Slashdot Mirror
SCO Fails to Produce Evidence
BlueSteel writes "For those of you that need that daily SCO fix, Groklaw has the declaration of Ryan E. Tibbitts of SCO, stating why they haven't produced any evidence... and that they need recent AIX and Dynix/ptx code from IBM before they can comply."
For those of you that need that daily SCO fix
Daily? Has
Trolling is a art,
(1) Hey, it was the holidays. This lawsuit isn't important enough to bother our directors with over Christmas.
(2) Well, we're pretty sure that they're infringing somehow, but despite the fact that we claim to own this stuff, doggone if we can't find a current version of it. Anyway, once IBM spells it all out for us I'm sure we'll come up with something that looks like that other thing. Probably.
Another FA you can avoid R'ing (link found at Groklaw): the Motley Fool looks at the 'shakedown' of Linux providers: "with the entire computing world putting its money behind Linux, it appears that, for SCO, the apocalypse is now."
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain
Well, tip me over with a feather! I never would have seen this coming!
Oh no! SCO couldn't produce any evidence! Maybe that's because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Has everyone already seen that and decided it wasn't important?
Surely those 200 odd defines, which are mostly defined by POSIX is proof enough.
is it the defendant's job to prosecute himself?
SCO not coming up with proof is not a news story... it's something that's been going on for quite a while.
News just in - the Emperor has no clothes, and - eww - that's disgusting!
If anyone believed SCO, I hope they feel silly right now...
pwned.
Is it just me, or is SCO slowly but surely backing themselves further and further into a corner?
Maybe they just subscribe to the whole "there's no such thing as bad publicity" school of thought.
Grabbed this from the SCOX stock Yahoo page.
HP Records More Than $2.5 B In Linux-based Revenue In 2003
Casual Games/Downloads
Or, more vile, they are going to put IBM code into SCO's code base and use that as evidence that IBM and the Linux community stole from them!
Monkeys failed to fly out of my butt.
I'm not convinced they're unrelated.
If this box appears underfilled it is because the contents may have settled.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Unless IBM is cleared of all wrongdoing, and that the Judge issues in a ruling that Linux is free of SCO ip, they can still persue their vendetta against linux users.
It's sad, but they might still take down the Hurd of Smelly hippies.
Ahhh. Now let's get back to mindless M$ bashing and conspiracy theories.
How did SCO get a copy of "IBM AIX source code, an old version labeled MERCED/9922A_43NIA"?
I doubt that IBM would have just turned over source to AIX as part of the trial, much less an old version, so how did they get it?
-twb
SCO Attorney: "Your honor, we are unable to provide evidence for our claims. We request that IBM prove our case for us."
Judge to commence laughing in 5..4..3..
to see what IBM's Legion Of Firebreathing Laywers have to say about this.
[sits back and grabs some popcorn] This should be good...
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Fark has a Florida tag, /. could use a SCO tag.
Oh, wait...
Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
"You want the evidence? You can't HANDLE the evidence!"
...
Does this mean its over?
Does the judge now throw out the case?
Is Darl under arrest?
Is SCO no mo'?
There is no spoon...
Oh wait, that'd be evidence...
D'oh!, I demand a refund of my $699.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
...my name's not Briny Tidbitts. With a name like that, you might as well work at SCO.
TallGreen CMS hosting
I think has been done deliberately and accidentally already...With the level of supposedly "open" software they are touting for SVR5 or whatever they call it, I can't see "good" Linux code NOT getting into there somewhere.
Wasn't there a scene in The Simpsons where Lionel Hutts doesn't have any evidence for his lawsuit and he asks the person he's suing if he can help?
Was it the one where he sued over Itchy & Scratchy?
He stammers out something like "Well, um, we don't have a copy of it... we were kind of hoping that you did."
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Looking at their website & stock charts, it likes like SCO has failed to produce a whole lotta anything at all to begin with. :)
And as should be expected by now, SCOX stock rose on the news today.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
You stole from me but I can't tell you what it was until I search your house.
- cnb
SCO CEO Darl McBride will be making a cameo appearance in Episode 9 in which he will reveal that Jar Jar is the real father of Linux.
--- What?
SCO: you infringed on our code, we're suing
IBM: prove it
SCO: no, you prove it!
wtf? How did they get this far? I rarely root for the 800 lb gorilla, but it appears the strategy for SCO is just to tie this up in litigation as long as possible.
There is a different issue here... this has nothing to do with copyright infringement anymore, it is political maneuvering of consumer views. But, I'm preaching to the choir at this point.
They are taking IBM to court - so that they can get the most recent versions of AIX to compare to Linux. Huh? Don't you need evidence before you have a case? From the stuff on groklaw it sounds as if sco simply presumes that there is infringing code, but has no real proof. SCO should go to jail for wasting the american peoples legal system's time.
Maybe IBM can give them a list of files which infringe ;)
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Lawyers arrive in court, head counsel for IBM opens briefcase, pulls out megaphone, points it at Boies, and says in Eric Cartman's voice "Would you like, to suck my balls, Mr. Boies?"
Expect a significant selling pressure on the SCO stock after this publication.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Oh....it's the sound of SCOX stock about to nosedive and hit the floor.
Here it is;
Declaration of Ryan E. Tibbitts
Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 09:42 PM EST
Here is the Declaration of Ryan E. Tibbitts, which was attached to SCO's Notice of Compliance. It's his "Santa ate my files" document. Note that he says that he began gathering the outside directors' files only after December 12, so is Santa to blame? He writes:
"After this Court's Order on December 12, 2003, I began to coordinate the gathering of responsive information from SCO's outside directors."
The hearing was on December 5, not December 12. SCO knew from the 5th that they needed to be finished by January 12, but made no efforts until the order was signed on the 12th?
IBM served its First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents on SCO on June 13, 2003. Beginning in August, IBM began notifying SCO by email and telephone that their answers were deficient and requested further information, which led to an impasse and IBM filing its 1st Motion to Compel Discovery early in October and a 2nd Motion to Compel early in November.
And SCO didn't begin to coordinate the gathering of information from SCO's outside directors until December 12 and so it missed the 30-day deadline because of the Christmas holiday? I am thinking the dog ate my interrogatories might be more convincing than this.
That isn't the worst. The worst, according to my nonprogrammer's eyes, is that SCO doesn't seem to identify with specificity much of anything. Forget spectral analysis and MIT mathematicians. They looked on the internet at Linux and compared it to the versions of AIX and Dynix they had lying around and infer there could be some problems. However, they can't say for sure unless IBM turns over more modern versions of AIX and Dynix/ptx! Isn't what you get from this?
"14. I have been informed by SCO's engineers and consultants that since the only version of AIX source code that was available for comparison purposes is several years old, and predates most of IBM's contributions to Linux, it was not possible to directly compare IBM's contributions to Linux with the most likely source of those contributions, namely the missing versions of AIX (including the most recent versions).
"15. Further, we have only one CD of Dynix/ptx source code that was produced by IBM, and this CD only contains a limited history of Dynix/ptx releases. It was therefore not possible to directly compare IBM's contributions to Linux with another likely source of those contributions, namely the missing versions of Dynix/ptx.
"16. Our engineers have reached the conclusion that parts of Linux have almost certainly been copied or derived from AIX or Dynix/ptx. In those cases, confirmation of this opinion would require access to more current versions of AIX and Dynix/ptx.
"17. In some additional cases it was also possible to infer with reasonable certainty from comments in the source code that the engineer who implemented that code had experience and knowledge of the methods, sequence and structures used in either or both of Dynix/ptx and AIX. Confirmation of this would require depositions from the IBM individuals involved in programming the actual Linux modules in question."
After they get everything they list in this document from IBM, they figure they'll need 90 days to evaluate what IBM turns over. I'm not kidding. 90 more days. They'd better send Boies to court for the next hearing. This is going to be a hard sell. In fact, this is a job for Superman.
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address, phone]
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER L.L.P
[address, phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
a New York corporation,
Defendant.
Civi
Make lots of money off your geeky knowledge!
Darl: That gosh-darn penguin STOLE the evidence out of our source code! That's why we don't have it, that damn hippie-communist pinko penguin does!
Techie: That's not how it works, s--
Darl: Don't question me! You have a law degree, right?
Techie: Uh, yes, I do... u--
Darl: Then from now on you're our goddamn lawyer, and MAKE SOME EVIDENCE.
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
From the page:
It also suggests complaining to the securities and exchange commission, which you're entitled to do if you've lost investment money as a result of any wrongdoing that SCO might have committed.Thank you for your attention.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Just curious.
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
Of course there's evidence!
Typos... that's just how I role.
"14. I have been informed by SCO's engineers and consultants that since the only version of AIX source code that was available for comparison purposes is several years old, and predates most of IBM's contributions to Linux, it was not possible to directly compare IBM's contributions to Linux with the most likely source of those contributions, namely the missing versions of AIX (including the most recent versions).
"15. Further, we have only one CD of Dynix/ptx source code that was produced by IBM, and this CD only contains a limited history of Dynix/ptx releases. It was therefore not possible to directly compare IBM's contributions to Linux with another likely source of those contributions, namely the missing versions of Dynix/ptx.
"16. Our engineers have reached the conclusion that parts of Linux have almost certainly been copied or derived from AIX or Dynix/ptx. In those cases, confirmation of this opinion would require access to more current versions of AIX and Dynix/ptx.
Ok, I'm confused. Since when do two false's make a positive.
Ohh..they must be XORing the system. That makes perfect sense.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Hmmmm....wonder if they haven't been pushin this along because they need more time for their Writers...I mean Lawyers to make up a load of crap that they can farm out. I mean if they had any proof, don't you think they would have nailed them with it already? Comon, we're not ALL as dumb as they look!
"If I wanted your opinion, I would have given it to you!"
If I recall, the judge said, "put up or shut up!" right?
So they failed and the excuse is pretty ridiculous. Their claim is that Linux's code is owned, in part, by SCO. To prove this, they only need to show their code in their source in their product and show where it is identical within Linux's code. How is it necessary that IBM show completely unrelated code from AIX?
The judge didn't care that it was over the holidays and was probably very aware of that fact. Using the judge's knowledge as an excuse is probably just insulting enough to make the judge rule against SCO on this matter.
