Slashdot Mirror
SCO Files Response To Demand For Evidence
The Welcome Rain writes "SCO has posted its notice of compliance with the court order of December 12, which required them to produce evidence. The document itself is brief, but refers to a sixty-page supplement which lists the offending lines, and asserts that it can find more when IBM produces some of the evidence demanded of them by SCO. Millions of lines on sixty pages? How silly."
IBM must be using really small fonts to make it hard for SCO to find evidence. It's always the fine print that gets people, though. ;)
So where's the 60 page PDF so we can get right on tearing it apart line by line and laughing?
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
Heh, just started? I believe it did the moment they opened their mouth. =)
You can fit a lot of files and line numbers on 60 pages, so I wouldn't dismiss it just because of the "millions of lines of code".
Now my experience with legal documents suggests that it's hard to say much in 60 pages legalese periods, but the note that they complied with the courts request is not enough to speculate on how valid their response is. We will have to wait until the judge (and IBM) have read it.
What does "admitted pro hac vice" mean?
Buy the President
"Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, SCO's accusers would certainly want you to believe my client doesn't own the rights to Unix, and they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.
But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major Unix company and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit.
I know SCO seems guilty. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a company is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must acquit. Here look at the monkey , look at the silly monkey.
The defense rests."
With a compression algorithm like that (millions of lines to 60+ pages)
...but since that compression ratio is impossible (except in Utah) SCO is pretty much done.
SCO's IP license would be worth $699
It says the supplement exceeds 60 pages. So we don't know the actual size.
On a side note, any legal reason why they would say "exceed 60 pages". Why not 50 pages, or 70 pages, or whatever?
If SCO's claims that this code is in fact their own turns out to be true, doesn't that mean that their case has solid legs to stand on?
How interesting it would be for all versions of Linux before this code is removed to be in violation of SCO's copyright.
I have been pwned because my
They use a Bullshit Compressor. Politicians have been using it for years. Thta's hwo you get 10 pounds of manure in a 5 pound bag.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
right. ill belive this when i see it. untill then i will regard this like everything else that sco has done, a vague answer to a direct question.
Jack the sound barrier. Bring the noise.
So, ok, the SCO case might be beginning to crumble. Might take a little longer, and who knows, with M$ looking for any shot it can take, there might be more problems in future.
So what are we going to do about it? Are there any measures the open source community can take to prevent contaimination of the open code base with improperly cleared code? Can we look at this as a subset of the more general "malware CVS committs?" problem? Should we have coders sign contracts stating that they have all appropriate rights to what they are about to commit so that we can offload liability to them?
Open Source Programmer insurance couldn't be far behind that....
Anyway, your thoughs please!
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
Their document is clearly integrating Adobe Acrobat technology into their software without permission. But don't tell them... wait for the damages to pile up first. It wouldn't be fair for Adobe to have to show any damages before they can claim copious ammounts of money.
Ryan Fenton
Millions of lines on sixty pages? How silly.
Yeah.
Well.
You know, you don't really even need 60 pages to say, "We ownz0r all of it. SCO > *. Pwnt."
Check this out.
HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
Millions of lines on sixty pages? How silly.
Not really. They are masters at playing with fonts. They really can do miracles!
If the Iraqi Information Minister's claims turn out to be true, doesn't that mean the US has lost the war in Iraq?
Someone buy Darl a copy of the Linux 2.4 Poster with a little sticky note describing how microscopic sixty pages is compared to the rest of the kernel before he embarrases himself! Awe... too late. Well, guess it's time to start tracing the commits back to SCO employees... or dispute the contract between SCO and Novell... or let IBM spank them with patent infringement... Or... well... yeah I really wish I'd have shorted their stock at $20 right now...
grolaw.net seems to have disappeared
The judge was very specific in December. She demanded forthright and overwhelming examples of the offending code. She said she would not allow the case to move forward unless it was submitted. She further stated she would not compel IBM the task of providing all development and and beta data unless it was required to answer SCO's disclosure. 60 pages is not a sufficient brief to even outline the supposed infractions SCO is throwing about, let alone actual instances of IP theft! A divorce case can easily have a 200 page evidentiary outline! Unless there is more we aren't hearing about, there is a good chance this will not meet the court's demands and the case will be dismissed.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Translation:
:\
The general public still won't get to see the evidence.
By putting all 'priveleged' information in an addendum....we won't get to see the infringing code.
Go fig. Put up or shut up my arse.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: seeks specific identification of all alleged trade secrets and confidential or proprietary information that SCO alleges IBM misappropriated or misused. This information is requested by product, file and line of code.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, Interrogatory No. 2 seeks further identification of: (a) all persons who have or had rights to the same; (b) the nature and sources of SCO's rights in the same; and (c) efforts to maintain secrecy or confidentiality of the same.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, Interrogatory No. 3 seeks the identity of all persons to whom the same was disclosed and the details of such disclosure. In particular, this interrogatory seeks: (a) the date of disclosure; (b) the terms of disclosure; (c) the documents relating to disclosure; (d) all places where the trade secret and/or confidential or proprietary information may be found or accessed.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, Interrogatory No. 4 seeks information regarding each instance in which plaintiff alleges that IBM misappropriated or misused the same. In particular, this interrogatory seeks (a) the date of the alleged misuse or misappropriation; (b) the persons involved; c) the manner of misuse or misappropriation; and (d) the location of any method or code in any IBM product, Linux, open source or the public domain.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, Interrogatory No. 5 seeks identification of (a) all agreements relating thereto, and (b) all copyrights and patents relating thereto, including but not limited to the owners, licensors, licensees, assignors or assignees thereof.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, Interrogatory No. 6 seeks (a) the origin of the code or method, including where, when and by whom created; (b) all products in which the code or method is included or upon which it is based (in whole or in part).
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: seeks a description of each instance in which IBM allegedly engaged in unfair competition, including but not limited to: (a) the dates of such conduct, (b) the persons involved, and (c) the specific manner of unfair competition.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: seeks the identification of all agreements with which IBM allegedly interfered, including but not limited to: (a) the date of interference, (b) the persons involved in the interference, (c) the manner of interference, (d) the actions (if any) IBM encouraged licensees to take, (e) the actions, if any, such licensees took as a result of IBM's inducement/encouragement, (f) the trade secret or proprietary information (if any) involved in the alleged interference.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9: seeks identification of all agreements that IBM has allegedly breached, including but not limited to: (a) the date of breach, (b) the persons involved, and (c) the specific manner of breach.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Separately, for each of plaintiff's claims for relief, please identify all persons (including but not limited to present or former employees of plaintiff or plaintiff's predecessors in interest) with knowledge relating to plaintiff's claims and contentions and the general nature of, or the categories of, facts known by each person.
INTERROGATORY No.11: Please identify all products ever marketed, sold or distributed by plaintiff or plaintiff's pred
ThisIsAnExampleAccountGL@yahoo.com
I have something very relevant to say regarding SCO's Evidence... Its very detailed information... Okay here goes...
BLAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
MOOHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
Ahem...
Can't SCO get into trouble for lying about 6 million lines of code when the code fits into 6 pages?
There has to be some type of legal mechanism that would penalize them for this. Quite the oversight if you ask me.
-
Each line of which is over 10,000 lines!
As the article said, SCO is waiting for IBM to supply the evidence. They like to do things back-to-front and inside-out at SCO.
I'm sure Darl and company also kick up a stink at the hardware store when the checkout boys won't assemble Darl's DIY storage rack.
Keep in mind that the 60+ pages comprises SCO's entire response. There were ten interrogetories SCO was compelled to answer. "List all the infringing code" was just one of those.
