Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders SCO, IBM To Produce Disputed Code
An anonymous reader writes "A NewsForge story [part of OSDN, like Slashdot] says a court ruling by Judge Brooke C. Wells in the SCO Group vs. IBM intellectual property lawsuit amounting to 'show me the code' was released today in the form of a nine-page document [PDF link]. For a change, the SCO Group had no comment, because Judge Wells told it not to issue any. The judge said SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code IBM is alleged to have contributed to Linux from either AIX or Dynix, provide and identify all specific lines of code from Unix System V from which IBM's contributions from AIX or Dynix are alleged to be derived, and provide and identify all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to."
maybe this is the beginning of the end. Hope those SCO licensing fees are refundable...
So is the fat lady warming up?
cheers, ben
Never miss a good chance to shut up -- Will Rogers
I hope they are thinking "put-up-or-shut-up" now, and clamp down on SCO's grandstanding...
On the plus side, maybe the stock will slide to the point that we can get a dozen shares for a quarter. I'd buy 'em out for that price...
If SCO can't produce the offending code? Perhaps Darl McBride and his lawyers would like a stay in a nice prison cell with a guy named Bubba for filing a worthless lawsuit. My guess is that SCO may claim that revealing this code would reveal a trade secret or something, so I expect them to fight back against this.
C:\>
...now SCO has 45 days in which to produce the offending lines of code before IBM calls to dismiss the case. This is the beginning of the end.
The last announcement SCO made (re: the suing bit) had nothing to do with the disputed code, and they intentionally phrased it to seem like AutoZone was being sued for just running Linux.
SCO's tactics seem to be growing more and more deceitful and misleading..
[SCO] is hereby ordered to:
4. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to.
PDF: http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/IBM-109.pdf
I can't wait to see the answer to this one...
A fair ruling IMHO.
For a change, the SCO Group had no comment, because Judge Wells told it not to issue any.
It's about time...
This line is ours:
{
and so is this:
int i;
The Server that they have to post their PDF filings to runs Linux! (The webserver for the court.)
(*) More countersuits
(*) They won't
(*) Darl ends up sharing a cell with CowboyNeal
IAALS.
As per usual, Groklaw has the full treatment.
Basically, the court ruled SCO must put up within 45 days, while IBM must also give AIX (but not all versions) to SCO.
This is of course bad for SCO, who claims they need IBM to provide AIX before they can identify what is infringing. As IBM most likely won't be handing over AIX in the next 44 days or so, obviously SCO will not be able to comply.
It's a cute judgement, since it is fair to both parties while being devastating to SCO at the ame time.
It'll be interesting to see if they will play the 'we need the AIX code!' card again for the third hearing running.
The judge just got tired from reading the same arguments over this on /. all the time.
Will I (some random guy on the Internet) get to see it? I'm not talking about the the proprietary AIX/Dynix stuff, but the infringing code that they claim to be in the Linux kernel?
My (obvious) guess is no, but this comment really is a question to those who might know more.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
So, can Linux distributors (or Linus himself) sue SCO for defamation? I'm sure that some companies have resisted purchasing Linux distributions in the past few months, in light of this court case...
SCOX went up after the ruling, though it fell over 10% during the day (the net is still down 8%), so it is a good thing :).
SCO may try to spin it as a positive for them, though I do not see how any of it can be positive...
S
I'm just waiting for common sense to hit the market (it kind of has already since it was down around $2 today).
Some interesting things in this order: SCO doesn't have to provide anything until IBM releases "about 245" products that make up the Dynix/AIX family to them. It also may have to provide the code to the OS's themselves. The judge state some prior cases as why SCO should be allowed to examine IBM's internal code.
SCO and IBM, under IBM list of orders, should come up with a list of the top 1000 relevant witnesses. Holy smokes.
This doesn't look like a SCO loss at all. It looks like a big court-ordered phase of "looking for more proof". Remember, this is the discovery phase, or so I've read.
Read the story, read the ruling. IBM is supposed to show SCO some code, too.
- Robin
"As a result of this newest court order, SCO now has another 45 days, or until April 17, to produce the disputed lines of code and explain them clearly to the court."
Darl: "we were working on our taxes and 2 days is *so* not long enough to make all of this up"
My other sig is an import.
grep -n "int i;" *.c
It's not quite "put-up-or-shut-up" for SCO. You see, there are some directions in the ruling for IBM as well (apparently not relevant to the story here at Slashdot). For example, under the heading "IBM", the ruling also says that SCO made a "good faith effort" to comply with the Court's prior order, and so the Court removed the discovery stay that it had previously ordered. There are quite a few things that the Court has ordered IBM to now turn over to SCO, such as certain releases of AIX and Dynix that SCO had requested. Actually, IBM is being told to turn quite a bit over to SCO, it's not really a "win" either way.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
SCO is already "oblivious", now if we can get them into oblivion... that would be nice.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
...put up AND shut up. :)
There are quite a few things that the Court has ordered IBM to now turn over to SCO, such as certain releases of AIX and Dynix that SCO had requested. Actually, IBM is being told to turn quite a bit over to SCO, it's not really a "win" either way.
Yes it is. Because IBM has the same 45 days to produce this as SCO does to produce its evidence of infringement.
