Slashdot Mirror
IBM Asks Court To Declare Linux Non-Infringing
A Cyclic Graph writes "We finally have a redacted version of IBM's Reply Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment on Counterclaim 10 in SCO v. IBM. In short, IBM is asking the Court to declare that Linux doesn't infringe upon any of SCO's purported intellectual property. This document is the last word on that matter until the Court either declares there to be no doubt that Linux is free of infringement, or decides that that issue has to be decided by the jury. In their brief, IBM points out that SCO puts forth a convoluted set of non-answers referencing each other to disguise it's inability to answer IBM. Their set of cross-references is so complex that Groklaw readers graphed the claims to make what little sense of them they could."
It reads like the Pamela Jones version of an Andrew Dice Clay monologue.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
That graph is the very image of the mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster! Seems like he will soon touch SCO people with His noodly appendage. That explains why SCO called Linux people pirates tho, seems like it was some kind of flattery, or something like that.
> Their set of cross-references is so complex that Groklaw readers graphed the claims to make what little sense of them they could.
*deadpans* Honestly, that doesn't mean much--Groklaw readers will graph anything.
*clicks on link*
Oh, now. See, it's only about nine references deep. (Unless you get caught in an infinite loop between documents 27 and 187.)
This would help the issue open source with Linux. However SCO will chase this issue like dogs since they have nothing left them now.
That's nice and all, but what are all those little circles, lines, and arrows for?
What?
Go look at the latest postings on Groklaw. There is a *ton* of redundancy between the various filings, but that's legal wrangling for ya. Anyway, if there was ever a time to actually go and read through this stuff, now's the time. I personally recommend the transcripts of the lawyers arguing the motions before the judge.
These filings show that IBM sees this whole thing was a baseless land-grab effected by a change in management. The estoppal and waiver arguments are so convincing and indisputable that you'd think a stock-holder lawsuit would be forthcoming. I mean, both Caldera and Santa Cruz had significant Linux business for significant periods of time. Presumably the shareholders held stock in part because of this. Apparently not enough to get rid of the board and management upon commencement of these shenanigans, but hopefully enough to make some noise once a verdict comes down.
In a similar vein, did SuSE stock get converted to Novell stock, or were they bought out with cash? If it got converted, then former SuSE stock holders may very well file a suit for the MS deal. Overall, in both cases, in seems curious that the stock holders seem helpless. If these companies were traditional F/OSS enemies, there'd be no surprise, but will people who bought stock in a Linux company really support being a traitor? I mean, really, these aren't people who bought stock in an oil company or GM. It's like investing in a solar power company or something you do at least in part for the principle of it.
SCO has no interest in a timely end to this trial and I question their ability to cover IBM's costs. Seems to me like SCO is screwing IBM's shareholders.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
IBM does not really benefit is suing. SCO is broke. What are they going to get?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
from the good 'o days of "Hunt the Wumpus". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunt_the_wumpus/
One of IBM's arguments is that Sys V has no parts which are sufficiently creative to be covered by copyright. If Judge K. were to so rule, it would mean that most software would not be sufficiently creative to be copyrighted. That would include ALL kinds of software, proprietary and open source. The GPL relies on copyright so it wouldn't work anymore.
Boy am I ever conflicted by this one. I find myself cheering against both sides.
Looks more like a woman in profile to me.
:-) I wonder if more lawyers will take to using it to graph the non-responsiveness of opposing counsel? It's pretty damn easy to use once you figure out that all you need is a command like:
/* This is a directed graph, it's just "graph" for an undirected one, but the edges
// Nodes ... yeah, it uses C++ish comments
/* Record & Mrecord "shapes" are fun because you can put tables in them.
// Edges // We're linked to a *special* part of A
That said, thanks to the graph on Groklaw, I discovered <a href="http://www.graphvis.org/">Graphvis</a> which is both free and very useful--it was *exactly* what I needed for a stupid little bit of documentation I had to do at work because I did NOT want to be stuck trying to draw the wretched thing in AutoCAD.
So SCO finally (though accidentally) did someone some good
dot -Tpng -o output.png graph.txt
(i.e. "Make me a PNG out of the graph in graph.txt and call it output.png")
And a text file named graph.txt or whatever with contents like:
digraph G {
in those are -- instead of -> oh, and this is a comment but I bet you knew that. */
A [shape=record label="{A|Extra\ info!}|<MORE>Even\ more"];
The {}s keep things in the same column.
The <>s let me point to specific bits of a record, note C's edge with A.
Escaping spaces is kinda annoying, though.
