×

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!

IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the got-that-here-somewhere dept.

IBM 294

Ghostx13 writes "A story over at Linuxworld states that IBM has been less than forthcoming with its bits and pieces of source code SCO is demanding. SCO is alleging in its 3rd Amended Complaint that 'IBM put SCO-owned SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture.' The problem? IBM 'can't find' that source code. Does IBM have something to hide?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

294 comments

FP fux0rs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608864)

hahahahahaha er frost pist

I know where it is. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608865)

It is buried under the sand in Iraq somewhere.

Re:I know where it is. (1)

JPriest (547211) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609147)

Well the amound of requested code so far is in the range of 2 billion and SCO still needs more code to look through? How is this not fishing?

They are probably just playing (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608867)

the same game SCO is just to mock them.

Nothing to hide (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608870)

IBM has nothing to hide, they just don't want to give up the code. Or maybe they can't find it because it doesn't exist and SCO is making a false claim.

First post?

Re:Nothing to hide (3, Insightful)

October_30th (531777) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608928)

IBM has nothing to hide, they just don't want to give up the code.

Of course IBM has nothing to hide! How can you even think that they'd have something to hide?

The Big Blue is, after all, a paragon of open source, they're all about sharing intellectual property and are patenting everything just in order to protect the OSS community against the likes of SCO and Microsoft. Heck, if a company has penguins and hearts spray painted on the San Francisco sidewalks, they can't be that bad, can they? [cnn.com]

Re:Nothing to hide (5, Insightful)

dodgy_knickers (793417) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608996)

Having something to hide isn't the only reason why IBM might say they can't find the source.

For every additional motion SCO has to file to make IBM play ball, that's more money from their pocket.

Every time SCO doesn't immediately get what they ask for, SCO is forced to wait it out a bit longer.

Admittedly, I have no insight into IBM's strategy against SCO. But were I to be faced against the litigious whores at SCOX, I wouldn't want them to have an easy time of it.

-kev

Re:Nothing to hide (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609041)

"IBM has nothing to hide, they just don't want to give up the code. "

not to nitpick, and not to say IBM or anybody else has done anything wrong at all here, but to have something that you "dont want to give up" is by definition having something to hide. It doesnt mean any laws are being broken, but dont rephrase something and try to pass it off as something else.

Ive seen enough of that for AT LEAST 4 more years.

Re:Nothing to hide (4, Interesting)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609135)

IBM has nothing to hide, they just don't want to give up the code.

I think that this is right, reading the prior court documents at Groklaw.

Or maybe they can't find it because it doesn't exist and SCO is making a false claim.

AIX runs on Power..... So this is not it.....

More likely, I think. SCO is saying " Show us the code. IBM has been saying "Here is the general source code for AIX. The rest you need a court order for."

I think SCO is making false claims about IBM's non-compliance. Nothing new.

Of course we can't read the third ammended complaint yet nor do we have IBM's response. So this is all one-sourced, one-sided at this time.

You know why they can't find sco's "stolen source" (5, Interesting)

darklingchild (726827) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608875)

Because it never existed in the first place. They are just making things up now, and there is no reason to believe anything they say, especially with all the egg coating on their integrity.

Re:You know why they can't find sco's "stolen sour (2, Insightful)

TAGmclaren (820485) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608935)

Because it never existed in the first place. They are just making things up now, and there is no reason to believe anything they say, especially with all the egg coating on their integrity.


Well, maybe, and I hope you're right, but what if IBM actually did do what they've been accused of? Is it that long a bow to draw?

The other thing is, if it were MS, people would be running around in circles and burning effigies of Bill Gates (me too, probably ;).

I've just been fearing that there is some merit to behind all the SCO bluster, and this makes me fear it just a little bit more...

Re:You know why they can't find sco's "stolen sour (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608961)

The fact is, until the Novell case gets cleared up, none of this IBM source code stuff really matters; the Novell case has the (very good) possibility of making SCO's claim on the source code of Unix null and void anyway.

Re:You know why they can't find sco's "stolen sour (4, Interesting)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609039)

Not that I have any reason to trust IBM but I have all the reasons not to trust SCO: What if a corrupt IBM employee made that code disappear? SCO cannot do that? What about another company [microsoft.com] who already helped SCO out? [slashdot.org]

It's SCO's *third* claim, so maybe they devised a better FUD tactic this time? These questions and similar ones I would have dismissed as too unlikely, but in this case I believe IBM is innocent until SCO proves otherwise.

Re:You know why they can't find sco's "stolen sour (1)

ninthwave (150430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609197)

It wouldn't matter if IBM did as they have given SCO all code for released AIX and they never released any offending code.

