Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judge Orders SCO, IBM To Produce Disputed Code

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the put-up-or-etc dept.

The Courts 587

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."

cancel ×

587 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Time for SCO to put up (3, Insightful)

mveloso (325617) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458850)

maybe this is the beginning of the end. Hope those SCO licensing fees are refundable...

Re:Time for SCO to put up (5, Insightful)

dfn_deux (535506) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458866)

I hope they aren't, I'd rather see SCO get sued up the wazoo by the people they duped...

Quick Question... (1)

Mr. Troll (202208) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458976)

How do all of you say "SCO"?

So you say the letters S-C-O or do you say like "skow".....

Re:SCOCKS (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8459013)

"skow"

That way when you pronounce thier company's stock SCOX, it sounds like "scocks"

Re:Quick Question... (4, Funny)

lambent (234167) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459030)


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."

Re:Quick Question... (5, Informative)

JuliusRV (742529) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459039)

In the Harvard/JOLT webcast video, Darl pronounces his company as one word, SCO, not S-C-O.

Re:Quick Question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8459066)

I've never heard anyone who has actually used one of their products say "S-C-O"

Re:Quick Question... (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459080)


I say "Ess-See-Owe" although based on this latest news I think "Ess-Owe-Ell" is more appropriate. :)

Re:Time for SCO to put up (5, Interesting)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459023)

That would be a very difficult lawsuit. I think you have to prove malicious intent by SCO. The people that sent SCO money deserve to lose it. If SCO never produces a shred of evidence they will probably have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees that IBM racked up to defend a baseless lawsuit. I would love to see what their stock price does that week.

-B

Re:Time for SCO to put up (4, Insightful)

MrLint (519792) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459037)

Alas SCO hasn't duped anyone (into buying). The people that paid got exactly what the license was for to run sco code in binary form only. Weather that covers linux or not donest matter. its not what was sold. This is why you read the labels on your food. BacoS is not a pork product.

Re:Time for SCO to put up (4, Funny)

beni1207 (603012) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458870)

Well...the saying is "put up or shut up". My money's on the latter.

Re:Time for SCO to put up (1)

SphericalCrusher (739397) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458907)

w00t.

I can't believe anyone would actually purchase one...

Re:Time for SCO to put up (5, Funny)

wolenczak (517857) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458922)

I think it's the right time to purchase licenses so we can sue SCO afterwards for hundreds of times what we paid for. (If they've got any money left)

Re:Time for SCO to put up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8458928)

Its more likely that it will be found that linux has in fact stolen from SCO, and that SCO will win very many lawsuits, and that slashdot will be forced to pay royalty fees.

Re:Time for SCO to put up (4, Interesting)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459065)

To me SCO's license policy looks like fraud, its PR policy like financial fraud. Let's report the offence to the police.

It's time for a structural change in the US legal system, competition law has tpo be strengthened. A baseless dirty media campaign like SCo's would be impossible on the European market. However the EU legislator prepares a IPR Enforcement directive that may give power to failed companies that "pull a SCO" [ffii.org.uk] . Several law principles are weakened. I think the IPR Enforcement directive may infringe on German constitutional law.

I want to see SCO's management in prison.

Yay..... (-1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8458851)

Come on out ya assholes....

Re:Yay..... (0, Offtopic)

Idealius (688975) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458945)

Meta moderators fix this injustice! I say mod Funny!

Finally (4, Funny)

ben_white (639603) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458855)

So is the fat lady warming up?

Re:Finally (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8458959)

Yep, on Darl's face

Re:Finally (5, Funny)

will12 (59620) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458960)

Now whats the penatly for calling a judge fat?

Idiots..... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8458858)

DIE SCOX, DIE

Re:Idiots..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8458983)

Der SCOX Der

Oh please be the end... (4, Interesting)

JoeLinux (20366) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458863)

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...

Re:Oh please be the end... (5, Informative)

fidget42 (538823) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458924)

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...
I think that is already happening [yahoo.com] .

I shorted 3000 shares at 17.96 in January. (5, Interesting)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458925)

I'm just waiting for common sense to hit the market (it kind of has already since it was down around $2 today).

The internet (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8458864)

THE INTERNET

fristpost! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8458868)

FIRSTPOST

And what happens? (3, Insightful)

setzman (541053) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458873)

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.

Re:And what happens? (5, Insightful)

Metallic Matty (579124) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458930)

I'm not doubting what you said - but you have to look at the logic of such an argument.

"Uh, they're using our code. We want licensing fees. Oh, but we can't tell you what code that is.. we'd be revealing a secret.."