So I guess we wait to hear the wrath of the judge now?
Oh, and the chocolate rations have been increased to 5 units.
This is pretty amazing, since they've been claiming all along that Linux infringes and they have proof. When asked for proof they have now said in writing that they can't produce that proof without seeing code they don't have.
In other words they've never had specific proof.
So their whole case is apparently hinged upon their tenuous claim to ownership of IBM authored code which they claim they own, but have never seen. They hope they can claim ownership of that code on the basis of a very broad interpretation of derivitive works and that code IBM wrote into AIX was derived (by their incredible definition) from their copyright works (the missing link) and that they then moved this into Linux.
IANAL but you can't run around claiming someone infringes on your copyrights and then go on a fishing expedition for the evidence, you need something evidence to present to the court in the first place.
This bubble may burst much sooner than I had anticipated.
How is it they claim infringement and yet still need to see AIX code?
Judge: show me your evidence
SCO: our dog ate it
Is it just me or is everybody getting timeouts on Groklaw ?
/public/private/groklaw/system/databases/mysql.cla ss.php on line 108
Warning: mysql_connect(): Can't connect to MySQL server on 'mysql2.ibiblio.org' (110) in
Cannnot connect to DB server
Not entirely related, however, an interesting facet of UK law as it stands at the moment, when presented with a NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) for a speeding charge (taken by a speed camera), the recipient has two choices:
1. Fill in, sign the form and send it back, thus incriminating yourself.
2. Refuse to fill it in and get charged with obstruction of justice.
There is a "loophole" that involves, amongst other things, the defendant returning the form without signing it, going to court, adn finding the police can't use it as evidence. Somethign along those lines, anyway.
That snippet of our law aside, what SCO are attempting to do would surely be laughed out of every court in teh land. I await the judges decision with baited breath. SCO is going down - of that there's no doubt, however, I wonder whether the main protagonists in this case will be able to walk away scot free under the protection of Canopy. I sincerely hope that won't be the case.
So c'mon people, RTFA first before cheering "woohoo! SCO suck! We are win!".
Seems to me that RBC (and any other investors) have a decent lawsuit against SCO.
With a $3Billion (pinky to mouth) lawsuit at stake, the friggin' directors couldn't give up their holiday vacation to provide info that the Court specifically ordered them to? Now, IANAL and IANACPA, but that would seem to be a breach of fiduciary duty!
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
How does Zule eat his soup?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Exactly.
The court should order SCO and IBM to both put their codes into blind escrow and then release the code from both to the legal team for each so that no funny business can go on =and= so that both sides have equal footing for making their cases. Same for any other participants who have been accused by SCO.
May not be standard procedure, but this is a rather odd case. It would definitely help both companies show to their customers that they are playing fair.
Additional code discovery could happen, but it should always be under view of the court.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
"Gee, Yer Honor, we *really* need to see the code that IBM has before we can determine what they put into Linux... What's that? Oh, why yes, I *am* a fisherman!"
C'mon, who the hell are they trying to kid? The judge will take one look at this, have a hearty laugh, and say, "Not on my watch, asshole!" This is a fishing expedition to rival that of Moby Dick.
SCO hasn't any evidence. However, they're going to mewl and cry that they were wronged. Unless and until they can show proof, they're fucked.
The Matrix is real... but I'm only visiting!
This makes it clear that SCO is not talking about old code. They aren't claiming that IBM put ancient SysV code into Linux. They're claiming that they own code that IBM wrote and they never saw (and don't have a copy of).
If they were saying that AT&T gave IBM the Unix source, and SCO inherited the Unix source, and IBM put the Unix source into Linux, then SCO would have a copy of the source of the infringement. If SCO doesn't have a copy, then that's a damn good sign that they never owned it.
Clearly their interpretation is that anything IBM ever wrote related to UNIX is covered by their new UNIX copyright.
Does George Lucas own the copyright to every Star Wars book ever published--say, the Timothy Zahn trilogy?
To be renamed to "I can't believe It's not a law firm!"
Just a correction for the initial post: SCO has claimed that they have submitted much of the material to IBM, just not all (this is verified by the statements of Mr Tibbitts). The information they do not yet have are for those managers who were on vacation and couldn't get the papers to their legal dep't before they went away for, what, a month??? But definitely keep an eye on the Groklaw site. They get all the information as soon as it is available and is a great site to find all the SCO info. (For those who don't get enough at /.)
Given that God is infinite, and the Universe is also infinite, would you like some toast?
In related news, SCO hires world reknowned magician David Copperfield. Sources close to the deal state that the relation is to ensure that the proof behind all the lawsuits magically appears. Further reports link ties with the leprechaun from Lucky Charms to ensure the end result is magically delicious.
So .... Mr SCO .... what your saying is you don't really have any evidence, is that right?
... No your Honor, IBM has the evidence, or, I mean, we strongly suspect they have the evidence that will show conclusively that they are infringing on our patents, so, at this point in time our evidence is suspect. No... Wait ... Let me rephrase that....
Well
No need Mr SCO, no need.
They also need IBM's code to produce the evidence.
So they can recopy it, change the comments from "(C) IBM 1973" to "(C) SCO 1972" and send it back.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Could it be, that SCO can not release the infringing parts, because they don't have the right to it.
If the infringing parts are contained in "IBM AIX source code, an old version labeled MERCED/9922A_43NIA", which is the version of Merced, that IBM and SCO worked on, and this whole thing was based on AIX, the don't even have the right to release the code, because it is a trade secret between IBM and SCO.
So, please IBM, allow SCO to release the possibly infringing locations / parts.
wow! an environmentalist right-winger!
dude, arent U a business-lover?
Fight Frist Psoting!
Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!
Now, this is pretty surprising - you're compelled to produce evidence, and you refuse... that's pretty much just asking for contept charges..
but put it in context, and it's absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid.
SCO and IBM have been going back and forth for months on the issue of discovery. SCO keeps saying they need evidence from IBM before they can produce their own proof, and IBM says that they need to know what they're being accused of.
The judge reads all this crap from SCO (about how they can't prove their case until IBM gives them evidence) and decides that IBM is in the right - but she decides to give SCO the benefit of the doubt.. she tells them "I've read everything you've given me, and you're wrong. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I'm going to force you to comply with IBM's discovery.
So SCO goes on about how they can't prove their case until IBM gives them evidence - and the judge says "You have failed to convince me. Either you have evidence they did something wrong or you don't, it's shit-or-get-off-the-pot time. You have 30 days to produce evidence to back up your claims. If that's not enough time, tell me now, and I'll extend it."
SCO says "No, that's enough time."
So 30 days pass, and SCO's answer is "We can't do it because IBM won't give us the evidence."
I mean - come on - refusing to comply to a compel order is stupid, but repeating the exact same excuse the judge has already rejected as your reason for refusing to comply is so completely unbelievable it's unreal.
And then (to salt the wound) they claim they didn't have enough time - after explicitly being asked by the judge if 30 days was enough.
Is SCO trying to lose on purpose?
I hope SCO spends itself out of existence on legal fees.
That would be awful both for Red Hat and IBM (who should otherwise be getting some amount of reparations in their countersuits) and for SCO's current investors, some of whom probably imagine that the US has a swift justice system that wouldn't allow SCO to make outright lies without sanction.
Reserve your ire for SCO's current leaders, particularly the ones whose insider trades (filing to buy stock options and sell shares after SCO's internal discussion of the IBM litigation but before that litigation became public knowledge) and deception have earned them millions of dollars so far. These guys are next to the Enron executives in the United States' ongoing experiment: "How hard is it to profit from million dollar lies and escape punishment?"
Suing the company won't do much good -- they don't have enough money.
Didn't they make this argument on the first go-round? As I recall, the judge ruled that they wouldn't get to see IBM's code until they produced evidence of infringement. It follows that if they can't produce evidence of infringement without looking at the code, either the judge has to reverse her previous ruling or the case is dead. It sounds like they produced what they could (i.e., almost nothing) in the hopes that the judge wouldn't notice and would authorize the same fishing expedition she didn't permit last time.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
SCO not producing evidence isn't news. If SCO actually produced some valid evidence, now THAT would be news! In information theory, the information content of an event is inversely proportional to the probability of that event occuring. Since the probability of SCO not producing evidence is 1 for all practical purposes, the message "SCO has not produced evidence" has an information content of zero.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I can feel the flames coming. Please note that I do hate SCO as much as the rest of you, Darl McBride should burn with Hitler, etc, etc, etc....IANAL, etc, etc...
The way I see it, it goes like this: SCO finds out that IBM contributed code to Linux, and believes that it is derived from their intellectual property (which is under debate). Of course they can't specify the code in question because they don't have access to it, so SCO is asking IBM for the AIX code to compare it to the Linux kernel to validate their claims. If substantial evidence is found that AIX code is also in Linux, SCO must prove that IBM violated their contract by submitting that code into the Linux kernel, AND that SCO owns the System V code.
That said, there is still no excuse for them to claim intellectual property rights over code that they did not write that is possibly derived from code that may not belong to them.
Please note: Gentoo is apparently not lame enough to be on IRC. Rejoice!
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
"Oh, and the chocolate rations have been increased to 5 units."
<homer>5 Units? Woohoo!</homer>
Maybe in legal terms, but while SCO has technically complied to the order, it was legal for them to do so without producing much evidence. Which apparently they did. 60 pages surely doesn't cover the millions of lines of code they were talking about in the press. A confident litigator would not accompany his case with an excuse-note saying that they don't know what the hell's going on, but they have just a suspicion.
So, while they have complied in legal terms, they have weakened their case in a significant order of magnitude. Not only that, but they have also weakened their case for any of their prosprective targets in their scoSource shakedown fiasco.
Maybe inaccurate on a legal basis, but significant when looking at the big picture.
I read Groklaw as well by the way.
"Warning: mysql_connect(): Can't connect to MySQL server on 'mysql2.ibiblio.org' (110) in /public/private/groklaw/system/databases/mysql.cla ss.php on line 108
Cannnot connect to DB server"
It's not like it took a huge dive this week or anything.
Speak before you think
it's starting to become like an episode of matlock...except that matlock hasn't gotten his law degree yet.