If they experimented with SRV 4 code on Power 4 there is no reason to think they would have not bought a license if that was the version they were to release.

They fact is in the released code there is no offending code and by the law there is no offence.

Ob. Chasing Amy (5, Funny)

hendridm (302246) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608993)

Banky Edwards: Alright, now see this? This is a four-way road, OK? And dead in the center is a crisp, new, hundred dollar bill. Now, at the end of each of these streets are four people, OK? Are you following?
Holden: Yeah.
Banky Edwards: Good. Over here, we have a mild-mannered, restrained, God-fearing Darl McBride holding the stolen SVR4 code. Down here, we have an SCO-hating, angry as fuck, full of rage, frenetic IBM lawyer. Over here, we got Santa Claus, and up here the Easter Bunny. Which one is going to get to the hundred dollar bill first?
Holden: What is this supposed to prove?
Banky Edwards: No, I'm serious. This is a serious exercise. It's like an SAT question. Which one is going to get to the hundred dollar bill first? The mild-mannered Darl, the angry IBM lawyer, Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny?
Holden: The angry IBM lawyer.
Banky Edwards: Good. Why?
Holden: I don't know.
Banky Edwards: Because the other three are figments of your fucking imagination!

Tried to RTFA... (4, Insightful)

acvh (120205) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608876)

...but that horrid layout makes it tough to tell where the ads end and the article starts.

Re:Tried to RTFA... (-1, Offtopic)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608907)

Oh man, I agree! I can see ads in an article to helps support the site, but when it starts off as an ad as if it's part of the article, it's a bit confusing. Plus you have to scroll down to the middle to even start reading the article!

Re:Tried to RTFA... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609116)

anyone that uses the "overrated" mod is a fucking moron that's wasting their mod points.

Re:Tried to RTFA... (3, Informative)

Vicsun (812730) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608959)

I had the same problem, and so in order to save everyone else the experience, I'll blatantly karma-whore and post the article.

IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code
October 22, 2004

Summary
In federal court in Utah this week, magistrate judge Brooke Wells ordered IBM to get affidavits from IBM management, reports Maureen O'Gara, including CEO Sam Palmisano, attesting that nothing more exists in their files regarding IBM's Linux activities. She reserved any final decision


SCO and IBM met in federal court in Utah again Tuesday for another go-round over the discovery that IBM hasn't produced in SCO's $5 billion lawsuit against it.

At the hearing, one of SCO's lawyers, another young thing from Boies, Schiller & Flexner whose footwork was smooth enough to impress even Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers, mentioned the little matter of SCO's days-old Third Amended Complaint, which, alas, is under seal reportedly because it's based on some e-mail that turned up during discovery that IBM now claims is privileged though there's supposedly no hint of attorney-client communication about it.

Anyway, the sealed Third Amended Complaint has to do with SCO's contention that - to compete against Sun - IBM put SCO-owned SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture - and one of the supposedly compromising IBM e-mails - that SCO just happened to read out loud in court the other day - suggests that IBM was conscious that it had overstepped the bounds of its Project Monterey contract with SCO, which was intended to produce only a version of AIX for Intel's Itanium chip (CSN No 564).

Well, during the Third Amended Complaint discussion, SCO's lawyer held up a piece of paper - that was duplicated on a projection screen that only the magistrate judge, Brooke Wells, could see - that listed all of the AIX code that IBM has and hasn't turned over to SCO. And SCO's lawyer pointed out that the only piece of code that IBM hasn't come up with - which was highlighted in red - was the AIX-on-Power code - to which IBM's lawyer replied that IBM "can't find it."

Shades of the Compuware suit. They "can't find it."

Makes one wonders whether IBM looked in that closet in Australia where it said a few weeks ago it just happened to stumble over the source code - the source code it swore - literally swore in court for two years - didn't exist - the code that it was supposed to produce during the court-ordered discovery phase of the suit that Compuware brought against IBM for, well, for stealing its source code.

IBM only managed to find the code after discovery had closed and the trial was about to start, a situation that it got its ears boxed for by the District Court for Eastern Michigan, which called its behavior "gross negligence."

Magistrate Wells has yet to cross that bridge, however.

After listening to what everybody had to say - and all the reasons why IBM shouldn't have to produce all the rest of the stuff that SCO wants - particularly the IBM Configuration Management and Version Control System (CMVC) and Revision Control System (RCS) that SCO thinks is the key to its case - she reserved any final decision so she could go off and have a think about it - and probably confer with her staff and her colleague Judge Dale Kimball, who's hearing IBM's motion for a partial summary judgment - a decision, IBM pointed out, that might make her ruling moot.