Re:And what happens? (4, Interesting)

Ivan the Terrible (115742) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458999)

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.

Since the source code is already in the hands of umpteen thousand people, I don't think there is any trade secret left to reveal, but the law, in its infinite wisdom, may disagree with me.

Re:And what happens? (5, Insightful)

Ryan Amos (16972) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459070)

iirc part of the (legal) definition of a "trade secret" is that it is secret. You can sue someone for revealing a trade secret, but that precludes that it's not a secret anymore, so it'd have to come out in court. Anything that's as widely available as the Linux source is not a secret.

Re:And what happens? (5, Interesting)

kfg (145172) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459062)

My guess is that SCO may claim that revealing this code would reveal a trade secret or something. . .

That issue was addressed last December, when the judge ordered that SCO submit code that it claimed to be a trade secret, but agreed that the record of such would be sealed to prevent the public from seeing it. This is standard procedure in such matters as trade secret claims are not uncommon and dealing with them in the courts was settled nearly centuries ago.

The issue is moot at this point though, since a)SCO have dropped all claims to trade secrets and have changed the complaint to copyright violation, and b)it's the publicly available Linux code that is in question, so any trade secret is widely published, thus no longer a trade secret.

They've already done about all the "fighting back" in discovery that they can. They've hemmed, hawed and claimed the dog ate their data over the holidays.

This ruling amounts to a "put up or shut up" ruling by the judge, who I imagine is about fed up with SCO's wishy-washyness and downright duplicity.

KFG

Faith? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8458875)

To start off I am pretty confident that no code was stolen. However, should I have faith that the court will also see this? I mean what if something was overlooked. What IF say two lines of code were from SCO? Just evaluating all possible variables.

about freaking time (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8458877)

It is a shame that SCO has been allowed to tramp around this long without any real evidence. Oh well.

42nd post?

Re:about freaking time (-1, Offtopic)

paroneayea (642895) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458936)

42nd post eh.... ah well, at least here on slashdot things aren't as bad as was on my forum. For a while there the users were aiming for "last post."
(yes I know this is offtopic)

Horrible title... (1, Informative)

Smitedogg (527493) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458878)

The title makes it look like both SCO and IBM is supposed to produce code as well, when in fact just SCO has to show proof. Bad Simoniker!! Bad!!

Dogg

Re:Horrible title... (5, Informative)

Roblimo (357) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458939)

Read the story, read the ruling. IBM is supposed to show SCO some code, too.

- Robin

Re:Horrible title... (5, Informative)

Talonius (97106) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459036)

"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.

Re:Horrible title... (1)

citog (206365) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459043)

My impression from reading the order is that IBM do have to produce contributions made to Linux, which I'm assuming would amount to producing code. Also, I'm wondering what form they have to provide the AIX & Dynix releases to SCO in?

I agree that the title reads horribly, though.

Start Counting... (5, Informative)

Suhas (232056) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458879)

...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.

Re:Start Counting... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8458927)

You hit the dot on the head. I am sure it will curry favor with the moderators.

Re:Start Counting... (5, Insightful)

ashitaka (27544) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458946)

How many times have we seen someone say "This is the beginning of the end" when a judge asks SCO to produce something Months pass, appeals are made, claims withdrawn and changed and the whole thing just keeps dragging on.

Reminds me of the conviction of Shoko Asahara for the Sarin gassing of the Tokyo subway. Only eight years to finally sentence him to hang.

But wait!

He's appealed, and thus begins another eight to ten years of legal wrangling. Each time the government says they'll speed up the court system but very little actually changes.

Re:Start Counting... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8459003)

"...now SCO has 45 days in which to produce the offending lines of code"

That allows SCO to present their evidence on April 1. I like the way this judge thinks!

Finally. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8458880)

The nerd O.J. Simpson case finally gets down to the one simple issue.

Finally we'll see an end to this FiaSCO. ;) (1)

borgheron (172546) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458883)

SCO, dammit!! Put up or shut up.

It's basically over now. If SCO divulges the code in full and it's found to be infringing we can scrub the kernel. If it's not, then we can kick SCO's ass into oblivious. :)

Re:Finally we'll see an end to this FiaSCO. ;) (5, Funny)

BrynM (217883) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458973)

If it's not, then we can kick SCO's ass into oblivious. :)

SCO is already "oblivious", now if we can get them into oblivion... that would be nice.

What next? (4, Interesting)

iantri (687643) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458886)

I hope this is going to put a halt to this SCO nonsense, but I fear that it won't..