I hope the judge throws the book at SCO for trying to use "truth" that doesn't exist or is a conditional truth.
Linus musta been right... they have to be on crack. There's no other even *remotely* sane explanation.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
What?! Do you seriously mean that SCO doesn't 0wn the POSIX standards?
Been modded interesting, insightful and funny. Why does real life have to be so different?
and I am pretty damn pissed that they invested money (mine and other people's) in SCO. I can't believe that the biggest bank in Canada is such a bunch of idiots. I'd have them sued for investing my money in a company without a business model!
How can you convince a judge - if you can't convince yourself. Wouldn't it be better strategy to make up evidence (especially if it was hard to prove). Then you would at least start a debate about the "evidence" - real or not.
I'm still waitin for SCO to demand that I purchase a license.
Now if you were an IBM lawyer, and possibly having a bad day, would you be thinking about printing all that AIX source code out for SCO?
/supplied/ their copy of the linux source code in printed form, naturally they must be happy to receive it in that form, right?
After all, IBM said the format was unreasonable for SCO to have given IBM. Since SCO
Overheard in a Lindon, Utah office sometime on the not so distant future...
"Can someone get me a copy of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 'Rule 56?'"
Mod parent up. It's funny!
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
American prison sentences are among the longest in the world.
We spend the most money on prisons as well.
Why is it that Americans seem to think it "doesn't count" unless you spend time in prison. Is prison at all sucessful in rehabilitiation especially in the case of white collar crimes? No, so what you're suggesting is yet another waste of everyone else's money.
That's not conspiracy. Who took my tin foil hat?
Been modded interesting, insightful and funny. Why does real life have to be so different?
the judge specifically asked Kevin if there would be sufficient time to produce the required docs because there would be no difficulty in waiting till later in the month.
Now, when a judge is being nice and in return is treated without respect, the judge may just decide that it's time to crack a few heads.
Hi. Kindly read the attached love letter from me.
loveletter.txt
I (we) uniformly disagree on the theory that everything IBM added to AIX must not also be added to Linux. Because substantive technologies are not derivative works, specifically:
However, to devil's-advocate this:
Device, filesystem drivers used with Linux may be considered derivative works, even if not shipped with the Linux distribution, and therefor subject to GPL. *Linus* has said exactly this, and while I personally doubt that SCO is going to prevail (see contract details between AT&T/Novell/SCO/IBM which decidedly establish that this type of additions are not restricted to confidentiality or considered deriviative works.
Which means basically that if the FSF had licensed a GPL Unix to IBM, they would right now be taking the reciprocal (but logically identical) position as SCO is with respect to license requirements.
I continue to think SCO loses (and continues to look like halfassed morons), with this tack but remember the Linux community does apply similar logic around IP.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
This has been one of their points for quite some time. However, IBM may have written the code to work with both AIX and Linux... with no copying involved. It is also a possibility that it was first in Linux, then later in AIX. Nevertheless, I don't think IBM would have agreed to give SCO exclusive rights to any derivitives. They may have a right to use said products, but IBM definately does too with no royalty to SCO. Thus, most likely they could distribute all of AIX freely... even under the GPL. Of course, the IBM/SCO agreement is not public, so we have no way of knowing for sure.
Notice to SCO:
You're Terminated!
All that's left is for the judge to put the final nail in your coffin.
So quit walking around and scaring the folks.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
why? SCO needs to prove their case. They have offered zero proof. There is no cause for forcing IBM to release any code.
---
SCO is weenies
Gator is Spyware
Microsoft is thugs
Now not everybody just hates you.
Finally everyone also laughs at you.
I hope the money is worth all that.
Where did that YOU FAIL IT guy go? He could actually have been on topic this time!
It's intersting that the GPL, a license designed to encourage voluntary cooperation between programers is now encouraging cooperation between lawyers as well. If there is strength in a distributed coding effort, is there as much strength in a distributed legal effort?
Don't forget:
We won't let you see our code... but we need to see yours to prove our case.
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
???
...that's where SCO and the sane world separate. IBM and the other Unix licencees see the derivative work of IBM and SCO (well, AT&T back then) as licenced under the agreement, but not the original work of IBM. That is copyrighred, 100% IBMs.
SCO is trying to mysteriously redefine derivative work as derivates and their parents. Which obviously makes no sense. AIX is a derivate of IBMs work. Unix is a parent of AIX. Hence, Unix is a derivate of IBMs work. Uhh... right.
SCO can bullshit all they want, but unless they can prove that IBM used SCO code or AIX in some way not compliant with the licence, they'll get nowhere. Perhaps not even as far as the next court hearing...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
or have you always been this stupid? Three letters: NSR (new source review).
Previously, when companies expanded a plant and increased their output of pollution, they had to actually update their pollution equipment (so that the amount of pollution output per unit couldn't increase, and the amount of pollution output would increase slowly if at all. GWB (via his new EPA sec.) filed changes to delete this rule - instead instituting pollution trading to curb pollution (although trading doesn't decrease pollution and some pollutants such as mercury can't move - trading thus subjects people near older plants to higher levels of pollution and toxicity as a result). And (the kicker) GWB calls this the "Clean Skies Initiative".
Yeah GWB is an environmentalist, just like he's a "compassionate conservative", a "uniter not a divider" and a peacemaker"...he's NOT.
I'm really hoping evolution will pare morons like you off the tree of life.
Based on the performance of SCO stock over the course of this fiasco, SCO stockholders are making out like bandits. I'm sure it will eventually drop off once things settle out, but it went from something like $1-$2 to around $20 at one point.
Screw the sustainable business model! Make some claims and rake in the cash.
Sad.
I would like to use Linux, but many things are stopping me. One is concern over the SCO lawsuits, I won't explain the rest just yet.
So far I have not seen any evidence to back up SCO's claims. Why should I pay SCO for a Linux license when they cannot prove that I owe them for one?
This is not going to work, SCO is using scare tactics to force money out of Linux users and companies that produce Linux distrobutions. Anyone that pays SCO a Linux License will be used as evidence that others must pay as well.
SCO Unix is not the same as Linux, the issue is if Linux is using SCO Unix code which has not yet been proven anywhere.
What is the delay with SCO? If they had the hard evidence, certainly they would have produced evidence of it by now.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
SCO is like that obnoxious skinny kid in elementary school 2 grades younger, who you used to feel sorry for, so you were nice to him, because he lived in a trailer, had no dad and his mom beat him and he was always dirty and only had wonder bread and grape jelly and Ho Ho's and Mountain Dew to eat at lunch time, where he sat alone because he stank and the only nice thing he ever had was a pocket knife but he lost it.
But then he started mouthing off to you in front of your friends because you were the only person who would talk to him. So one day, you find him...alone...next to the dumpsters where no one can hear him, and you decide to beat the crap out of him...and you are about to slam your fist into his mouth and he cowers in fear and starts to cry and then you change your mind because he is so pathetic. Instead you laugh at him and leave because you know that forcing him to confront his own crappulent life is punishment enough and that fighting you and getting his ass kicked would make him feel important and useful. He collapses as you leave, shrunken, there next to the dumpster, alone, angry and irrelevant like a shirivled potato.
Ten years later you hear about him on the local news how he was convicted of check fraud and is going to spend the next ten years in jail and you wonder what his life would have been like if you had cared enough to kick his ass way back when...but then sports comes on and you forget all about him.
If this is "flamebait" how come there arn't any flamess?
This should be modded Insightful - it puts SCO's entire case in a nutshell.
Their claim seems to state, basically, that IBM copied code from AIX and/or Dynix/ptx into Linux. And that said code is the property of SCO, hence the supposed infringement. So SCO owns this code but has never seen it?
Or is it that IBM created derivative works based on SCO's stuff, and then (allegedly) took some of the same code they'd added to SCO's IP and added it into Linux?
If SCO wrote or bought the code, they should certainly already have a copy of it. If IBM wrote it, then what's SCO's claim?
My deviantArt site
Time to reach for the wallets, folks...
Not sure if "fire breathing" is quit the right way to describe the IBM guys...
As we know from the fact that while "The Darl" God, his parents must have hated him) et al spew FUD like an angry volcano, IBM has more or less been quietly operating in the background, most likely when the time is right the IBM suits will calmly pop open their identical briefcases and extract the dental drills, pliers, and electrical probes...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
" doubleplusungood. Representatives of the Ashcroft Ministry of Love will be stopping by later to take you on a vacation to sunny Guantanamo Bay where you can relearn to love Big W. Oh, and the chocolate rations have been increased to 5 units."
Since when is anything rationed in the US? You may think Im trivializing, but its a central point to understanding 1984. Your analogy to 1984 is completely flawed, probably because you don't understand the message of the book.
Can't do that. I'll lose my chance at First Post -- or at least First Page Post.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
that's actually kind of funny...
Okay so if it looks like something that was in AIX it infringes on their copyright?
"18.3. The "Enterprise Volume Management System (EVMS) contributed to Linux by IBM is based on the same architecture and data structures as are present in the AIX Volume Management System, and was therefore copied from AIX."
If you have ever worked on Dynix or know someone that did work on Dynix your code belongs to SCO.
"18.4. The AIO code contributed to Linux by IBM was written by an engineer who had a detailed knowledge and familiarity with the same area of technology in Dynix/ptx, and who likely used the same methods and/or structures in the AIO Linux implementation.
18.5. The scatter/gather I/O code contributed to Linux by IBM was written by an engineer who had access to the same area of technology in AIX. This engineer appears to have worked in conjunction with the aforementioned Dynix/ptx engineer and likely implemented Dynix and/or AIX methods and/or structures in the scatter/gather I/O Linux code."
SCO now owns OS/2!!!
"19.3 All versions of JFS, whether a part of AIX or not (including, but not limited to the AIX and OS/2 versions), together with documentation and programmer notes from the development process;
Okay SCO you have the source of Linux and you have the Source to Linux. It looks to me that they have NOTHING!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You have got to wonder about a company that is fighting the legal battle of it's life and the directors are not accessable to supply court ordered information.
My enemy's enemy is my friend.
SCO's Board of directors is thus, my friend ??
d00d, it was a fucking JOKE.
plzstfuanddiekthxbye..........
So by your reasoning all I have to do to see anyones source is make a wild claim that it infringes on my IP and then I get to see their code... That would work well...