However, she did give IBM and SCO 30 days to exchange so-called privilege logs listing all of the discovery that they're not providing each other because it's allegedly privileged.

She also told IBM to get affidavits from IBM management, including CEO Sam Palmisano, the CTO of IBM's Unix/Linux interests Irving Wladawsky-Berger and IBM's board of directors, attesting that nothing more exists in their files regarding IBM's Linux activities.

See, IBM - having produced one single PowerPoint presentation - contends that there are no other e-mails, memos, business plans or presentations about Linux anywhere in the joint, evidently proving that not only can elephants dance, but that they really do have good memories.

Mod this up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608981)

You moderators are on crack some times. Mod this up!

Re:Mod this up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609024)

What you experienced was: -1, disagreeing with a moderator. ;-)

Re:Mod this up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609133)

and any moronic idiot that is given mod points that mods an anonymous post should never again be given anything. What a fucking idiot! Almost as bad as the ones that waste it on the "overrated" mod which will never come back to haunt them because they can't be meta-moderated.

Re:Mod this up (5, Insightful)

dipipanone (570849) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609169)

> and any moronic idiot that is given mod points
> that mods an anonymous post should never again
> be given anything.

Surely that depends on whether you think mod points are allocated to assist overcompetitive nerds to rack up their Karma scores, or whether you think the point is to increase the visibility of interesting and insightful articles.

I note that *you* posted as an Anonymous Coward. Perhaps there's some significance in that, but I'm fucked if I can figure out what it might be. Fear of the mods yourself, perhaps?

Re:Tried to RTFA... (1, Insightful)

kryonD (163018) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609015)

I hate to bust the bubbles of all the SCO hating zealots out there, but if you actually READ the article, you see one of the principle reasons why this suit has gone on this long. SCO has defintely not played the role of the innocent victem here. And attacking the community that has helped drive the very product they want to make a profit on is outright suicide. However, IBM's actions in court are also not the actions of an innocent company either. Claiming you can't find source code is one of the most rediculous things I've ever heard. I would bet money that if their power users suddenly experienced a bug relating to AIX, that code would suddenly appear and get patched before they lost customers to a competitor.

As much as I want to see Darl's legal battleship sink, one has to begin wondering that it may have remained afloat in court this long because some of the arguments actually hold water.

You are all welcome to flame me on this, but I would first ask you to hop on over to IBM's website and pass on a friendly WTF to their feedback page. My company was once threatened to be sued by a competitor and our first action was to open our doors and files to both sides to let them go through them. If one truly has nothing to hide, discovery should not have taken this long.

IBM was turned by SCO/MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609159)

Or was an agent all along. Either way, they've been paid off handsomely to destroy Linux. The denouement is at hand.

Re:Tried to RTFA... (1)

rnturn (11092) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609189)

``Claiming you can't find source code is one of the most rediculous things I've ever heard.''

Not that it's much of an excuse, but didn't that argument work nicely in at least one trial that Microsoft was involved in? (Well at least I recall them trying that one. Dont't remember how well it worked.)

No... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608877)

They have some coding to do... FAST!

Maureen O'Gara??! (5, Insightful)

toxic666 (529648) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608882)

I think you can safely laugh at this before RTFA.

This is one written by Maureen O'Gara, who has about as much credibility as Laura DiDio.

Straight to the FUD Shill round file.

Re:Maureen O'Gara??! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608924)

On a personal note, she looks like a tweaker, as in, a meth head. She probably isn't one, but... *shudder* And that haircut does nothing for her whatsoever. She looks like the bride of frankenstein's monster.

Re:Maureen O'Gara??! (5, Insightful)

Daniel Boisvert (143499) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608927)

I reached the same conclusion by the end of the article. I don't have any previous knowledge about the writer, but that whole article reeks of incredibility.

In her final paragraph: "See, IBM - having produced one single PowerPoint presentation - contends that there are no other e-mails, memos, business plans or presentations about Linux anywhere in the joint.."

Talk about rubbish "reporting". As another poster so kindly pointed out, they don't have to produce -everything- about linux, only the stuff relevant to SCO that SCO's requested. That she'd even make such a loaded statement, or worse, be sufficiently gullible as to believe that IBM's attorneys would make such an obvious misstatement, instantly destroys any credibility she ever hoped of having.

I've added her to my "don't give a second glance" list, along with DiDio, Enderle, and Piquepaille.

