Slashdot Mirror
Portions of SCO's Expert Reports Stricken
rm69990 writes "A day after Judge Dale Kimball reaffirmed Judge Wells' order tossing most of SCO's case, Judge Wells has stricken large portions of SCO's expert reports, stating that SCO was trying to do an end-run around IBM. As IBM put it in its motion papers, SCO will not be allowed to 'litigate by ambush.' This motion was regarding SCO's expert reports, where SCO attempted to insert new evidence after discovery had ended via their expert reports. Wells' ruled directly from the bench, and finished by telling SCO to 'take it up with Judge Kimball' if they had a problem. This really hasn't been a good week for SCO."
This is actually a very well known theory of copyright. An example: One cannot copyright factual data, but if one takes the factual data and arranges them in a novel enough way as to satisfy the "originality" requirement of copyright law, then that "author" can have a copyright over the selection and arrangement of the factual data. The data itself is not protected(anyone can put the same data in his own work), but that particular selection and way of arranging it is protected.
The copyright will normally be a "thin" copyright, meaning that for someone to be infringing he or she must have produced something nearly identical to whatever is protected. The data does not have to be factual data. A compilation of classical music now in the public domain is an example of something that might also be protected. This avenue is often used to try to protect computer databases where one entity has gone through a lot of trouble to collect a bunch of data and arrange it in a computer database, and someone else comes along and just copies it all.
Courts have held that things like the white pages (and in many cases the yellow pages) do not have sufficient originality to qualify for a compilation copyright.
In my opinion compilation and similar "data arrangement" copyrights are not a very good way to protect data (one reason is that you're attempting to protect "sweat of the brow" work through copyright, which is an idea that was rejected long ago).I feel that works of this type are better protected through tort law under the "unfair business practices" doctrine.
Well, they've just about decided what evidence there is; now they're going to decide which issues can be decided immediately (because there's no disputes on factual matters on them), and which issues need to go to court. That's for the next few months. It's likely that all of SCO's claims will be thrown out before then, but there will be IBM counter claims that probably will go to trial.
However, there's also a case Novell-SCO, and since in it Novell claims that it still holds the copyright over some things (like, say, SysV Unix) that SCO claims copyright of in the IBM case, that case will go first.
That trial is at the moment expected to start about September 2007-ish.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
The trial or the posting of dupes on Slashdot?
What arbitrary deadline? SCO has had YEARS to provide all the evidence they wanted to. They deliberitely waited until after discovery had ended before providing the so-called "expert evidence". The courts have bent over backwards trying to accomodate SCO, and all that happened was that SCO tried to take advantage of the court. There are rules that everyone has to follow. SCO didn't follow those rules.
They've had plenty of time. They've gone out publicly and said all this evidence was clear. They asked for a kazillion documents from IBM, which is a fishing expedition and not a directed discovery. The only reason SCO hasn't brought their case to trial is that they have no case to bring to trial. They've had every opportunity to present their evidence, and the discovery phase is there for good reason so you can't keep pulling rabbits out of the hat during trial.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Still, that deadline was about three and a half years into the case, it's not exactly been fast. And they're the plaintiffs, not the defendants - aren't they supposed to know what their actual claims are _before_ sueing somebody?
Eventually there has to be a deadline. SCO decides to sneak in some extra, really vague claims after that in hopes that IBM didn't have time to organize a proper defence, but well, they've had far too many deadline extensions already. Final means final.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Yeah. Poor SCO. If only they had been given more time by the judge. Society will feel a great loss at their departure. All that's needed next is to throw out the bonkers patenting system for IP and maybe talented and hardworking software writers can work in whatever way suits them and be rewarded appropriately.
I like Apple. They make nice stuff which works most of the time.
Darl is looking pretty rough these days. I wonder what could be weighing him down so much.
His conscience, maybe?
The wheels of justice make the NASA crawler-transporter look like a hot rod. Judges are supposed to set and enforce deadlines. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
SCO was repeatedly asked by IBM to specify what IBM did wrong, has been ordered to specify what IBM did wrong by a judge and tried to wiggle around this obligation for three years. SCO got quite some information from IBM over the years. Now the deadline has passed, SCO tries to slip in some new accusations. The judge says "No, you can't do that" on request of IBM. It would be unfair to defend against last-minute accusations without having an opportunity to collect the data you need to defend yourself.
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
But I don't like the idea that the wheels of justice need to roll so fast that any and all evidence may be thrown out because it doesn't meet some arbitrary deadline.