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
the message of "1984" is not rationing chocolate, Mr Oh-So-Smart... War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strenght - think about this and you'll get the meaning of this book as well as your parent analogy. HAND.
But definitely keep an eye on the Groklaw site.
:)
I was trying to keep an eye on Groklaw when it suddenly stopped responding, so I figured it was time to head over to slashdot and see what was new. Sure enough, I found this article pointing to the smoking ruins of what used to be an informative site.
I wonder if it's time for OSDL to offer their hosting services to Pamela?
Hard to see whether this ruling has had a significant effect on SCO stock, because it has been decreasing over the past 5 days, but everyone is invited to my house once it starts it's downhill plummet.
Free beer for every whine and cry from Darl!
Look at the 3-month view. Any recent fluctuations are just a bit of noise.
I want to see it when it takes a dive from ~15 to 1 or 0.5. I think I'll print that graph and have it framed for my wall.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Um, wait a minute. Wasn't it just two days ago that SCO posted a notice of compliance with the court's order? I haven't been following the details very closely, but even I remember that one. Two days ago they were in compliance, but now they're not? Unless I've seriously misunderstood something (which often happens), exactly how fragile do they expect our memories to be?
Use Ctrl-C instead of ESC in Vim!
Since this is civil court. There is a respondant. the difference is important.
In civil court you CAN be compelled to give up things to help the plantiff's (what you call the person that brought the suit) case. There are limits, of course.
Civil and criminal courts play by very different rules.
Or maybe I was subscriber and read your post early.
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. Litigation 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 litigation. 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.
But each side advancing MD5 sums of the entire codebase is cheaper.
No. They claim that IBM misappropriated SCO code that was in AIX by donating it to Linux. This is the connection.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
"We put our evidence on the Beagle 2 Mars lander for safe keeping from greedy Earthlings. As soon as the probe is found...."
Table-ized A.I.
Your doctor called...it's time to take your medication.
I'll buy that, I should have prefaced my original with "assuming the court orders IBM to disclose their source to SCO".
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Something similar in the U.S. I wanted to fight a speeding ticket where I did, in fact, break the law by speeding but felt I had a good reason to (which I'm not about to debate here). I didn't want to plead "not guilty", since I technically DID break the letter of the law. However, by pleading guilty I would agree that I was in the wrong and would have to pay the fine. I was hoping to explain the situation and be given leaniency (ie, have the fine reduced some).
I wished to practice my right of not incriminating myself by pleading "no contest", however, I was told if I pleaded "no contest" I would be found guilty!
Needless to say, I paid the ticket.
I think what happened is this:
Now things are going to get nasty for SCO. What I'm surprised about is how people keep getting surprised by IBM's "Ninja Lawyers" and how tight their IP controls are. It's a long running industry gag.
that they accuse IBM of contributing code that violates some licensing agreement but they don't know what that code is??
It seems to me that this should go over about as well as a turd in the punch bowl.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Forgot to add that last line!
I think that really, this is all the proof we need that Darl is injecting it directly.
We don't actually have any evidence, per se, but as soon as they give us some, we'll give it to the court. They must have some. Surely someone does. Trust us.
Can't IBM counter sue SCO for wasting there time and effort? And if they do recoup there legal fees, wouldn't that wipe out SCO's cash reserves? Leaving the rest of us free from there attempts to extort licensing fees from Lixux users.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually there's tons of stuff in the US that are "rationed" through artificially created scarcity. Look up "copyrigth" sometime. Not that I agree with you that this is a particularily central point in 1984.
FSCK! They couldn't even contact their own people 20 full days? lets see the posibilities:
The package said "Windows XP or better. Pentium Class Processor or better"... So I got a Mac with OS X
And the CEO and directors should be jailed. They really are trying to make a fool of the judge.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Test for Witch-hood:
Throw suspected-witch in boiling oil.
If suspected-witch dies, problem solved. Witch or not, she's dead.
If suspected-witch lives, she must be a witch, because only magic could have saved her. Remove carefully from boiling oil. Behead.
Gotta love justice!
SCO: IBM stole some of our stuff.
IBM: What stuff?
SCO: Stuff!
Judge: What stuff?
SCO: Electronics.
IBM: What electronics?
SCO: You know _exactly_ what electronics.
IBM: huh?
Judge: What electronics?
SCO: Well, have them line up all their electronics on the sidewalk, and we'll show you which ones they stole from us.
This simply isn't true. Filling in a NIP is not incriminating youreslf; it is simply acknowledging receipt of the notice. You still have the right to go to court and plead "Not Guilty" if you think you've been wrongly accused.
The SCO case is more like me accusing you of theft, without any evidence. Because I have no idea what you supposedly stole, I then demand that you hand over all your posessions to me so that I can search through them and see if any of them might righfully be mine.
I thought that all of SCO's employees were lawyers... they're a litigation company, not a software company! :)
Or so I'm told by the crowd around here.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Damn straight.
You think Darl & Co are satisfied with a normal pump & dump?
What do you want to bet they've also shorted a ton of SCO stock as well?
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
> Oh, and the chocolate rations have been increased to 5 units.
Uhhhhh, I hate to tell you this but those aren't chocolates....
I want him sent to the federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Well, Christmas came a little late this year - but thanks, Darl! This was one of the nicest gifts you could give me!
How exactly do you short a stock, again?
Education is the silver bullet.
This story was posted on Groklaw two days ago. This seems to be a bit of a trend with Slashdot lately, it is rapidly becoming irellevent as a "news" site, maybe the name should change to "News for Nerds. Stuff thats two days old.".
--Murray Barton
I think I have a better guess...
Your flagpole (complete with Confederate flag) crushes the tin roof of your hovel, knocking your lit cigarette (which you were still holding when you fell asleep while watching "The Best of Bum Fights : Part Six") into the barrel of gasoline which you keep on the dirt floor of your hovel to degrease the engine parts from the 1973 Gremlin you were hoping to turn into a hotrod. The resultant fireball then sends you flying off of your bed, knocking you into the badly chinked wood wall of your hovel, shielding you from the fireball, but turning your cheap VCR tape of "Ilsa : Queen of the SS" into melted plastic. You scream, "No!", but the six bottles of NightTrain you drank the night before take their toll; while tripping over the bed that just you fell from, you fall into the barrel of gasoline. You jump hysterically from the barrel, drenched in flame, but can't remember what you're supposed to do in case you catch on fire (HINT : stop, drop, and roll). Instead, you run around your house screaming, managing to ignite the only remaining reading material in your house (your valued 1976 copy of Hustler and a badly stained issue of Penthouse from 1986 with "The Girls from NASA") but not to fall over quickly enough to extinguish the flames. You run into the remains of your flagpole, knocking yourself into unconsciousness; while knocked out cold (pardon the irony) you burn to death. Meanwhile, your sixteen year-old, arthritic (but not inebriated) beagle runs out of the house, so fortunately the smarter members of your household successfully escape the fire. Meanwhile (we can hope) your DNA is burned enough not to be retrieved but (fortunately) the legacy of your life and death is preserved in the TV special "Darwin Strikes AGAIN II: How Idiots Leave the Gene Pool (and the World) A Better Place".
That sound about right?
I am however suprised that you could manage to actually write "283,024" - considering the budgets fifteen years of Republican Presidents have submitted, I didn't think conservatives were that good at math. You learn something everyday, I guess.
still has a buy rating on the stock.
If I were an analyst I would CMA by retracting all ratings ASAP. Better safe than sorry.
Back,
A few months ago I believe it was Bruce Perens who proposed some methodology of using checksums, etc. to make a comparison between source code sets, binaries, or something I cannot remember exactly.
The question is: What happened to this analysis?
I'm assuming it didn't go far since I don't remember anyone shouting "Eureka", we've got the hard evidence.
Anybody remember what I'm talking about, results?
Caution: Contents under pressure
"Oh, and the chocolate rations have been increased to 5 units."
Thats 'chocorations', your newspeak needs work. The thought police will be calling shortly to assist in your re-education.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
It is almost certain that nothing will be left of SCO other than a tiny smokeing hole. A somking hole, as such, can't really go after anybody.
Having picked the fight, SCO is now powerless to stop it. By the time the dust settles, SCO should have been proved to have no IP interest in anyting because of Novel's "non-exclusive right to use, with no transfer or ownership" sale of rights to SCO of System V code.
IBM's counter-suit will probably bankrupt SCO, and if it doesn't it will pre-prove as a matter of legal record, the baselessness of SCO's claims. That "Takes care of" the hard part of Red Hat's suit, leaving them to suck up any unspent tidbits.
Since there won't be enough money to go around, one of these other companies will end up with the bulk of any possible IP SCO would have.
the natural outcome may well be the complete open-sourcing of whatever there is to be had. Neither IBM nor Rred Hat, having devalued SCO's claims, are likely to miss the PR win of taking that near-zero-value spoils of war and tossing it to the OS comunity.
The "all of your base belong to whoever wants it" final stab in the eye at Daryl would be all of 1) poetic justice, 2) wonderfully vengeful, 3) good PR use of a proven-unenforceable, depreciated assett, 4) likely to simplify the lives of whoever ends up "successor in interest" in this stuff, as it would prevent any form of back-blast claims.
So IBM and/or Red Hat just say, "here, we pryed this out of their cold, dead hands. We didn't really want it, and it will do everybody the most good if we put it here on (source-forge, etc). Share and enjoy..."
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
"I deride your evidence-handling ability!"
Says CEO McBride, "Yeah, we're gonna milk 'em for ev'ry cent that them IBM pirates got. The udder's gonna dry up for 'em!" IBM responded, "Too bad they're just milking a bull."
I certainly learned something. Thanks!
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
evidence walk into a bar....
Sola Scriptura Sola Fide Sola Gratia Sola Christus
SCO needs IBM source code to make their case. They don't yet have IBM source code. Therefore they are unable to make their case, and yet this doesn't mean they do not have a case. So bascially, this isn't much of a story.
The point being that it's the same interpretations of copyright law that are at issue.