Re:Maureen O'Gara??! (4, Insightful)

puetzc (131221) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609005)

I don't know about her credibility, but her writing style is incomprehensible. Entire paragraphs consist of one long, run on sentence. IANAEM (I am not an English Major), in fact, I am an Engineer. My career still depends on communicating the results of my work clearly and concisely to those who have paid me to do it. Maureen O'Gara is apparently being paid to communicate. Between the poor prose and the lousy web site she is failing on both content and presentation.

Re:Maureen O'Gara??! (4, Insightful)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609096)

I don't understand. How on earth do these people get jobs as reporters with so little integrity, not to mention such poor writing and cognition skills? Who is going to read this article and not see right through the bias? I clicked and started reading, had no idea who the writer was, and by the end of the first paragraph it was obvious they were either writing a troll article to get page impressions or that they must be on SCO's payroll. How little subtlety can you possibly have?


I guess this is what you get from a magazine that as I've since discovered from their Contact page is aimed at "IT managers". They claim "business leaders" are part of their audience too, but if a business leader is dumb enough to read this and not see it as a paid advertisement, they won't be leading their business for long.

Re:Maureen O'Gara??! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609119)

Yup, it's O'Gara-bage... ;*}
Don't waste your bandwidth reading a horribly formated and ad infested "article".

PS. Think she'll like her new nick?

But... (4, Funny)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608884)

IBM did agree to disclose the code in question in exchange if SCO published a pic of Darl in a naked fetal position on their homepage.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609224)

Lucky for us IBM agreed and on nov 1st we will finally see naked darl on www.prosco.com!!!!

LinuxWorld (5, Informative)

LightningTH (151451) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608885)

For a site with linux in it's url, it seems very negative against linux and has taken SCO's side in the past. Is such a story really news worthy coming from LinuxWorld?

Of course I am not even going into all the legal disputes, including the two orders by the judge for sco to comply and point to the lines they claim infringe (which they claim publicly to have, and they should have before bringing a lawsuit if they wish to get anywhere).

Re:LinuxWorld (2, Interesting)

Lulu of the Lotus-Ea (3441) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609068)

LinuxWorld indeed has "Linux" in its name/URL. Likewise, hypothetical sites like AOLsux.com or microsoftsux.com have "AOL" or "microsoft", respectively, in their names. Generally you would not expect the sites I mention to be pro-X, despite containing X in the name.

Likewise, LinuxWorld is by no means anything close to a pro-Linux site. It may or may not be a covert MS project; but in either event, it AIN'T a good source of Linux information.

Re:LinuxWorld (1)

cbr2702 (750255) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609157)

LinuxWorld indeed has "Linux" in its name/URL. Likewise, hypothetical sites like AOLsux.com or microsoftsux.com have "AOL" or "microsoft", respectively, in their names. Generally you would not expect the sites I mention to be pro-X, despite containing X in the name.

Perhaps the connotations of "World" are different from those of "sux"?

Re:LinuxWorld (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609170)

Must everything be "pro-Linux" for it to be acceptable in your eyes?

Maybe LinuxWorld is, gasp, objective about its subject matter. Horrors.

Re:LinuxWorld (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609193)

Maybe LinuxWorld is, gasp, objective about its subject matter. Horrors.

Yeah, and maybe Darl McBride is, gasp, Jesus Christ reincarnated, here to save our souls from eternal damnation. Horrors.

(about as probable)

Something... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608886)

... went horribly wrong - aren't these slashdot sco/ibm articles supposed to be in favour of ibm and opensource and whatnot? it didn't even mention linux!

Coinsidense? (-1, Flamebait)

Pan T. Hose (707794) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608890)

Can this decision be related to the recent fact that IBM agreed to reduce dire working conditions (at least for some) workers, while SCO did not?

Re:Coinsidense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608894)

Put simply: No.

Re:Coinsidense? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608946)

SCO working conditions? I'm sure their lawyers are quite comfy and well fed. Does SCO even PRODUCE anything nowadays, other than FUD and lawsuits?

Re:Coinsidense? (3, Interesting)

rnturn (11092) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609215)

``Does SCO even PRODUCE anything nowadays, other than FUD and lawsuits?''

Well, they have at least a few technical people left. Otherwise, who'd be bundling the new version of Samba and other OSS packages with their crummy UNIX?

Re:Coinsidense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609047)

Why are people modding up these obvious troll posts from an obvious troll account? Are today's mods all asleep at the wheel?

Why should IBM be forthcoming ? (3, Insightful)

bushboy (112290) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608914)

Why should IBM be forthcoming ?

After all, it's SCO they are dealing with and to be honest, I don't know anyone who would want to deal with them, except maybe the guy with the horns and the tail.

I know who I'd rather back in a dispute of this nature, given the track records overall.

