Judge Orders SCO, IBM To Produce Disputed Code 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."
Oh please be the end... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
I shorted 3000 shares at 17.96 in January. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I shorted 3000 shares at 17.96 in January. (Score:5, Informative)
That's a "dead cat bounce," so called because after that it never moves again other than slowly melting into the ground.
IMHO, anyone who's short SCOX at this point will probably hang on till they're back in their pre-pump-and-dump trading range (i.e. << $1), at which point it won't matter that much. There are several reasons for this (e.g. taxes, ROI), and I wouldn't expect enough people to decided to close out all at once to cause much of a bounce.
-- MarkusQ
Start Counting... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Start Counting... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
As regards the actual topic of this thread, SCO, my own opinion is that this situation is different because the crime is ongoing, and SCO is actually using the legal system to help commit the fraud. This is a case where justice delayed is not merely justice denied, but actual injustice perpetuated.
On the positive side, I think IBM should just turn over everything, and immediately. I can't even imagine why they haven't done so already--except that lawyers love playing games and SCO's lawyers are probably desperately phishing for anything they can imagine. Sure, SCO's original claims will turn out to be completely bogus, but SCO is hoping to find a blue dress or some WMDs somewhere in there, and then they can start a whole NEW lawsuit against IBM.
Right now it looks like we'll have to wait another 45 days for SCO to clarify anything, and then there'll be another delay while they analyze those claims, and IBM will deny all of them, and SCO will claim they need more information from IBM, then amend their claims some more, and then, and then... By now we're somewhere in 2007. Anyway, you can safely bet that Darl et al. will have dumped their SCO stock by then. Actually, looking at Darl's track record, he's due to change employeers again any day now. We're all sure the next guy will be glad to clean up the mess, right?
Re:Start Counting... (Score:5, Funny)
"...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!
What next? (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
My favourite: (Score:5, Interesting)
(5) is good too. If I understand it correctly they'll have to tell the judge that they're still distributing linux 2.4.21 to the world under the license "GNU GPL", and we can all be on the list:
wget --http-user= --http-passwd= wget http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/update/RPMS.up dates/kernel-source-2.4.21-138.i586.rpm
"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."
Let's all help them out by posting our names, dates and the fact that the license is the GNU GPL and the circumstances is "public SCO FTP and HTTP server"
Neither here nor there (Score:5, Insightful)
A fair ruling IMHO.
Re:Neither here nor there (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
put up and shut up (Score:5, Funny)
It's about time...
The funniest thing is... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The funniest thing is... (Score:5, Funny)
I hope we get pictures.
Re:The funniest thing is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The funniest thing is... (Score:5, Funny)
New poll idea: (Score:5, Funny)
(*) More countersuits
(*) They won't
(*) Darl ends up sharing a cell with CowboyNeal
IBM's memos... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:IBM's memos... (Score:5, Interesting)
And in the only "me too" lawsuit of that era which IBM did not win outright, CDC acquired a bunch of IBM memos through disclosure. IBM and CDC settled out of court, with IBM selling its service business (Service Bureu Corporation) to CDC and promising not to re-enter the service market for many years. I wonder what CDC found in those memos.
Groklaw too (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Weird behaviour of stock though (Score:5, Informative)
SCO may try to spin it as a positive for them, though I do not see how any of it can be positive...
S
next excuse (Score:5, Funny)
Darl: "we were working on our taxes and 2 days is *so* not long enough to make all of this up"
The Court: SCO made "good faith effort" to comply (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Court: SCO made "good faith effort" to comp (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re:The Court: SCO made "good faith effort" to comp (Score:5, Funny)
I hope IBM delivers the code to SCO in the form of a truckload of paper printed in a greek font.
This looks like the judge is remaining totally... (Score:5, Interesting)
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
I shall say ziz only once (Score:5, Interesting)
Why, yes it is:
I wonder which will come first, the end of SCO vs. IBM or the release of Half-Life 2.