How FSF/GPL or SCO respectively are trying to use that leverage their positions are indeed as you point out different.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Chewbacca is a Wookie who uses AIX on a network administered by Ewoks. What does this have to do with SCO? Nothing. It makes no sense. Just like this case. So if Chewbacca uses AIX on Endor with the Ewoks, you must, uh, hold IBM liable. Or something. Does that answer your question?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
So why is it that senior executives, the people who are supposedly critical to the success of a company, can take massive amounts of holiday over Xmas and the New Year with no ill effects on the running of the business, whereas I had to be back in on January 2nd? Does that mean my presence in the office is more crucial to the company than theirs? And if so, how come I'm not paid enough to buy a Ferrari, as one of my company's directors recently did?
You must think in Russian.
(sorry, should have previewed)
But does the old Sequent contract have a similar exception for {Sequent authored features} in {Unix derived Dynix} not being controllable by {Unix's owner}?
(note that I said controllable, not owned. Derivative works are messy, eh?)
Maybe IBM's JFS is free & clear, but what about [originally Sequent] authored NUMA?
Yes, they have - read the letter.
No, they haven't - I did, thank you.
No, they haven't complied. And they admit that they haven't complied. To wit:
Yes, they have complied and, no, they didn't admit they did not. What they're saying is:
Here, with specificity, is everything we have. SCO can't be compelled to disclose something it doesn't have. SCO can't be penalized (that is, penalized in terms of breaking the order to compel discovery) because it has no more evidence to turn over.
SCO's evidence might not be good enough to win, but, it still complies with the order. SCO's excuse isn't an excuse for why they didn't comply, it's an excuse for why the evidence is so spartan in an attempt to pre-emptively fight off a dismiss motion. Expect one from IBM soon.
Quit being a rabid, frothing antiSCO retard and think.
...and I don't expect him to start new welfare programs (unless he promises to). I just don't see what he does (the environment, for example) as being compassionate - he seems to be trying to create losers, rather than letting the economy decide who they should be. Compassion (by what I take to be your definition) is sorrow that is willing not to stay the hand of justice. I might disagree, but that is a reasonable definition. One of the problems I have with GWB is that he seems to be unfair in many of his actions - if justice is valuable enough to pay an internal cost of sadness for it, it should be something you actually act on rather than talk about. Without justice, "compassionate conservatism" (by my interpretation of your definition) is simply heartlessness.
I could be wrong, though. And I don't think people are stupid on the basis of politics - actions will do nicely. Conservatives are no more stupid in general than liberals - I just though the initial AC was stupid or really wrongheaded.
SCO: You stole my ball. Give it back NOW!!
IBM: So what does your ball look like then?
SCO: I'm not tellin!
IBM: Tell me, and then I'll show you the ball I've got and we'll know if its really yours.
SCO: No you show first. The teacher is gonna get you in big trouble!
SCO has claimed (under penalty of perjury) that they DID produce answers to ALL of IBMs interogatories (questions) before the deadline.
This includes an answer to IBM's request that they identify (with specificity) all rights that they claim to the Linux operating system.
We haven't seen this answer (yet). IBM will presumably claim that SCO has NOT answered its questions on January 23rd. But the title of the article is false. SCO _HAS_ produced evidence. The only question is whether or not that evidence is meaningful.
[PimpX 5r1pt 0wn5 j00] SlackAFk is away: Sleeping. since 1995...
zut alors! une coordinateur... Comment faire j'utilise ceci?
lol... wtf?
*debian sets mode +b *!*@*.aol.com
*mandrake was kicked from #os (lamer)
they delivered 60 pages of something to IBM, and we dont get to see that. This affidavit is a list of the things they couldnt provide. The director thing is inexcusable, and likely to get them dinged. But the rest, if you read carefully, seems to be referring indirectly to things they DID provide to IBM. They could (emphasis on the uncertainty) have 60 pages of solid compliance in there, and this affidavit simply be referring to the parts they cant give because they dont have it. But even if so, it is damning in the face of their past statements.
as if they've ever provided a shred of evidence...
The last time I got one of these I wrote 'BUGGER OFF' across it with a fat black marker pen, placed it in the preaddressed envelope supplied and posted it (without the stamp, so the CPS[1] would have to pay the postage). I haven't heard anything from them since (over a year). Maybe enough people have used this loophole that they don't challenge unsigned forms anymore?
[1] Crown Prosecution Service
It also suggests complaining to the securities and exchange commission, which you're entitled to do if you've lost investment money as a result of any wrongdoing that SCO might have committed.
You can complain to both even if you have not lost money yet. And again, I have to say: complain to the FTC and/or the SEC, it's easy and even non-Americans are allowed to complain there about an American company.
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
[PimpX 5r1pt 0wn5 j00] SlackAFk is away: Sleeping. since 1995...
<mandrake> zut alors! une coordinateur... Comment faire j'utilise ceci?
<debian> lol... wtf?
*debian sets mode +b *!*@*.aol.com
*mandrake was kicked from #os (lamer)
Every day, this SCO thing looks more and more like the Irag invasion. They swear the WMDs are in the code, but nobody can find them.
Actually, a couple people had some interesting observations on Groklaw about the request for further evidence.
For one, demanding newer versions of Dynix past 4.6.1 is apparently amusing, considering no newer versions exist. I suppose IBM could write one, but that's pushing discovery a bit far.
Secondly, failing to find misappropriated code between Linux and a version of AIX SCO has rights to is significant -- it means anything AIX-like that IBM has in Linux has to post-date the granting of code from SCO (or SCO's predecessors). Since the contract explicitly gives property rights to IBM for all of their own modifications, IBM has neatly caused SCO to show that Linux's similarities to AIX, if any, did not occur within the "protected window" that SCO purchased ownership of.
Elegant.
--Dan
What SCO needs to do is call up the IBM sales team and request a new copy of AIX and the source code for same. Clearly SCO should simply ask to become a licencee of AIX and abide by IBM's terms.
HAHAHAHA
What a JOKE.
It gets better if you actually READ the documentation that is posted on GROKLAW - like section 13 for instance.
The premise of the SCO claim is becoming painfully apparent. The claim is that the moment IBM put ANY new code into AIX that this new code became a derivative copy of AIX and thus SCO has the right to control it.
I shall use an analogy here - an opera.
======================
I write an opera and you listen to it. You also are a talented song writer just as I am - perhaps more talented and you can easily write your own operas. But - this is not what happens. For whatever reasons you decide to IMPROVE my opera and then release it.
So you add in some new songs of yours to my opera and your version becomes more popular than mine. Mine in fact dies. So - do I have claims apon your version of the opera? Do I have claims against your songs? Do I have claims against say a single line you modified in one of my songs? How about individual words you might have changed? What if you changed the spelling of some of these words? Should I have claims against the sequence of letters you used to spell a word?
So you see - since YOU had the power to NOT use or contribute to my opera, I do get to make all sorts of outragous claims and I do get to control you.
On the other hand, suppose you are NOT a talented writer. Suppose you are just talented at arrangments. Suppose your friend is a talented writer and you find he has all these great songs that you can import into my opera. Clearly, your friend will not lose the rights to his copyrights by your actions. In fact, he may and I may grant you the right to make a derived opera so it is clear in this case that nobody has stepped on anyone's toes and there can be no claims by me on you.
The confusion stems from the fact that there is no boundry when you make the modifications. I get to claim you are making a derivative work - which you may have the right to do. And the question then becomes whether I get to control your work because some of it happened to be used in something I wrote before you did.
In staying with the analogy of the opera, suppose we get to the point where you feel your songs have a life of their own and you chop out 100% of my original material. Basically this is what IBM did.
Well, when at least _SOME_ of my material was in the derived work I may have had the right to control some aspects of the derivative work. When NONE of my material exists any longer we are left with the question of whether what you created is still a derived work which I get to control.
===============
So is it?
Well - In a way it is. And in a way it isn't. The way I read copyright law, I may in fact still get to control your work even though it is exclusively your work.... simply because during its history it was co mingled with mine. The premise for this claim is that your work would NEVER have existed were it not for my work and the structure it imparted.
This is a very important premise because when we look at software projects, the vast majority of new clean implementations suffer very bad teething problems and often lose their market share. Examples include Wordperfect, Mozilla and many others.
However, the practice in our industry is that each separate function bears its own copyright. As to code inserted in-line in functions - well - that is not as well sorted out. It becomes pretty arbitrary and the vast majority of us simply chose to not waste our time fighting about it.
===============
New analogy:
Lets look at a house. I build a house on my lot and you buy the lot next door and live in my house. You pay rent to me and get a contract from me that you can make tenant improvments. You ar
its an attack on Linux developers and admins.
Face it, most of the very best Linux gurus are also among the most anal retentive people on the planet.
When something like this SCO bullshit comes up, these 'best and brightest' will insist on keeping up to the minute with every twist and turn of the case.
My guess is that the Linux community is losing thousands of man-hours of its very best admins and developers due to them feeling the insatiable need for more SCO lawsuit news.
DON'T PLAY SCO's GAME!!
They *want* you to flame them on every opportunity; they are counting on it. Because while you are flaming SCO or even discussing this rubbish with colleagues over coffee, you aren't doing anything constructive for Linux nor for your employer.
At the end of the day, they will have won if they can have wasted our time.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
more than they trust Darl McBride - and that's saying something. Apparently trust is capable of having negative values and is unbounded for both positive and negative values.
GWB (in theory) might have been right to go to Iraq - I don't know and that's enough to for me to question it IMO. There aren't enough drugs anywhere to make me believe that SCO is actually right here. At this point SCO's value is in comic relief and as a target for termination with extreme prejudice.
14. I have been informed by SCO's engineers and consultants that since the only version of AIX source code that was available for comparison purposes is several years old, and predates most of IBM's contributions to Linux, it was not possible to directly compare IBM's contributions to Linux with the most likely source of those contributions, namely the missing versions of AIX (including the most recent versions).
15. Further, we have only one CD of Dynix/ptx source code that was produced by IBM, and this CD only contains a limited history of Dynix/ptx releases. It was therefore not possible to directly compare IBM's contributions to Linux with another likely source of those contributions, namely the missing versions of Dynix/ptx.
They said they HAVE the proof and you needed to sign an NDA to see it. Yet no all the sudden they don't have all the information required to FIND the evidence they need. So, all these claims are just speculation now? Well, if I can sue for 3 billion off speculation, someones poor multi-billion dollar company is in alot of trouble. Hmmm, I wonder how the judge will see this. What they claim to have had, and what they have are two different things. They have nothing and just admited to it.