That wasn't an analogy. That was an argument.
You haven't been paying attention. SCO has spent the past few years jiggering the deadlines and what they file when with regards to them. They aren't the victim here; here too they are the villian and both IBM and the judge are just getting plenty sick and tired of their overt; and abusive, legal gaming.
KFG
Well if the large hypotetical company gave full access to their source code control system for the alledged infringing products and then the judge said, after you'd had access for about 2 years, "Is this all you got?" I would cut my losses and bow out.
6 0414162430240)
And this was actually what happend (except the bowing out part). SCOs lawyers have full access to IBMs CMVC (their version control system) and in a hearing Judge Wells asks SCOX lawyer "Does SCO have, can they provide, additional specificity?... I mean, basically, is this all you've got?" (source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=200
And, oh, I wouldn't go around saying "We will bring this much of that type of evidence into court before I actually did it. That will land you big fat Lanham accusations you know.
This really hasn't been a good week for SCO
Poor SCO, lets see if I can squeeze out a tear of sympathy.
NNNNNHHHH!
Nope.
You're rigth, SCO is *still* after several years trying to add more evidence and more claims. By having expert-testimony (which is supposed to *explain* the claims and the evidence) contain claims that aren't there in the final disposition.
So, ok, SCO still, after being ordered repeatedly to put all the evidence on the table for literally *years* don't have all the evidence they claim to posess on the table.
But worse: They also *still* don't want to commit to exactly what it is that they are even *claiming* that IBM did.
In effect, several years after the trial started, SCO is still at: "You did something wrong, but we refuse to state in specific terms *what* you did wrong, we also refuse to provide any evidence that you *did* infact do the things we claim."
It's impossible to defend oneself if one doesn't even know precisely what the accusations are. "Structure and organization" ain't specific. No more than "breaking some law" would be.
It's beyond ridicolous. They've been given enough rope at this point. It's nice to see the judges are starting to tigthen up -- this particular attempt at redefinind the claims was turned down flat.
SCO case is over, even M$ put their money with Novell now.
They already abandoned SCO.
Are you being serious? SCO initiated this lawsuit and several other lawsuits. From the beginning, IBM (and others) have tried to work with SCO to avoid a suit. Lawsuits are expensive and most companies try to avoid them as much as possible. SCO has refused. In this case, IBM has asked from the beginning the details of SCO's grievances against them. SCO has been as evasive as they possibly can be. But there is a limit to this and the judges have called them on it
From the beginning SCO has stated it had a mountain of evidence. But they wanted everything IBM had. When it came time for them to produce what IBM wanted, they has refused to produce any of it until after three orders. When it did produce it, it was inadequate as IBM warned them. Then they go to the judge trying to explain their vagueness. The judge didn't buy it.
Three years is quite a long time for discovery. SCO asked and received extensions to the original deadline. Plus discovery is not then time when you should start your case. Discovery should be used to cement your case. SCO was hoping to find any hint of wrong doing basically because it had nothing in the beginning. If you go up against IBM, you better be prepared with evidence before you file a lawsuit.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Well that pretty much defines "good week for the rest of us".
2. It will probably never go to trial. SCO's goal is to get IBM to settle.
IBM's goal is probably either to get SCO to drop, get the judge to drop,
or failing that to settle for as little as possible while retaining the
right to continue to do business as usual.
IBM doesn't want to settle - they want to leave a smoking crator to be an example for the next idiot that tries to scam them.
SCO should claim that their code was inserted into Linux by a one-armed man. Then Kimball would probably be more inclined to believe them.
IANAL etc.
Part of the Lanham Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act) is often used when a company claims their business been hurt by false or misleading statements. There are 3 things that must be proved by the company that claims the damage: 1) there was a false or misleading statement made, 2) the statement was used in commercial advertising or promotion and 3) and the statement creates a likelihood of harm to the plaintiff.
Now looking at how SCOX has kept shooting it's mouth of in the early phases of the case I'd say that 2) and 3) are pretty self-evident for those who have followed the development of this case. 2) because SCOX made a lot of loud statements during their Road Shows (which they only made to market themselves) that never materialized. 3) can most likely be proved just by reading what market analysts wrote based on SCOX:s statements and the initial soaring of SCOX value.
