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!

Randall Davis: IBM Has No SCO Code

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the hey-they've-been-trying-to-tell-you-that dept.

The Courts 405

Mick Ohrberg writes "As reported by Groklaw, Randall Davis, renowned professor of Computer Science at MIT has after an extensive search found no evidence of SCO's claims that IBM has incorporated parts of the Unix System V code. Davis says "Accordingly, the IBM Code cannot be said, in my opinion, to be a modification or a derivative work based on the Unix System V Code." Surprised, anyone?"

cancel ×

405 comments

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

Finally... (0, Redundant)

leonmergen (807379) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279497)

So now, after months and months of news about this trial, it's all over now ?

So basically, SCO is bankrupt now?

Re:Finally... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279541)

-So now, after months and months of news about this trial, it's all over now ?

Not quite..

An MIT professor isn't a court, although he could be used as an expert if IBM needs to. This is not that big of news imho. Other studies have already found this.

a judge will weigh. (5, Informative)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279674)

Judges will weigh the 'testimony' of experts in a case. In some cases, a court will appoint an expert as a special master -- to make technical determinations.

If I recall correctly, Randy told me that he has served as a special master in several cases.

Re: a judge will weigh. (4, Informative)

shotfeel (235240) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279802)

Though this is on one level a matter of expert opinion, and on another level a matter of fact.

One would hope, as a matter of fact, the SCOexpert would be required to show where he found matches. That (if it exists) can be explicitly shown to the court.

Then, if need be, the experts can argue over wether or not they match.

Kind of like fingerprints. The suspect's fingerprints are entered as evidence, as are fingerprints found at the scene. The experts can then argue about wether or not they match. But until those fingerprints are presented and accepted as evidence, there is no weighing of testimony to be done.

Re:Finally... (4, Interesting)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279803)

Exactly. This is some of the most convincing anti-SCO evidence I've seen. This man has been an expert witness in court in the past and is indisputably an expert in this kind of analysis. Look at the (badly scanned...bleh!) table in the pdf. Line after line after line of code identified by SCO as being stolen, and Davis found absolutely nothing.

That's a final word as far as I'm concerned, and I'd venture so far as to say if IBM wants to make it so it's the final word as far as the law is concerned.

Re:Finally... (4, Insightful)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279542)

They are far from bankrupt, and probably won't be for a while either. They've already played down their accusations, perhaps trying to have people forget them. Perhaps people will go about their business as they did before this thing started, personally, I hope IBM takes action and drags their sorry faces into the mud.

Re:Finally... (4, Informative)

Nurseman (161297) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279756)

I hope IBM takes action and drags their sorry faces into the mud.

This has been gone over at length on Groklaw. IBM HAS taken action. No matter what SCO does, IBM still has a huge countersuit under something called Lanham Act [internet.com] . Methinks SCO is in a bit of trouble

question (4, Interesting)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279545)

After that, who will have the copyright of Unix? Open Group? or IBM? or Novel?

Re:question (5, Informative)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279678)

Novell. There's a lawsuit going on about the matter right now, but it looks like the Unix copyrights were never actually transfered from Novell to SCO.

Re:Finally... (4, Interesting)

y2imm (700704) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279630)

They're not quite dead yet. But keep a good thought!

The courts have their thorough processes to run through. SCO will get umpteen chances to submit memorandums, emergency memorandums, memorandums in opposition to motions, memorandums in support of motions, motions to support memorandums in support of motions for summary judgement, no wait, theres more...

It's making me ill to watch how easily the process is to abuse. But thank God, unless a MS steps in and ponies up the cash, it will eventually be over.

Re:Finally... (1)

tindur (658483) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279796)

It's making me ill to watch how easily the process is to abuse. But thank God, unless a MS steps in and ponies up the cash, it will eventually be over.
If SCO runs out of money somebody else might buy the rights to abuse the legal system from them. So let's hope they'll have the money to lose this case in court.

Re:Finally... (5, Funny)

glib909 (623480) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279821)

They're not quite dead yet.

SCO: I don't want to go on the cart!