Text of PDF. (Score:5, Informative)
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
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
The court order and analysis from Groklaw (Score:5, Informative)
Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:28 PM EST
The order is in. She tells both sides to comply with discovery, but in the case of IBM, she specifically restricts the requirement that they provide AIX files to the 232 mentioned by IBM's lawyer, David Marriott, at the last hearing on February 6. SCO must demonstrate a need for more if they want more. But they don't get every AIX version from the beginning, as they had repeatedly requested. SCO has 45 days to comply fully with IBM's discovery demands. Remember, that is what IBM asked for, that SCO be given a date to comply.
SCO has 45 days to identify "all specific lines of code" they allege IBM put into Linux from AIX or Dynix; identify and provide "with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to; provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties, and 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."
The previous discovery stay is lifted. IBM has 45 days 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." After that SCO can provide memoranda indicating "if and how these files support its position and how they are relevant." If they ask for more files, they are to explain reasons for such requests.. Then the court "will consider ordering IBM to produce more code from AIX and Dynix."
What it all means in practical terms is that the court didn't buy SCO's argument that it needed all of AIX and Dynix and it specifically rejected its request that IBM *first* provide AIX and Dynix, so that after that SCO could find what it needed. Since, obviously, IBM is unlikely to provide its side of the discovery order until the 45th day, SCO, under the identical 45-day requirement, will have to provide its answers to discovery before it gets to look at any more AIX or Dynix.
SCO is granted one request: that IBM turn over discovery regarding top management, including Sam Palmisano. Also Judge Wells asks that IBM turn over any nonpublic contributions to Linux that it may have made. She will learn more about Linux as the case goes along, and I believe she will find there aren't any such. SCO asked for source logs. Wells says fine, but SCO has to do the same for IBM. I don't remember IBM asking for source logs, but it is only fair.
She then asks both sides to explain how the new amended complaint impacts IBM's Motion to Strike. That's it. She would like the case to move forward, but she has done so in a way that is not a problem for IBM. SCO, on the other hand, has to provide what it told her at the hearing it can't provide without looking at all of AIX first. How they will do that remains to be seen.
We hope to have it transcribed soon. Here is the PDF from SCO's website. We should have a local copy soon, if you prefer to wait.
To refresh your memory, here is the transcript of SCO saying it is impossible for them to provide the discovery without getting AIX and Dynix first:
MR. HEISE: The reason I am maybe going more into the merits than I probably should in front of Your Honor is it directly ties into the adequacy of these interrogatory answers. The interrogatory answers detail exhaustively the contributions of AIX and Dynix that were made in there. There is no dispute about that.
They then in this letter that they wrote earlier this week said, Well, you didn't identify the line-for-line matching in every single place. There are two times when we did not do that in our answers to interrogatories. One is in table A of our interrogatories which we identified eight different files and we said the copying is complete throughout. We are not matching up the lines and I gave an example of that in the demonstrative aids when it says copying of Dynix slash into Linux, and you can s
Maybe they could ask (Score:5, Interesting)
A really sharp female journalist from CRN [crn.com] asked what code was stolen and who these programmers were. Darl got tongue tied and someobdy else from SCO stepped in and said they couldn't comment on that.
Re:Conference Call recording (torrent) (Score:5, Interesting)
I want to note that the questions were a breze to transcribe, as were the replies from who I think is Robert Bench, the CFO (only Darl and Robert are identified as participants at the start of the call). The replies from Darl are a nightmare. The man speaks like he has no grasp of what to say or how to say it.
This transcription was created by me from the publically available audio recording. I've done my best (without straining anything) to capture things correctly. There's only one section I know I didn't understand and it's noted. Any other stupidity, double-speak orun-intelligent use of language is soley the responsibility of the speaker.
Timecode: 55:29 in the recording:
Paula Rooney (with CRN): Yes, Darl, um, I'm trying just to narrow down the, the case against AutoZone.
Darl: right.
Paula: okay, so the copyright claim has nothing to do with the Linux kernel per-se... correct?
Darl: Um, no, this, this does have to do with the Linux kernel.
Paula: But you said that the case is not specified to SCO shared libraries... that it's a very general to anyone using the operating system.