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..

The best part... (4, Interesting)

IgD (232964) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458887)

[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...

Re:The best part... (1, Funny)

warpSpeed (67927) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459047)

I can't wait to see the answer to this one...

well, you will have to wait 45 days...

Neither here nor there (4, Insightful)

scrote-ma-hote (547370) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458888)

This is neither here not there. It's probably the most moderate result we could have asked for. It doesn't swing to far one way and give the impression that the judge is being biased (a la the Microsoft case), but doesn't give SCO too much either, and remains in the "no you show first mode".

A fair ruling IMHO.

Re:Neither here nor there (4, Interesting)

Metallic Matty (579124) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458965)

A fair ruling IMHO.

A fair ruling is bad as far as SCO is concerned. All their stalling clearly shows their lack of real evidence and therefore this is going to be end of this BS. (I should hope.)

Finally! (1)

atlantis191 (750037) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458890)

Its about time. Hopefully there isn't a way in which they can somehow "buy" extra time. This has got to end.

scamble scamble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8458892)

...but, but, we're not ready for that!!! We need more time!!! I can see the attornies for SCO pleading before the judge...

put up and shut up (5, Funny)

sp00 (639381) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458893)

For a change, the SCO Group had no comment, because Judge Wells told it not to issue any.
It's about time...

how jerry macguire-esque... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8458899)

In a related story, the judge also ordered SCO to scream "I love black people!" The judge then congratulated SCO on still being it's agent.

Last ditch effort (1, Redundant)

Splezunk (250168) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458900)

Looks like the release of the suing more companies is a last ditch effort to raise their stock before they go belly up.

Lines of code belonging to SCO (4, Funny)

asmellysock (649878) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458905)

This line is ours:

{

and so is this:

int i;

Re:Lines of code belonging to SCO (5, Funny)

beware1000 (678753) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458943)

Yeah, I'm not sure if you realise but ANSI stands for 'Another Neat SCO Idea'... They own the whole damn standard.

Re:Lines of code belonging to SCO (5, Funny)

prof187 (235849) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458974)

along with this block of code:

/*
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
*/

The funniest thing is... (5, Informative)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458906)

The Server [netcraft.com] that they have to post their PDF filings to runs Linux! (The webserver for the court.)

Re:The funniest thing is... (1)

Idealius (688975) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458996)

Interesting. Should be a seperate story, actually :D. Someone submit it, I'm input only right now..

New poll idea: (4, Funny)

Lane.exe (672783) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458910)

How SCO will stall around this deadline:

(*) More countersuits

(*) They won't

(*) Darl ends up sharing a cell with CowboyNeal

IBM's memos... (5, Informative)

MicktheMech (697533) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458912)

I've just read what ZDnet [com.com] had to say. From article:
She ordered IBM to produce memos from IBM Chief Executive Sam Palmisano and from Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a top Linux executive.
Does anyone know what these memos are supposed to be about or is SCO just grasping at straws?

Groklaw too (5, Insightful)

k98sven (324383) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458913)

As per usual, Groklaw has the full treatment [groklaw.net] .

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.

Re:Groklaw too (5, Informative)

MeanMF (631837) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459058)

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.

From the ruling: "This is to include all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time." Later it says "Following this production, SCO is to provide additional memoranda to the Court indicating if and how these files support its position and how they were relevant." There's nothing in there that says that SCO's initial list has to be exhaustive (in fact it says the opposite), and there's no time limit on SCO to respond to the receipt of AIX source code.

In reality (3, Funny)

walkerIV (754681) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458916)

The judge just got tired from reading the same arguments over this on /. all the time.

Will we get to see it? (3, Interesting)

ChangeOnInstall (589099) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458918)

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.

I would think IBM will get to see it. (1)

chopper749 (574759) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459083)

And I don't see why they couldn't disclose which line numbers we might want to glance at.

At last justice will be done (1)

4eek (302404) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458919)

This is how it should have been done right from the start. The question is, what if SCO have a case and they prove it?

What will happen? (0)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458970)

if SCO's IP is in the kernel?

in about a half a day a new kernel will be available.

Re:At last justice will be done (4, Insightful)

ppanon (16583) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459088)

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.

Linux sues SCO (3, Interesting)

fodi (452415) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458920)

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...

Weird behaviour of stock though (5, Informative)

sisukapalli1 (471175) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458921)

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

Article Details (2, Informative)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458931)

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.