Oh, don't be such a baby. You're not fooling anyone, you'll be stone dead in a moment.

Re:Finally... (5, Insightful)

erick99 (743982) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279633)

So now, after months and months of news about this trial, it's all over now ?

Since Dr. Randall Davis is an expert witness for IBM, I am guessing that SCO will say, "ain't so!" and then they will ask for time to refute Randall's findings and perhaps come up with an expert witness of their own that finds thousands of "matches." Hopefully the judge in this case will recognize Randall for the expert that he is and accept his findings. However, that just doesn't seem likely to me. This is just another round in a case that will continue like this ad nauseum.

Erick

Re:Finally... (1)

red floyd (220712) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279716)

I am guessing that SCO will say, "ain't so!" and then they will ask for time to refute Randall's findings and perhaps come up with an expert witness of their own that finds thousands of "matches.

You forgot the part where they also ask (again!) for every internal iteration of every file used in AIX and Dynix.

Re:Finally... (1)

Phisbut (761268) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279728)

and then they will ask for time to refute Randall's findings and perhaps come up with an expert witness of their own that finds thousands of "matches."

Don't forget how they will present it... "Your Honor, our expert witness here found thousands of matches that proves IBM stole our code. However, to preserve our IP, we cannot tell you what they are, but they are there... yes, they are..."

Re:Finally... (1)

shotfeel (235240) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279753)

Of course one could only hope that the SCOxpert would be required to actually show which parts he thought matched what -in a very specific manner.

Like I said. One can only hope....

Re:Finally... (4, Interesting)

dasmegabyte (267018) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279658)

Wow. That was a quick read, and you know what? Assuming that this guy's completely on the level (and considering his pro-IP stance, I'm willing to do that), SCO really has fuck-all. Up until now, I was ready to give them a chance, mostly due to their sabre rattling about protecting the little guy from the cloning behavior inherent in OSS. But Davis' observations, if substantiated, prove exactly what the OSS community was talking about: the code similarities are largely trivial, and SCO's "code theft" claims are bunkum.

Whether they still have any patents or copyrights on the functionality of UNIX remains to be seen, and such a case wouldn't necessarily NEED code theft to go forward. Any idiot can see that Linux is a UNIX clone -- the question at that point would be the legality of the cloning process and the layers of licensing that surround it.

Re:Finally... (2, Informative)

tclark (140640) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279777)

Whether they still have any patents or copyrights on the functionality of UNIX remains to be seen,...

Ummm, no it doesn't. We already know that SCO doesn't have any patents, and there's no such thing as a copyright on functionality. We copyright code, not functionality.

frist psot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279500)

frist psot

FP (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279505)

About as surprising as the sky being blue and water being wet.

Wait... (5, Funny)

Dayze!Confused (717774) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279506)

you mean that SCO has been lying to us?

Re:Wait... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279767)

"We are still seeing copyright violations being committed and the damage is still occurring on a daily basis, yet the other side said, "What is the problem? Look, we took it out of the future versions."

We showed over a million lines of code and where it has existed. [Linux creator] Linus Torvalds has told me that the Linux kernel has around 5 million lines of code. This derivative code accounts for 20 percent of the Linux code base."
Q&A: SCO Group CEO Darl McBride By Michael Singer
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 114341 [internetnews.com]

WTF! This guy can find a single line!! he must be blind! The CEO of SCO says that 1/5 of linux is a copy. Darl Mcbride would not lie!!!

Remeber SCO owns c++ too!
"And C++ programming languages, we own those" -Darl McBride
Caldera CEO waves UnitedLinux banner By ZDNet Staff August 15, 2002 http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/mai n/0,14179,2877578,00.html [zdnet.com]

Figures... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279508)

Well, you thought that SCO's case had to be standing on SOMETHING, right? COlor me surprised! ;)

Counter example would have helped. (5, Interesting)

Godeke (32895) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279516)

One thing was pointed out on Groklaw that I think was relevant. Although I think SCO has no case, I'm sure they will jump on the fact that the expert didn't provide an example of a true derivative work run through the same procedure.