Darl: but, waahahat I'm saying anybody using Linux. Uh, eh, Yea, I guess what I'm trying to say here is, uh, a lot of people, eh, we're trying to say, because, uh, there's, uh, there is, uh, uh, a fact that Autozone has been a SCO Unix, uh, user in the past, uh, Open Server user until a couple years ago and that in their migration to Linux there, there could have been some problems with the SCO shared libraries uh, that would have been unique to, a, a customer using SCO moving in to Linux. The case that was filed today was much broader than that, and basically, uh, impacts anywhere the Linux kernel would be showing up, uh, in, uh an end user environment.
Paula: But you said it has to do with structural components that I took pieces inside Linux.
Darl: Eh, ah, a and those would be kernel related.
Paula: But the components are... are those developed by Autozone's customers.
Darl: No, this is... a... again... I guess the simple way to think of it, Paula, is to if you took the case we filed against Autozone yesterday and... and did a search and replace on, uh, name of an end user we had never had a relationship with, that is running Linux, um that, that suit would, um, pretty much hold up. Um, I mean it's gonna be a little bit different obviously, but the general claims we are making there are pervasive throughout the end use Linux community.
Paula: Your saying it's not the shared libraries, so what is the code in question here?
Darl: Yea... it, it's all spelled out in the complaint... and... uh... you know, it's all pretty detailed to go through right now, but there are a lot of... a number of structural components, uh, you know, the, uh, as you read through the complaint you'll be able to see where those are.
Bench: And, and , let me just interject for one moment, I mean this is the precise type of information that was, uh, specifically requested by the, the court to not go in to, so it's really just something that I just want to caution Darl on; that we just really don't want to be getting in to that kind of detail.
Paula: If it's the heart of the case, I think it's fair to ask the question on what the code is.
Darl: Well... it... again, it, it's in the filing.
Paula: And you mentioned that specific... there were specific programmers that , who, who acknowledged violations, um, who are these programmers?
(5 seconds of silence)
Bench: Again, we're, we're not getting in to the witnesses in the case; the, the underlying information in the case; ya know, it's not where we're going.
Novell's Time? IANAL (Score:5, Insightful)
By suing Novell's customers (for which SCO has been providing an administrative service) SCO has:
1. Clearly defied a contractually valid direct order
2. Took actions and asserted rights not specified in the contract, and
3. Demonstrably harmed the product's (SysV licenses) future revenue stream.
Perhaps SCO thought the suit against Novell would somehow shield them from the reality that the only thing propping any of this up is their contract with Novell.
Here's to hoping for some "quick" justice.
Upstaging SCO in a very public way (Score:5, Funny)
Then, sit back and watch the fallout.
Oh yeah, and you may also want to have a paramedic on hand to revive Darl, who will undoubtedly have had a heart attack by this time.
I hope this is it... (Score:5, Interesting)
a) they are scared
b) their lawyers are scared
A-ha! (Score:5, Funny)
Objective Story Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish I had a million bucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is, of course, after they disobeyed the court's previous order to produce the code within 30 days. I'd almost be willing to bet a million bucks that when April 17 comes around, they'll motion for an extension, and repeat it upon termination of that extension, essentially putting off production of the evidence forever. (But I don't have a million bucks.)
For those curious (Score:5, Funny)
It is therefore a "Shut up and put up" demand.
Lazy editors. (Score:5, Funny)
Holy Crap! (Score:5, Informative)
MS is funding SCO. Evidence at OSI!
Absolutely amazing. If this is real.....some heads will roll
Time for the SEC is whoop some ass
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Interesting)
-B
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that isn't enough. That would prove their claim was baseless. That wouldn't prove they knew it. You have to prove intent, which is to say:
a. Their claim was baseless
b. They knew it
They could always argue that they were mistaken!!
Though Boies will probably be gone by then since he's paid in stocks and it's going to be worth peanuts when they will get there.
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh I agree, but let us not forget the other people they threatened and intimidated, and from whom they extorted money. At some point the RICO act is going to be invoked, I suspect.
Given what's about to happen to Bernie Ebbers, this is probably a bad time to be senior management of a SCO or a Worldcom.
Re:Quick Question... (Score:5, Funny)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quick Question... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quick Question... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Quick Question... (Score:5, Funny)
I say "Ess-See-Owe" although based on this latest news I think "Ess-Owe-Ell" is more appropriate.