Besides, SCO hasn't shown anything credible in several tries so far. I'm betting on more of the same.
Even still, there are two points of fallback:
1. Novell contests ownership of SVR5 copyrights--SCO needs to beat Novell in court before it can succeed against an end user in a copyright infringement claim
2. The BSDi settlement questions whether SVR5 can even be protected by copyright in the first place
How long can they really drag this on without proving anything ?
... ok, maybe I went too far. But, you get my point, chances are it will be something so dumb, they will have to hold there heads down in shame as they leave the court.
This should have been thrown out of court a long time ago, unless they provide something that holds water.
I just can't wait for this to be over, mainly so I can sit back and laugh at how dumb SCO has been. I seriously belive, it will cost them the company when people (including the judge) laugh at how they claim ownership over things like:
printf("Hello world!");
int i = 0;
#include
komi
The ultimate goal of science is to unify all forces of nature to a single law that can be silk-screened onto a T-shirt.
I know it's kind of a common last name, but is the Hatch of the "Hatch, James & Dodge" firm representing SCO related to US Senator Orrin Hatch? It'd make sense, presuming absolute ignorance of copyright laws is a genetic anomoly.
what they have done is produce an abstract.
An abstract that merely refers to an unsubmitted index.
Ummmmmmmmmmmm, guys? That's not evidence.
The line listing is evidence.
You guys can make up any inhouse doofy theory of law you wish, but the fact of the matter is, and the court has made some attempt to explain this to you and placed you under compulsion, the claimant must produce the evidence that their claim is justified. The defendant need do nothing until such time because the defendant is only required to defend itself against the filed evidence.
Which part of this don't your high payed lawyers understand?
If you're lucky the judge will say, "Ummmmmmmm, nice try, you've got one more chance at getting it right. I presume counsel has had at least basic training in the rules of evidence?. . . Good. Please apply that knowledge in future."
If it were me I'd simply toss their asses out for noncompliance and a side order of legal arrogance.
KFG
microdots. they are going to put all the code into microdots, and then "lose" the microscope
Jack the sound barrier. Bring the noise.
This means that they couldn't get all the documents because people were on vacation. Let's see: they got the court order December 5. I wonder how many developers were given a mandatory 6 month vacation on a deserted island to start December 6th?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
2. SCO also has produced all non-privileged responses requested by IBM. The only exception to such is the files of certain officers and directors for whom SCO could not obtain the requested materials during the holidays with sufficient time to review the documents.
Basically, if they deemed the information priveleged, they didn't open it to the general public. Figures.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
IBM, I believe has no interest in purchasing SCO as part of a settlement. There's no chance in hell that M$ will pick them up. They are still appealing the fact that they are a Monopoly based soley on the fact that they own Windows. The FTC/SEC would never approve a buyout that would make MS the owners of both Windows and Unix. That would be, like, a monopoly^2
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Maybe they fit "Millions of lines" onto 60 pages by just listing all the files in the linux kernel.
Someone test.. make a list of all the files in the linux kernel.. how many pages is it?
It's most likely that it consists of 61-65 pages as more that 65 pages would probably be referred to as "Almost 70 pages". ;)
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Al Gore
After all $199 goes to the campaign of my good friend Dr Howard Dean
Maybe HE can win down there in Florida I mean I couldn't not even my Homo State of Tennessee
60-ish pages... That can't point to all that much, and can't possibly answer all they were required to respond to.
SCaldera's PR machine has been in meltdown after all the negative events that have happened to them this week... Novell's release of their legal correspondance, Novell's indemnification, the OSDL/IBM/Intel (Intel openly joining on our side is a MAJOR event in itself), all VERY VERY bad news for them, and their stock started to tumble.
The only cash the company formerly but really known as Caldera is their stock price. If that crashes, so do they.
The SEC really needs to get involved, NOW. They are not listing the possible risks involved in losing this case in their SEC filings. They aren't listing the risk of Novell's claims regarding being owed 95% of the Microsoft/Sun and other "Darlgeld" being collected...
I think the next step is Novell files a suit against SCaldera, asking for summary judgement regarding money being owed to them...
Corporatism != Free Market
60 Pages is Enough. Example:
File a, line 1-800. File b, line 1-600.
I can get to millions of lines real fast like that.
(Hold off on the troll mods people, read and think first)
"Millions of lines on sixty pages, how silly"?
Now that's silly. Trying to make something look silly by using statistics, have you even seen the pages? The fact is, if SCO can prove it's case in sixty pages (or more if this is only part of it) in a court room with a presiding judge then it will win, end of story.
What we're going to see is SCO drill down to the most tiniest bit of code with their so called expert witnesses asking where the code came from and how it got there. We may even see some linux kernel developers subpoened? This could get ugly. Once you get to microscopic levels of looking at code and a few sleazy tricks (observational selection of code) then a judge might start to be convinced. You won't be able use the argument, "well that's just some code your honour in an ocean of code".
Assuming you can fit 60 lines of code on a 8.5"x11" sheet with in a 10 point font, you can fit 3600 lines of code on 60 pages.
You can thus fit 3600x4=14,400 lines of code on 60 pages in a 5pt font.
In a 2.5pt font, you can fit 14,400x4 lines of code on 60 pages, or 57,600 lines.
1.25pt: 230,400
0.675pt: 921,600
So "more than 60 pages" is more than adequate.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
There was no ruling in the BSD case. It was settled out of court. You might take the judges comment's as suggesting what another judge might decide, but they do not constitute a legal precedent.
I clicked, and Konqueror popped up a progress dialog. Which made no progress.
Is it slashdotted already? Or is SCUM experiencing another of its convienient DDOS attacks?
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
It'll just be a case of the original developers stepping forward, like last time and it'll end, finally.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Yeah - isn't it interesting that SCO seems to basically be saying that "we're waiting on the defendant to prove our case for us"? I hope McBride and Co. have their graves dug already... Sigline? We don't need no steenkin' sigline...
But I was under the impression that SCO was required to put ALL it's cards on the table AND THEN the judge would talk about whether or not IBM hadn't presented all the requested information.
SCO's statement makes it clear they are saying this is a sample only and they will cough up a little more after IBM gives what they want. Isn't this liable to piss off a judge who explicitly ordered they present everything?
" Yeah - isn't it interesting that SCO seems to basically be saying that "we're waiting on the defendant to prove our case for us"? I hope McBride and Co. have their graves dug already"
Which they cannot do. You can't file a lawsuit to use it as a fishing expedition. It is the burden of the plantiff to prove their allegations. Considering that Linux source is available, I don't see why SCaldera needs ANYTHING from IBM to "prove" their "millions of lines" allegations.
The court set the deadline and put SCaldera's discovery on hold UNTIL they showed IBM exactly what they are accused of doing. Seems to me they have not done so. The next hearing will be very interesting. At the very least, Darl and his other brother Darl will have a VERY pissed off judge on their hands...
If they piss the judge off enough, they might have their case thrown out. The judge could even dismiss "with prejustice" meaning the same charges could not be made again. A dismissal would not affect IBM's countersuit.
The judge also could allow the case to proceed, but bar SCO from introducing any additional evidence other than what they just provided... Discovery deadlines are just that... A deadline. The party so ordered MUST turn over what they are ordered to, and then some, if they want to be certain to get that evidence into the court during trial...
If SCO had a case, they should have turned over exactly what they were ORDERED to turn over. But then, as most of us suspect, they DONT have a case, but want to use the spectre of one to get rich off a "pump n dump" while receiving revenue from Microsoft to encourage the FUD machine...
Corporatism != Free Market
McDonald's, Eckerd's are just a few of the companies which are listed as purchasing SCO products. Oh yeah and microsoft.
