SCO Says Email Is Inaccurate

daria42 writes "The SCO Group has slammed as 'inaccurate' suggestions that an e-mail from one of its own engineers showed Linux did not contain copyright Unix code, and even forwarded its own historical memo to journalists in an attempt to discredit the e-mail published on Groklaw." From the article: "This memo shows that Mr. Davidson's e-mail is referring to an investigation limited to literal copying, which is not the standard for copyright violations, and which can be avoided by deliberate obfuscation, as the memo itself points out..." We reported on the email yesterday.

Comments

Nice try, Darl, but...

[nokilli]

From cnet we have this story:

Lines from Unix's source code have been copied into the heart of Linux, sometimes exactly and sometimes in a modified form designed to disguise their origin, according to SCO Group Chief Executive Darl McBride.

...and within which Darl McBride is quoted as saying:

"We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code."

So sell your bullshit somewhere else, Darl. We're all stocked up here.
--
Why didn't you know?

Re:Nice try, Darl, but...

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

<blockquote>"We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code."</blockquote>

From a good source I know Linux does indeed contain lines that are exactly the same as in UnixWare Code.

e.g.:

for (int i = 0; i < MAX_INT; i++)

while (!done)

...

There are many more to find. SCO has even reason to believe many more companies has copied these exact same code fragments!

Deny mode.

[theantipop]

Well of course they're going to say that. Did anyone expect them to say "Ah, yea you got us. We were bullshitting this whole time."?

Avoiding Jail

[drooling-dog]

Anybody else getting the feeling that these guys are just trying to stay out of jail now?

1999 invesitagtion trumps 2002 conclusion?

[gsfprez]

how the fcsk can it be than a 1999 investigation's initial findings, the Swartz investigation, show up "possible problems" and then in 2002, with Reg and Co examining the output of the 1999 investigation in 2002 and deeming that all the "problems" found in 1999 were actually NOT problems...such as legal use of BSD code, etc...

but the initial 1999 look trumps the more thorough 200*BANG*

my mind just exploded.

i hate this case.

Have your cake

[dysk]

From http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200310102 23050711

Question: Isn't it possible that someone was just inspired by work they'd done for other companies? Isn't that reasonable?

Darl(21:50): It's reasonable, except when the comment codes are the same, the humor lines in the comment code are the same, and the typos in the comment code are the same, then you start getting beyond... Ya know, it was kind of like, I learned this one day at school ... It becomes more of the... Those, to me, are really the DNA of the code here.

SCO's problem

[It doesn't come easy]

However, SCO said in a statement this afternoon, "it would simply be inaccurate - and misleading -- to use Mr Davidson's e-mail to suggest that SCO's internal investigation revealed no problems."

Problem number 1: Linux doesn't contain any of SCO's intellectual property.

Go to the source

[wfs2mail.com]

Does anyone know who Mr. Davidson is? Has anyone tried contacting him re: this email?

Tricky Linux programmers

[kawika]

Yes, SCO has found cases where their copyrighted code was stolen and then cleverly obfuscated by completely changing the variable names, comments, data structures and algorithms! But clearly it must have been stolen since it performs a similar function.

Re:Denial. Brilliant!

[eln]

Yes, they all lie, and the reason is because it works. Those of us who follow this case, or who take what people in these positions say with a grain of salt and do our own research are not usually fooled by such things, but the majority of people are. Most people are content to trust people in power rather than questioning them.

It's unfortunate that the idea of questioning powerful people has become taboo in our culture, as it gives those people that much more power to do whatever they please. The only way to keep power in check is for the relatively powerless to continually question it.

Current events, calendar.

[Anonymous Coward]

Current events:

• SCOvIBM: In the wake of the recent opinion issued by Judge Kimball, fact discovery will continue until 27 Jan 2006, and the parties must disclose with specificity all "allegedly infringing materials" by 22 Dec 2005. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the privilege log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

• SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

• RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due approximately 28 Sept 2005.

• SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is expected around 17 July 2005.