Re:Quick Question... (Score:5, Funny)
I've never heard of anyone who has actually used one of their products.
Re:Quick Question... (Score:5, Funny)
The back of the CD functions extremely well as a mirror.
Red.
I have used it and say "S - C - O" (Score:5, Interesting)
We chiefly looked at Sun and SCO as solutions. Sun hardware was just prohibitively expensive. So we went with SCO. In about a year, we migrated to NetBSD. By 1995 most things were moved over to Linux.
I'd had a personal copy of SCO Xenix for a 286 for a while.
So I have used, purchased and managed SCO systems.
I also went to school with some of the founders or SCO (back when it was in Santa Cruz). I'd foolishly passed up the opportunity to invest back then (1984).
Anyway, as you can imagine, as someone who had some (minimal) connection to SCO twenty years ago, I am not at all please by the litigious bastards [caldera.com] they are now.
Re:Quick Question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither is "correct" if you ask me. SCO originally stood for the Santa Cruz Operation, and all employees and everyone who used the software called them "S.C.O.". Their main product was SCO Unix, a pretty advanced version of Unix at the time (and popular) - and it was pronounced "S.C.O. Unix", as the letters were still an abbreviation. SCO was a good company; for a while they had good technology, and they did not engage in the kinds of tactics the current SCO uses. They were similar to other Unix sellers.
Through the years the company has changed hands a number of times, and what is now "The SCO Group" has no real relation to the original Santa Cruz Operation. It is not HQ'd in Santa Cruz (as the original was), for one thing, so even though the current SCO owns that name they have said publicly that the correct pronunciation is now "Skow". As if it's a word. I think this is ridiculous. It's like Kramer on Seinfeld trying to use "Quone" in a game of Scrabble.
I still pronounce it S.C.O. and so does everyone else I know. We're old-school, I guess. Some may see this as a slap in the face at the real SCO, the original SCO, and I can understand that. But "Skow" just doesn't make any sense at all, and it's obvious that the current SCO is trying to profit off the name anyway (otherwise why even write it "SCO" and not "Sco" or "Skow"?), so to me calling them "S.C.O." sort of rubs their face in the fact that they're not who they say they are.
On the other hand, I've got a close relative who was an employee of the original Santa Cruz Operation - haven't bothered asking him what he thinks of me calling the current SCO by the same name. Kind of afraid to.
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Interesting)
There will be no money left. Before this is over, the lawyers will be at each other's throats, snarling over scraps so small as to require a microscope to find.
It will be as if Michael Valentine Smith had rotated SCO ninety degrees away from everything, taking your license money with it.
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Insightful)
While the US legal system is far from perfect, it's more a case of being different, instead of defective. The difference is that the US system is more liberal than European courts. I know many will find it hard to believe with the political press it gets, but when it comes to normal cases that you never hear of, the US system is very liberal, giving both parties more chances than a more conservative system would allow. SCO is getting typical treatment in this case, at least in the US. No one is really argueing this. That they have lied, and possibly committed securities fraud is a seperate case, and not within the scope of the current lawsuit.
It may be frustrating, but the role of the court is to find justice, and the US tends to let bad guys go instead of convicting innocents, and giving litigants more leeway to state their case. This cuts both ways, and has good results more often than bad. This gives the small guy a better chance to fight the big guy. Ironically, in this instance, the big guy is the good guy, but this is usually not the case.
It's not perfect, but its not a bad system. It's bad people taking advantage of an open and liberal system. Eventually, SCO will be put down after they have been given every opportunity to state their case. But I would still rather see SCO get away with stuff like this, temporarily, than see innocent people/groups/corporations get rushed in/out of a courtroom and denied justice.
A review of our Patent and Copyright laws is more likely to prevent these types of cases in the future, since Copyright is the central issue in the case and the enforceability of the GPL.
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not an expert in international law, so I just want to draw your attention to the this: saying the US system is not perfect, and is meant to treat everybody fairly, and isn't so bad is kind of meaningless. That's only because you can say that about the legal system in any developed country.
That's like saying a turtle can move... most animals can.