It surely wouldn't have been hard to take some, say, early and "in the clear" code that has been reused and modified over time to show both that it can be identified and to show how code that has evolved can still leave the fingerprint of the original code. Without that counter example the failure to find matches would seem underwhelming. (The closest the testimony came to this was showing a positive result that was generated and showing how it was a commonly repeated pattern in all software written in C, not something specific to these two programs).

Perhaps elsewhere in IBMs testimony there was reference to this same procedure being successfully?

Counterexample DIY (5, Insightful)

hummassa (157160) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279638)

1. Get Linux 2.6.8.1
2. Get Linux 2.4.0
3. left out as an exercise for the reader
4. Show positive result
5. Don't profit, but have fun.

Re:Counter example would have helped. (5, Insightful)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279707)

He doesn't need to; the software in question has probably been used many times before for the exact same thing.

Everyone is getting so far off base on this.

SCO is manging to convince people that this is somehow difficult to prove.. that they need more research and more time to PROVE that IBM stole code and put it in linux. Their only claim as to why they think Linux has SCO code is "because there is no way linux could have become as good as it did without stealing from us".. ie: denial

They have yet to show ONE section of code that was lifted. They haven't even shown how one was *similar* enough to have potentially been stolen and heavily modified.. they have shown *NOTHING*

IT's called an expert witness... and their word DOES mean something to the court.. they stake their reputation on it.

Re:Counter example would have helped. (1)

dennbruce (668774) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279757)

I think it is safe to say that this does not signify the end of this debacle, after all SCO would have turned a profit last year had they not been busy paying lawyer's fees. They've keep fighting against all odds and why quit now. It seems to be their business plan, maybe this is why their stock has gone from over $22 a share to around $4.

I knew I should have shorted that stock...

If nothing else you've got to give SCO credit for stick-to-it-ive-ness

...Oops there goes another rubber tree plan

In other news... (4, Funny)

CrayzyJ (222675) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279521)

rocks are hard and water is wet.

More at 11.

Re:In other news... (4, Funny)

escher (3402) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279600)

Counterexamples: magma, ice.

Re:In other news... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279759)

okay, fine...

rocks are wet and water is hard...

Re:In other news... (3, Insightful)

DarKnyht (671407) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279793)

And don't forget Slashdot readers will nitpick.

Re:In other news... (-1, Offtopic)

evilpenguin (18720) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279677)

I support our troops and our future President.
Kerry 2004.

(OT, flamebait) sig... (-1, Offtopic)

rbird76 (688731) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279730)

How can you do both? It's hard to say one supports the troops while sending them on a mission under false pretenses and without proper preparation (even previous military people under the great military leader Clinton (ha ha) recognized that armed uprising was likely if Hussein was removed in Iraq by force, something GWB et al. couldn't bother preparing for) while cutting their and their families' benefits, all the while touting the job as "Mission Accomplished". If the lack of military preparation or readiness was Clinton's fault, GWB should have come up with better/legitimate reasons why the military had to go when they did (announcing it all the while) rather than building up quietly and then executing.

Supporting the military (and the Constitution, and the economy) and supporting GWB are mutually exclusive.

baaaaah (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279804)

Dey Tuk R Jarbs!
by anonymous coward

a little sheeple
hides behind a war
conformist J

GNAA EP! #windows on EFNET! SCO RULEZ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279526)

This "early post" is brought to you by the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canus Familirous Association). We are an organization dedicated to the eradication of dogs. ECFA (Euthanasia for Canus Familirous Association) is committed to protect our oxygen, to clean our streets, and to curb noise pollution - through the simple eradication of canine pests.

We have recently "connected" with the GNAA to form one ECFA. Stay connected. Please note that since we are moving to a larger demographic (the untold scores of people who deal with dog messes, noises, and annoyances daily), most of the current GNAA content is offline. In fact, we're pulling all of it except the "early post", which is now a ECFA-style "early post". The traditional GNAA "early post" will continue to be posted on all SCO stories, as insisted by upper GNAA management and its core team of fans. The illicit images and language will not be a part of the new combined organiztion. We do not condone any sexual lifestyle or race.