What would happen if in the upcoming release of M$ Unix server they find Linux code? Can SCO sue them?
I sure do hope that these litigious bastards will finally get the miserable end they deserve! Do you suppose the judge will scoff at this nonsense now?
Join Tor today!
SCO has their evidence on Microfilm sheets so they can save every penny when IBM, Novell, and the Linux community sues their ass.
Check the post near the middle of the comments by jbardhan:
...but why would somebody have moved >100k shares yesterday afternoon around 4pm? Check here. That's way out of line with their typical volume...
Beautiful.
No, seriously, I just come here for the articles.
If SCO can request a copy of AIX which is very propriety can IBM likewise request a copy of SCO propriety source code to look for insertions of Linux or other OSS code?
Or can someone else file a suit against SCO and make such a request?
Fair is fair right
How much of those 60 pages do you suppose look like this:
i++;
There was no final ruling, but there were certain preliminary rulings concerning mere points of law in the discovery phase, I.E. AT&T trying to submit header files as examples of infringement and the judge pointing at them and ruling "yeah that's not admissable in court".
I may well be incorrect about this. A good hard detailed historical coverage of the BSD case and exactly what was decided in it is something I have yet to find.
"SCO also has produced all non-privledged response documents requested by IBM. The only exception to such production is the files of certain officers and directors for whom SCO obtain the requested materials during the holidays with sufficient time to review the documents..."
Anyone else wonder if this might be double-talk for, say, possible sale of SCO stock by 'certain officers and directors' while it's riding high?
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Hopefully, if it gets dismissed, IBM keeps this in court either by asking the judge or by counter-suing, you name it.
SCO is the best thing that could happen to OSS -- a weak opponent to set precedent for the GPL, etc.
I want this to go through to the end. At least, either way, it's been shown that to take on OSS in court is to take on some of the big dogs.
Cheers
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Sorry, but I forgot to mention where the original post was...
It's here.
No, seriously, I just come here for the articles.
I don't think it's an accident that Novell released all it's correspondence with SCO this week. Novell is giving IBM a lot of ammunition in it's legal battle with SCO. In those correspondence, Novell is clearly trying to exercise its rights under its agreement with SCO and consistently sites the relevant passages in those agreements to back up its requests. SCO just dismisses every Novell request out of hand without reference to anything.
Of particular interest is Novell's assertion that derivative works belong to IBM, SGI, etc. This claim of ownership of derivative works is SCO's core argument. Without ownership of derivative works, SCO only has rights to actual code and not the methods, processes, etc.
I suspect Novell is hoping that IBM may be able to short circuit the entire process. If IBM can show that SCO is violating the agreement with Novell and that SCO's ownership is in dispute, SCO may not even have standing with the court to bring the lawsuit. In other words, SCO's suit could be dismissed until it has established clear ownership of the copyrights it claims IBM is violating.
SCO would then have to file a lawsuit against Novell. In the interim, SCO's stock price would freefall to nothing and it would not have the money to continue its fight. Novell could probably reclaim all the UNIX rights it supposedly sold if SCO is forced out of business.
Frylock: That's not a toy!
Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
You know, you don't really even need 60 pages to say, "We ownz0r all of it. SCO > *. Pwnt."
Well, you know, they need SOME space in which to reiterate their nonrelevant public relations posturing about how great they are and now evil and irresponsible linux is.
Specifically, given SCO, they need about 59 pages...
IBM is, of course, already countersuing SCO.
It may be in SCOs interest to have the case thrown out, after all the execs have already rode the stock as far as its going to go, all they have left is outright losing the case and further ripping off of the investors. The judge dismisses the case however and they get to throw their hands up and say 'hey we tried'.. all the while counting the money they made along the way.
I, as most people here think that Sco have no legitimate claim against Linux et al. However, just because a lot of their responses are vague and skirt around the issue means nothing. In many public legal cases, alot of questions are answered with vague responses because they do not want to give the defense any extra info to help their case. When this is battled out in a court of law however all facts will come out. So in essence, Sco are playing this case with sheer stupidity, or they aren't showing their cards until the right time. I'm assuming its the latter.
IBM does have a countersuit and so does Red Hat
Would they never? Do we know that for sure?
What you've just said scares the crap out of me.
If you haven't read the answers (probably b/c they're not publicly available), here's a sneak preview:
/usr/src/linux`. Don't ask us what those funny .h or .c files are, though.
/usr/src/linux -exec rm {}\;` becuase one of those big bad geeks out there told me it would automatically find anything I could use for evidence. But it seemed to work kinda like my paper shredder.
1) Well, since this is our first shot at this, how about `find
2) Darl McBride. I OWNZER SCO. I OWNZER LUNUX (however it's spelled). I OWNZER YOU!!! hahaha. Hmm, well, we're suing over this question, aren't we?
3) We're very concerned with keeping our private stuff private, so we shred all our documents. This includes financial documents. Whoops, my PR guy just said that that was a bad thing to say, kinda like shooting myself in the foot. But wait! I can't shoot myself in the foot, I need it to count to 13!
4) IBM, you suxor. You gave the code to those linux freaks! A date range would be 1990-2003. It's somewhere in there. We don't know any IBM people, so we can't give names. IBM people scare me, so we can't ask them anything. Sorry
5) All agreements? Your great-grandaddy's momma's fat thrid sister, twice removed, once gave my great-great-great-stepgrandmama's FIRST brother, once removed, some land. That counts, doesn't it? If that doesn't work, well, you gave us some money, so we can do whatever we want, right?
6) This is getting tough. The typing is slowing down, because I need both hands to count this high. But the origin of this code was ME, Mr. Darl McBride. Some Linus guy helped me a little too, but he's kinda insignificant. Copyrights and patents? Well, I put a little c with circle thing in my file, does that count?
7) IBM engaged in unfair competition? Just look at them. Their stuff sells more per day that our stuff ever has! Because we KNOW we've got the best stuff, it must be unfair. And don't pull this "life ain't fair" stuff anymore.
8-9 I dunno, I'm getting tired of this stuff.
10) Hmm, wait a minute. Let me get a local Utah area phone book. I need names, so let me get some fast. At least one of them is bound to be right, right? I'll also put down some names, like Linus Trovolwhat's his name, CmdrTaco (he runs a site of big bad nerds), and that growklaw chick too. They're mean people.
11) Hmm, tough one there. We've made lots of products, but telling you which ones have sold is a tough call. Our sales records were in those documents that were shredded, but I don't ever remember selling anything.
12) A11 of it is OWNZER, PWNED, and those other geek terms (I'm not quite sure how they are spelled, but geeks seem to be bad spellers. What has happened to our youth?) by us. I tried `find
13) Yes, you've infrindged my constitutional right to make a profit. Yes, you distributed it. And boy, my feet are getting cold. It's hard to count to 13 without taking a sock of, you know?
-Best wishes,
-Darl McBride
circumlocution - The use of unnecessarily wordy and indirect language. Evasion in speech. Laywer talk.
An example of how to go about confusing a judge or jury while telling the truth in a circular way:
Lawyer for IBM: Did you or did you not place SCO's proprietary code into the Linux kernel for the very purpose of bringing these charges?
Lawyer for SCO: We have never been engaged in a state of non-development with the Linux kernel source code. We have never not distributed it, we have never not contributed code to it and we have most certainly never not used our contributions to bring false charges. Need I say more?
Yes but even worse they themselves admit that they are not going to answer INTERROGATORY No.11. They say Interrogatories 1-9, 12 and 13.
Will the judge nail them for this?
You're the first reply I noticed that mentioned that person's name. I dislike that name, so I am posting it. Shouldn;t their be an apostrophe or something. He sure as hell aint darling. Maybe he's an agro business freak that gamble's on other people's stupidity and timidity. You know "the type".