SCO has already stated in court that they cannot possibly comply with this without all the AIX code. Now, they are neither getting all the AIX code or the chance to use it to prove infringments, since IBM is hardly going to hand over the source at once.
(This is of course what the court intended by giving them a concurrent deadline. SCO must prove their case on their own hand, but IBM must still comply with discovery.)
The order says SCO has to identify UNIX code in Linux Within 45 days... IBM has 45 days to make AIX/Dynix available to SCO. BIG DIFFERENCE!
My wife doesn't listen to me either...
"skow"
That way when you pronounce thier company's stock SCOX, it sounds like "scocks"
#include "IANAL.H"
...unbiased. She has asked that IBM provide the "approximately 232 products" and the source logs for them, as well as email and memos pertaining to them. She's basically allowing SCO to go diving for the information that they are after.
However, this is discovery and not trial so items obtained during discovery don't seem to always be admissable. It simply seems that Judge Wells is doing her best judicial duty to ensure that there can be no claim of mistrial due to denied evidence.
As well SCO has quite a ballgame ahead of them. The items requested from them were quite numerous and it seems that Judge Wells doesn't buy the "we can't specify it because it would violate agreements" argument that they are bandying about. (See item #5 on the order itself; where the code was distributed, to whom, and under what agreements.)
The end result is this order seems better for SCO than IBM, but then again SCO couldn't get much lower on hope than they were. I disagree with the allowance of the requested versions of Dynix and AIX and all source code for them -- perhaps I should simply sue Microsoft and insinuate that they have some of my code in their product. While I admire the discovery must be broad... that seems to be a bit too broad.
SCO wants to subpoena 7200 witnesses. Holy Christ. How, when, why? That many witnesses? Tell me there'd be some sort of expedited process to get the questions SCO is seeking answered -- that seems ludicrous, especially in light of the fact that SCO has repeatedly altered its complaints.
I also laugh at "considering SCO's good faith effort." What? WHAT? And THANK GOD she muzzled McBridge and his cronies. I just hope that she doesn't start putting the remainder of the case under seal so as to prevent the rest of us from knowing what's going on. You know SCO will suggest it at least once.
Talonius
My reality check bounced.
Why, yes it is:
I wonder which will come first, the end of SCO vs. IBM or the release of Half-Life 2.
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
In the investors' telecast this morning, darl pronounced it as both "S-C-O" and "SKO". Also, there was some guy i couldn't identify who kept calling darl "daarrell."
Time to place another round of short-sell orders! And only 2 days after the order at $13.00 kicked in. Oh, and hold off until right after my next round goes through, mmkay? SCO is such a low-cap stock that even a small herd of Slashdot weenies can affect it...hmmm...
On second thought, everyone go find a broker and short like there's no tomorrow. If we all work together, we can drive SCOX into the ground! Think of it as a chartiable contribution that'll probably earn a sizable return inside of a few months.
"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
"Some code" meaning the source code control logs and "approximately 232 versions" of Dynix and AIX.
Boggle at the pure amount of information that is.
My reality check bounced.
In the Harvard/JOLT webcast video, Darl pronounces his company as one word, SCO, not S-C-O.
No. The code was a "trade secret", even though it was posted everywhere (like DeCSS and California). If they actually pointed it out publicly, then everyone would have seen that those snippets were actually the only valuable lines of code in the linux kernel. Well, that or the fact that they had nothing to their case. But corporations would never try to intimidate money out of users, or extort other companies to buying silence, would they? ----------
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
It's from Groklaw, but the DB server seems ready to crash!
... obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i). A Court may also limit discovery if "the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(iii).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DIVISION, DISTRICT OF UTAH
______________________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff,
vs
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.
Defendant
Case No. 2:03cv00294 DK
ORDER REGARDING SCO'S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
AND IBM'S MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY
On February 6, 2004, the Court heard arguments regarding SCO Group Incorporated's (SCO) compliance with the court's prior order of December 12, 2003. The Court also heard argument on SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery. SCO was represneted by Mark Heise, Brent Hatch and Kevin McBride. International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) was represented by David Marriot, Todd Schaughnessy, Chris Chow, and Amy Sorenson.
The Court having heard argument, having read the parties' memoranda, having considered relevant case law, and finding good cause shown, hereby enters the following Orders:
I. SCO
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant is hereby ORDERED:
1. To fully comply within 45 days of the entry of this order with the corut's previous order dated December 12, 2003. This is to include those items that SCO had difficulty in obtaining prior to the Court's previously ordered deadline of January 12, 2004.
2. As previously ordered, SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code that IBM is alleged to have contributed to Linux from either AIX or Dynix. This is to include all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time.
3. SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code from Unix System V from which IBM's contributions from AIX and Dynix are alleged to be derived.
4. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to.
5. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties. This is to include where appplicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released.
II. IBM
In light of what the court considers SCO's good faith efforts to comply with the Court's prior order, the Court lifts the discovery stay it previously imposed.