OT: Your sig. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608949)

Gods witnessed glaciers forming faster than my downloads...

Thats because God has broadband.

Re:Why should IBM be forthcoming ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609034)

wrong. even I wouldn't want to deal with him. rather let the shmucks up there do the dirty job

Because that would be hypocrisy (3, Insightful)

karmaflux (148909) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609052)

If IBM wants to align itself with linux, it can't afford to play dirty licensing games with UNIX code. It's that simple. Either the company embraces open-source or else it's just another FUD factory -- even though it's currently a pro-linux FUD factory, it's still unacceptable.

I'm not saying IBM is guilty or innocent, but I am hoping to God it really can't find the code, because they make some good fuckin hardware, and I'd hate to have to hate 'em.

Re:Why should IBM be forthcoming ? (2, Insightful)

arivanov (12034) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609175)

Err... Something wrong here.
  • Which fscking product did such abomination ship in on Power??? Unix System V release 3? Aix 3.x is BSD derived with some System V functionality, but it ain't SVR3. Aix 4.x is SVR4 if not later.
  • If it shipped (I do not see it anywhere on the tree http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html ) it was at least 5 years pre-project-Monterey. It is simply not relevant to any Monterey contract dispute as it was under the jurisdiction of the contract between ATT and IBM.

There is something fishy here so I guess it is time to read grocklaw...

Re:Why should IBM be forthcoming ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609202)

Leave BSD out of this.

Linuxworld? yeah right (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608916)

Linuxworld should be named "LinuxSuxWorld." It is devoted entirely to advertisers, with occasional snarky anti-Linux "articles" thrown in for show. They shouldn't even bother with the articles, and just shill 100% for advertisers like CNet/ZDNet.

Re:Linuxworld? yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608962)

That's a great idea, but I don't think it would work too well with advertisers or attendees.

Re:Linuxworld? yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609143)

Didn't you see the disclaimer?

"LinuxWorld is a subsidary of ProSCO.net Publications"

No, seriously. With the latest failed effort (the judge put a gag on the material) by SCO to shift material into the public via the court, I think ProSCO.net might be a little bit delayed.

Maybe Darl should try licking some of those frogs his work-neighbour and close friend Jeff Merkey is carrying around. Maybe that would cheer him up now that SCOX is down to $3.08, about where it started before SCO vs IBM.

Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers? (5, Interesting)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608925)

Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers

I don't know, but your article loses all credibility when it includes this statement in the first paragraph. Most of the Groklaw readers aren't pro-IBM, they are anti-SCO.
This is the second or third journalist to repeat this pseudo-meme, and that doesn't make it any more true. In fact, I think this has become so-called "LinuxWorld"'s party line.

People hate SCO because of what SCO has done, period. There is nothing more to say about it.

This article is a troll, plain and simple. I don't know anything about the disposition of AIX source code re: IBM and SCO's contractual relationships
in the past, but I certainly won't take any source seriously that is so broken in their understanding of the basic underlying facts.

Who is behind LinuxWorld? Why the ridiculous pro-SCO equivocation and anti-IBM attacks? Regardless of how you feel about IBM, how can anybody else associated with the software industry support a company that has made IP-lawsuits its first and only business priority?

Re:Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608965)

It's just more fantasy drivel from Maureen O'Gara, who is as fact-challenged as Darl, Blake, DiDio, Enderle, and the rest of the SCO propaganda gang. Don't expect anything truthful from any of them.

Re:Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers? (1)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608975)

The company that publishes LinuxWorld is IDG - the people behind PC World and Macworld (and others).

I don't read LinuxWorld, but I don't think it's out of place to put an article like this on a site or in a magazine devoted to Linux. It certainly is related to Linux via the IBM-SCO battles. I would be surprised if they made it a habit to publish "anti-Linux" articles in there.

Re:Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers? (3, Insightful)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609029)

They have published at least two or three blatantly pro-SCO pieces. I'm not sure if they were all by this same Maureen O'Gara lady or not.


What I wonder about is do they do this stuff as pure internet trolling? In other words, putting something out there that they know will inflame people so that it gets posted to Slashdot et. al. and therefore gets lots of page views and thus advertising dollars for their web site?


Or have they been bought off by somebody else? I mean, how does SCO, a broke, shitty company if ever I've seen one, get this small but vocal cadre of middling tech journalists to push their agenda loudly? Even now, when the market, mainstream journalists and anybody else with half a brain have pretty much written SCO off. That's why I wonder if maybe this is just trolling for ad impressions.