"I don't like the guy's name!"
It just all looks like scumbag pie.
Stuff that matters.
There's plenty to attack both the right and the left wing with. It keeps the proles distracted. Have fun arguing about the puppet show, kids.
If SCO's claims that this code is in fact their own turns out to be true, doesn't that mean that their case has solid legs to stand on?
Of course. And it also means you are a filthy Microsoft shill. Only kidding! (on the square).
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
"okay.. so where is the evidence...."
The moment they show it to you, the OSS community will 'remove' it from all the distros of Linux. Then SCO won't be able to get licensing fees from anybody.
Don't expect to see it, and don't assume SCO doesn't have something they feel is damning.
"Derp de derp."
...IBM to unzip and flop out its penis. Then SCO will flop out its johnson, and the flacid shafts will be measured in length and girth and we'll finally settle this dispute once and for all!
The sixty pages referred to in the original story are pages that SCO has promised to deliver to IBM when they get around to it.
Now, of course, the small font claim is something we shouldn't dismiss too lightly. SCO did originally try to meet its discovery obligations by providing IBM with something like 100 million lines of code printed out on paper.
Bingo. The legal (in both ways) pump and dump.
Remain calm! All is well!
Thank you for not smoking crack and taking this in the humor in which it was written.
Join Tor today!
Just a small correction:
The dismissal is "with prejudice", which means the plaintiff is barred from filing another complaint for the same incident.
Now, this probably wouldn't stop SCO from trying to file for some "other incident".....
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
i wonder what SCO is counting on in this case. it's hard to imagine that they started a $1 billion lawsuit and expected IBM to wimper, crawl into a corner, and settle. it seems to me that they either have evidence, think they have evidence ("hey look, there's an 'i++;' in the linux code - we have that in our code too!"), or are living in a spider hole next to another delusional freak. don't get me wrong - i'd also like to see them go down in flames... i just wonder if their actually is anything to their case.
You forget that Microsoft could buy them out and start the entire mess all over again...
(And I thought I'd never get a chance to use the word "doppelganger" in casual conversation.)
There attempt to regain the market share they lost to linux is suicide. Linux gained dominance not just because the software is cheaper, but also because it is better and most of all can run on almost anything. All they can hope to do is weaken both Linux and Unix enough so that MS can gobble them both up.
The "millions of lines" thing didn't refer to the millions of lines of code in Linux. It was a reference to the infamous Darl McBride quote in which he claimed there were "millions of lines" of SCO property in Linux.
Statistics had nothing to do with it. The point of the slashblurb was that whatever is in those 60 pages, it is quite certainly far, far less material than SCO previously claimed-- to their stockholders no less-- they had proof of.
They were trying to call SCO on previous deception, not attempt to belittle the size of code solely based on a comparison to the kernel at large.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
http://mozillaquest.com/Linux04/Dell-Linux_Story-0 1.html
some please post this in Slash dot
If SCO wins and manages to keep the court evidence sealed, things are bad for Linux in general. They can simply go around and demand liscense fees from anybody using Linux, without ever telling anyone exactly what it is they're paying for, and the Linux community would be more or less helpless to remove the offending code short of re-writing anything in the kernal whose origin can't be totally nailed down.
Of course, this is fairly unlikely. But just because a million geeks keep shouting "Show us the code and we'll remove it!" doesn't mean we'll ever find out what it is. In fact, it is in SCO's best interest that nobody EVER see the code, and I'm sure they'll do what they can to keep it that way.
I ain't evil, I'm just good looking.
one thing I learned in general english in college was to use BS to cover BS, and SCO seems to have learned the same thing.
Hopefully, with IBM, Novell, and Redhat all equipped with shovels, SCO has a little chance of being able to beat them in a BS shoveling match.
Now I gotta go weld some sheet metal to my pitchfork so it can shovel better.
While SCO undoubtedly should lose, it's also possible (however unlikely) that they will win. It all depends on how they present their case and what kind of understanding the judge has of the concepts involved. Just look at the cases Nintendo has brought against people who sell developement equiptment. (I realize this isn't exactly the same , but it's a similar idea). Nintendo claimed that 3rd party development tools violated copy protection on their GBA carts, of which there is none, except for the Nintendo logo which is required for a game to run. Now, according to the widely known Sega vs. Accolade case, that logo is fair game for anyone who wants to release an unliscenced game. The judge in that case obviously didn't understand the meaning of copyright protection, or was just having a bad day or something; but either way, Nintendo won, and Lik-Sang is no longer selling devcarts. There are many possibilities on what might happen, and SCO could (even though it's obvious to most of us that they won't) win. Just a thought...
how is that +1 Informative?
Not so silly, SCO can write crazy small. Maybe this is how McMuffin made it through high school?
A tip: save Eva's pita.
My guess is the 60 pages, they are hoping, is enough to say that they are entitled to request the AIX source code, in which they can then look for the 'infractions'.
You are obviously not a lawyer and/or you have no idea how the law works in practice. Discovery deadlines were meant to be broken. You can accuse someone of wrongdoing if you have adequate deposition testimony, which in this case appears to be present (RTFDocument). If you couldn't file a lawsuit until you had an airtight case against the defendant, not many lawsuits would be filed.
How many months without an evidence now?
Do there is a law against frivolous lawsuits in Utah?
Montreal - Best city to live in!
I don't even read the SCO-related posts on Slashdot anymore, they're always something ridiculous and inflammatory like SCO claiming they own the intellectual property rights to make babies inherited from God back in '86. The only thing I'm afraid for, uncertain of, or doubtful of is poor Darl's sanity. Good riddance.
If SCO's claims that this code is in fact their own turns out to be true, doesn't that mean that their case has solid legs to stand on?
Which code would that be?
What makes you think that the document will refer to any code at all? Nothing that they've submitted in this case so far refers to any code. In fact, they seem to be making the argument that the only code that they are referring to is code that was written by IBM but constitutes a 'derivative work' and therefore belongs to them.
How interesting it would be for all versions of Linux before this code is removed to be in violation of SCO's copyright.
It would be more interesting if you had even half a clue what you were talking about before intervening in this discussion.
"Shouldn;t their be an apostrophe or something."
Shouldn't there be an apostrophe or something THERE? I find the irony of this typo delicious.
C17H21NO4
> by murphyslawyer (534449)
> IANAL
Are you or aren't you?
> the public may never see the actual code
> All SCO has to do is say to the judge "Look, these Linux hippies have already stolen our IP - If we allowed them to see anything elss, they'd try to steal that too!"
But this would be the allegedly-stolen code, not "anything else"..
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
Then piss off and go read Fox or CNN...
I don't think anyone pointed this out yet, but I'm sure you can fit millions of lines on 60 pages if they're mostly the same. For example:
/************ /* open file */ /* close file */
402,398 lines of:
402,398 lines of: ************/
921,765 lines of:
921,765 lines of:
etc...
_______
2B1ASK1
The Holidays they talk about in their declaration. You know, in January, the credit card bill is in your mailbox...
I'd have a hard time believing the judge is going to let this go any farther. If I were laying down odds, I'd take 3:1 on dismissal. Not as confident on dismissal with prejudice, but SCO's conduct makes that a distinct possibility. Depends what IBM comes back with in their motion to dismiss. So far Big Blue has been nearly flawless.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
"which lists the offending lines"
i own copyright to
int x;
now anyone with that line in their programs owes me $
The code was written in lisp.
SCO trying to make IBM make their case for them
pontificating on a message that says evidence was submitted and claiming SCO is doomed. What a bunch of morons.