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure states in relevant part: "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.... The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This rule has been interpreted broadly by the United States Supreme Court. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. V. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S. Ct. 2380 (1978). "[A]th the discovery stage, the concept of revelance should be construed very broadly." Gohler, IRA, er al. v. Wood er al., 162 F.R.D. 691,695 (D. Utah 1995). However, a court may limit discovery where "the discovery sought is
Based on the Court's decision to lift the discovery stay and because relevance should be construed broadly at the discovery stage, IBM is hereby ORDERED:
1. To provide the releases of AIX and Dynix consisting of "about 232 products" as was represented by Mr. Marriott at the February 6, 2004 hearing. The releases are to be provided within 45 days of the entry of this order. Following the production, SCO is to provide additional memoranda to the Court indicating if and how these files support its position and how they are relevant. The memorandum is to include with specificity, and to the extent possible, identification of
I say "Ess-See-Owe" although based on this latest news I think "Ess-Owe-Ell" is more appropriate.
Trolling is a art,
It won't matter because, since SCO will have to divulge which lines they lay claim to, and the trial will determine which lines they actually have a legitimate claim on (if any), we will know what needs replacing and it will be replaced. The replacement lines will probably be incorporated in distributions before judgment is passed.
End of story. End of SCO.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files,IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:28 PM EST
The order is in. She tells both sides to comply with discovery, but in the case of IBM, she specifically restricts the requirement that they provide AIX files to the 232 mentioned by IBM's lawyer, David Marriott, at the last hearing on February 6. SCO must demonstrate a need for more if they want more. But they don't get every AIX version from the beginning, as they had repeatedly requested. SCO has 45 days to comply fully with IBM's discovery demands. Remember, that is what IBM asked for, that SCO be given a date to comply.
SCO has 45 days to identify "all specific lines of code" they allege IBM put into Linux from AIX or Dynix; identify and provide "with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to; provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties, and this is to include "where applicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released."
The previous discovery stay is lifted. IBM has 45 days to provide "the releases of AIX and Dynix consisting of 'about 232 products' as was represented by Mr. Marriott at the February 6, 2004 hearing." After that SCO can provide memoranda indicating "if and how these files support its position and how they are relevant." If they ask for more files, they are to explain reasons for such requests.. Then the court "will consider ordering IBM to produce more code from AIX and Dynix."
What it all means in practical terms is that the court didn't buy SCO's argument that it needed all of AIX and Dynix and it specifically rejected its request that IBM *first* provide AIX and Dynix, so that after that SCO could find what it needed. Since, obviously, IBM is unlikely to provide its side of the discovery order until the 45th day, SCO, under the identical 45-day requirement, will have to provide its answers to discovery before it gets to look at any more AIX or Dynix.
SCO is granted one request: that IBM turn over discovery regarding top management, including Sam Palmisano. Also Judge Wells asks that IBM turn over any nonpublic contributions to Linux that it may have made. She will learn more about Linux as the case goes along, and I believe she will find there aren't any such. SCO asked for source logs. Wells says fine, but SCO has to do the same for IBM. I don't remember IBM asking for source logs, but it is only fair.
She then asks both sides to explain how the new amended complaint impacts IBM's Motion to Strike. That's it. She would like the case to move forward, but she has done so in a way that is not a problem for IBM. SCO, on the other hand, has to provide what it told her at the hearing it can't provide without looking at all of AIX first. How they will do that remains to be seen.
We hope to have it transcribed soon. Here is the PDF from SCO's website. We should have a local copy soon, if you prefer to wait.
To refresh your memory, here is the transcript of SCO saying it is impossible for them to provide the discovery without getting AIX and Dynix first:
MR. HEISE: The reason I am maybe going more into the merits than I probably should in front of Your Honor is it directly ties into the adequacy of these interrogatory answers. The interrogatory answers detail exhaustively the contributions of AIX and Dynix that were made in there. There is no dispute about that.
They then in this letter that they wrote earlier this week said, Well, you didn't identify the line-for-line matching in every single place. There are two times when we did not do that in our answers to interrogatories. One is in table A of our interrogatories which we identified eight different files and we said the copying is complete throughout. We are not matching up the lines and I gave an example of that in the demonstrative aids when it says copying of Dynix slash into Linux, and you can s
Both are correct. Every geek I've heard say it uses the word "skow". Business people probably say "S.C.O."
-B
if SCO's IP is in the kernel? in about a half a day a new kernel will be available.
Is that the "oops my bad!" defense? You don't get a do-over if SCO wins. You'd basically have to start over from the 2.2 kernel, ensuring that nobody who works on the project has or had access to SCO's IP, including all derivitave works such as later Linux kernels. Basically everybody who worked on the kernel after 2.2 could be considered "tainted" by having seen SCO's IP.
IF SCO had a case and could PROVE it they wouldn't dragging the case until now. They would show it at first hearing, bringing reams of printed code (the so called millions of lines) and an account number to IBM deposit the due amount.
If you had 1 billion of damages that you could prove and document, comparing code you wouldn't do such a circus, you would present evidence and documents ASAP to receive the due amount. In fact, if they had a case IBM would have paid or bought them long ago.
Darl mentioned that "last summer" some Linux programmers admitted there was some stolen code in the kernel.
A really sharp female journalist from CRN asked what code was stolen and who these programmers were. Darl got tongue tied and someobdy else from SCO stepped in and said they couldn't comment on that.
This guy is way out there
Novell has been sitting on the sidelines sending polite setup letters for a while. Perhaps this is what they have been waiting for.