So the only way to weaken the Lanham Act accusations from IBM is to weaken 1). If something, just any little thing, does survive into the trial itself it might give SCOX the chance to argue that the other statements were made in some kind of good faith. So they try to wriggle anything in sideways, under or over that can help them to do that. Because if they don't then it will look very bleak for them when Lanham Act part of trial starts.
A speeding ticket is an infraction of the law (albiet a minor one). As it is, it is indeed a criminal trial. However, you are correct that you can have a jury in both a criminal and civil court.
All they had to do was to find in the Linux kernel source-tree fragments of code that were equal or very similar to the ones present in Unix. Just in case, try to find them in the GNU tools.
IIRC they could also have requested the Dynix and AIX sources and source history.
If you have the suspicion someone wronged you, you can usually point to what they did, how and when.
The fact that they couldn't do it in a couple years is proof enough they have no case at all. The fact that they repeatedly stated they had such evidence while they knew they had nothing is libel. Since it is reasonable to assume they did it with the purpose of manipulating the market is far worse.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Actually, I've had the displeasure of working with Unixware for the last 6 years now. It is a heaping pile of horse dung.
We recently moved our main transaction processing server to Suse Linux from Unixware. (yeah, I know, evil deal with M$ doesn't mean anything in this company) The difference is astounding! They actually found bottlenecks that were undetectable before, due to the inefficiency of Unixware, and many of the memory leaks vanished. As well, the same hardware that would have have only lasted maybe 6 month to a year under Unixware, will now serve us for a few more years yet.
I'd say that Unixware needs to be burned, pissed on, and burned again, then pissed on again for the piece of shit that it really is. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that Linux, in anyway, would be benefited by copying code from any SCO product.
Novell and IBM have both filed for summary judgements on SCO's claims and on many of their own counter claims. If the judge grants that then a jury trial isn't needed. The judge can do that if the case can be decided entirely on the basis of law. In other words, there are no disputed facts.
An example of something that could be decided as a matter of law would be whether Novell transferred any copyrights to Santa Cruz and whether they then passed on to SCO. The judge could simply read the contracts and rule that the ownership of the copyrights had not changed hands; no need for a jury.
SCO's only hope is to get their case in front of a jury and that hope is based on being able to confuse the jury and get a verdict that they don't deserve.
When discovery closed, SCO had not dredged up anything that could serve as a disputed fact. What they did put before the court was mostly pitched out by Judge Wells because it was not nearly specific enough. It was like: Shop keeper "He stole something from my store."
Cop "What did he steal?"
Shop keeper "Something; it was in the catalog."
Cop "How do you know he stole it?"
Shop keeper "He was in the same city."
If you haven't been following this sorry mess, you'll think the above scenario is exaggerated. It isn't.
In order to get something past the judges and before the jury SCO tried to sneak some stuff in via the expert reports. Unlike the rest of us (who have to stick to facts), experts are allowed to give opinions to the court. SCO was hoping that they could sneak in some opinions that would make it look like there were some disputed facts. Then they would get their jury trial.
Notice also the judges' strategy. They aren't allowed to tell SCO that they are full of crap. They have to assume that SCO is acting in good faith. Thus, when judge Wells threw out most of SCO's evidence, she did it on the basis that they willfully withheld evidence. They said they had evidence and they didn't present it so they must have withheld it. Of course, we all know that SCO never had any evidence. Similarly, we know that the expert reports were just embarassingly bad. I feel sorry for the experts.
Good faith won't save SCO wrt the Lanham act as the privilege only covers statements made to the court, not to the press.
No. Shit. Sherlock.
From the looks of it, SCO's last good week was back in 2000:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=my
Chris Knight is my hero.
Especially when SCO goes bust and can't defend against the counterclaims, and a in a twist of fate SCO and all IP is awarded to IBM bring the whole thing full circle.
i believe there's a quote from IBM managment "the skies over utah will be black with lawyers before this is over"
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
It's been IBM's policy for _decades_ to never create a "we give in to extortion" precedent. Because the instance they pay off one leech with a dodgy claim (either settling, or by buying the company, i.e., giving someone good money for their worthless shares), they've just painted a huge bullseye on themselves. That would be the day when a thousand other leeches sue IBM to get some money too.
IBM is a big rich target, and there are entirely too many people whose sole business plan is frivolous litigation. And anyone with lots of money is a natural target. It's like putting a sign on your porch saying "I have a big pile of gold in my basement". Someone will take it as a personal challenge to take it from you. And if you give in to the first guy who comes over and says "I'll sue you if you don't give me some of that gold", tomorrow you'll find a big queue of people at your door who want some too. It's not a precedent you want to set.