Re:Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609123)

This article is a troll, plain and simple. I don't know anything about the disposition of AIX source code re: IBM and SCO's contractual relationships in the past

If you admittedly don't know anything about it then how can you state the article is a troll? Interesting indeed.

Re:Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers? (4, Informative)

MC Negro (780194) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609201)

Who is behind LinuxWorld? Why the ridiculous pro-SCO equivocation and anti-IBM attacks? Regardless of how you feel about IBM, how can anybody else associated with the software industry support a company that has made IP-lawsuits its first and only business priority?
I don't think it's so much pro-SCO as it is anti-IBM. It seems Ms. O'Gara has a history [linuxworld.com] of [sys-con.com] bitterness [sys-con.com] against IBM, or so I gathered from her articles.

Something to hide? (4, Interesting)

TheUnknownOne (810624) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608939)

If IBM really had something to hide, don't you think they would have come up with a better excuse then: "Uh... I can't find it"

Because the page layout of the link (4, Informative)

floydman (179924) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608941)

is so fucked up (excuse my language, but i was pissed of):

SCO and IBM met in federal court in Utah again Tuesday for another go-round over the discovery that IBM hasn't produced in SCO's $5 billion lawsuit against it.

At the hearing, one of SCO's lawyers, another young thing from Boies, Schiller & Flexner whose footwork was smooth enough to impress even Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers, mentioned the little matter of SCO's days-old Third Amended Complaint, which, alas, is under seal reportedly because it's based on some e-mail that turned up during discovery that IBM now claims is privileged though there's supposedly no hint of attorney-client communication about it.

Anyway, the sealed Third Amended Complaint has to do with SCO's contention that - to compete against Sun - IBM put SCO-owned SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture - and one of the supposedly compromising IBM e-mails - that SCO just happened to read out loud in court the other day - suggests that IBM was conscious that it had overstepped the bounds of its Project Monterey contract with SCO, which was intended to produce only a version of AIX for Intel's Itanium chip (CSN No 564).

Well, during the Third Amended Complaint discussion, SCO's lawyer held up a piece of paper - that was duplicated on a projection screen that only the magistrate judge, Brooke Wells, could see - that listed all of the AIX code that IBM has and hasn't turned over to SCO. And SCO's lawyer pointed out that the only piece of code that IBM hasn't come up with - which was highlighted in red - was the AIX-on-Power code - to which IBM's lawyer replied that IBM "can't find it."

Shades of the Compuware suit. They "can't find it."

Makes one wonders whether IBM looked in that closet in Australia where it said a few weeks ago it just happened to stumble over the source code - the source code it swore - literally swore in court for two years - didn't exist - the code that it was supposed to produce during the court-ordered discovery phase of the suit that Compuware brought against IBM for, well, for stealing its source code.

IBM only managed to find the code after discovery had closed and the trial was about to start, a situation that it got its ears boxed for by the District Court for Eastern Michigan, which called its behavior "gross negligence."

Magistrate Wells has yet to cross that bridge, however.

After listening to what everybody had to say - and all the reasons why IBM shouldn't have to produce all the rest of the stuff that SCO wants - particularly the IBM Configuration Management and Version Control System (CMVC) and Revision Control System (RCS) that SCO thinks is the key to its case - she reserved any final decision so she could go off and have a think about it - and probably confer with her staff and her colleague Judge Dale Kimball, who's hearing IBM's motion for a partial summary judgment - a decision, IBM pointed out, that might make her ruling moot.

However, she did give IBM and SCO 30 days to exchange so-called privilege logs listing all of the discovery that they're not providing each other because it's allegedly privileged.

She also told IBM to get affidavits from IBM management, including CEO Sam Palmisano, the CTO of IBM's Unix/Linux interests Irving Wladawsky-Berger and IBM's board of directors, attesting that nothing more exists in their files regarding IBM's Linux activities.

See, IBM - having produced one single PowerPoint presentation - contends that there are no other e-mails, memos, business plans or presentations about Linux anywhere in the joint, evidently proving that not only can elephants dance, but that they really do have good memories.


Re:Because the page layout of the link (1)

john82 (68332) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609061)

While attempting to locate the point of these so called paragraphs - a feat further complicated by the fact that the writer seems obsessed with her need to use hyphens - I was compelled to ponder whether said writer is more impressed with the prose of certain long-winded French writers of old - who perhaps are more conversant in both law and technology than she - than in the prospect that she'll ever assemble a passage that one might be able to read and comprehend.

We're dazzled alright! (2, Funny)

eddy (18759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609063)

>one of SCO's lawyers [...] footwork was smooth enough to impress even Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers

...but only because he managed to stay awake throughout the hearing ;-)

Shades of DR-DOS suit against Microsoft (3, Informative)

calidoscope (312571) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608951)

Microsoft said it lost the source code to MS-DOS. Pretty much the same way that they can't find the e-mails for the Burst case.