By suing Novell's customers (for which SCO has been providing an administrative service) SCO has:
1. Clearly defied a contractually valid direct order
2. Took actions and asserted rights not specified in the contract, and
3. Demonstrably harmed the product's (SysV licenses) future revenue stream.
Perhaps SCO thought the suit against Novell would somehow shield them from the reality that the only thing propping any of this up is their contract with Novell.
Here's to hoping for some "quick" justice.
So I see SCO coming in with a 3 x 5 card and IBM coming in with bags and bags of info as if from a scene in "Miracle on 34th Street" . The judge rules SCO is some kind of legal pyramid scheme and IBM is a real software company. Christmas is saved!
Some code" meaning the source code control logs and "approximately 232 versions" of Dynix and AIX.
The code that IBM has been 'ordered' to produce is actually the code that IBM offered to produce prior to the point at which the Judge ordered a stay of discovery because she was concerned that SCO was attempting to avoid compliance.
SCO actually asked that IBM issue them with all versions of AIX and Dynix, both released and unreleased, and the judge has disallowed this claim, insisting that before SCO get to see any more documents, they have to show good reason why it is necessary.
In short, this is a total victory for IBM and a total pasting for SCO.
(5) is good too. If I understand it correctly they'll have to tell the judge that they're still distributing linux 2.4.21 to the world under the license "GNU GPL", and we can all be on the list:
wget --http-user= --http-passwd= wget http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/update/RPMS.up dates/kernel-source-2.4.21-138.i586.rpm
"SCO is to provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties. This is to include where applicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released."
Let's all help them out by posting our names, dates and the fact that the license is the GNU GPL and the circumstances is "public SCO FTP and HTTP server"
Belief is the currency of delusion.
This idea just popped into my head, in case someone has the balls to do it. If you have a company that could generate some sort of press attention by buying an SCO license, buy one and tell Darl that you'll be glad to attend a press conference with him to make the announcement. Then, when everyone's there with their tape recorders, cameras, etc. out and ready, get up to the podium, hold up the license, and announce to the world that you bought it so you'd have a nice momento to hang on your wall when this is all over and SCO has been pounded into the ground by IBM's legal team. After that, I figure you'll have about two minutes to begin making your case before utter pandemonium sets in. Don't waste those few minutes. Arrive well-armed with as many through legal analyses as you can gather, in paper form and on CD for easy cutting and pasting. You'll want these to give out to the reporters who'll be clamoring to know how you reached this conclusion. Be calm, professional, and thorough, and if you have the luxury, have an attorney waiting nearby who will then walk in on cue and answer any legal questions that may come up.
Then, sit back and watch the fallout.
Oh yeah, and you may also want to have a paramedic on hand to revive Darl, who will undoubtedly have had a heart attack by this time.
Well, think again. Reportedly...
Daimler-Chrysler is a 15% shareholder in Deutsche Bank which provided the propup funds to SCO which is suing Daimler-Chrysler.
Novell has 20(?)% of its shares under the Norda Trust which is a majority (?) stakeholder in The Canopy Group which owns 37% of SCO (common stock) which is suing Novell.
My head hurts. I have to go get a drink.
cheers- raga
Yes, that is an insult to everyone named Daryl.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the advantage of getting SCO onto a stupid Spike TV show?
Wait... maybe that's what this whole thing is... maybe it's some newfangled Reality TV Series! That would explain a heluva lot.
Tonight, after Surviving Average Joe in Eden is 'SCO: Litigious Bastards'. Follow the life of Darl and his cronies as he sees just how far he can push Big Blue and the tech industry at large! Tonight at 9!
Betcha FOX is behind it...
Blockwars: free, multiplayer, head to head, Tetris like game
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
It is official.
Netcraft confirms: SCO is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO community when IDC confirmed that SCO market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all Linux distribution versions. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by falling dead last in a recent Linux distribution study.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
SCO UNIX is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time developers Simon Baldwin and Andrew Sharpe only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: SCO is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
SCO UNIX project leader Darl states that there are 7000 users of SCO UNIX. How many users of OpenServer are there? Let's see. The number of SCO UNIX versus OpenServer posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 OpenServer users. SCO UNIX posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of OpenServer posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SCO UNIX. A recent article put SCO UNIX distribution at about 80 percent of the market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SCO UNIX users. This is consistent with the number of SCO Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of half-baked SCO lawsuits, abysmal sales and so on, many development companies is going out of business and will probably be taken over by another company who will sell another troubled product. Now SCO is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among dilettante dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
Fact: SCO is dying
"Put up and Shut up"
I like it!
AC comments get piped to
Lawsuit
SCO has finally decided who they are going to file suit against.
Cheers
Z
Oh well,
They mean that if IBM secretly (without anyone not involved knowing) passed any code to Linux, they should reveal it now. since actually all contributions to Linux are public because Linux itself is all public, it's pretty much irrelevant. Unless of course an undercover IBM agent, acting as a Random Joe Nerd from some obscure part of the world and not connected with IBM in any way, slipped some IBM's code into Linux as his own... How likely is that?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Non-English speakers: "SOL" == "Shit Outta Luck"
I hope IBM delivers the code to SCO in the form of a truckload of paper printed in a greek font.
