashdot readers would agree that in this case, IBM's interests are closely aligned with those of the Open Source community.
- The information claimed to be confidential must actually be confidential. That means that information which is not truly confidential cannot be made confidential because a party produces the information under the terms of a protective order.
-
The judge is free to reveal anything he determines is not confidential. A protective order is called an interlocutory order, meaning that it is one of those types of orders issued to keep the suit moving forward and does not finally determine the rights of the parties. Basically, it is the way the Court manages litigation. Because these orders do not (usually) determine the rights of parties, the judge is free to modify or revoke those orders at any time.
Now for all those who want desperately to see SCO's source code, I ask this: WHY do you want to see it so badly? If you enjoy reading source so much that you just HAVE to see SCO's code, then I suggest you sign SCO's nondisclosure and get it. If however, you want to do your own comparison to Linux code, then I submit that the community as a whole has no need to see what SCO has. IBM will adequately protect the community becuse its interests are so closely aligned with those of the community. If your burning desire to do a comparison is to prove that SCO's claims have no merit, again, IBM will do this job just fine. Sit back, be patient, and trust that IBM will defend itself (and the community) vigorously.Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
Scientology, Church Of. It's a Tom Cruz Operation.