Slashdot Mirror
Randall Davis: IBM Has No SCO Code
Mick Ohrberg writes "As reported by Groklaw, Randall Davis, renowned professor of Computer Science at MIT has after an extensive search found no evidence of SCO's claims that IBM has incorporated parts of the Unix System V code. Davis says "Accordingly, the IBM Code cannot be said, in my opinion, to be a modification or a derivative work based on the Unix System V Code." Surprised, anyone?"
They are far from bankrupt, and probably won't be for a while either. They've already played down their accusations, perhaps trying to have people forget them. Perhaps people will go about their business as they did before this thing started, personally, I hope IBM takes action and drags their sorry faces into the mud.
So wait, you're trying to say they are EXACTLY THE SAME?
Never confuse volume with power.
Since Dr. Randall Davis is an expert witness for IBM, I am guessing that SCO will say, "ain't so!" and then they will ask for time to refute Randall's findings and perhaps come up with an expert witness of their own that finds thousands of "matches." Hopefully the judge in this case will recognize Randall for the expert that he is and accept his findings. However, that just doesn't seem likely to me. This is just another round in a case that will continue like this ad nauseum.
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
1. Get Linux 2.6.8.1
2. Get Linux 2.4.0
3. left out as an exercise for the reader
4. Show positive result
5. Don't profit, but have fun.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Great! Graduate Phi Beta Cappa (summa cum laude, too), run some AI centers and also have excessive experience in Code copyright infringement cases!
See you in 10 years!
(trans: read the relevant parts of his CV in the PDF- this guy is FOR REAL.)
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
I guess that's one reason they didn't hire you.
He doesn't need to; the software in question has probably been used many times before for the exact same thing.
Everyone is getting so far off base on this.
SCO is manging to convince people that this is somehow difficult to prove.. that they need more research and more time to PROVE that IBM stole code and put it in linux. Their only claim as to why they think Linux has SCO code is "because there is no way linux could have become as good as it did without stealing from us".. ie: denial
They have yet to show ONE section of code that was lifted. They haven't even shown how one was *similar* enough to have potentially been stolen and heavily modified.. they have shown *NOTHING*
IT's called an expert witness... and their word DOES mean something to the court.. they stake their reputation on it.
Although your deposition includes a description of your methodology, it does not indicate whether you established a proper baseline for comparison or how you calibrated your filter. I would be interested to know how far, in your direct experience, code can be modified before it fails to match COMPARATOR and SIM respectively. Furthermore, how closely does the point at which these tools fail to detect a match coincide with the legal Abstraction, Filtration, and Comparison test?
I do not fault your analysis; I would like to know more about your methodology, beyond the limited scope of the deposition.
-Hope
Since Dr. Randall Davis is an expert witness for IBM, I am guessing that SCO will say, "ain't so!" and then they will ask for time to refute Randall's findings and perhaps come up with an expert witness of their own that finds thousands of "matches." Hopefully the judge in this case will recognize Randall for the expert that he is and accept his findings. However, that just doesn't seem likely to me. This is just another round in a case that will continue like this ad nauseum.
Dr. Davis is the person who first elucidated how you compare code (the "abstraction, filtration, comparison" test - Computer Associates vs. Aitai) to see if it violates copyright. SCO will have a hard time trying to argue that its depositions (which are from non-experts, though they claim 'unnamed' experts performed the work) are from people more qualified than Dr. Davis.
So I guess what I'm saying is that SCO will have a hard time finding an expert witness more qualified than Dr. Davis. (Please note that if they try to present a deposition from one, that will likely be stricken - as SCO has been ordered by the court to present such a deposition, and has not - thus indicating it doesn't have one) And I highly doubt that the court will value any other expert over Dr. Davis anyway.
SCO has two of its own employees (Dr. Davis is not an IBM employee, though he is being retained by IBM). IBM has the expert witness who first defined how you compare code. Hmm, I wonder which the judge will believe...
If you paid attention to the FA, you might have noticed that what McBride is accusing IBM or other Linux developers of doing, includes changing the variable names to hide the 'stolen' code, and that the software that the Dr. used takes this possibility into consideration, and would find such lines if they existed.
The basic result is that no such lines existed that can be demonstrated to be non-literal copying, or literal copying.
-Rusty
You never know...
It just hit me: He doesn't have to. It's SCO's responsibility to show that there is infringing code in Linux. It's not IBM's responsibility to show that there is none. All that Davis has to prove is that the search is feasible in a reasonable ammount of time (as opposed to SCO's claim of 25,000 man-years). He's done this admirably. Not being able to find anything is simply icing on the cake.
One beautiful thing about this is that (AFAICT) all (or almost all) of the software he used seems to be Open source (although he has references some similar commercial software), so SCO has absolutely no excuse to not repeat his experiment and come up with different results (presuming that they've actually got a case), given that it takes about 1 hour to run the comparison on off-the-shelf hardware.
The other beautiful thing about this is -- remember Darl's remarks about an MIT team deep-diving the code?...... (boot to the head!)
"I've shown you mine, now you show me yours!"
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I've been thinking this was strange too. After all, if code was copied into Linux it is essentially a public document now - out there for everyone to see. All SCO would have to do is download it and print it out side-by-side with a copy of their matching code. Case closed. SCO wins.
The fact that they haven't done this extremely simple thing seems to strongly point to SCO being a bunch of total bullshitters. Even if some malicious programmer intentionally stole code and modified it slightly (changed variable names, comments, re-arranged the order of functions in header files, etc.) it should be pretty trivial to show a judge what happened and move on to the 'get sacks of cash from IBM' phase of the trial.
Funny, you would think that a company that is suffering continuous, ongoing harm to the tune of US$699 per user would be pretty quick to do such a thing...
If US justice required evidence to be registered and certified allowable before claims were filed, the system would shed a lot of its unbearable load. Even the appeals before a judge, of disallowed evidence, would be dealt with in a more efficient manner. It's insane that I'm paying for the legal system that SCO is exploiting to promote its equity, now that its legitimate business has failed, while their travesty hasn't even got any evidence, or demonstrated any basis for their claims. After the years they've pushed this thing through the courts, they should have at least produced some evidence. And they're just the flagship corporate operation lawsuit - billions are spent by my cohort of taxpayers to keep litigious corporations and their lawyers in business. We should nip them in the bud, by simply requiring evidence to make any claims based on it.
--
make install -not war