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.
As well as their brother, Daryl.
Wish they'd avoid pronouncing it SKO ... its giving me a bad name!
I think i should sue for loss of reputation.
Show me yours, I'll show you mine ?
It's my understanding from SCO's recent arguments in court, that they didn't intend to point to specific line numbers or specific lines of code.
At the last hearing, SCO dropped both their trade secret and their breach of copyright claims, and came up with a new, more subtle argument.
As I understand it, their argument is that IBM improperly donated expertise -- around stuff like SMP, etc. -- in breach of their contract with ATT/SCO/whoever, and so they wouldn't be showing direct evidence of line by line copying (as they originally claimed) but are simply saying that these particular parts of the Linux kernel were wrongfully contributed.
That said, it appears that the judge still wants them to identify line numbers, both in Linux, and in the original source code where the methods were supposedly drawn from, even though it's my understanding that SCO no longer seem to be arguing that there was line by line copying -- more a wrongful transfer of knowledge and expertise that was in breach of their contract with IBM.
Gonna be interesting to watch how this plays out.
I've never heard anyone who has actually used one of their products say "S-C-O"
I've never heard of anyone who has actually used one of their products.
... but so far SCO has managed to avoid any deadline. Quite an acomplishment, in my opinion. Not a positive one, but it sure shows
a) they are scared
b) their lawyers are scared
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
No, it's fine. She's just applying the same boilerplate logic to Linux that she would to any legal entity. The court will be satisfied by a statement of "we made no non-public contributions to Linux", just as they would be satisfied by "we made no non-public contributions to Microsoft". They know any statement IBM makes is either true or perjury--like any statement they receive from anyone. Don't read too much into it. A lot of legalese is just covering all the bases, even bases that aren't applicable to the situation.
SCO is no longer claiming any code was stolen from their product and inserted into Linux. They are claiming that IBM developed AIX and Dynix from Unix System V (as licensees) and then ported routines from AIX to Linux. The code in question never belonged to SCO or their predecessors.
SCO is arguing that the code that was contributed to Linux is derivative of their Unix, because it was originally developed for Unix. It's a very optimistic approach to the law, on their part.
Guess what? The Motley Fool said much of the same thing - SCO Digs a Deeper Hole. It concludes by saying "With declining revenues, increasing losses, and an expensive and damaging litigation policy, SCO looks like one of the best short candidates I've seen in a while."
The 45-day deadline is to produce "all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time."
Yes, and they already failed to do so during their last deadline, and then argumented that they cannot comply with the court's request without all of AIX, which they're not getting now.
If they did have something, they should've produced it prior to the last hearing. (actually, they should've produced this from the start)
So sure, if SCO now can show something (which they admit they can't), then the lawsuit can continue, and so can discovery.
If SCO can't show anything, they will face court sanctions. Most likely the case will get thrown out, or at least the claims of misappropriation.
The Linux server has recused itself, due to a potential conflict of interest. It has appointed its predecessor, an Apple ][gs, to handle the process for the rest of the case, and will take the opportunity to spend more time with its *NIX family, and perhaps will also take a vacation to Denmark.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I don't know about this .. as I read this This doens't look like a *complete* victory for IBM it says they (IBM) has to provide the "materials and documents" of the people involved in the linux project something that SCO didn't specifically ask for ....
That's a standard part of the discovery procedure. Not only had SCO had asked for this stuff prior to the discovery process being frozen by the judge, they'd actually asked for the names of over 10,000 IBM employees -- clearly an attempt to harrass the company and interfere with their business.
Because the case law on discovery insists that courts have to err on the side of generosity during the discovery process, the judge has to do everything that is fair and reasonable to enable SCO to make their case within the limits of legal procedure, there was no way that any judge was *not* going to make such orders. To do so would have simply given SCO good grounds for appeal.
But SCO didn't get the names of their 10,000 witnesses from IBM. The judge ordered that IBM provide SCO with details of a representative 1,000, and SCO will then have to provide good grounds should they wish to interview or depose any other IBM employee.
Seriously, IBM's lawyers would have expected and anticipated this -- indeed, their earlier findings suggest that they would actually welcome it. They're looking for a decisive victory, not some dismissal on a technicality, and so they also want the judge to give SCO all the latitude that they are entitled to under the law, because when they do eventually squash them like a bug, the victory will be decisive.
Basically, SCO got nothing that IBM wouldn't have wanted them to have, but they got a damn sight less than they asked for in all of their motions. While a layman might not see that as a complete victory, I'm pretty sure that that's how IBM's lawyers will view it.
And their other brother Daryl.
I've read through the order three times now, and can't find where SCO has been ordered not ot comment? Can someone point that out to me?
I bet the infringing lines of code are:
10 PRINT "SCO RULE"
20 GOTO 10
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
And their sister Daryl.
This is their All Your Code Are Now Belong To Us legal theory.
once it is removed- they have no issue.. i.e. if I'm using a red circle logo that makes coke uncomfortable, they send me a letter, asking me to stop.. I do so- then coke has no further case/issue-nnless they can prove I damaged them at the time....