One question about source code for OS's - if a company can't find the source code for a 5 year old release of its software - do I really want to trust their software to handle my data??

Re:Shades of DR-DOS suit against Microsoft (3, Insightful)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609031)

I'm wondering... if a company looses the source code to some software that they patented, would this effectively destroy the patent? Or does the patent office have a copy of the source code? If it doesn't, how would the company prove patent infringement?

Just a thought... not a particularly focuses one, but a thought.

patent invalidation (1)

cbr2702 (750255) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609221)

When you patent some software, you are not patenting the source code. You describe the feature of the software that you are patenting, and that feature (which may be an algorithm) is what you patent. Someone else could violate your patent without ever duplicating a line of source.

As for proving infrigement, they'd just have to show that the allegedly infringing program met their description of what they had patented.

Re:Shades of DR-DOS suit against Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609081)

Microsoft said it lost the source code to MS-DOS

That won't be hard to recover... just download it from bittorrent.

Re:Shades of DR-DOS suit against Microsoft (1)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609121)

Not everyone can do ftp-mirror source backups. :-D

Free your software: more freedom, more stability.

Re:Shades of DR-DOS suit against Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609144)

The source code to MS-Dos 6.2 is available on the internet. It's not really worth anyone's time to look at though, because the moment you do, you can't (shouldn't) contribute to any free projects. The FreeDOS mailing list will get violently upset if it is offered on the mailing list. Besides the copyright issues, and setting a precedet, it has little value now.

You can get MS-DOS source through file sharing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609183)

You can get MS-DOS source through file sharing. It's been out there for years already. I suppose that never made the news because nobody cares about it.

Maureen O'Gara is a paid shill - ignore the lies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608969)

nt

Normally, I'd be disappointed in IBM for this... (2, Funny)

ivi (126837) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608978)


but in response to SCO's nonesense,
I'd say: Good on IBM ;-)

I doubt it. (3, Informative)

infinite9 (319274) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608979)

They probably really can't find the code. I used to work for IBM. I've seen them lose source for their products myself.

Re:I doubt it. (3, Insightful)

debrain (29228) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609098)

So, open source is like some sort of backup system for IBM's source code, then?

That IBM can lose source code to an entire operating system helps dispel any argument that, for posterity, source code is safer in companies. :)

Re:I doubt it. (2, Insightful)

MouseR (3264) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609228)

I find this hard to believe. Even if they did misplace a couple of tape backups, I'm sure they have ESCROW disks running around.

Those who are oblivious to ESCROW distributions, they are copies of entire source trees given to third parties (usually, a law firm) as a guarantee exchange to a client to provide them to access to sources if the supplier goes under. It's a way to secure big contracts.

Oracle does such ESCROW releases, and other companies do so as well.

And this involves Linux, how, exactly? (4, Insightful)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608980)

SCO thinks IBM put its code into AIX and exceeded the bounds of their contract. Wonderful; a whole year of FUD and wild claims about Linux and we've come full circle and are back to the original reason for the case - breach of contract. Unless IBM then took that same code out of AIX and put it into Linux, the OSS community is free and clear on this point no matter what the outcome in court. The only problem I have with this outcome is that if it's shown that IBM *did* exceed the terms of the contract and put some code into AIX that it shouldn't have done, then SCO is going to get damages. You can bet your ass SCO won't be paying any damages for the defamation of Linux and the GPL in the mean time.

Then again, it could just be another fluff piece to try and boost the stock price up from yet another 52-week low. On the subject of which, the price of SCOX is now at almost exactly the same level it was right before Linux got dragged kicking and screaming into the court case and things went crazy...

I believe IBM - here's why (5, Informative)

aflat362 (601039) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608988)

IBM can't find the source code for one of their products? They must be lying! . . . or are they?

I have been working with IBM Content Management products for about 3 years now as a Sys-Admin / Programmer.

On occasion I'm in Awe of IBM. The abilities they have to produce huge enterprise applications in a short amount of time is amazing.

But usually I'm in Awe of IBM in a negative light

There have been several times that IBM couldn't come up with the binaries for some of their fixpack levels of some of their products., let alone the source code. The developers were like . . . uh . . . we don't have that code any more.

Oh yeah? Where did it go?

The fact that they can't come up with the source code for some parts of their AIX OS does seem suspicious but comes as no shock to me.