*/
B [shape=doubleoctagon];
C [shape=triangle];
D;
E;
A -> B;
A:MORE -> D;
C -> A:MORE;
E -> A;
}
I wish ... one could see such graphs ... for statements made by politicians.
Unfortunately, that cannot be mapped in three dimensions.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Without a lawsuit, what kind of profitable product would SCO produce you insensitive clods?!
Finally, I got that cloud to find someone else to hover at!
"-Who said sit down?!"
-- S. Ballmer @ MSDC 2003.
Indeed, you, like all mankind, will be driven insane. And eaten in good and painful time. This image is none other than that of one of the Elder Gods:
"In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu lies dreaming."
SuSE was never a publicly traded company.
Read http://news.com.com/SCO+seals+deal+for+legal+expen se+cap/2100-7344_3-5440361.html
The lawyers clearly have a vested interest in dragging this case out and, being a good family man, why should Darl complain?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Reading the filings you can see why some lawyers cost so much. At the same IBM's lawyers building an almost invincible legal position on every one of their claims, they take huge swipes at SCO's claims. They point out flaws in SCO's arguments and point out when SCO has failed to address an important point. No detail is forgotten even the little detail of SCO's use of cross referencing to hide their lack of evidence. Unfortunately for SCO's lawyers, they didn't have much in the way of evidence and are reduced to lawyer's tricks.
Groklaw is hosed right now but there was one moment in the March 7th transcript that is indicative of the case. SCO's Brent Hatch is referring to an IBM document. IBM's lawyer, Amy Sorenson, reminds the court that the document is marked confidential and trying to work out an agreeable way of handling it whether it meant clearing the court room. SCO responds that IBM could waive the confidentiality. The court interjects noting that IBM wouldn't have mentioned the confidentiality if they wanted to waive it. While the judge and Ms. Sorenson continue to discuss how to best proceed in terms of procedure, SCO's Hatch begins to argue that nothing in the document (in his opinion) should be marked confidential. Ms. Sorenson responds with a "that's your opinion" and says as long as the document isn't directly quoted, IBM is satisfied with SCO referencing it in open court. IBM and the court are working on a case. SCO is offering red herrings.Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
the creator of the graph could have done a better job, in the top portion which is a tangled mess, if my count is correct, there are 56 edges (counting the loops between 233 and 222, 27 and 187 and as one) and 43 vertices, Eulers corollary states that if |E| = 3|V| - 6, that is 56 = 143 (even if my count was off a bit this is clearly true) then that can be drawn on the same plane (no intersecting lines)... I didnt take the time to find a good way to redraw it, but I have proven it could be done... This depiction makes it look overly complicated (not that it isnt complicated enough)
- The System V code was dictated by externalities
- The System V code represents Mere Ideas or Merger Material
- The System V code lacks even de minimis originality
Groklaw was down so I couldn't do a cut and paste so I typed the above from a pdf.IBM is clearly saying that System V doesn't qualify for copyright protection. Given that System V is as creative as any other software, it seems reasonable to worry about the precedent that would be set if Judge K. grants this one.
ps. Disparaging remarks reflect poorly on you, especially when it is shown that you haven't read and understood the Tenth Counterclaim.
Is it not possible that when IBM talks of "THE SYSTEM V WORKS", they are talking about the specific works that SCO allege that Linux infringes upon?
Much of the tenth counterclaim can be read to apply narrowly to issues affecting IBM and not the Linux community generally. The other problem is that there is much redacted material. There could be some real zingers hidden in the redacted material. We don't know.
Having said the above though, I can't find any wording that limits the scope of IBM's claim that all System V code is not copyrightable. If you can find such wording, I would be delighted to know about it.
Post it on ratemypoo.com
How big would the document have been without all the redacted sections.
Here is a snip for example;
"When all is said and done, SCO's claims of infringement relating to the Linux kernel
SECTION REDACTED
concern a mere
SECTION REDACTED "
Sometimes I think I would have liked to have read the unabriged original to see what was left out.
The truth shall set you free!
Too bad you didn't get modded up - you're exactly right. Buncha noobs, anyways! ;^)
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
In internal documents, SCO developers acknowledged that "
SECTION REDACTED
The mere fact that some or all of the 2.4 kernel may have predated SCO Linux 4.0 does not mean that
SECTION REDACTED
If the term
SECTION REDACTED
then sections of the JDC assignment provisions would be rendered superfluous. As stated, the JDC
SECTION REDACTED
If SCO were correct that
SECTION REDACTED
would be rendered superfluous because SCO's reading of the
SECTION REDACTED
would necessarily exclude such materials from assignment.
Wow, why was this document chopped to bits? Anybody know?
The truth shall set you free!