Pending/Recently decided motions:

• SCOvIBM:
  • SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery - fully briefed, awaiting hearing date.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - sealed]

SCOvNovell:

• Complaint
  • [SCO's complaint] [Novell's answer - expected 14 Jul 2005]
• Novell's Motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
  • [Motion] [Memo] [Novell Declaration of Bruce Lowey] [Novell Declaration of David E. Melaugh] [Opposition] [Reply] [Novell Declaration of Kellie Carlton] [Eyewitness Reports of Hearing] [Order]

RedHatvSCO:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 28 Sept 2005).
  • [Red Hat letter - 30 Jun 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 6 Jul 2005]

SCOvAutoZone:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 17 July 2005).
  • [AutoZone letter - 10 May 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 18 Apr 2005]

Please note that I've started construction of a motio

Re:Denial. Brilliant!

[CaptainZapp]

Corporate America feels like a childish game of "You go home.... no you go home..... No you go home.... No"

Actually it reminds me more of the small, obnoxious kid at the sandbox, which sticks his fingers into his ears and yells I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! on the top of his lungs.

What a sorry bunch of wankers...

Paging the Iraqui ex-Information Minister!

[Peter Simpson]

Your "denial in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contratry" skills are needed in Utah!

OMGWTFBBQ

[aws4y]

I just read the Fscking email and it says the opposite of what Stowell said. The email states directly that this entire scheme was concoted because executives cannot understand that simpling because two things work the same way it dosent mean that one thing is a copy of the other. This just makes them look more guilty of sock manipulation, this also brings into question there direct statements to the public. If an officer at a corporation lies to the public but didn't know it at the time then he or she made a mistake. If you lie to the public and you know its a lie, then that is fraud.

this memo clearly shows that SCO executives knew that there was no litteral copying in GNU/Linux, they then went out and made statements that they new were demonstrably false, i.e. Daryl's Line by Line copying comment. It is now very clear that SCO executives should at least be charged with fraud.

OT, but somewhat relevant to the issues at hand

[Anonymous Coward]

If SCO does end up prevailing at all in this circus, then I predict that someday musical instument makers, like say for example, Stienway Pianos, will claim that because you used one of their pianos to compose a song, then that song is automatically a "derivative work" of their I.P. and therefore you must pay license royalties back to them. Ditto for public performances played on the instruments. A portion of each concert ticket sold must be paid back to them, and free public performances would be outlawed because that would be "stealing potential revenue" from them.

Someday, you will have to agree to a usage rights control contract for everything you buy.

Somebody will patent some kind of registration system to track all kinds of usages of all these products and you're be required to be a member of that before you'll even be able permitted to purchase anything at all, and you'll actually not be purchaing anything, but rather leasing the temporary usage rights for a short term.

Re:Denial. Brilliant!

[Winkhorst]

Actually, my mother used to do that, but not in a sandbox, fortunately.

NEWSFLASH: SCO today denied reports that they think the world is flat. In a statement issued by CEO Daryl Whats-his-face, the company suggested that they had only meant to say that there were certain parts of it that appeared to be flat. "This is fully within the parameters of linguistic theory," said Daryl. "We never meant to imply that it's ALL flat." Daryl refused to elaborate on which areas of the world he thought "looked" flat.

Groklaw's take on the 1999 memo.

[mcc]

Groklaw has covered this 1999 email, but it's in an update to an earlier story rather than a story by itself. I thought they had a pretty good take on it and I wanted to quote something here.

Here's what IBM apparently had to say when the 1999 email first surfaced in court:

"SCO seeks to explain away the e-mail to which I referred by reference to a 1999 memorandum. Now, Mr. Hatch says that he understands that we have this memorandum. We have it because it was given to us hours before today's hearing. We got it this morning. It should have been produced a long time ago, but IBM is supposedly a party in breach of its discovery obligations.

Your Honor, the memo was dated five years ago. It was written three years before the e-mail which I have showed to Your Honor. It is a draft. It says on its face that it is provided, quote, 'subject to the further analysis of Mr. Davidson'. That's on page 5 of the fax sent to us this morning by Mr. Hatch. On the last page of the document, page 6 of the fax, he says, 'I'm awaiting analysis from Mike Davidson on some of these issues since he has a better feel for the history of much of this company.'

"Well, Your Honor, Mr. Davidson weighed in, in the e-mail we provided to Your Honor. In that e-mail, he makes abundantly clear in the last two paragraphs what he said when he weighed in.