HAHA jackass goatse died. Your lame troll failed.
You're not supposed to swallow the monkeys whole - if you eat them correctly, they won't do that.
Their document reminded me of my half-ass excuses when I was a kid/teen. I can hear the conversation just like it was years ago between me and my Dad.
...... ....
DAD: Your teachers tell me you've been lying at school.
SCO: I did not. Besides, IBM started it.
DAD: O.K. Explain yourself.
SCO: IBM copied off me. And he smells funny.
DAD: Did you see him copy?
SCO: Well
DAD: You didn't even see him? What the hell are you doing? You've been doing so good. Now you're back-sliding again!
SCO: I could prove it if the stupid teacher would just let me look at his test.
DAD: What makes you think you can just look at his test because you cry loud enough? Start acting your age!
DAD: Your teacher said she asked you to explain things before she called me, and that was two weeks ago.
SCO: I'm fourteen and a half!!! And andyway, well, there was the soccer game last week, and then this weekend Tommy got a new video game
DAD: *SIGH* Just go get my belt.
If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed suicide. -Ghandi
In related news, night found to be dark and water is still wet...
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Let me guess, the reason was a new kernel just came out and you needed to get home to install it ASAP! ;)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Really easy. But maybe that's just my cynicism showing.
Bullshit.
If you admit to driving the photographed vehicle at the stated time and place, you may as well be admitting guilt. Gatso evidence is regarded by courts as Holy Writ and is very rarely successfully challenged.
I have found only one case where it has been.
Last time I got a ticket I pleaded guilty, but had an explination for the judge, and I got the fine reduced. I still had to pay, but it was half the amount. In this case a headly was out, I replaced the headlight, but forgot to return the ticket saying I did.
Lets get this straight, in SCO's Notice of Compliance the attatchment was an explanation of why they couldn't find any evidence?
How is this Compliant with providing evidence as the judge ordered?
... and in the DRM, bind them.
I believe it's due to tax structure, legal structure and fees. The 4th link lays this out in detail.
Why Choose Delaware as Your Corporate Home?
Why Delaware?
Should I incorporate in Delaware?
Structuring your U.S. company - incorporate in Delaware? (best article of the lot)
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
Really, that kind of high quality crack can't be bought on any street. Hell, I'd even smoke some if they sold it. Just to know what it's like for a few hours to think you're god and really believe it.
or is this just an attempt for sco to get ibm's IP and then turn around and "accidently leak" it as a sort of "revenge"?
So, basically call linux theirs, and not give out their own code as evidence, because they're afraid of IBM stealing it or giving it out (if there was such code) and then tell the judge that the people they're suing need to give them "their" evidence to produce and use against them, and also potentially leak the code from ibm out onto the net?
SCO is going to go out in a gigantic mess of shame, flames and destruction. They know they're fucked, they couldnt even compete if they went opensource, so why not claim that linux is their property and start a mess to go out with a boom that will spread legal and financial shrapnel to all who they felt made them suffer? (eg, IBM, linus torvalds, opensource, etc)
They were either sitting around idle beforehand, in which case there are no new expenses but were lots of unnecessary old expenses, or
they had to hire new staff to handle the new work load, or
the staff working on this SCO business fortuitously had just finished some other big project.
I kind of doubt #3. I kind of doubt #1. Whether the new staff is really new bodies, or just existing bodies working tons of overtime, this is certainly costing them something.
Infuriate left and right
Expect a class action from the 5 people and one company(who is probably m$, oh the irony) who actualy payed the extortioH^H^H^H^H^H^Hiscense fee.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
why? SCO needs to prove their case. They have offered zero proof. There is no cause for forcing IBM to release any code.
Sure there is! It's the American way! "I'm gonna sue you, and you're going to help me! If you don't, I'll get a court order to force you to help me defeat you!"
Sounds like DirecTV should buy SCO....
moto411.com
Remember when SCO gave IBM all the paper with useless source code on it? IBM should respond by giving SCO whatever it asks for--but printed REALLY one big. One giant letter per page. They could wheel the crates into court, and then apologize:
"We're sorry, but we think the pages may have gotten shuffled a bit during shipping."
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
16. Our engineers have reached the conclusion that parts of Linux have almost certainly been copied or derived from AIX or Dynix/ptx. In those cases, confirmation of this opinion would require access to more current versions of AIX and Dynix/ptx
"Almost certainly"? What happened to the "millions of lines" of source code, and the "DNA of Linux"? They appear to be saying, "We think we might have a case here, but we're just guessing really".
Did SCO just blow their own case out of the water? Is this what made them think they have ownership of Linux IP? A guess?! You know, I really thought they must have had *some* basis for these claims even if they were tenuous - I guess I was wrong, and they really are deluding themselves or just outright scam-artists.
"16. Our engineers have reached the conclusion that parts of Linux have almost certainly been copied or derived from AIX or Dynix/ptx. In those cases, confirmation of this opinion would require access to more current versions of AIX and Dynix/ptx"
how can they come to that conclusion if they don't already have access to the code?
> In an interview with CNET Darl Mcbride says, "We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code," In addition, he said, "We're finding code that looks like it's been obfuscated to make it look like it wasn't UnixWare code--but it was."
Translation: If it looks like our code, it was stolen. If it doesn't look like our code, it was stolen.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I don't see that SCO's case rests on ANYTHING but puffy pink clouds in never-never land, i.e. never-never-going-to-win.
As far as I can tell, Novell is still claiming ownership of the UNIX copyrights.
What is the concensus about Novell's claim?
Wouldn't the entire case turn on just this one issue?
SCO claims that their contract with IBM gives SCO all rights to any improvements to these Unix licensed products. In a way, that's kind of like GPL, except for corporate greed, although it seems that it did not provide for any means for SCO to actually get that source code they claim to own. SCO believes that IBM did develop improvements for AIX and/or Dynix/ptx (I presume the original Sequent license for Dynix had a similar provision), and that IBM also contributed those improvements to Linux. SCO thus believes that code they own is in Linux, but cannot positively identify it because they don't have the AIX and Dynix/ptx code to cross check with. Apparently SCO would assert that any code found in AIX or Dynix/ptx is either code originally licensed, or code that was added later by IBM and still covered under the license agreement.
The clause that gives SCO ownership of improvements to AIX and Dynix/ptx is itself suspect. If there is no provision for transferring that code to SCO, then how is such a clause to have any meaning. And how can it be determined if any improvements were developed by IBM or simply acquired by IBM under other licensing (including GPL) and integrated? If I had sold a piece of code to IBM that would improve AIX and/or Dynix/ptx, a contract between SCO and IBM cannot take ownership of the rights to that code away from me (and I have no contract with SCO). It would not be any different if IBM did this with GPL code. Nor would it make any difference if IBM did this with BSD code. And it wouldn't even make any difference with public domain code (since the public by definition has all rights to use it, so any ownership is moot in that case).
Suppose there is some common code in both Linux and AIX. SCO might well assert ownership of that code. But what if the code was originally in Linux and subsequently put in AIX (if it is GPL that might be a problem, but suppose it is a public domain, or BSD licensed piece of code). What if the code was in another free licensed OS like FreeBSD, and subsequently put in both Linux and AIX (in either order of time). Or it could be public domain code. SCO won't have any ownership rights to that code (although they could likely have usage right like anyone else).
SCO will have to do more than merely show that some code is in both Linux and AIX. They will have to prove that IBM developed the code and put it in AIX first, before putting it in Linux. If IBM put the code in Linux first, even under a GPL license, as original owner they also have the right to put it in another system under another license ... and more importantly, cannot subsequently withdraw the rights already granted under the first contribution. So if they put code in Linux under GPL, then put it in AIX under SCO's assertion of ownership rights through the Unix license (which is in dispute), IBM would not be obligated to make AIX open under GPL (since it is not putting it as GPL'd code in AIX). And since the rights under GPL are already released, even if SCO prevails to own the code because IBM developed it, it has no means to withdraw the rights already released under GPL. What SCO would have to prove is that the development was done at IBM, under IBM ownership, for AIX and/or Dynix/ptx, now subject to the disputed license, then donated to Linux under GPL. Just looking at the AIX and Dynix/ptx code isn't going to show that.
Suppose the worst happens and SCO prevails and the courts believe that certain (at that point identified in court) pieces of code are owned by SCO and their unlicensed distribution and use infringes on SCO's intellectual property. Linux can deal with this very effectively by simply releasing a new version (wanna place bets on how quickly that will happen) without any of that code from IBM. SCO's current case is against IBM, not against Linux. So even if SCO were to prevail, their recovery under that case is only against IBM. There will be two areas of infringement in Linux to consider: the past and the future.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
To be able to live off flipping burgers for the next 20 years.
Regular employees (if any left) will probably be fine.
The execs...
I did this once when I lived in SoCal. I actually wasn't speeding, though. My tire locked up (driver-side rear) when I hit the brakes to stop at a red light (I later found out that there was a ton of dirt that had stuck to all the leaking brake fluid that was leaking out of the part that pushes the shoes against the drum - this caused the tire to lock up all the time, and very easily). The cop, who was going west to east (I was going from north to south) just "assumed" I was speeding and pulled me over, etc. I called the police department, found out when he was on vacation, scheduled my court case for the middle of his vacation, and got out of the ticket.
Man was I pissed when I got there. The judge wanted my side of the story anyway - and when I produced documentation (and pictures) showing what was wrong, and that I fixed the problem, he said that even if the cop WAS there, he'd throw the case out anyway.
Interesting waste of time there... =[
bork bork bork!
Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. 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 importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that 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 record 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! The defense rests.
That could be converted to haiku:
Now all don't just hate;
Now all laugh at SCO.
Hope the money lasts.
The Dog ate our evidence!
As far as I know, SCO has nothing to do with Unix code. I doubt they have the chops to steal somebody's code and incorporate it into Unix. They just bought rights and are attempting a legal shakedown.
Hmmm, I wonder how the judge will see this.
The judge will see this based on who produces the most cash to pay him off.
I'm not sure how much delay can be obtained that way. Who's up on the Federal rules of procedure?