So settling frivolous claims is _not_ what IBM wants, and it's never been what it wanted. What it wants is the equivalent of a bunch of skulls on spikes, with a sign saying "these are the last guys who tried to extort us."
And I have to wonder what have Darl and the gang been thinking. It's been common knowledge for ages, complete with such mental images like "IBM's lawyers are like the Nazgul" or "IBM can darken the sky with its lawyers". So I can't really imagine someone genuinely thinking, "I know! surely one more try is all it takes! They'll certainly do the stupid thing _this_ time!"
Even assuming that Darl were actually _that_ stupid and disconnected from reality, you have to wonder about everyone else involved. Like the investors that funded this stupid charge of the light brigade. What were _those_ thinking?
Cue conspiracy theories about MS paying off Darl to create FUD even if SCO loses the lawsuit.
Then again, maybe Hanlon's Razor does apply, after all: Never attribute to malice, that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
** cackle ** Fly my pretties!
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Hi, Darl.
The Linux MACE ethernet driver (used on the SGI O2) is substantially the same as that in IRIX. Right down to the logic flow and variable names, especially in the PHY probe code. There's even a comment about loading in PHY errata; that reference appears only in the IRIX source code.And your point is?
Are you trying to claim that AT&T wrote the IRIX driver and gave it to SGI under the Unix contracts? Or that SGI's implementation of that driver is somehow a derivative work of some other driver from AT&T?
There's UNIX code in the linux kernel; SCO is looking at the wrong company and in the wrong place.Of course there's Unix code in the Linux kernel. But is there any that shouldn't be there? SCO hasn't been able to find any. Keep in mind that all of the BSD code is fair game, as is any original code written for Unix by companies other than AT&T and placed in Linux by the copyright holder.
Yes, SCO has this bizarre theory that any code that once rubbed against AT&T code belongs to them (or at least should be under their control), but not even SCO believes that's going to hold up.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It isn't just the difficulty of responding to last minute accusations that makes trying to sneak new ones in unfair; after all the legal system doesn't generally balk at stretching things out if it thinks it will get a better result.
The fairness problem is that if the plaintiff can add new claims at anytime he pleases, he can move the goal posts at will whenver the defendant gets close to them, at little cost to himself and great cost to the defendant. Successful defense would become impossible; either you'd lose outright, or be forced to settle on terms favorable to the plaintiff.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
For a very nice overview see Pamela Samuelson's Copyright law and electronic compilations of data
So far, SCO has shown 326 lines of code after over three years of discovery, and those are questionable at best (coming from standards that SCO participated in writing like ELF, or coming from IBM home-grown code like JFS). In June, the judge gave one of my favorite quotes from the case.
Now, after discovery is over, when they were told that ALL of their claims had to be stated by the end of discovery, SCO claims in their expert reports that virtually the whole of Linux is at issue. Since discovery is over, that would mean that IBM could not gather any new evidence to refute the claims. This is NOT how the system works. Normally, you state your claims, both sides have a chance through discovery to determine the evidence, that evidence is presented, experts review the evidence and report on it, then you go to trial.
In this case, SCO claimed they didn't KNOW what their claims were and they wouldn't know until after discovery. That in itself seems to put IBM at a disadvantage. At the end of discovery, they had 326 lines and some nebulous claims with no evidence (which were thrown out in the ruling in June). Now, in the "expert reports" which are supposed to examine the evidence on the table, SCO adds a raft of claims for which they still present no evidence.
Given that over three years ago, they claimed to have a suitcase stuffed with "millions of lines" of "stolen" code, it's rather surprising that they didn't present it as part of their case, even after repeated admonishments from the judges to show some evidence. You'd almost think they didn't actually have a case.
You seem to be suffering from severe delusion.
- most likely, there will be NO people going to jail. Just because YOU have a vested interest does not make this case any different from 1 megacorp suing another
- lawyers are NEVER punished for trying a case on someone else's behalf (as long as they don't do anything actually illegal). this case is not anywhere near as emotionally charged as the trial of Ted bundy, Timothy McVeigh, or that hijacker that did not -factually- hijack a plane.
- lawyers like SCO's generally have more than enough work offers, and they charge more per hour than I per day, and I am an expensive consultant. The fact that they represented SCO does not hurt them in the least.