Have you ever stepped in DOG DOO-DOO [k9treat.com]

Are you MAD? [apa.org]

Do you KILL DOGS? [aapn.org]

Are you a MAD DOG KILLER? [k911emergencies.com]

If you answered "YES" to any of the above questions the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canus Familirous Association) is for you! You no longer need change your skin color or sexual lifestyle in order to become a member of an "EVIL TROLLING ORGANIZATION." Instead, you can work toward the noble of goal of INCREASING OUR SUPPLY OF O2! OVERPOPULATION of DOGS is RAPANT in this country. Did you know that DOGS turn BENEFICIAL O2 into CO2 simply to gain their energy to bark, drool, and howl? They ACTUALLY BURN OUR OXYGEN SUPPLY!!! One dog easily waste the Oxygen output of ten mature trees! This country has MANY UNWANTED, ABANDONED DOGS that WE ARE PAYING MONEY TO KEEP ALIVE. We are FEEDING them our food supply while making the homeless STARVE! Are you TIRED of having your TAXES increased? Humane Societies cost our country over $100 million annually. By using a Dog Killing Gadget, a dog can be turned into beneficial food, helping us all. We let children go hungry yet feed our **UNWANTED** dogs like royalty.

One dog can output over 10 lbs of droppings daily. One dog can aggrivate the allergies of untold numbers of people with its fast growing hair and all too common dandruff. Do you own a dog? Are you tired of its mess? Don't feel like planting ten trees and waiting 10 years for them to reach maturity? Then get it euthanized. Euthanasia is a painless way for a dog to... terminate. However, it can be too expensive to buy these drugs for the LARGE NUMBER of DOGS in the HUMANE SOCIETIES. It is thus proposed that these dogs be turned into food for the homeless. One dog can feed up to five homeless children for one day.

Many have wondered the best way to exterminate dogs. Euthanasia is by far the most clean method, but it taints the meat and is cost prohibitive. Thus, the most economical method is our K9Zap product featured on TechTV ($29.95), which deals a fatal shock to a dog up to 60lbs. Alternatively, the slightly messier bakers chocolate approach costs only about $0.30 per pound of dog. For more information, reply to this message or contact Gadgets for the Elimination of Dogs (GED). A rifle also works wonders, but may be against local codes, and is generally best to avoid in dog elimination.

WANT TO SUPPORT THE ECFA? Simply participate in our propaganda campaign to exterminate dogs. You can become a member of our slashdot trolling team, our usenet trolling team, or you can be a member of our local campaigning - by simply handing out brocures or posting signs outside humaine socities. If you have MOD POINTS, alternatively you can moderate this post UP to support our cause.

==This post brought to you by the Proud Dog Killers in #windows on EFNET.

Really??!! (5, Funny)

theparanoidcynic (705438) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279530)

I thought SCO was telling the truth the whole time. You mean to tell me that those bastardly socialist hackers have done nothing wrong? Impudence!

Re:Really??!! (1)

Bull999999 (652264) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279558)

What's this world coming to!!! Are they going to say that Microsoft isn't a kind and honest corporation next?

Re:Really??!! (3, Funny)

theparanoidcynic (705438) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279682)

I think that would break me if it were true. It can't be true. I thought Redmond was a happy forest filled with drunken leprechauns and talking unicorns. I know it is . . . .

* Runs off crying. *

Re:Really??!! (-1, Troll)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279632)

To be fair, noone says they aren't, except an expert who was payed a lot of money (550/hr) by IBM to say so.

But of course, he's a lawyer, and they're well known for their morals and are among the most honorable men and women on the earth. They would never cheapen their personal values, nor lie and twist evidence, for cash.

I found this out a while ago... (1, Funny)

StevenHenderson (806391) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279533)

diff IBMcode SCOliarscode > lawsuitammo.txt

nedit lawsuitammo.txt





(null)


Re:I found this out a while ago... (4, Insightful)

Mr Guy (547690) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279588)

So wait, you're trying to say they are EXACTLY THE SAME?