My friends and I came up with the ultimate useless statement, for all occations "That's clearer than a Guiness"
So do US citizens compare their legal system to the bottom of the rung, or the top of the rung. For example, the German system have taken steps to protect all parties in this dispute, and it's done it fairly. I think if you compared the success of the US system to other systems in developed countries, you'll have something more interesting to say.
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Interesting)
Giving "the small guy" a better chance to fight is harmful when "the small guy" is wrong. What's the small guy's incentive to make sure he's not wrong?
The system is setup to maximize legal fees and contingency payments, at the expense of "the big guy". Justice is simply the sales-pitch.
Whatever happens, IBM, Autozone, Chrysler, Novell, Redhat, and OSDN are going to be out a lot of money on legal fees. How is that just? Wouldn't it be better if that money could be spent on something productive?
It's not perfect, but its not a bad system. ... But I would still rather see SCO get away with stuff like this, temporarily, than see innocent people/groups/corporations get rushed in/out of a courtroom and denied justice.
SCO is the plaintiff. They started this whole mess. Everyone else was just minding their own business. SCO can't be innocent -- they're the aggressor in this case.
The system is a bad system. It didn't start out that way. It was turned bad.
It can be fixed with a few simple reforms, all of which are bad for the plaintiff and less lucrative for the lawyers, except in slam-dunk cases.
Reforms:
Then we can all go back to work that helps people instead of sueing and trying to avoid getting sued.
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess I think that the award should be limited, but the damages to the perpetrator don't need to be. The money collected should go into some court fund... perhaps to pay for DA's and stuff. Or maybe to an agency that works to prevent the crime at hand? I don't know. But I'd sure rather have the punitive damages go to someone other than some lucky plaintiff and their greedy lawyer, assuming they've already been fairly compensated.
Cheers.
Re:Time for SCO to put up (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really agree with you on unlimited punitive damages though. For that kind of punishment to be exacted on someone, the standard of proof should be "beyond a reasonable doubt". In civil cases, it goes by whoever the jury thinks proved their case better. It's 50-50, not innocent until proven guilty.
Punishment is best left to criminal courts.
That's a pretty pathetic system... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, let's say your house does burn, but the insurance company disputes the claim for some dubious reason and want to take you to court with their huge legal team. You may be fairly sure you're right, but there's a small but extremely costly risk you're wrong. Ups, you just got exactly the risk you were unwilling to take in the first place, and the insurance compnay knows it.
I much prefer the Norwegian system - by default, each pay their own bills. But the courts may *choose* to make the losing side pay - in part or in full. So if you bring an army of lawyers, they may compensate you for "normal" representation, but the excess is coming out of your own wallet. Seems to work rather well against frivolous lawsuits as well as for individuals vs corporations.
Kjella
Netcraft confirms... (Score:5, Funny)
Netcraft confirms: SCO is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO community when IDC confirmed that SCO market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all Linux distribution versions. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by falling dead last in a recent Linux distribution study.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
SCO UNIX is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time developers Simon Baldwin and Andrew Sharpe only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: SCO is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
SCO UNIX project leader Darl states that there are 7000 users of SCO UNIX. How many users of OpenServer are there? Let's see. The number of SCO UNIX versus OpenServer posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 OpenServer users. SCO UNIX posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of OpenServer posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SCO UNIX. A recent article put SCO UNIX distribution at about 80 percent of the market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SCO UNIX users. This is consistent with the number of SCO Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of half-baked SCO lawsuits, abysmal sales and so on, many development companies is going out of business and will probably be taken over by another company who will sell another troubled product. Now SCO is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among dilettante dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
Fact: SCO is dying
Attention everyone: Halloween document number X (Score:5, Informative)
Shit is really going to hit the fan for SCO.
Re:And what happens? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And what happens? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:And what happens? (Score:5, Insightful)
It definitely requires SCO to put everything on the table. But it also requires IBM to put everything on the table. Basically, both parties are required to supply complete copies of everything they've ever done relating to Unix. That's a lot. A lot a lot. SCO is required to supply the license that they released everything to anyone ever. IBM is required to provide source control logs for everything they've ever done relating to Unix. IBM is required to provide current contact information for 1000 current and past employees.