- the fact that SCO gets beaten at every turn is NO a fault of their lawyers. SCO has a shitty case, and the lawyers have to work with what they got. they do the best they can, and they should. you'd expect the same from your lawyer, no?
In a far more realistic scenario
- IBM takes this all the way and SCO loses big.
- IBM's counter claims will maybe turn out in their advantage, but maybe not.
- SCO will try to appeal, but this will most likely not have a result because -unlike you- the judges involved kept their cool and did everything by the book, no matter how trivial and dull the issue at hand.
- SCO will dwindle away and die. Not because they are evil, but simpy because they alienated their remaining customers, did not invest in developing new technology, and have a gigantic lawyer bill to pay. The latter largely because the SCO lawyers had sense enough to demand payment, instead of a large percentage of a possible settlement.
I mean, the old Mark Twain saying fits best: A man who tells the truth, has to remember nothing.
Each day that this drags out is one more day for them to confuse their stories, forget facts, change facts entirely, build up judge resentment, and basically undermine their case. Here is hoping that IBM does leave them a smoking crater, and then provides the blueprint for success to others who might be targets for such lawsuits. (Novell-MS vs Red Hat comes to mind.)
- the lawyers were partially paid in stock,
- one of their major investors (Canopy Group) has been engaged in a shady-looking shell game with large amounts of cash among its wholly owned subsidiaries
- there are large undisclosed sources of funding (PIPE deal)
- some of the major visible SCO investors appear to have been coerced into their investements by Microsoft
- SCO cut a multi-million dollar UNIX licensing deal with MS of dubious utility towards the beginning of this lawsuit
- many observers believe the stock price is being manipulated by insiders on an ongoing basis to prop up the price
- SCOSOurce appears to stand a reasonable chance of meeting the standard of criminal fraud
any/all of the following are possible:- The SEC or federal prosecutors go after SCO/Canopy insiders
- The SEC or federal prosecutors go after SCO's lawyers
- IBM shows sufficient evidence of shenanigans to go after SCO insiders and/or lawyers personally
- IBM pierces the corporate veil, follows the money, and goes after SCO's backers in this lawsuit
Furthermore, if Novell's fully-briefed request for a constructive trust of SCO's money is granted, SCO goes immediately into bankruptcy, and the trustees are likely to be a lot more conciliatory towards IBM/Novell/Red Hat, and may provide smoking guns/favorable settlement terms voluntarily.Judge Kimball did a de novo review, meaning the review was excessively thorough. This pretty much indicates that any appeal attempt will merely result in the review of Judge Kimball's work, noting that SCO has no new issues on appeal, and expediting the whole process against SCO.
Note, I'm not a lawyer. This is all the reading I get from Groklaw, which has been following the case since the beginning. If you don't frequent Groklaw, you might want to, if you are interested in the SCO case at all.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The Linux MACE ethernet driver (used on the SGI O2) is substantially the same as that in IRIX. Right down to the logic flow and variable names, especially in the PHY probe code. There's even a comment about loading in PHY errata; that reference appears only in the IRIX source code.
Perhaps both drivers are based on the same sample implementation provided by the Ethernet board maker?
Or from the same specification document file? It's rare to see a device driver written completely from scratch. More often than not, there is always some form of template/empty framework that is used, either by using a generic null driver, or by scooping out the contents of an existing driver.
Though, companies usually require staff to reference where particular blocks of source code have come from
(register specifications.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
I have suggested to my friend who helps runs the local LUG that we organize a BBQ/Installfest to coincide with the "final nail" for SCO. It looks like that will be March. I wanted to pass this idea along, so other LUGs might do the same. Bring along and burn any Caldera or SCO stuff, and cook some ribs too!
This is a frivilous lawsuit. Lawyers are ethically required not to file them. That rule exists. It just needs teeth not to be a joke. Lawyers not taking baseless cases is the main gatekeeper of the integrity of the legal system. In principle, anyway. Though "principle" is clearly not operative for these lawyers. Which
It's not just that I'm mad at SCO. I'm fed up with subsidizing these cases and these lawyers which have a chance to succeed only by extorting from the plaintiffs, or getting lucky. The only way to stop them from abusing our system, and us, is to make the lawyers and plaintiffs accountable for those ethics. Maybe the review trial can sentence them to suspension, or just a fine (though that just encourages them to take more baseless cases, hoping to hit the jackpot). Disbarment should certainly be on the table, especially for repeat offenders.
--
make install -not war