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.
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 $699
It says the supplement exceeds 60 pages. So we don't know the actual size.
On a side note, any legal reason why they would say "exceed 60 pages". Why not 50 pages, or 70 pages, or whatever?
They use a Bullshit Compressor. Politicians have been using it for years. Thta's hwo you get 10 pounds of manure in a 5 pound bag.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
right. ill belive this when i see it. untill then i will regard this like everything else that sco has done, a vague answer to a direct question.
Jack the sound barrier. Bring the noise.
So, ok, the SCO case might be beginning to crumble. Might take a little longer, and who knows, with M$ 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
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...
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
(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.
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
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
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!
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.
How much of those 60 pages do you suppose look like this:
i++;
"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.
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.
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?
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.
You can request proprietary information as evidence, but then you have to guarantee it's security. For example, Intel has a huge room full of AMD's files as a result of it's lawsuit against AMD, but must guarantee that Intel's chip designers won't look at the files, only Intel's legal department can have access. Securing this evidence costs big money.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
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...
(And I thought I'd never get a chance to use the word "doppelganger" in casual conversation.)
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
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.
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...
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
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
(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.
find $d -type f -exec grep -i ' sco ' {} \; | tee /dev/tty | wc -l
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
"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."
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
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
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
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?
.. 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. -
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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)
" 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
1. Veni
2. ???
3. Veci!
Last post!