Perhaps with a nice chianti.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Not likely.
BTW while you hunt me, I'm fucking your sister.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Why pay for photographs of feces when you can get plenty of high quality pictures and videos online for free?
Also, unless you have some kind of specialized hardware I don't think the guys at the processing plant are going to notice. If you are going to defecate into a normal toilet your feces is going to have to travel through standard plumbing, so assuming you don't clog the local pipes it's going to get through the facility just fine. However, if you are going to defecate directly into an intake further up the line maybe you could clog that and have them send a few guys to clear it out. Anyway, best of luck.
#define MAINE 1
#define VERMONT 2
#define NEWHAMPSHIRE 3
#define ALASKA 50
1) It is not code (it doesn't yield executable instructions),
2) It is completely obvious and there aren't really any other reasonable ways to write this,
3) It was required to keep the same integer values for #define's like EPERM in order to maintain compatibility across software and POSIX OS's, an effort and goal that SCO itself promoted,
4) SCO doesn't have to rights to these #define's anyways, having long been relegated to the public as part of ancient UNIX/AT&T history,
5) SCO doesn't own the rights to System V anyways, Novell still does...
She's dead, of course.
"Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
At most, they could ask for the judge to find the portions of IBM's source code derived from the Linux kernel to be non-infringing.
Reading the filings you can see why some lawyers cost so much. At the same IBM's lawyers building an almost invincible legal position on every one of their claims, they take huge swipes at SCO's claims. They point out flaws in SCO's arguments and point out when SCO has failed to address an important point. No detail is forgotten even the little detail of SCO's use of cross referencing to hide their lack of evidence.
IBM is represented by Cravath, Swayne, and Moore, and that's how Cravath works. They have a very organized staff checking everything the other side puts out. Everything goes into a litigation support system (Cravath was the first law firm to use one, and it was developed by IBM for a famous IBM case). At least two different lawyers check over everything. One of Cravath's slogans used to be "For those must-win cases". Cravath often wins simply because the other side makes mistakes, and they don't.
All this is incredibly expensive, but it works.
Obviously Linux in total is a superset of IBM's contribution to Linux. IBM probably doesn't have standing in the court to ask for a declaration covering the whole of Linux, and if they attempt to do so, that is likely to cause the entire motion to fail.
If, however, IBM wins this Partial Summary Judgement motion, as they may well do, then this is still an extremely important result for linux. Unlike the poster who recommended reading the oral arguments, I recommend skipping the oral arguments and go instead for IBM's written motions and briefs. They are very well written and logical.
IBM constructs their motions as a form of logical-or. If the Judge accepts $REASON1 or $REASON2 or $REASON3 then the judge must rule in IBM's favour. So IBM offers multiple concurrent chains of logic supporting their case. The judge needs only to accept one of them, in order to rule for IBM. But each $REASON is fully detailed - supported by facts, evidence, legal argument, case history precedents.
SCO's filings on the other hand, are like a shell game. It's hard to pin them down to facts. They pretend to be Caldera and Santa Cruz and even AT&T when it suits them; at other times they treat them as different entities. Their answers frequently say "please refer to some other answer", and (as this latest IBM filing says), SCO's replies don't really answer the question or dispute the fact, they raise some other issue or introduce non-relevant assertions.
All in all, it's most entertaining.
I'm not a lawyer and have difficulty understanding Legalese, but doesn't this sort of orchestrated fictionalization and avoidance of answering questions qualify as some kind of contempt of court? It struck me that SCO's attorneys had no respect whatever for the judge or the process. Redacted to its essence, I could hear a snotty voice intoning, "NYAH-nyah-NYAH-nyah-nyah!" Or does the judge have to put up with this kind of bratty behavior?
... or charge themselves for Linux licenses.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
>Cravath often wins simply because the other side makes mistakes, and they don't.
>All this is incredibly expensive, but it works.
Works for those with the $$$.
Doesn't work as far as constitutional due process and justice are concerned.
Maybe Moglen and Lessig can "open source" their own profession (see how fast they lose standing with the alumni at their respective institutions that provide the funding for their efforts).
I hope he makes SCO pay for every freaking penny of the court's and IBM's time. At least until they dry up and blow away. That would suck for SCO stockholders, but anyone left holding SCO is (IMO) nuts, anyway. SCO deserves to die a public, humiliating death at this point. The principle need to spend a long time in public stocks, maybe on a flatbed trailer that travels around the country (as) as punishment and (b) as a warning to similar scumbags.
Oh hang on, I get it..
Your niece's father's sister was as hamster and your late aunts' brother smelled of elderberries..
( Now you try to blame me on saying anything.. )