Re:Article Details (1)

MigrantHail (643728) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459005)

Correct. To me, it seems more like this just became more serious. IBM now has to come up with loads of information, show SCO it's internally contributions to Linux and other such things. Seeing SCO's....wonderful history, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they figured out a way to...manipulate the information they will get.

Ummmm... (5, Informative)

CPNABEND (742114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459007)

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!

Re:Ummmm... (1)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459087)

True enough. But the code will be in the courthouse, and available to SCO. SCO can move to introduce more evidence later. This is going to be a big mess in the end, unless someone gets cold feet.

Re:Article Details (1)

Rick Zeman (15628) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459017)

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.

Let's see, SCO alleges that IBM is infringing on their code and they know of specific examples (how this whole thing started). So why would/should IBM have to provide anything? Wouldn't SCO already have it/know about it? And if (heaven forbid) SCO wins or stays alive as a company, aren't they now privy to IBM's trade secrets? It seems to be that the judge is going along with the "if you throw enough sh*t some of it might stick to the wall" by giving SCO plenty of walls.

Re:Article Details (5, Informative)

moquist (233465) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459054)

Nah, the document says "...provide the releases of AIX and Dynix...Following this 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 "additional" memoranda are in addition to the "specific lines of code that IBm is alleged to have contributed to Linux from either AIX or Dynix", "specific lines of code from Unix System V from which IBm's contributions from AIX or Dynix are alleged to be derived", and "all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to". SCO still has to produce the first stuff without any additional input from IBM.

More exciting is SCO's last order:
"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."

I've downloaded _MY_ GPLed Linux kernel source from SCO. Have you?

That's cool but... (1)

j0se_p0inter0 (631566) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458937)

wouldn't that be the first step SCO should have done in their little crusade?

Re:That's cool but... (2, Interesting)

tacarat (696339) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459064)

No. The code was a "trade secret", even though it was posted everywhere (like DeCSS and California [slashdot.org] ). 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? ----------

next excuse (5, Funny)

prof187 (235849) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458940)

"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"

Im worried about slashdot (0, Redundant)

slash-tard (689130) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458942)

What will we talk about without the 3 or 4 daily SCO stories?

Line numbers? grep is your friend (3, Funny)

product byproduct (628318) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458947)

grep -n "int i;" *.c

The Court: SCO made "good faith effort" to comply (4, Informative)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458955)

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.

Re:The Court: SCO made "good faith effort" to comp (4, Insightful)

k98sven (324383) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459001)

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.)

Don't you just hate PDF (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8458961)


we have HTML (this is the Internet after all) and people still choose that awful format

for our blind and partially sighted visitors here is a summary of the PDF

Pages 1--9 from Untitled
Page 1 2
1
1 Page 2 3
2
2 Page 3 4
3
3 Page 4 5
4
4 Page 5 6
5
5 Page 6 7
6
6 Page 7 8
7
7 Page 8 9
8
8 Page 9
9
Page Navigation Panel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

meaningless right ?

choose HTML , plain text, RTF, even MS doc but never PDF

lordjesus... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8458971)

will you people just give this shit a rest?

hopefully this will shut sco up, ibm up, and for the love of god, stop all the fucking /. "articles".....

So, basically the judge said... (3, Funny)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458985)

...put up AND shut up. :)

Stock options. (1)

tacarat (696339) | more than 10 years ago | (#8458995)

I'd love to monitor SCO's web traffic right about now. I wonder if the Google search rates on "how to shortsell stock" and "SCO" have gone up. Or was it "Martha Stewart", "insider trading" and "legal defense" ?
-------------

What I want to know (1)

doombob (717921) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459002)

If the court finds that stolen code exists in Linux, I want to know who put it there. That person will then have to create new code to replace whatever was stolen as his or her punishment. (Using a previous example: int i; replaced with int j;)

Creative SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8459018)

Do you think it will stop them?
The last couple of months SCO was really creative in bringing lawsuit threats and other FUD.
Those scambags will not stop !
They already did quite damage and many CIO reconsider deploying Linux within their companies.
Unless Darl and company retire with a nice pension they will just keep goin' n' goin' n' ...

This looks like the judge is remaining totally... (5, Interesting)

Talonius (97106) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459020)

#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

Who cares ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8459021)


Darl and his buddies are now super rich so what happens next doesn't matter, after this pump and dump stock boost , they dont need to work...ever again !

Score one for the law. (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459026)

Seriously, I know how much fun it is to bash the American legal system here. And usually it is deserved. But this is one instance where the law, and those that lay down the law, have gotten things dead on as they should be, fair and just.

I shall say ziz only once (5, Interesting)

Mawbid (3993) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459029)

Wait a minute. Isn't this what the judge said last time?