This is so, so far from over. The case just got ten times bigger. Of course, this is exactly where IBM will shine. They are made of lawyers. They'll be all over this discovery like flies on shit. Boies 'n' Co's discovery seems tiny in comparison, though, so I think they'll be able to deal with it too.
Assuming that SCO has *anything* to show off, this case is going to be around for a while.
(P.S. I am not a lawyer. Take everything I say a grain of salt.)
(P.P.S. I am drunk. Excuse hyperbole.)
We think we know what's happening? (Score:5, Interesting)
Daimler-Chrysler is a 15% shareholder in Deutsche Bank which provided the propup funds to SCO which is suing Daimler-Chrysler.
Novell has 20(?)% of its shares under the Norda Trust which is a majority (?) stakeholder in The Canopy Group which owns 37% of SCO (common stock) which is suing Novell.
My head hurts. I have to go get a drink.
cheers- raga
Re:We think we know what's happening? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We think we know what's happening? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or at the very least a restriction that says the lawyers cannot take the shares or sell them before the case has ended and if that takes decades then so be it.
Re:And what happens? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the judge's order seems more favorable to SCO than you are suggesting. SCO was ordered to produce only initial code that it claims IBM missappropriated. IBM was ordered [among other things] to produce Dynix, AIX for the parties to argue their relevance and the court to decide. After that they have produced this evidence in 45 days, court will consider and decide whether additional Dynix and AIX stuff is relevant. After that, SCO will have a chance to amend its complaint to include Dynix, AIX, and additional stuff.
I am guessing that's exactly where SCO wants to go: first of all, discovery will take much longer; second, it wants to see Dynix and AIX so they can take every single piece of code that looks similar [in all 3 environments] and blame IBM.
IANAL, but as I understood at this point, SCO is required to produce only minimal evidence, but amend to it later on. Pay attention to the wording in the judge's order with regards to Dynix and AIX code:
This is to include all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time.
The judge also wasn't being harsh on SCO for not meeting deadline to produce code, saying they acted in good faith to produce evidence.
One good thing for IBM was that it does not have to produce any Linux contributions that are publicly available for SCO to look up.
Re:And what happens? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, IANAL, but this tells me that SCO is pretty well fucked. They have to tell the court which lines of code IN LINUX (since they have to provide all lines in Linux which they believe were illegally contributed), SysV, etc were released, and under what licensing terms and conditions they were released. Since SCO (as Caldera) distributed Linux as a product, under the GPL....
The IBM "stuff" is to throw SCO a bone, IMO, although it -is- entirely possible that SCO may be able to find something. They probably won't, but the chance is there, and if they -DO- find something truly damning...well, let's just say that I don't want to follow that line of reasoning at this time
-
J.
Order #3 is just as good: (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that this sentence essentially assumes that SCO's "If A and B are linked into the same binary, then B is a derived work of A" theory is wrong. For this question to be even answerable, every chunk of code that SCO claims is a "derivative work" of System V is going to have to be a modified version of code that is already included in System V.
Somehow I don't think "We don't actually have any JFS, RCU, or NUMA code in System V, but under our theory we don't have to" is going to be a very good answer to this order, but it's basically the only answer SCO can give.
Superficially this order doesn't look like a big win for IBM, but since order 3 implies that Judge Wells doesn't believe SCO's ideas about "derivative works" and order 5 implies that Judge Wells does believe IBM's ideas about the GPL... well, that's about as good as the order could get without actually throwing out any of SCO's claims.
Re:Horrible title... (Score:5, Informative)
- Robin
Re:Horrible title... (Score:5, Informative)
Boggle at the pure amount of information that is.
Re:Horrible title... (Score:5, Informative)
The code that IBM has been 'ordered' to produce is actually the code that IBM offered to produce prior to the point at which the Judge ordered a stay of discovery because she was concerned that SCO was attempting to avoid compliance.
SCO actually asked that IBM issue them with all versions of AIX and Dynix, both released and unreleased, and the judge has disallowed this claim, insisting that before SCO get to see any more documents, they have to show good reason why it is necessary.
In short, this is a total victory for IBM and a total pasting for SCO.