Re:I found this out a while ago... (0, Flamebait)

StevenHenderson (806391) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279650)

*GASP* Would I dare? But Darl seems so "nice" and "honest"! (Read: sleazy and dirty like a hooker)

Re:I found this out a while ago... (2, Funny)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279711)

Nah, the lameness filter probably removed the many lines of:

< IBMcode
< IBMcode
< IBMcode
===
> SCOliarscode
> SCOliarscode
> SCOliarscode
> SCOliarscode

Either that, or nedit couldn't open such a large file and wound up with a (null) when it tried to malloc the entire SCO code base and IBM code base.

(Over-analysing jokes - it's not just for pendants any more!)

Re:I found this out a while ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279640)

So what you're saying is that the IBM code and the SCO code are exactly the same? wtf?

Re:I found this out a while ago... (1)

Shippy (123643) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279648)

Uhhh, you mean it found no differences which means that IBMcode == SCOliarscode? That's no good. I'm confused...

Maybe it's because I've never used nedit and am missing something?

Re:I found this out a while ago... (1)

StevenHenderson (806391) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279692)

nedit = text editor like e or vi (kinda)

Re:I found this out a while ago... (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279776)

nedit = text editor like e or vi (kinda)

Isn't "e" a window manager?

Re:I found this out a while ago... (1)

StevenHenderson (806391) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279667)

To all replies: It's a joke people!!! Sheesh!

Re:I found this out a while ago... (1)

GammaTau (636807) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279746)

To all replies: It's a joke people!!! Sheesh!

Those who don't understand Unix jokes are doomed to reinvent them, poorly. :)

At $550 per hour... (5, Funny)

Bull999999 (652264) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279534)

8. I have been retained by counsel for IBM in this lawsuit and am being compensated at a rate of $550 per hour.

20. These comparisons required on the order of 10 hours of computation time on a dual 3 GHz Xeon processor system with 2 GB of RAM. This is a high-end workstation routinely and easily available off the shelf from commercial vendors such as Dell.


At $550 per hour, I would've used something like a 386 processor with 8MB of RAM.

Re:At $550 per hour... (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279580)

Ah, no need to run up hourly rates by actually doing work! Note the lawyer speak..

on the order of 10 hours..

Heck, in base 10, 99 is "on the order of" 10 hours. Switch to something like base 1024 and you could say that a few million is "on the order of" 10. The sky's the limit!

My point being, he'll bill well over 10 hours.

Re:At $550 per hour... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279805)

He's not charging for CPU time, he's charging for his own time. The Xeon timing bit was included, I assume, to demonstrate that the tests were not prohibitively difficult. This may be intended to preemptively counter a SCO claim that testing for this was impractically difficult.

I expect it took more than 10 hours for him to write that document and painstakingly verify its accuracy and wording to avoid perjury. He'll likely spend significant amounts of time testifying in person on the subject as well.

That rate is high but within reason for top-end expert witnesses (which is exactly what he is.) It's not uncommon for renowned professors to make a substantial second income by acting as an expert witness (very common in the chemistry and biology fields, at least.)

Finally, IBM would not even blink if they were handed a bill for several hundred hours at $550 each on this issue. They may even get some of the money back, depending on the details of the final settlement and the subsequent SCO bankruptcy.

Re:At $550 per hour... (5, Funny)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279602)

At $550 per hour, I would've used something like a 386 processor with 8MB of RAM.

Hell, I would have built a wetware turing machine using a dozen grad students armed with abacii. In treacle. With Natalie Portman implementing the I/O subsystem.

Re:At $550 per hour... (1)

mrseigen (518390) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279637)

Grad students are too quick. Use high school kids, you can get them cheaper to boot. Abacuses (Abacii?) are fairly expensive as well, so you should just give them sticks and sand/dirt you find lying around.

Re:At $550 per hour... (1)

DupyMcCopy (803233) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279695)

But remember to bill as if you used grad students and Abacuses. Btw I thought Abacii as some sort of way of repersenting text on abacuses

hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279771)

treacle... [wikiverse.org]

Re:At $550 per hour... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279642)

At $550 per hour, I would've used something like a 386 processor with 8MB of RAM.