Then again, IBM could move to strike or dismiss, the judge could rule for IBM, and it might end quickly. But probably not.
...or Tibbitts writes:
``the only version of AIX source code that was available for comparison purposes is several years old, and predates most of IBM's contributions to Linux''
So...what that means is that:
1. SCO searched for code that was contributed from AIX to Linux
2. They did not find any
3. They concluded that code from a later version of AIX might have been contributed
But then...
1. This falls short of saying that IBM _did_ contribute AIX code to Linux. They only might have.
2. Even if IBM contributed code from a later version of AIX, they must have developed the code themselves, as it wasn't in AIX originally.
So...what's SCO's point? Or is this just another smoke shield?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
heheh, had to say it.
I am an experienced Kernel developer, however due to contractual agreements, I can't talk out loud since these days even a slight slip of the toung may land my company in a law suit and me unemployed. What I am about to say is quite funny though. I'll make it as simple and as clear as possible.
SMP and NUMA evolve constantly. In fact, more often then not, SMP and NUMA support gets rewritten altogether. The primary task of SMP and NUMA is scheduling tasks across multiple CPUs. It is almost impossible to consider the non-scheduling portions of SMP and NUMA code to be intellectual property since they often are nothing more than utility functions.
Over the years in many of the open source operating systems which I watch progress of, I regularly see changelogs to the schedulers which can for all logical reasoning be considered rewrites, since someone is always inventing a new way of hacking a faster or more intelligent scheduler. It is vaguely possible that the task switcher mechanism itself remains the same between versions, but the code sceduling the switches is all that really matters anyway. There is no reason to copy other peoples code for the task switch since in most cases, it's as easy to rewrite as it is to cut and paste.
Given that information, I would like to continue by saying that if you look at a lot of the Ph.D.s granted in OS design and development, from the thesises I've read, I feel that a large portion of them specifically relate to methods of scheduling with higher efficiency. These guys love SMP and they love NUMA since single processor scheduling is actually quite boring. Everyone loves the parallelism.
So, although I haven't directly checked for the changelogs to Linux, I am quite confident that in the past 2-3 years, there may have been as many as 2 or 3 full rewrites of the SMP and maybe 1 or 2 of the NUMA scheduling code. As new theories become available, the Linux guys are quite good about adapting to more modern technologies. Really, when discussing performance computing, what makes the difference between the FAST systems and the average systems is how well tasks are scheduled.
So, to finish it up, I can say that if at any time IBM contributed the SMP and NUMA technologies from Sys V to Linux, they are long gone and forgotten. Besides, if I recall correctly from some of the famous Linus flame fests relating to IBM submissions, he didn't like the NUMA code going into Linux and withheld for many releases until the NUMA code was restructured/redesigned to make the differences between SMP/Single CPU/NUMA Linux narrower.
As for the rest of the claims, to JFS? All the remaining technologies involved that were contributed by IBM were written in whole by IBM. I couldn't imagine that IBM would have developed code in such a manor where they couldn't maintain control over it. It's poor business practice. Given the modular nature of System V, most of the time, the file system and other driver modules are compiled against the kernel, but not necessarily into the Kernel. It's a lot like a Linux module, but with a more clearly defined ABI. I would hope that alone would certify that the additional changes were made as "Seperate Programs dependant on a System V kernel" instead of "Portions compiled into the System V Kernel"
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."
SCO: "All your code are belong to us..."
---
Judge: "Baliff, whack his pee-pee."
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Unless you are a blind party liner, conservatives do not like to have their rights trampled either. Who does? Only people who are afraid and don't know what to do are willing to allow the government to have too much power. Power hungry politicians have used terrorism to grab power. This isn't a liberal conservative thing. The people in power have seized more because they can and they want it. I think the Dems would have responded pretty much the same way, only you wouldn't like it then. Where I grew up in one of the most conservative places in the U.S. and no one there wanted the government to have any more power. "Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither." --Thomas Jefferson
I'll show you my code if you show me your's.
Poor French but the intention was there. But for Mandrake users, you wouldn't do +b *!*@*.aol.com but +b *!*@*.wanadoo.com
All Hail Discordia. Hail Eris. Fnord.
Variable key:
A=Unix code
B=AIX & other IBM code
C=Linux code
SCO claims as to copyright/IP violations pre-responses to IBM discovery requests:
1) IBM took code from A, used it in B, and then passed that code to C and
2) IBM created derivative works of A, which consisted of B, which was then passed to C
SCO alleges in their responses that they cannot point to particular violations because they do not have B.
Analysis: this may be applicable to class 2) violations above, but is clearly nonsense concerning class 1) violations. If you allege A ended up in C through B, you do not need B: comparison of A and C would show the common code.
Conclusion: SCO's response essentially admits that there is no copying of UNIX in Linux. SCO's response limits SCO's claims to class 2) violations above, that IBM-created derivative works were incorporated into Linxu.
Problem for SCO: If side letter found to free IBM-created derivative works from adhesive clauses of original contract, 2) cannot form a cause of action.
Resulting question: How long can SCO put off IBM Motion for Summary Judgment?
I don't think you have to worry about that...
True story.
Recent AIX code? Yeah, I can think of several reasons why SCO would want
to look at recent AIX code, and none of them have jack squat to do with
Linux. If they could actually get that out of this, it might almost make
the whole lawsuit thing worthwhile from their perspective (ethics aside).
I can't see as how they're going to get it without some kind of due cause,
though.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
There once was a man from provo
who had a company with only a logo
he tried to lay claim of someone else's fame
but the judge thought it lame and had him arraigned
cool stuff
They once acknowledged there was no code owned by SCO that was copied into Linux, unlike what they say in press release. I think their most precise claim would be that code was illegaly copied into Linux.
So, while they have complied in legal terms, they have weakened their case in a significant order of magnitude. Not only that, but they have also weakened their case for any of their prosprective targets in their scoSource shakedown fiasco
Not really. If they managed to prove that IBM violated its contract by integrating some of their code into Linux, the judge may decide that Linux distribution should be stopped unless SCO agrees. Worse, she may decide that distribution should be stopped until it is figured out exactly what code, illegally put in Linux by IBM, should be removed.
What they did in their PR releases is put the entire OSS community on a false track. In reality, it always have been about a contract with IBM, as Linus noted.
Inflating the share price through extreme application of bullshit is seen as a virtue by some.
I wonder how long it will be before one of the directors of SCO is jailed for extortion. I give it about 2 years.
In my next incarnation, I hope to come back as a code monkey.
http://www.sco.com/company/jobs/
:-)
Software Engineer (05 Nov 2003)
Internal Audit (21 Nov 2003)
Director of Financial Reporting (08 Dec 2003)
Inside Sales Manager (09 Jan 2004)
Senior Software Engineer (13 Jan 2004)
Kinda tells a little story, doesn't it.
Daryl belongs in jail, like other extortionist and frauds. His "head on a platter" is a little to extreem a punishment.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?"
There are two kinds of people in the world: those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
Apparently Xmas took them by surprise and they need 90 more days to recover from the shock.
Also, it seems they haven't really caught anything so far and want to fish about that other nook too (non-sysV AIX and dynix stuff).
For once I find myself hoping the judge doesn't have a sense of humour.
Almost shounds like what Bush W. told the world about Iraq before the invasion. We're sure they have it, our "Intelligence" is really, really, really-really good but .... we need to go in to get some evidence to support our claims.
Besides, they're the bad guys right? Why is everyone teamed up against us? They're the one's who're evil! Really. You France shut up over there! This would have been really funny if it wasn't so sad...
Drifting totally OT here, but I heard they don't have mechanical safety inspections out there, only smog inspections. Correct me if I'm wrong about that. Here in NY its the opposite; no smog inspections, you pass the mechanical inspection and its almost impossible to claim "mechanical failure" on insurance or during litigation. Which makes me wonder: Could Cali get a huge financial break from banks and insurers if they were to start mechanical inspections? It might help your budget probs (not that NY is doing all that great)
C|N>K
welcome our not so new, scantily clad overlords.
A blog about stuff.
Cars don't decay in California like they do in New York-- mostly due to the lack of snow/salt rotting our cars-- so there's really very few cars on the road with serious impending mechanical problems. Mechanical inspections are a crock anyway. There's always someone, somewhere who'll find a way to get you that sticker. Then again, smog testing is just as stupid.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Ah, thx for clearing that up. Most of the cars I've had to get rid of because of body rot, but the mechanicals were always good eg. brakes, steering, etc. FWIW I know people who are making six-figures purchasing cars out there and driving them up here to be sold; NY allows 7 sales per year as an individual without requiring a dealer's permit. A Cali car with no body rot can double its value here, since the local values depend on *no rust*.
C|N>K
"discovered" so far. To judge from SCO's notice of [non]compliance, they apparently failed extravagantly to meet the court's order. They should be thinking about how to convinve the court that their suit isn't frivolous, and about convincing IBM to settle (e.g. by 'em out). Evidently, they aren't anxious, or else have neurological checksum problems in the board room. You would think that if they DID have actual evidence, that they would have shown IBM convincing evidence and asked for an offer from IBM that would make it right. As it is, SCO's name may go down in history right next to George Armstrong Custer under famous massacres due to arrogance and over confidence.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
claim all of North and South America for Spain?
Assuming you know you will loose your case for sure if you go into details. Do you prefer: a) to produce your evidence and eventually loose b) to get your case dismissed for a "technical" reason ? The main advantage of (b) is that your case is not judged. Thus you can start prosecuting somewhere else in the world, until you find a technology-agnostic judge who lets you win.
Strike three for Boies!
Seriously, how did this guy ever get the rep for being an effective litigator?
We make a deal. SCO submits their code to the gov, and this evidence and ONLY this evidence can be used. Then others can reveal their code, and SCO has no chance of putting it in their own code as "proof."
Or... SCO can just keep stalling.
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
So if I don't put a stamp on a letter I'm sending in the UK, the person who its addressed to has to pay it? That's a little off...
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Isn't it the 5th ammendment that states that someone cannot be forced to incriminate themselves?
Times up.
The law of evidence says they must produce, or the sum of their claims is limited to what they have produced so far.
Fishing expeditions are not allowed - the smae thing that happens to term papers if you try to hand them in one month late - bzzzzzz fail.