Re:Horrible title... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a standard part of the discovery procedure. Not only had SCO had asked for this stuff prior to the discovery process being frozen by the judge, they'd actually asked for the names of over 10,000 IBM employees -- clearly an attempt to harrass the company and interfere with their business.
Because the case law on discovery insists that courts have to err on the side of generosity during the discovery process, the judge has to do everything that is fair and reasonable to enable SCO to make their case within the limits of legal procedure, there was no way that any judge was *not* going to make such orders. To do so would have simply given SCO good grounds for appeal.
But SCO didn't get the names of their 10,000 witnesses from IBM. The judge ordered that IBM provide SCO with details of a representative 1,000, and SCO will then have to provide good grounds should they wish to interview or depose any other IBM employee.
Seriously, IBM's lawyers would have expected and anticipated this -- indeed, their earlier findings suggest that they would actually welcome it. They're looking for a decisive victory, not some dismissal on a technicality, and so they also want the judge to give SCO all the latitude that they are entitled to under the law, because when they do eventually squash them like a bug, the victory will be decisive.
Basically, SCO got nothing that IBM wouldn't have wanted them to have, but they got a damn sight less than they asked for in all of their motions. While a layman might not see that as a complete victory, I'm pretty sure that that's how IBM's lawyers will view it.
Re:Lines of code belonging to SCO (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lines of code belonging to SCO (Score:5, Funny)
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.
*/
Re:Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Finally we'll see an end to this FiaSCO. ;) (Score:5, Funny)
SCO is already "oblivious", now if we can get them into oblivion... that would be nice.
Ummmm... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Article Details (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:At last justice will be done (Score:5, Insightful)
End of story. End of SCO.
Re:What will happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're describing trademark infringement. A better analogy would be if you were bottling a soda based on Coke's secret formula which you obtained illegally. You can't at that point just say "my bad" and stop - you're liable for damages for the period where you were infringing. You're also not going to be able to just come up with a new formula. You already know Coke's secrets - you'd have to either license the formula or hire people with no knowledge of Coke's IP to come up with the new formula for you. For Linux, this could mean that anybody who has worked on the kernel since 2.2 would no longer be able to contribute since they have gained the knowledge from seeing and studying SCO's IP. Anything they do from that point on might be considered tainted, whether or not the code is copied line-for-line. It might also mean discarding everything since 2.2 and starting over from the point where the court determined the infringement started.
Re:Translation needed (Score:5, Informative)
They mean that if IBM secretly (without anyone not involved knowing) passed any code to Linux, they should reveal it now. since actually all contributions to Linux are public because Linux itself is all public, it's pretty much irrelevant. Unless of course an undercover IBM agent, acting as a Random Joe Nerd from some obscure part of the world and not connected with IBM in any way, slipped some IBM's code into Linux as his own... How likely is that?
"Non-public" linux contributions (Score:5, Insightful)
A post over on Groklaw also mentioned the possibility that IBM could, conceivably, have OFFERED a patch that was subsequently turned down for inclusion in the 'base' tree. Hence, it was a "contribution" (though not one that was accepted) and, possibly not appearing anywhere at the moment, would be "non-public".
The Groklaw post suggested that "intent to contribute" would have been a factor in the wildly flailing SCO claims. My take is that it IF such a thing ever occured then maybe, just maybe, IBM TRIED to put Secret SCO Source(tm) into Linux but failed (which obviously makes it a failure as a "Linux violates SCO Copyright" claim but might, during a full moon on a Tuesday during a solar eclipse, make a basis for a contract violation claim...)
Though this would also require that the patch have been submitted through "non-public" channels, too. Hmmm. Guess even this interpretation is a little weak...
Re:What scares me... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where does it say they can't comment? (Score:5, Informative)
Coincidently this helped SCO obfiscate answering more hardhitting questions by the press in said teleconference.
Figures, now that the popular press seems to be "getting" it at last the courts all but muzzle them - not that I expected a straight answer for Darl and Co. But being able to legitimately hide behind this is irksome all the same.
Happened earlier. (Score:5, Informative)
This happened earlier in court when they met in chambers. It was commented that IBM lawyers were looking smug coming out from that meeting. We suspected the judge had gagged Darl, but it wasn't confirmed until ~today.