I guess that's one reason they didn't hire you.

Computation time. (1)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279700)

He bills $550 an hour for his time, not computation time. I doubt he would sit at his desk watching the screen saver during the computation time -- He'd go to the Royal East for lunch.

Re:At $550 per hour... (4, Funny)

John Harrison (223649) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279745)

At $550 an hour from IBM you think he would have at least had the decency to not plug Dell.

Not me. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279540)

Surprised, anyone?

Nope.

What about all of these? (5, Funny)

I_am_Rambi (536614) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279560)

What about these snippets? // /*
*/
while(1)
{
}
return(0);
return(1);
if (...)
elseif (...)
else

And don't forget the white space! That is a clear copy!

Re:What about all of these? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279666)

Those lines aren't from SCO. You copied those from the one of the last fifty SCO stories. We really need a "-1 tired old joke". At least you didn't start with "Obligatory SCO code joke".

in other news... (2, Funny)

CheechBG (247105) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279567)

SCO's outside law firm have recently found incontrovertible evidence that SCO has been doing some "creative" accounting practices. Said one high-level attorney, "These books are cooked so bad I should have brought some steaks and smores, we could have had a cookout."

/really drawn-out joke :)

Wade'da'minute... (2, Insightful)

Dark Coder (66759) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279571)

The article is a good start but what are the criterias for determining derivatives?

Which method is covered for source code comparisions?

1. two printouts held together and up toward a lighted source?
2. side-by-side subjective eyeball comparision
3. diff (and all derivative comparision tools)
4. diff with some wiggle-room command line options?
5. NSA-grade pattern analysis supercomputer?

I'm slightly guarded here, but these SCO FUD-busting articles seemed very promising...

Read the PDF... (5, Informative)

mekkab (133181) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279605)

He goes into detail.

Read the PDF's methodology (1)

Dark Coder (66759) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279706)

The $550/hr analyst eliminated the following filtration criterias:

1. ideas
2. purposes
3. procedures
4. processes
5. system
6. method of operations
7. facts
8. unoriginal elements

WOW! Okey Doke. So, now the IBM legal team is really looking for "copy-cat" aspect of which we, the community, are certain there aren't any (save for a few comments).

Looks like a (yet another prolonged drawned out) battleground for SCO legal team to reinstate some of the following bullet items above.

Re:Read the PDF's methodology (1)

beernutz (16190) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279775)

I believe the article states that he did NOT perform any filtration in this instance. He ran the ENTIRE set of lines identified, against the ENTIRE sco codebase first, then hand checked all amtches, and having found none, he did not have to apply any filtration.

Re:Wade'da'minute... (1)

mikeee (137160) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279733)

What's hilarious here, is that Prof. Davis was the special technical consultant to the court case that set the precedent (in this Circuit - there still isn't a national consensus on this) on how to decide exactly that!

I believe the method in question is AFC, Abstraction-Filtration-Comparision.

Abstraction: normalize irrelevent junk like whitespace, variable names, equivalent loop constructs, etc.

Filtration: Toss anything that has public-domain sources or is so blatently obvious that it doesn't qualify as a copyrightable creative work.

Comparision: Compare the two codebases.

So, between favorable declarations from Davis and one Prof. B. Kernighan, I think IBM is in good shape, unless SCO will be bringing depositions from their experts down from a mountaintop on stone tablets.

It's a matrix... (4, Funny)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279575)

where there is no SCO code.

SCO, don't try and claim that IBM has your code. That's impossible. Instead, realize the truth. There is no SCO code.

Re:It's a matrix... (1)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279698)

Really, what code has SCO put forth into any "Unix" project? (Caldera Linux doesn't count)

I'm saying before AIX, for example.

Did SCO actually claim that "their" code went to IBM or are they just trying to claim code they may or may not own. Is the code that was "stolen" all work done before SCO's purchase of "Unix"?

Personally, I'd like to see Novell get all of the Unix property back...