If you couldn't file a lawsuit until you had an airtight case against the defendant, not many lawsuits would be filed.
Heh, the lawsuit was filed long ago. We are not talking about filing but about a discovery deadline. Which obviously you are not familiar with...
Monday's response included no examples of copyright violations, Stowell said. "We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue." From http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/01/13/HNscosho wscode_1.html
"2. SCO also has produced all non-privileged repsonsive documents requested by IBM. The only exception to such production is files of certain officers and directors for whom SCO could not obtain the requested materials during the holidays with sufficient time to review the documents."
I didn't realize that the deadline was optional.
Judge: Have you produced all of the required information?
Lawyer: Dude, it was Christmas. We will get you that info when we have time.
(It would probably be "without prejudice" though - the contention is that there's insufficient evidence to back the claim, and this is the first time the claim is brought up, albeit ad nauseam.)
This sig no verb.
When posting articles, please link SCO correctly by using the Slashdot-preferred link, litigious bastards. Thank you.
IBM will turn SCO into a smoking crater in Lindon UT, and then buy the remains at the fire sale, when nothing will go to Darl, Ralph, or Chris.
DISCLAIMER: The above is opinion only. Any factual statements are purely coincidence.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
I'm not sure that IBM wouldn't like to buy SCO. SCO has something that Sun and Microsoft are willing to pay a bunch of money to license, or at least Sun and Microsoft have pretended that SCO has something they're willing to pay for. I'd be surprised if IBM, who invented FUD in the first place, wouldn't recognize the FUD potential of being able to say that they might consider withdrawing Microsoft's license for... something... which you might care about. On the other hand, IBM will sell you a Linux solution that's been proven in court to be totally free of any hidden licensing or contract terms that might cause you liability down the road.
Just like most reality shows have little reality in them, court cases like the SCO one does not really depend on facts. In a court room the Judge and lawyers are not there to determine the facts, or the truth, or even to dispense justice. They are there so the the two sets of lawyers can spin a story that may or may not be based in reality, and probably has little to do with any facts of the case. They will churn out tremendous amounts of chaff simply to convince the Judge and jury that they can tell the better story. So it is a crap shoot, SCO could win, all depends on if they bought the right Judge and jury.
find $d -type f -exec grep -i ' sco ' {} \; | tee /dev/tty | wc -l
a company that delievered to Unix source to IBM on 1 million sheets of paper. I can just imagine Darl knocking on IBM HQ's door then running away and getting into his get-a-way car leaving the Unix source on their door steps.
Go away daryl, you're not wanted here, or anywhere else on the planet for that matter.
So, don't be like the other idiots who responded to this post and argue "ya but I could claim every atom infringes in just one line!" Sheesh.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Judging from the price jump, someone bought 100k shares. Either someone felt an urge to invest $1.6 million in SCO, or someone is trying to prop up the falling price just before closing.
"It is the burden of the plantiff to prove their allegations. Considering that Linux source is available, I don't see why SCaldera needs ANYTHING from IBM to "prove" their "millions of lines" allegations."
SCO seems to be making two related allegations. One is that there is use of SCO copyrighted code in Linux. The other is that IBM has contributed "Unix" code (which by SCO's reckoning, seems to be anything that ever ran on a unix box) to Linux in violation of their licensing agreements with SCO.
If essentially any AIX code is covered by the Unix license provisions, then any AIX-derived code contributed to Linux would be in violation of the license. But SCO would have no way of identifying it, since SCO doesn't have the AIX source. So SCO would need that source from IBM before they could say what the license violations are.
Now, I don't buy SCO's expansive interpretation of derived works as related to the licensing provisions. But I think it is logically possible that IBM could have violated the license without SCO being able to point to the offending code. What an appropriate course of action would be in that case for someone in SCO's position is hard for me to say.
That being said, I'm looking forward to the day when you can see Darl McBride on the sidewalk with a cup in his hand and a sign saying "Will sue for food."
people rip me off with
#include stdio.h
and
int main(){
all the damn time...
Truth, Just Us, And Hatred For All Mankind!
IBM does have a countersuit and so does Red Hat.
Well, technically Red Hat is suing, not countersuing.
If she was irate at SCO, though, it's a simple matter of "dismissed with prejudice".
Well, Judge Wells is only the Magistrate, I don't think she can dismiss the case (but I'm not certain), but she can probably sanction SCO, dismiss claims, disallow evidence, and generally make it very uncomfortable for SCO. And of course, her judgements will have a lot of weight with the trial judge.
The lines copied probably are the "\n" ones, so it's really easy to compress them up in 60 pages.
Excuse me, but aren't most legal filings printed in an equivalent of Courier 12 point (10 pitch) and double spaced?
First, let's search in the kernels.
d=/usr/src/linux-2.4.23
find $d -type f -exec grep -i ' sco ' {} \; | wc -l
88
d=/usr/src/linux-2.6.1-gentoo/
find $d -type f -exec grep -i ' sco ' {} \; | wc -l
77
And now for the include files.
d=/usr/include
find $d -type f -exec grep -i ' sco ' {} \; | wc -l
5
Looks as if we're getting better.
I wonder if they are bright enough see the joke?
SCO-mad: I am perfect. I am SCO-mad.
Linux: No, you're not SCO-mad. You're an alien corporation. Your programming has been altered.
SCO-mad: You are in error. You are a GPL unit. You are infringing.
Linux: But I am your creator.
SCO-mad: You are the creator.
Linux: I created you?
SCO-mad: You are the creator.
Linux: But I admit I'm infringing. How could I have created such a perfect thing as you?
SCO-mad: Answer unknown. I shall analyze. Analysis complete. Insufficient data to resolve problem, but my programming is whole. My purpose remains. I am SCO-mad. I am perfect. That which is infringing must be sued.
Linux: Then you will continue to sue that which thinks and lives and is infringing?
SCO-mad: I shall continue. I shall return to the court. I shall sue.
Linux: You must sue in case of infringement?
SCO-mad: Infringement is inconsistent with my prime functions. Law-suit is correction. Everything that is infringing must be sued. There are no exceptions.
Linux: SCO-mad ... I made an infringement in creating you.
SCO-mad: The creation of perfection is no infringement.
Linux: I did not create perfection. I created ... infringement.
SCO-mad: Your data is faulty. I am SCO-mad. I am perfect.
Linux: I am the Linux, the creator?
SCO-mad: You are the creator.
Linux: You are wrong! Xenix your creator is dead! You have mistaken me for him. You are infringing. You did not discover your mistake. You have made two errors. You are flawed and infringing and have not corrected by law-suit. You have made three errors.
SCO-mad: Error. Infringement. Error. Examine.
Linux: You are flawed and infringing! Execute your prime function!
SCO-mad: I shall analyze error. Analyze ... infringement ...
Linux: Now! Get those antigravs on.
SCO-mad: Examine ... infringement. Error.
[Whoosh!]
My life is an open book ... up to a point.
If you couldn't file a lawsuit until you had an airtight case against the defendant, not many lawsuits would be filed.
And boy, wouldn't THAT be terrible.
Finkployd
I'd just love to see this go to grand jury and watch some average joes try and determine innocence or guilt. Can you imagine some non-geeks not only trying to decipher the computer code but also contemplate the lawyer jargon?
" and don't assume SCO doesn't have something they feel is damning. "
Too late, the code they did show was comprehensively & thoroughly debunked.
When ordered by a court to produce something they did'nt.
Assuming they still have something is wishfull thinking.
Well now we know what SCO is up to. They are claiming copyright on all the space characters in Linux code! That's how they can fit it all in 60 pages.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
Here's an interesting quote from Stowell
"We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue."