You're describing trademark infringement. A better analogy would be if you were bottling a soda based on Coke's secret formula which you obtained illegally. You can't at that point just say "my bad" and stop - you're liable for damages for the period where you were infringing. You're also not going to be able to just come up with a new formula. You already know Coke's secrets - you'd have to either license the formula or hire people with no knowledge of Coke's IP to come up with the new formula for you. For Linux, this could mean that anybody who has worked on the kernel since 2.2 would no longer be able to contribute since they have gained the knowledge from seeing and studying SCO's IP. Anything they do from that point on might be considered tainted, whether or not the code is copied line-for-line. It might also mean discarding everything since 2.2 and starting over from the point where the court determined the infringement started.
So *that's* how you say, "shit or get off the pot," in 9 pages.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
You can hear it for yourself in the recording: http://sco.penguinman.com/2004-03-03-SCOX.torrent
Belief is the currency of delusion.
This happened earlier in court when they met in chambers. It was commented that IBM lawyers were looking smug coming out from that meeting. We suspected the judge had gagged Darl, but it wasn't confirmed until ~today.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
This is the first Slashdot story I've read that doesn't have a "Die SCO, linux forever" slant to it. Not that I support SCO or anything (I very much take the majority opinion here, that of SCO being wrong), I just find it interesting to see a mostly objective story on SCO for once.
Thursday March 4th, 2004: :-?
SCO sues Judge Brooke C. Wells for ONE HUNDRED BILLION dollars, news of which sends SCOX price soaring 10 cents per share to 11.69, at which time Daryll McBride sells the last of his holdings. Their evil scheme collapses and there is much rejoicing. Okay I am dreaming.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
This is, of course, after they disobeyed the court's previous order to produce the code within 30 days. I'd almost be willing to bet a million bucks that when April 17 comes around, they'll motion for an extension, and repeat it upon termination of that extension, essentially putting off production of the evidence forever. (But I don't have a million bucks.)
UNIX isn't open source and SCO clames code was taken from "SCO UNIX" and put into the open source Linux kernel...
> A better analogy would be if you were bottling a soda based on Coke's secret formula which you obtained illegally.
No, that one's wrong too. Coke's formula is a trade secret. That's a different animal from trademark, or patent, or copyright.
Not that the distinction matters. This is a breach of contract case with potential outcomes involving intellectual property. It's not an intellectual property case.
A post over on Groklaw also mentioned the possibility that IBM could, conceivably, have OFFERED a patch that was subsequently turned down for inclusion in the 'base' tree. Hence, it was a "contribution" (though not one that was accepted) and, possibly not appearing anywhere at the moment, would be "non-public".
The Groklaw post suggested that "intent to contribute" would have been a factor in the wildly flailing SCO claims. My take is that it IF such a thing ever occured then maybe, just maybe, IBM TRIED to put Secret SCO Source(tm) into Linux but failed (which obviously makes it a failure as a "Linux violates SCO Copyright" claim but might, during a full moon on a Tuesday during a solar eclipse, make a basis for a contract violation claim...)
Though this would also require that the patch have been submitted through "non-public" channels, too. Hmmm. Guess even this interpretation is a little weak...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Note that this sentence essentially assumes that SCO's "If A and B are linked into the same binary, then B is a derived work of A" theory is wrong. For this question to be even answerable, every chunk of code that SCO claims is a "derivative work" of System V is going to have to be a modified version of code that is already included in System V.
Somehow I don't think "We don't actually have any JFS, RCU, or NUMA code in System V, but under our theory we don't have to" is going to be a very good answer to this order, but it's basically the only answer SCO can give.
Superficially this order doesn't look like a big win for IBM, but since order 3 implies that Judge Wells doesn't believe SCO's ideas about "derivative works" and order 5 implies that Judge Wells does believe IBM's ideas about the GPL... well, that's about as good as the order could get without actually throwing out any of SCO's claims.
the dude's name is Darl
not Daryl.
sounds like he was one beer shy of being called skeeter though.
They're using their grammar skills there.
In an effort to try and recoup some of it's losses in the OS marketplace, SCO is opening their legal team to any slashdotter, geek, or leet script kiddies. These unpaid volunteers will be given access to all 232 versions of IBM's AIX. Because the response is expected to be tremendous, they'll have to submit a shipping and handling fee of $99.95 and sign a non-gpl-compatible, non-disclosure, non-sense agreement before they're allowed to see the code.
Of course the above is in jest, but I bet it will be quite a challenge to keep the source of all those AIX versions confidential from the eager eyes of the geek community. Is this stuff of any value today to IBM? Would sloppy court handling or an "accidental" publication by SCO possibly release anything of value to the tech community?
(I'm not talking about copyrights of course, that's a whole circle of hell Dante and I don't want to know anything about).
Oh I think that's a bit harsh - my budgie (parakeet) is extremely happy with his copy of Caldera Openlinux 2.2-N.
The back of the CD functions extremely well as a mirror.
Red.
I searched through Linux for SCO's intellectual property and found these purloined lines!
{
}
int i;
j++
static char buf[1024];
} else {
if (!status) {
for(;;)
int error;
void* addr;
return 0;
And anyone manage to find this in System V?
panic("bad_user_access_length executed (not cool, dude)");
I'm still looking for where it was stolen from, but man is that Wingdings hard to read!