Thanks Professor Davis... and thanks ESR... (5, Informative)

LinuxParanoid (64467) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279577)

... who wrote the comparator tool which was one of the two tools used in the analysis.

ESR [catb.org] deserves three cheers for 'scratching his itch', making a tool to compare copyrighted code. To have it actually used in the SCO case which was the annoying impetus for its creation (AFAICT) has to be a nice feeling.

I'm not an ESR fanboy, but I'll give him props when I think he deserves it and in this case I think he does.

--LP

$550 an hour....and he reviewed 15 lines of code? (4, Funny)

zerofoo (262795) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279579)

Where do I get a gig like that?

He basically had some software look for similarities in the code, and then manually verified the hits.

Wow....$550/hour to do that. I've got a CS degree - I'll volunteer to do it for half that!

Oh yeah, he also explained the significance of return statements so that non-programmer types could understand.

-ted

Re:$550 an hour....and he reviewed 15 lines of cod (4, Insightful)

mekkab (133181) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279639)

Great! Graduate Phi Beta Cappa (summa cum laude, too), run some AI centers and also have excessive experience in Code copyright infringement cases!

See you in 10 years!

(trans: read the relevant parts of his CV in the PDF- this guy is FOR REAL.)

Re:$550 an hour....and he reviewed 15 lines of cod (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279727)

This guy is the expert in code comparison, which is why he can get so much. It's like hiring Linus Torvalds as a kernel consultant.

Re:$550 an hour.... (1)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279740)

I'll volunteer to do it for half that!

And there are people in India who will do it for 1% of what Davis got paid for it.

(That's $5.50 per hour for us non-math types)

15 hits (0, Redundant)

understyled (714291) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279587)

from the PDF:
"I used two programs, COMPARATOR and SIM [...] to compare all 26,759 lines of the IBM Code identified by SCO against all 67,797,569 lines in the Unix System V Code.

COMPARATOR reported 15 potential hits. I reviewed each of these potential hits in detail and determined them [...] to be matches of common terms in the C programming language.

SIM did not report any potential hits."

so... all this SCO bullshit is finally over?

Re:15 hits (2, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279655)

to compare all 26,759 lines of the IBM Code identified by SCO against all 67,797,569 lines in the Unix System V Code

All the SCO bullshit over? Far from it. There are still a few hundred million lines of AIX that haven't been compared.

And even if it's over for IBM, doesn't make it necessarily over for Linux in general.

Not So Fast Mr. Davis! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279589)

That's ... that's ... that's because Randall Davis doesn't have the Secret SCO Decoder Ring (tm) (patent pending) (C 2004 SCO). The Decoder Ring ... it ... it detects our IP where no mere mortal could ever hope to find it!

And now ... for a limited time only ... buy SCOSource licenses for 5 or more friends, and SCO will throw in a Secret SCO Decoder Ring (tm) (patent pending) (C 2004 SCO) at no additional charge!

My name is Darl McBride, and I have authorized this message!

Re:Not So Fast Mr. Davis! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279729)

It's not a decoder ring, it's Joseph Smith's seer stones. Can also be used for translating cryptic writings on golden plates that nobody else has seen.

Re:Not So Fast Mr. Davis! (1)

mrgreen4242 (759594) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279810)

I was just about to post something about Joseph Smith. That South Park episode about him/Mormons was hillarious.

Ladies and Gentlemen.. (0)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279599)

The only thing I can say is:

"All your lawsuits are belong to us"

SCO, go back to doing nothing.

Scope (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279601)

Only the code SCO CURRENTLY says is infringing was tested. According to the document on Groklaw, this was not a line by line comparison.. so if SCO sneaks new code into discovery at some later point, this'll have to be done all over again.

Why? 6 million lines of code compared against 6 million (or more) will take a exponentially more time than 27000 vs 6 million.

Re:Scope (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279773)

According to the Groklaw article, the comparison took approximately 10 hours on a dual-3GHz. I really don't see that having to do a comparison over again is really that relevant. In "court time", 10 hours is nothing and even if it takes a month, it takes a month, there's nothing you can do to help that.