Why, yes it is:

SCO has not complied with the court's first order issued on Dec. 12, 2003, to "provide and identify specific lines of code that IBM has alleged to have contributed to Linux or Dynix." SCO had been ordered to provide these lines of code within 30 days (by Jan. 12, 2004) but did not do so. In a separate hearing on the matter held Feb. 6, SCO was able to convince the court that it is proceeding in good faith, and the court lifted its 30-day discovery stay.

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.

I wonder which will come first, the end of SCO vs. IBM or the release of Half-Life 2.

Sweet! (3, Interesting)

Jonboy X (319895) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459034)

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.

Text of PDF. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8459068)

It's from Groklaw, but the DB server seems ready to crash!

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 ... 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).

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 additional files SCO requests and the reasons for such requests. The court will then consider ordering IBM to produce more code from AIX and Dynix. See American Medical Systems, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 1999 WL 562738, p. 2-3 (ordering a party to first "procure relevant documents" and then reconsidering the discoverey request for the production of more documents).

2. Pursuant to Rule 26(b), SCO should use its best efforts to obtain discovery from the Linux contributions that are known to the public, including those contributions publically known to be made by IBM. IBM, however, is ordered to provide SCO any and all non-public contributions it has made to Linux.

3. IBM is to provide documents and materials generated by, and in possession of employees that have been and that are currently involved in the Linux project.[1] IBM is to include materials and documents form executives including inter alia, Sam Palisano and Irving Wladawsky-Berger. Such materials and documents are to include any reports, materials or documents from IBM's "ambitious Linux Strategy." Steve Lohr, A Mainstream Gian[t] Goes Countercultural; I.B.M.'s Embrase of Linux Is a Bet That It Is the Software of the Future, N.Y. Times, March 20, 2000, Business/Financila Desk. The Court finds these materials are relevant because they may contain information regarding the use or alleged misuse of source code by IBM in its contributions to Linux.

5. IBM is ordered to provide further responses to SCO's interrogatory numbers two, five, and eleven. These responses are to include relevant information from all sources including top level management.

6. SCO seeks the proper indentification of approximately 7,200 potential witness[es] identified by IBM. IBM in its memoranda suggested that the parties might be able to reach some sort of agreement as to the most important prospective trial witnesses and then IBM would provide the full contact information for these individulas. The Court orders IBM to properly identify a representative sample of the potential witnesses that is to include a 1000 of the most important prospective trial witnesses as agreed upon by SCO and IBM. Following the production of this information, the Court will consider the need for the proper identification of additional witnesses.

III. Both parties

At the hearing on February 6, 2004, SCO represented that IBM failed to provide source logs that identify how documents were kept in the ordinary course of business pursuant to Rule 34(b). The Court orders both SCO and IBM to provide source logs according to Rule 34(b) for those materials produced in discovery.

Both SCO and IBM are to provide to the court an affidavit detailing their respective efforts in complying with this order. Those affidavits should also contain a statement that the respective answers and materials provided are given to the best of each parties' knowlege and are complete, detailed and thorough.

In light of the Court's order granting SCO's motion to file an amended complaint, and IBM's answer to SCO's second amended complaint, the Court hereby orders:

Both SCO and IBM are to file additional memoranda with the Court addressing the impact, if any, of the second amended complaint and IBM's subsequent answer on IBM's Motion to Strike the 5th, 15th, and 19th Affirmative Defenses asserted by the SCO Group in its Answers to IBM's Amended Counterclaims. Because this is IBM's motion, IBM is to file its intial memoranda with the Court within 60 days of the entry of this order. SCO will then have 15 days to respond to IBM's filing. IBM will have 7 days following SCO's response to file a reply. Following the additional briefing, the Court will contact the parties to schedule a hearing regarding IBM's motion to strike SCO's affirmative defenses.

[1] Although not part of SCO's officiial written motion, SCO raised these discovery issues at oral argument and also alleged in its written memoranda that IBM failed to adequately respond to interrogatories and document requests that are the subject of these discovery items.

Dated this _3rd_ day of March, 2004.

BY THE COURT:

__[sig: Brooke C. Wells]__
BROOKE C. WELLS
United States Magistrate Judge

And so SCO sits at the keyboards... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8459074)

and starts "producing" the "infriging" code...

Let them just hold on one more time (week)... (1)

Ricin (236107) | more than 10 years ago | (#8459086)

and pull one or two other "major" stunts like today... my gut tells me they're very close to contempt here. That would be a laugh.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>