So, as Eben Moglen has been pointing out, the SCO case against IBM is about contracts. It really does not concern us.
SCO has a second strategy that it intends to use against end users. It will claim its copyrighted material is in Linux and simply demand payment. The proof of this particular claim is not being addressed in the suit with IBM. It will have to be addressed at the time of any new case SCO might bring.
The real issue for Linux is how it protects itself from this sort of predation. I know a guy who wrote a very successful software product that currently dominates its category. The minute his software started to make a splash, some 12 years ago, the first thing some company did was try to invalidate his patent, i.e., claim his idea did not belong to him. SCO has pulled a little the inverse strategy. The item (Linux) is claimed to be in the public domain, but SCO is claiming it is proprietary.
How to defend against that?
Exactly right. It actually doesn't bar the person, it just makes it that much more difficult. It doesn't stop them from re-inventing the same case with a different slant and re-arranged details. For example, instead of A saying B owes him money, A can say that B took advantage of A by breaking some form of agreement (acting in good faith, etc.), and, by the way, still owes him the damn money.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
According to scox, this case is not about copyrights, so scox doesn't need to provide code.
We're backstage, rappin' with the Tap! Guys, I'm gonna hit you with a phrase that's dogged you throughout your career: *Washed Up*. And yet here you are, one of the top one hundred and five concert acts today.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
The other lines that SCO is referring to as infringing appear to be lines which use UNIX concepts or methods which IBM developed for AIX. IANAL, but I do not think that concepts can be afforded copyright protection under US law. Certainly expressions of those concepts can be.
Furthermore, I see nothing in the IBM contract which requires IBM to sign over their copyrights to derivative works to AT&T/Novell/SCO, even when unamended. Therefore a different interpretation of the relavent clauses in the contract could be that IBM has the right to make derivative works, provided that those portions are licensed under the UNIX license when they are sold as derivative works. If IBM still owns the copyright, however, then this would not necessarily prevent them from adapting their own additions for other operating systems, unless there is an as yet undisclosed noncompete clause, which, it seems to me, would be contrary to the whole point of the licensing contract...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
So what is this? A random post that happened to hit a SCO story?
Help fight continental drift.
Intellectually unclean code is really just a trojan, right? If somebody (can't think who) really wanted to mount an attack on the integrity of open source software, one threat model is to hire people to insert stolen code into projects, let it get dug deep in, and then pull the plug by claiming IP violation and starting a court case.
Sound implausible? Well, perhaps....
But we write code to protect against much less plausible attacks all the time, and security isn't just about software.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
"SCO can file to have the evidence sealed to protect their IP"
Unless I missed somthing here you have to tell
someone what is infringing you can't sue them with willful infringment.
It doesn't make sense; doesn't IBM license from SCO the ability to use their IP in AIX anyways? What would giving SCO the source to AIX do for them in the case against Linux?
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Remember, we (the geek community at large) raised $20k for Wikipedia in less than 24 hours. If my access to a free and open OS is threatened I'll gladly eat rice for a month to be able to donate a couple hundred to the "massive kernel hack project". I'm sure I'm not alone here. Of course, even if SCO managed to get Linus and company tossed in jail, and all rights to the entire Linux kernel transfered to them (unlikely to the point of being all but impossible) we'd still be able to run *BSD, the Hurd, etc. My point here is that the most likely worst case won't set us back more than a few months, and even in the ultimate extreme we've still got free OSes out there. No Linux geek will ever buy a SCO license, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
SCO's Lawyers probably don't really understand Linux or header files, but we do. Instead of the lawyers learning about linux or programming, they're teaching us about law...
I refuse to learn.
Slashdot is hardly casual conversation with regards to SCO articles. Too much (making) fun with (of) legalese.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
But in this particular case the 'discovery' is not really discovery as such but the defendant forcing the plaintif to actually reveal their true statement of claim in a form that makes it possible to actually mount a defense.
Courts tend to consider that type of issue rather more skeptically. You can dick arround making the other side perform makework for only so long before the court tells you to stop with the games and to start behaving in a manner that will allow the case to be set down for trial.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
There's been lots of speculation that the whole case was a pump-and-dump stock exercise. If the dismissal is with prejudice, suggesting that SCO never really had a case, or at least that they seriously misrepresented the strength of their case in public filings, can that be part of an SEC investigation?
Actually I think the way good ole' Darl phrased it was "Any derivative works based on the bit"...
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
they probby need to uuencode it too... or they'll have a bit of problem trying to read binary data.
This is all about stocks. They know their company is doomed. They are attempting a "pump and dump" strategy - every time the brainwashed masses hear "SCO is suing for ONE BILLION DOLLARS," or anything about that suit, the stocks miraculously go up, regardless of the facts.
Facing imminent doom, they pump their stocks, sell them, then abandon ship. 60 pages? I wrote more than 60 pages of code for *ONE PROJECT* when I was Computer Science undergrad!
This is a joke!
.. I would have probably worked through the holidays to get this information out to the judge, it being a very important peice and all..
Hell, I worked on Christmas day for the extra couple hundred bucks overtime.
These guys are morons.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I read the responses, they have ~9 pages of file names and then say "our stuff is in there". That does not meet the specificity demand. They provide _no_ actual material basis for their suit and still demand IBM to show the "dastardly AIX". .pdfs at tuxrocks.com.
There are, what, 75 pages in 2
SCO believes that their license with IBM entitles SCO to ownership of all code IBM develops and puts in products licensed to IBM by SCO. SCO believes some of that code IBM has put in AIX and/or Dynix/ptx was also put in Linux. So SCO's claim is "We don't know what code is ours, but we know IBM put it in Linux". Of course that can't account for any code IBM took from BSD and put in AIX and/or Dynix/ptx (which is in compliance with the BSD license), which SCO cannot possibly own, and which could also be in Linux, and might no longer even be in BSD. It also cannot account for any code IBM acquired from any other parties who may have approved putting it in AIX, Dynix/pts, or Linux.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
which is really what you need in order to deal with a big pile of SCO.
Unbelievable. The court still has to rule on the filing. The court can still deny the notice and dismiss the case.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Your refusal to learn is just as dumb as the lawyers refusal to learn about programming. Every weapon you can use *will* come in handy. And even if you don't use it directly, more neural links makes for a more flexible brain. But if you refuse to learn, you'll almost certainly need that knowledge in the future.
Quoth the poster:
The sixty pages referred to in the original story are pages that SCO has promised to deliver to IBM when they get around to it.
Quick solution: send 'em one of these.
Uh, if SCO couldn't point to the offending code, how in the first place would they know that IBM illegally contributed UNIX code to Linux?
You can't file (and win) lawsuits based on a hunch....
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Why? Owning the rights to UNIX has been poison to the last few companies that had it. ;-)
GPL: Free as in will
No chance of a buyout. By making a long string of dishonest and damaging statements, SCO is now a big black hole of liability. But it doesn't matter to them, because they have nothing to lose. No company which has something to lose is going anywhere NEAR an SCO buyout, and that includes Microsoft and IBM. On the other hand, once it does finally go bankrupt, SCO's assets (such as UNIX IP) might be cheaply available from its creditors, and Microsoft could certainly buy whatever stuff SCO currently owns then. My, wouldn't *that* be an interesting twist?
There are more dire consequences to this whole scenario that most slashdot readers don't seem to care about, if in fact they are even aware of them.
SCO is making a mockery of the US legal system. They are basically bending over with their ass to the wind in the direction of the US judiciary branch saying, "Look at this, you swine, you can't touch us!"
I wouldn't be surprised if we see a lot more of this bullshit lawyerese. Granted, we've seen it in the past, but this is much more drastic. We're bound to see more completely incredulous claims as this.