Remember, SCO claimed that they couldn't provide any evidence of copyright infringement without access to the AIX code. Now, they are either going to have to do one of the following:
None of these alternatives favors SCO in the least. IBM's responsibility to make the AIX source "available" to SCO, IMHO, only shows that the judge has a somewhat morbid sense of humor, in that she seems interested in finding out exactly how tight SCO is willing to draw the noose around their own neck...
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
There are two different "IP" laws that may apply to the case. One is trade secrets, which is what the coca-cola formula is covered by. This has no effect on anyone except the party privy to the code/formula. This party (in our case IBM) would be liable for any damage caused by the breach of contract. In this case IBM could be fined quite heavily.
The other law that may be applicable is copyright. This applies to the copying and distribution of copyrighted stuff. As is the case with trade secrets, probably the only party that can be faulted is the party that copied the copyrighted code. With copyright infringement the infringed-upon party has to inform what the infringement is and try help mitigating the damages. If the infringing party acted in good faith and do their best to mitigate damage, there is a very small chance there will be any damage penalty. So, yes, in this case where SCO has done nothing to inform what the infringements are and if IBM are shown to not have blatantly copied code knowingly, even if SCO (against all probability) win the case, the result will probably be removal of infringing code and not much else.
As to your assertion that nobody can work on the kernel after having seen the code, this is just ludicrous. It is just plain untrue. If what you say is the case, does that mean that anybody who ever hear any copyrighted rock music can never write music? And anybody who has read a crime novel cannot write books?
-TN
I work tech support for an ISP and got a call from a user of ours that was also a SCO employee. Needless to say his account has been flagged :)
He also asked if we used Linux at all and seemed rather disappointed when he found out we ran BSD.
What happens if in 45 days SCO produces proof that their copyrighted code IS in IBM's code? What will that mean for IBM, for the Linux community?
/. like to assume that SCO is run by idiots, it makes sense that the people in charge of a public company know what they are doing.
While it is certainly likely that SCO is just blowing smoke, I think we should consider the possibly that they are not wasting all this time/money for nothing. They knew when they started this nonsense that at one point they would have to prove their claims.
While we at
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!
Both are correct. Every geek I've heard say it uses the word "skow". Business people probably say "S.C.O."
Neither is "correct" if you ask me. SCO originally stood for the Santa Cruz Operation, and all employees and everyone who used the software called them "S.C.O.". Their main product was SCO Unix, a pretty advanced version of Unix at the time (and popular) - and it was pronounced "S.C.O. Unix", as the letters were still an abbreviation. SCO was a good company; for a while they had good technology, and they did not engage in the kinds of tactics the current SCO uses. They were similar to other Unix sellers.
Through the years the company has changed hands a number of times, and what is now "The SCO Group" has no real relation to the original Santa Cruz Operation. It is not HQ'd in Santa Cruz (as the original was), for one thing, so even though the current SCO owns that name they have said publicly that the correct pronunciation is now "Skow". As if it's a word. I think this is ridiculous. It's like Kramer on Seinfeld trying to use "Quone" in a game of Scrabble.
I still pronounce it S.C.O. and so does everyone else I know. We're old-school, I guess. Some may see this as a slap in the face at the real SCO, the original SCO, and I can understand that. But "Skow" just doesn't make any sense at all, and it's obvious that the current SCO is trying to profit off the name anyway (otherwise why even write it "SCO" and not "Sco" or "Skow"?), so to me calling them "S.C.O." sort of rubs their face in the fact that they're not who they say they are.
On the other hand, I've got a close relative who was an employee of the original Santa Cruz Operation - haven't bothered asking him what he thinks of me calling the current SCO by the same name. Kind of afraid to.
"I'm a day late and a Daryl short."
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
It is therefore a "Shut up and put up" demand.
This sig no verb.
We chiefly looked at Sun and SCO as solutions. Sun hardware was just prohibitively expensive. So we went with SCO. In about a year, we migrated to NetBSD. By 1995 most things were moved over to Linux.
I'd had a personal copy of SCO Xenix for a 286 for a while.
So I have used, purchased and managed SCO systems.
I also went to school with some of the founders or SCO (back when it was in Santa Cruz). I'd foolishly passed up the opportunity to invest back then (1984).
Anyway, as you can imagine, as someone who had some (minimal) connection to SCO twenty years ago, I am not at all please by the litigious bastards they are now.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
I'll be interested to see when (or rather, if) MSNBC reports this on their site - they've been quite good at reporting on the case lately, since SCO has been filing lawsuits, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, we'll see who was behind the reporting.
Seems to me they've been quite quick with the last couple of stories, but nothing about this one yet.
Her article on the day's SCO events. Posted before the Judge's order in teh IBM case.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
For Linux, this could mean that anybody who has worked on the kernel since 2.2 would no longer be able to contribute since they have gained the knowledge from seeing and studying SCO's IP.
:).
Being that the source is so widely available on millions of cdroms (non desctructable media owned by many individuals and copyable) and harddrives all around the world, if any SCO ip were to be in the kernel, it would basically become public domain (or at least common knowledge
There's more to say on this "loser pays" question.
Situation: I own a patent. SomeCorp is suspected of violating my patent. I sue. Thanks to their VASTLY SUPERIOR legal resources, I lose. Suddenly, I'm not only screwed out of patent protection, I'm bankrupt to boot.