I demand to be given a copy of their complete photo archive so that I can prove it, at which time I will sue them for many dollars.
Let's get this straight: You copy and paste a few hundred lines of legitimate SCO code into notepad, compile it with Dick Stallmin's half-assed compiler, change the name, and you're a fucking hero.
Please, someone deport that communist nigger back to Scandinavia.
SCO has time and time again claimed they HAVE proof!
They have nothing!
*grin*
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Probably my favorite saying by Benjamin Franklin.
Should there be a Law?
This letter indicates no such thing.
SCO provided IBM with discovery days ago. This declaration isn't an overview of what was in that discover, which, is what fools like you have been spouting all day. No, this declaration is an examination of things the judge (or IBM) might consider lacking in SCO's response.
It does not mean
a) that SCO did not reply fully and with specificty
nor
b) that SCO provided nothing of merit when it provided excuses for providing nothing of merit
No, this declaration is, for all you know, a case of CYA -- in case someone doesn't accept the 60 pages of discovery, it covers their ass.
You 're saying "this puts it beyond a shadow of a doubt" -- and your argumentation is as flawed and childish as SCO's arguments. Your argument is the legal equivalent of SCO claiming that errno.h belongs to them.
Perhaps you can be forgiven, because you're not a lawyer. But, then, should SCO be forgiven, because they're not computer scientists?
That's true, but this isn't a criminal case; it's a civil case.
So while they can't be forced to incriminate themselves, they can be forced to incivilate themselves.
Or something.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
This just keeps pushing the envelope for surreal...
I'm at a loss... I'd call SCO a circus but you need to have more than clowns... it's quite remarkable to watch the disintegration of all semblance of sanity. You'd think the presiding judge would just grab a large blunt instrument and begin bludgeoning SCO councel the proceed to mash SCO executive's skulls as decency and rage demanded. Someone needs to write a book... The SCO story; from skullduggery to assholery in one easy lesson...
I can't wait until the SCO movie comes out... it'll be written by, and star Monty Python... and the part of SCO will be played by Graham Chapman's ashes!!!
There's a peguin on my box of Linux!
Your lawsuit is rediculous and without a single ounce of merit!!!
No it isn't.
Yes it is!
No it isn't!
Yes it is!!!
I'm sorry your five minutes is over, and you'll have to pay another 10 pounds if you want to continue this litigation!!!
I appologise, put it down to a bad hair day :) "irrelevent" is far from fair and most of what I read here, I do read here first.
I stand by my frustration with the "lag" which affects some stories and seems to have been worse of late- maybe I only just noticed it though :)
--Murray Barton
It has been my understanding,
... you have to start from square one".
That an orginization is not a country unto itself. They, by merely having you sign a "non-compete", do not have the right to "stop" your career, in your chosen field.
IE. If you work for a OS company. You can't be kept from working for another OS company. To do this would un-lawfully take away your right to earn a living in your chosen profession.
Where is the line drawn?
It is my opinion that the "line in the sand" is drawn at: "cut and paste". Any knowledge that I retain about how to make an OS is a direct result of my "study" in my chosen profession.
Think about it this way. If an organization paid you to earn a Masters Degree in "whatever". Upon termination from the company, are you expected to "forget" everything that you learned, and perhaps "repeat" all of those classes or seminars? NO.
Why?
Because what you retain in your head is "your" intellectual property. "Stealing a code base", would be un-ethical.
I don't really know of any way to prove it though. Not unless the code being used is an exact match to the code in question.
Hey!? Think about it!
There are really only a few "good" ways to solve a problem. Put different people on the same problem and the odds are that they'll produce "similar" product.
And the US Government seems to be okay with this definition. When you have companies like "Loral" working for multiple governments. The US is okay with the same people working on similar projects. They just say: "It's our code base
Later,
-- Brian
This formed the basis for a method of sending messages for free in years gone by.
At first I thought this was funny then I got pissed when I realized that essentially SCO's lawsuit is based on mere supposition and conjecture along with a warm fuzzy feeling on SCO's engineers part that code was inappropriately used. I mean we knew that there was no smoking gun but you would at least attribute that to Darl's being a misguided asshole - I think asshole is way too mild for this major feat of chutzpah. They had zero proof, knew it and now it is exposed for the stock manipulation scam that it is.
\
BubbaJon
The MIT rocket scientists, who first discovered all these violations, didn't have access to the code that scox is requesting. Why can't scox simply present the findings of those MIT rocket scientists?
This is the same whine that Kevin used on Dec 5th. That scox needs access to all of ibm's aix code before scox could find evidence.The judge didn't like his arguement then.
Actually, scox was given more than 30 days to produce evidence. The case was on Dec 5th. It just wasn't filed until Dec 12th. But Kevin knew since Dec 5th.
Now scox is asking for another 90 days to produce evidence.
You've never worked for a company that keeps lawyers on payroll. Let me tell you what they do, at big/huge companies. The payroll lawyers outsource to their buddies law firms, and they manage the outsourced lawyers. Y'know, the one they go golfing with?
IBM just has a lot of money, hence, a lot of payroll lawyers. They end up being able to manage/pay more firms.
No.
Particularly wrt what you say about NDA (although I think you mean drivers written in *violation* of NDAs I want to clarify). Linux contains many device drivers (and particularly Ultra-sparc) which are developed under NDAs. The only platform which I know to disallow code written under NDA is OpenBSD. About non-compete, well we know they didn't, we know most of the details of the contracts (I think all, 'cause all are part of the court docs). And Novell's disclosures have been clear that IBM is entitled to use code they add to sysV *anywhere* they wish.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
"The court should order SCO and IBM to both put their codes into blind escrow and then release the code from both to the legal team for each so that no funny business can go on" :)"
Why? SCO has the latest Linux source and they have Unix source. If any of there magical code ended up in in Linux they should have brought it to the attention of the court. Since they found none I have to assume they have no proof. What the court should decide first is this if it is in AIX then it belongs to SCO? Does IBM own the code that it writes even if the link it into AIX. From what I have seen the answer is yes. If SCO does own that code then IBM might would then have to give that source code. I have a feeling that as the REM song goes... "It's the end of the world for SCO and I feel fine
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The German in this text is so extremely bad,
babs must be used to create it. Well, the
retranslation must be sound very well, in consideration of that english was the source-language.
The Trix rabbit has failed to get kids to give him Trix.
"14. I have been informed by SCO's engineers and consultants that since the only version of AIX source code that was available for comparison purposes is several years old, and predates most of IBM's contributions to Linux, it was not possible to directly compare IBM's contributions to Linux with the most likely source of those contributions, namely the missing versions of AIX (including the most recent versions)."
Ok, I'm not an expert on this court case, but as I understand it the gravamen of the case is that IBM took copyrighted Unix code from AIX (owned by SCO) and stuck it into Linux. But if it was Unix code it would have been in the *old* version of AIX. Surely IBM owns whatever additions it produced itself?
why can't it be both (death and OH)?
In other news, SCO announced today that they intend to release a new line of operating system products designed to compete head-to-head with AIX and Dynix/ptx....just as soon as they get the source code from IBM.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
and it's a legitimate point to ask how liberal people would have taken the Patriot Act and its hellspawn if Gore had proposed/aided its passage. I don't know how I would feel - I'd like to say I would think it's a bad idea, but I don't know.
The only problem I would have is that the past three Republican administrations have spent lots of money and potentially expanded rather than diminshed the role of the federal govt. Reagan particularly claimed to want smaller federal govt. but didn't achieve it (not wrt gov't spending). While I would disagree with smaller gov't in some sense, it is a consistent position both with stated intent and with the underlying values that the Republican Party claims as its own. Lately, it seems that the Republican and Democratic Parties differ less in the scope of (federal) govt. and more in the ends they wish to use it for (or the means they choose to those ends). I don't know if this is a good or bad thing for the RP. It seems inconsistent, and bothers me some (although, again, there isn't a reason for the RP to care about that).
Therefore democrats (and most of all Bill Clinton) do NOT stand for liberals. They are not the same.
In fact I will argue that the republicans no longer truly represents the conservative voting block. Traditionally conservatives have been about responsible government spending with no extra benefits given to particular (non-corporate) groups. George Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill -sending the government into record debt- while he has recently legally raised the status of illegal workers. Based on these actions alone, he sounds like an old school democrat to me.
Both parties have become mirror images in each other in rhetoric, yet nearly the same in action. Politicians in both parties seem to serve only themselves and the people that bankroll them. Since the vocal voting populace still acts like what politicians say in speeches matters the day after elections, they can do whatever they want. Too bad the rest of the public stopped voting out of disgust instead of voting out the bad guys. Now that both sides are the bad guys, there isn't a way for either conservatives or liberals to win.
Open Source Sushi
There is an easy way to understand what is going on at SCO central. Just think of all the confusion over WMD in Iraq? Did Saddam have them, or not? Only after the invasion did we learn conclusively that Saddam didn't have anything. The only evidence we found was a bunch of phoney documentation produced by armorments ministers who were lying to their boss. They convinced Saddam that he really _did_ have WMD. He really didn't know any better! This is exactly what is going on at SCO... Their VP's are just as honest. They have produced a bunch of phoney documentation and convinced the big boss that they _have_ WLD (Weapons of Linux Destruction). Only after this company falls apart will we know the true extent of the deceit that is going on... In the meantime Daryl McBride will keep up the act. He really doesn't know the truth!
wrong.
the court should order that SCO, being the party making accusations, provide adequate evidence of said accusations.
IBM, or any other party for that matter, should only need only respond to the evidence in whatever manner they wish.
Job Placement Specialist (24 Jan 2003)
Asset Manager (1 Feb 2003)
Bankruptcy Lawyer (1 Mar 2003)
Criminal Lawyer (1 April 2003)
Proctologist (1 Jan 2004)
Squeegee Man (partnership included) (1 Jan 2007)
At least I can hope.
Let me get this straight.
SCO is suing IBM for 3 Billion Dollars. ( Think doctor evil ), but the director can't be bothered over the holidays ?
I gotta get one of those jobs.
I've been bothered with that silly work thing more than once during a holiday, and if I told people to get back to me after the holidays, I would have been calling them from the unemployment line.
Stu