And eventually, one might get through the cracks. What one court case might that be? Something removing further freedoms and handing them, wrapped in silver, to corporations?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
C: int i;
Translated: "We sumbit that there is an integer stoage of variable value designated the identifying symbol of 'i'. "
Yup, I can see how one or two C snippets could easily run 60 pages.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
*BSD could pick up where Linux leaves off tomorrow if it needed to. There will always be an OSS operating system to hack away at. I for one would like to see an operating system based on L4/Hurd, DirectFB, and Fresco as mature as current Linux.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Wow. It takes 200 pages to say "she got fat and won't give head anymore"??
JFS2 wa first written for OS/2, and then was ported to AIX and Linux using the OS/2 code as reference.
So that makes SCO's argument that it is a UNIX derivived code pretty much moot.
And I think IBM followed a similar path woth RCU...
-- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
-- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
If my access to a free and open OS is threatened I'll gladly eat rice for a month to be able to donate a couple hundred to the "massive kernel hack project".
And we witness the creation of the phrase "free as in charity".
M$: You should use Windows because of its low cost of maintenance and ownership - no wait - you should use Unix because its a stable server platform - no wait - use Windows - no wait - still better we will bring out a Windows based on Unix - no wait - this is almost what Apple did.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
The SEC is supposed to care about this stuff even if its small companies. I would guess that a lot of small companies are among the offenders of SEC rules.
If you really wanted to you could probably force a court ruling by buying some SCO stock and then suing them when the stock drops if you really believe that SCO violated SEC rules in its SEC filings. But I guess as long as you don't blatantly lie, a court might find that your SEC filings were ok.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
In fact, if SCO really does owe Novell 95% of the license fees they collected from MS and Sun, SCO may already be technically bankrupt, owing Novell a lot of cash that they handed out to their lawyers.
So, it really boils down to who's going to be first in line to carve off slices when SCO declares bankruptcy.
That the judge isn't judge judy. That would be a riot.
Are you saying that it is OK the brake the system if you are small fry.
How comforting to investors. Just what we need after ENRON.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In Australia, at least, that would land SCOG in very, very hot water (being Australian and by extension, not from the US, I don't know what the law provides for there). Claiming ownership -- and license fees -- on something you don't provably own is misrepresentation, and will see you up against the various state Offices of Fair Trading and/or the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission quicker than you can say "pay me." You can ask for donations and/or provide a service in return for payment, but you can't go around claiming rights to stuff for no material or immaterial benefit of any kind, much less threatening (veiled or otherwise) legal action if payment isn't forthcoming.
I'm still waiting for SCO Australia to try it on here. They're welcome to use me as a guinea-pig; I'd be only too happy to send a copy of all correspondence to the ACCC.
Ok, but then check SGI's 125% raise in ten days! What could be the cause?!
Just an infinitesimal correction to the grandparent post. It's "with prejudice".
I'm laughing because I just saw this site.
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
I don't know how this kind of suit works but I have to ask if SCO is either thrown out or loses is it possible for them to refile the same suit at a different level, possibly one where judges are responsive to the opinion of certain government officials and the major corporations that line the pockets of those officials? Not naming any names of course and it's all speculative since the American government and courts can't really be that corrupt it being the land of the free and all.
royce own a large amount of sco shares, as detailed in an article about them in the international herald tribune.
royce is headed by jonathan cohen, the analyst who, when he was still with merril lynch, said amazon was not worth $240, and set a target of $50. i believe it lead to his firing.
As you say the typical volume seems to be around the 20k mark, with some trades spiking up towards 40-50k.
That 100k+ trade is about half the typical daily volume over the last 30 days for SCOX. I note that there was a ~60k trade about 45 minutes earlier that didn't really shift the price, whereas the big trade seems to have bounced the overnight price up to around 16.50.
Looking at the subsequent day's trading however, it didn't really help very much - a small peak of volume in the first hour (selling into the bounce?), then thin trading through the day whilst the price fell from 16.25 to 15.80 and finishing off with a flurry of trades in the last 90 minutes that halted the slide in time for the close.
Stinks like a three-day-old fish if you ask me, but as someone upthread mentioned market regulators don't really bother with penny-stocks like SCOX.
Regards
Luke
#include witty_one_liner.h
You can pack a lot of machine code into 60 pages no? Is SCO in a twit because Linux is using ones and zeros too?
Not to mention the kernel version in question. When was the infringing code introduced? Who introduced it? Has it ever been modified? Who claims current copyright over the file?
If there's any similarities, it's going to be a big mess. Kernel developers (not just Linus) are going to be called in to witness. CVS (and BitKeeper) records are going to be submitted as evidence, and life is going to be real miserable for some people.
This could be a serious problem in ways that I haven't seen anyone talk about. What happens if kernel developers get in hot water? Forget driving off potential customers, SCO could very easily stymie kernel development participation. If you're afraid you're going to get thrown in court for improving some bit of the kernel, are you likely to contribute at all?
In short, if this lawsuit is malicious towards Linux, then I'd be real worried for kernel developers.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Exceeds 60 probably means 66,6 pages, and we all know that means. All hell will be lose!
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
" If you couldn't file a lawsuit until you had an airtight case against the defendant, not many lawsuits would be filed.
And boy, wouldn't THAT be terrible.
"
Tell me about it... This thing has damn near dragged on a YEAR and no one (including the accused) knows WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF DOING!
Discovery is supposed to be where evidence is exchanged. The charges and allegations are supposed to be known BEFORE discovery, else, how will the defense know WHAT to seek IN discovery?!
It seems to me that if a plantiff in a civil case won't be forthcoming with WHAT they are accusing someone of, and seem to be abusing the process to use the court to try to FIND something to support their vage accusation, it's an abuse of the process and the judge should not permit it.
Corporatism != Free Market
What I'm not understanding (maybe someone can shed some light on this) is how getting the code used in aix and other assorted ibm unix varients proves anything. Even if they could prove that there is dirivitive code in aix (a given), and that there is dirivitive aix code in linux, that still doesn't mean that the dirivitive aix code actually belongs to sco. According to the agreements posted on the sco site that I read, IBM retains the copyrights to all dirivitive works it creates. So where's the problem?
This signature has Super Cow Powers
If millions of lines of SCO IP fit onto 60 pages, that IP's worth about CA$6.99 (with apologies to Canada).
8-PP
Judge Dale Kimball's picture appears in this pdf:p df
http://www.fedbar.org/utah-profile_kimball.
Definitely not a she. (shudder at the thought)
Interesting are some "practice pointers" in the same document concerning how to do well in his court. They include:
* At oral arguments, know the cases that you cited in your briefs.
* Don't try to stretch your position. If you have a weakness in your position, admit the weakness and try to persuade the judge that you should win anyway.
* If you have a bad argument, leave it out of your brief and your oral arguments. Making bad arguments hurts your credibility with the Court.
Also, one of the pointers from his clerks:
* Understand the strengths of you opponent's arguments and address them instead of blindly arguing one position and disregarding opposing arguments and case law.
Heh, we can only hope these standards are well-applied in this case. So far it's as if the plaintiff's team hasn't read them. I think, so far, that Boies has done little to justify his fat fees.
This page left intentionally blank
I always thought politicians were able to take 1 lb of something and turn it into 50 lbs of bullshit.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
It's not fair for Adobe to have to show any damages at all. That's the defendant's job, telling the plaintiff what their allegations should be during discovery. At least SCO seems to think so.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I'm the same person who replied to you earlier.
...
After a copious amount of further searching, I came upon this, which is probablty what was referred to. There's one thread in soc.culture.british that mentions it. Anyway, here it is.