The government awarded you the patent. Then the government setup a court system for you to use to get paid for your patent. Is it too much for the government to ask you in return to be certain your position is correct before you sue?
Patent protection is something that's "awarded" to you. It's a bargain to give you an incentive to invent and commercialize your invention as quickly as possible. You can't be "screwed out" of something you're not morally entitled to in the first place.
And, in a loser pays situation, how can someone have "VASTLY SUPERIOR legal resources"? If SomeCorp can spend $5 million on their lawyers, you can spend $5 million on your lawyers. You're going to win. They're going to pay your legal bills.
You are going to win, aren't you? You must be certain, because you brought the lawsuit. If you're not certain, then settle or don't sue at all.
In fact, if 'Loser Pays' was the norm, wouldn't that just influence every corp to take on an oversized legal team for every tort filed against them?
Not every tort. Only the ones where they think the facts are on their side. Only the ones they think they're going to win. The ones they think they're going to lose, they'll settle to minimize their costs.
That's as opposed to the current system, where the defendant tends to settle even when they're 100% right, just to avoid the legal bills.
And no, there's no incentive to take on an oversized legal team. Even if you win, there's no big payoff for having a big legal team, your expenses simply get paid.
They make products too!??
Check this out.
Shit is really going to hit the fan for SCO.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Surely there was a larger file on SCO's website they could have linked to. The site is still up!
My Blog
I'm currently in the process of starting a company with former SCO people. They all pronounce it "SKOH". I, along with them, reside in Santa Cruz, California.
We collectively groaned in agony when Daryl announced the "re-branded Caldera".
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Halloween X:
:)
MS is funding SCO. Evidence at OSI!
Absolutely amazing. If this is real.....some heads will roll
Time for the SEC is whoop some ass
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
...say now, you own a fire insurance on your house - you pay a small amount of money, to avoid the small, but extremely costly chance that your house will burn to the ground. If you were willing to take that risk, you wouldn't need insurance.
Now, let's say your house does burn, but the insurance company disputes the claim for some dubious reason and want to take you to court with their huge legal team. You may be fairly sure you're right, but there's a small but extremely costly risk you're wrong. Ups, you just got exactly the risk you were unwilling to take in the first place, and the insurance compnay knows it.
I much prefer the Norwegian system - by default, each pay their own bills. But the courts may *choose* to make the losing side pay - in part or in full. So if you bring an army of lawyers, they may compensate you for "normal" representation, but the excess is coming out of your own wallet. Seems to work rather well against frivolous lawsuits as well as for individuals vs corporations.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
On the contrary - regarding the AIX/Dynix code, IBM has been told to hand over the code that they themselves offered to turn over in the previous court hearing.
They has NOT been told to turn over the code SCO wanted - as they wanted all iterations of the code.
Yeah, abbreviations are always pronounced with individual letters...it would be really freakish if people didn't say G-N-U, or L-A-S-E-R, or A-S-C-I-I. As if those are words. That would be ridiculous, like Kramer trying to use "Quone" in a game of Scrabble.
For a while, rather than using "www", I called it "six you". Never caught on.
>>IF SCO had a case and could PROVE it they wouldn't dragging the case until now.
As IBM said on Dec 5th: "either scox has the evidence, or they don't." Scox should have had this evidence a year ago, before they filed against IBM. Scox was given a direct court orders to produce this evidence in January and again in February.
Yet after all this time, and all of scox's obvious "hide the ball" stunts, and all of scox's idiotic execuses. Judge Wells is giving scox credit for making a "good faith effort" and is giving scox at least another 45 days to just produce evidence, and the judge is forcing ibm to turn over evidence to scox - in spite of the fact that it was scox who started the lawsuit.
The judge must be aware of scox's extortion racket, yet the judge is holding the door wide open for scox to continue their crimminal activities.
The Mormon Mafia must be powerful in Utah.
I don't know how likely this is to be real, but it would certainly explain alot.
If Microsoft truly were funding this fiasco with the proported $100 Million (so far), then the strategy is not that of a pathetic dying company trying to hang on to some form of life.
Everyone asks what Darl and crew could possibly be looking for with this pathetic business strategy. Everyone wonders what SCO could possibly have up its sleeve that might pay off in the end.
Assuming this memo is real, SCO's strategy isn't to win at all... Tin foil hat on, the strategy would be pretty obvious:
No wonder SCO would be talking to Microsoft marketing as their next cash cow. All in all, a pretty clever Microsoft strategy, if true. You can also bet that if SCO can hold out for what Microsoft deems 'long enough,' that it'll be a strategy to be repeated, as long as US courts are willing to play along.
Pretty smart.
Punitive damages should generally be limited to some fraction of a defendant's wealth or based off of the value of the actual damage. So there is a limit on punitive damages, whether that exceeds a defendant's wealth or not.
Juries, near as I recall, decide guilt or innocence, and then, separately, decide on damages, including punitive damages. So it's not a "you're guilty, here's the $500M you asked for". There are cases where there are multi-million dollar lawsuits for and the plaintiff wins, but get's awarded $0.01!
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Why, oh WHY BERNERS-LEE didn't you just set web.domain.tld as the standard? WHY!!!!
<boo hoo>