It's blows SCO's 25,000 man-years prediction out of the water, anyway.

in other news (1)

fawlty154 (814393) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279603)

In other news... SCO's lawyers have started filing suits with all other unix variants...

SCO code (2, Funny)

MikeMacK (788889) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279607)

17. As explained in detail below, I used two programs, called COMPARATOR and SIM, to help automate the process.

Hmmm...I wonder if he can prove that COMPARATOR and SIM do not contain any SCO code?

Why is it... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279617)

Why does it seem that something like one out of every ten articles on Slashdot have something to do with MIT?

News? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279629)

This almost doesn't even count as news.

Everybody knew it . . . even SCO!

Last heard from Darl at investors meeting (1)

FerretFrottage (714136) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279653)

"No SCO code? Shaa...and monkeys might fly out of my butt!"

When ... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279673)

will this finally be over????

busted! (5, Funny)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279694)

SCO: b-b-but, you're not supposed to use a COMPUTER SCIENTIST!
IBM: byte us.

maybe (0, Redundant)

althalus (520424) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279699)

Surprised, anyone?"

Darl, Baystar, ...

Unravelling? (0, Redundant)

Mycroft999 (809772) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279722)

Has someone finally grasped the trailing thread of the FUD inducing cloak of obfuscation that SCO has thrown over this case from day one?

Will the whole mess finally start to unravel under expert scrutiny that is conversant engough to the non-technical person that they can explain what a load of drek SCO is peddling?

We can only hope!

SCO has a patent on extensive searchs of source (0, Redundant)

MichaelPenne (605299) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279743)

So the lawsuits will keep on coming!

IBM has WMD, claims SCO. (4, Funny)

ARRRLovin (807926) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279750)

SCO claims an attack from IBM, using these weapons, is imminent. SCO has 2 carrier battle groups in the area and 250,000 troops on call to go in and find the WMD, pending UN approval. More news to come.....

SCO hasn't played their trump card yet... (3, Funny)

SpaceBadger (556685) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279763)

Your honour, when we apply the standard abstraction and filtration phases to any Unix System V file we can clearly see that the resulting 0 byte file is identical to every abstracted and filtered 0 byte file in the latest Linux kernel.

Sounds like.... (1)

DrHex (142347) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279766)

...it's (SCO) Some Company's Other code. How's that for ironic, a SOFTWARE company takes out a lawsuit over SOFTWARE and a computer scientist uses SOFTWARE to prove there is no case. I'm waiting for SCO to claim rights to the comparator concept. How high will the level of ludicrous behaviour will over-paid, executives in companies loosing money get? Has anyone during this entire process given thought that maybe SCO took the code and claims it as their own? How will they ever prove this case is beyond me, since Unix was in existence before SCO was established as a company.

Formal Request to Randall Davis (5, Insightful)

HopeOS (74340) | more than 10 years ago | (#10279782)

Although your deposition includes a description of your methodology, it does not indicate whether you established a proper baseline for comparison or how you calibrated your filter. I would be interested to know how far, in your direct experience, code can be modified before it fails to match COMPARATOR and SIM respectively. Furthermore, how closely does the point at which these tools fail to detect a match coincide with the legal Abstraction, Filtration, and Comparison test?

I do not fault your analysis; I would like to know more about your methodology, beyond the limited scope of the deposition.

-Hope

R. Davis has been a consultant for ... IBM (p.2) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279784)

http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/davis/bio.pdf

lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279808)

IANAL but isnt there something forbidding lawyers from taking on cases they know to be false or something like that? When SCOs case is proven to have no grounds - and never did (and thats merely a matter of time) whats going to happen to the lawyers after this case. Im presuming they`re going to swear blind they thought SCO would win ( chortle etc ). It would be nice to see the lawyers in chain - dragged off to the stockade along with Darl + co

His assistant seems busy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10279812)

I wish that I could bill my time for $550/hr and then get my assistant to do all of the real work. It sounds like all he really did was manually check the very few matches that came up. If they're all like the example he gave then I don't see any reason it would have taken him more then 10 minutes of actual work.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?