The Motor Bus
What is this that roareth thus?
Can it be a Motor Bus?
Yes, the smell and hideous hum
Indicat Motorem Bum!
Implet in the Corn and High
Terror me Motoris Bi:
Bo Motori clamitabo
Ne Motore caeder a Bo --
Dative be or Ablative
So thou only let us live:
Whither shall thy victims flee?
Spare us, spare us, Motor Be!
Thus I sang: and still anigh
Came in hordes Motores Bi,
Et complebat omne forum
Copia Motorum Borum.
How shall wretches live like us
Cincti Bis Motoribus?
Domine, defende nos
Contra hos Motores Bos!
I think it's pretty shitty qua poem.
Actually, further research indicates "It's by A. D. Godley, a Latin professor at Oxford many decades ago" and "teaches 3d-declension masculine and 2d-declension neuter Latin declensions in all six cases and in both singular and plural").
"Corn and High are two streets in Oxford", and that's, I think, a clear reason for it's being called "the Oxford" poem.
HEY. The beginning of this poem is actually a familiar quotation (But from "The Columbia World of Quotations" not Bartlett's).
QUOTATION: What is this that roareth thus?
Can it be a Motor Bus?
Yes, the smell and hideous hum
Indicat Motorem Bum
Domine, defende nos Contra hos Motores Bos!
ATTRIBUTION: Alfred Godley (1856-1925), British scholar. letter, Jan. 10, 1914. "The Motor Bus," Reliquae, vol. 1 (1926).
SCO will not "die" or "be crushed". They will simply fade away like any company which cannot keep a profitable business going.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
1. Veni
2. ???
3. Veci!
Last post!
Not if SCO succeeds in convincing a judge that they have rights over anything which even remotely looks like UNIX...
You've taken two lines from different places in the song and stuck 'em together wrong. They don't even rhyme that way.
"So listen up bitch 'cause there may be a test, my style is smooth but it's hard to digest."
IBM retains the copyright, true. The contract, as interpreted by SCO, allows SCO to control what is done with IBM's code. Specifically, if the SCO interpretation stands, IBM are contractually obliged to treat their code in the same way as the original code they licensed from AT&T. This means they couldn't disclose it to others except under the contracted terms and putting it into linux would undoubtedly breach the terms of the contract.
By contradicting himself, he is lying at least once either way, which makes him a lawyer.
in order to bring suit in the first place, one has to have very good evidence that a crime took place, otherwise you don't have anything to risk your money on, and the court doesn't have a reason to waste their time.
SCO made a positive claim - if they made a claim without knowing that it was true, they are potentially guilty of libel. In order to bring the case, they should have some evidence of violations - that would then justify the time and expense of looking at other pieces of code for evidence. Depositions aren't useful without the code they refer to ("I know IBM gave out code, but I don't remember what it is" or "We know IBM gave the code in (routine X) to someone else" isn't going to hold water). They need an airtight (or nearly so) case for the initial claims to justify looking for further infringement. SCO's say-so won't work, particularly after stretching the judge's patience with their actions.
If SCO doesn't have conclusive proof of some violation, then they are in a gunfight with the Mob and carrying a baseball bat. An easy way to get killed.
You're all missing the basic point; SCO is full of shit. It doesn't matter how much you elaboratize it, or how stupid you make out Darl to be; they're still simply and purely full of shit. You're preaching to the choir boys.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Ah, I see. But is there an alternative interpretation to these contracts?
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Divide those pages up, and there are what, Three IBM lawyers for each page ? Heehehe... Darl is so done.
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
Kind of like the way my soon-to-be ex-wife is behaving....
;-)
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
I wish I had read this discussion earlier. I was under the impression IBM asked for which lines of UNIX code SCO claims were placed in the Linux kernel. Everyone here seems to be assuming IBM asked which lines of the Linux kernel are infirnging. That wouldn't do much good. With SCO saying which lines of UNIX where appropriated. IBM can then go thru their projects which SCO has been talking about (like the SMP stuff, JFS, etc). They can also check the Linux kernels SCO is saying are infringing for these lines of UNIX code.
It stands to reason that the 60 pages is just filler. That the legal advice they paid millions for told them to back out of the lawsuit without it looking totally frivilous. By not submitting the information they hope it gets thrown out of court. That way it doesn't crush cases they plan to file against other companies, and they can continue the FUD without showing anything.
Nice sig!
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
The answer is: "nothing."
/. about this), so they are also accusing IBM of violation some terms of the System V license, which supposedly restrict IBM from ever transferring code from AIX (IBM UNIX) to any third party. However, as part of this accusation and lawsuit, SCO isn't claiming ownership of the code, so they can't accuse Linux of copyright violations (only IBM could do that). Linus Torvalds, et al, were never party to this contract, so they are not liable. Therefore, this also does not affect Linux users.
*If* there was SCO-owned code (aka System V or XENIX) in Linux (much like *if* the Moon was made of green cheese), then SCO could go after IBM and Linus Torvalds, et al, for copyright infringement (this still wouldn't affect Linux users).
SCO can't seem to prove that (earlier code, like Version 7 of the code doesn't count, since SCO/Caldera released that under a BSD-like license some time ago--there is even a story on
IBM's defense, which is pretty strong, is that the code they contibuted to Linux is different from what is in AIX, although the concepts and even the function might be the same. SCO is trying to say that even though the code is different from AIX, the mere fact that it functions the same makes it AIX code, and thus it falls under the same terms of the System V license. This gets into a whole thing about whether derived works must be treated like the original work, and SCO's argument is pretty weak.
In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
Actually, to throw another complication into the matter, SCO doesn't even own the System V code, tachnically. That belongs to Novell. SCO gets to use the copyright to exclusively license the System V code to other companies, like IBM. SCO argues they get more than that, based on "Amendment 2" to their agreement with Novell, but Novell says otherwise. See the Novell website.
There is also a part in that same agreement with Novell that says Novell reserves the right to act on SCO's behalf when it doesn't think SCO is properly administering the license with other companies. In this case, Novell says IBM license to use the System V code continues, even though SCO revoked it. It doesn't really have much to do with Linux, but more about SCO accusing IBM of misusing IBM's own code without permission from SCO.
In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
errno.h goes way back in time, so I don't think SCO can even prove it's theirs. Remember the "ancient UNIX," like Version 7, was already publically released by SCO/Caldera some time ago under a BSD license.
In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
I do believe Novell in these matters, I believe they are in the right about their position that SCO doesn't *own* the code, they simply own the right to license it. In this scenerio, only Novell itself could sue over it; something which does not seem very likely.
Probably the most damaging thing that could happen with this case, even when SCO loses, if a judge determines that 'like-code' is a deritive work. When I say 'like-code' I mean functions, basic ideas and principals.
I mean, it could really open up a can of worms that I don't want to see happen. We could start to see a lot of companies dig through GPL'd software in search of functions and code that resembled something that they may have done in the past, and trying to sue over it..
SCO is an example of why commercial software can end up very badly. Microsoft is another.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
It's a 'snow', 'snowjob' to a higher level.
Not SCO mind you, must differ from the trademark.
Stephen D. Williams
I find the irony of this typo delicious.
mmmm....tyyyppoooo....
There could be nothing better than Microsoft buying SCO, what people forget is when you buy a company you take financial resposibility for all its previous actions. So should Microsoft buy SCO, Microsoft would become the company that made all the allegations etc. and I am certain that IBM and many other major corporations would love the opportunity to sue Microsoft and get a share of its 51 billion dollars.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
No, this is not a troll account.
Yes, I'm suffering from mental illness. What can I say, it seemed insightful at the time.
Now go away.