Re:I believe IBM - here's why (2, Informative)

mikael (484) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609190)

There have been several times that IBM couldn't come up with the binaries for some of their fixpack levels of some of their products., let alone the source code. The developers were like . . . uh . . . we don't have that code any more.

Oh yeah? Where did it go?


Simple. The archival policy is to maintain the last three releases of the binaries. Beyond that, it becomes tedious to retrofit bug fixes into every past release. Most active customers will update as the releases come out. But there are always some stragglers who don't keep up to date.

Large corporations are more like a loosely organised collective of 1000+ small technology companies all sharing the same accounting and legal departments. Each division/group has their own data backup/archival policy for software projects. Legacy projects usually end up backed up onto the oldest/slowest servers, until these machines are deemed to take up too much space/energy or make too much noise. Then they are sent to the corporate knackers yard to be "recycled" for spare parts. Then as part of corporate security, the disk drives are thoroughly wiped. So it's very easy for data to "disappear" forever.

SCO's monkey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10608990)

Obviously, O'Gara has indeed become SCO's monkey. Sad. I could give half a crap about IBM. I have to deal with their shitty desktop machines on a daily basis, and it irks me to no end. I applaud their efforts in the open source world, but I'm no IBM fan. SCO, however, isn't worthy to lick the urine crystals from the underside of my toilet seat (thank you, /dev/null), and O'Gara, being the monkey of said mouthbreathers, is lower than scum. Her wallet has been fattened with their ill-gotten gains. For shame.

Not surprised (5, Interesting)

3.2.3 (541843) | more than 9 years ago | (#10608991)

IBM has document retention policies specifically to limit liabilities. Or more like document destruction policies. All emails have to be wiped after two years. They probably truly don't have the code anymore.

Recently I had the misfortune of Microsoft trying to find some include files from an Embedded Win CE V3 platform builder (don't ask, it wasn't my decision to use that crap) for me for an older single board computer. They no longer had the source, either. And it would have been very *good* for them if they'd been able to come up with it. They literally didn't have it anymore.

Throwing company materials away as early as possible is the newest predefensive corporate legal maneuver. If tobacco companies had done that, they'd have saved a lot of money. Probably watching the tobacco companies is what gave other companies the idea.

Just a red herring anyway (5, Insightful)

maximino (767005) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609003)

Even if IBM ripped off some SVR4 code from SCO and put it into some of its products, that does not implicate Linux. At all. All of the posturing from SCO is simply an attempt to obfuscate the following facts:

(1) SCO has all the SV code.

(2) SCO has access to all the code in Linux.

If there is no overlap between these two, then there is no copyright infringement, despite the crack-addled theories proposed. They may have a case against IBM for contract breach from one of their previous dealings, but I really doubt it.

Warning! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609023)

Actually RTFAing may display a picture of the writer!

This doesn't have anything to do with SCOX's case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609046)

This is like a whole separate case against IBM. In a way, who cares. So they put some code in AIX for Power4. That code still didn't make it into Linux.

This is typical for SCOX. They keep shifting the goal posts. Not further back, but onto entirely different football fields.

IBM isn't a saint. (1)

Bull999999 (652264) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609071)

IBM hasn't been competely honest in the past, either. Remember the IBM branded Deathstar... er Deskstar hard drive issue?

SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture

Even if the above statement is true, how does it relate to Linux? If this is all that SCO has, it'll open itself up to lawsuits for threatening businesses that use Linux in the past.

Lost Code My Ass (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609080)

I cant believe for a second that a company like IBM would lose source to a significant product like this.

Sure some engineer's pet personal toy could get misplaced, but not something like this.. they have too many things in place to control source to have just magic 'lost' something..

Not that this makes SCO some sort of saint, but come on IBM, get real...

Have they tried ... (2, Funny)

mikael (484) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609093)

... doing a Google search?

And if that fails, a www.archive.org search?

God Damn Australian Bastages! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609101)

Makes one wonders whether IBM looked in that closet in Australia where it said a few weeks ago it just happened to stumble over the source code - the source code it swore - literally swore in court for two years - didn't exist - the code that it was supposed to produce during the court-ordered discovery phase of the suit that Compuware brought against IBM for, well, for stealing its source code.
---

They've probably got WMD's, as well. I say we invade.

There is no source code... (1)

Etherwalk (681268) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609107)

If you extend an array of one million monkeys, each of which has only a hexidecimal pad to input machine code, eventually you can build up all of software, AND Hamlet. (Or at least the part of hamlet that only uses letters a-f.)

just cuz they're big (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10609124)

doesn't mean they don't do stupid things like loose code. it happens all the time and more often than people would like to admit. in this case, more than the company would like to admit. a friend of mine has had that happen where he works for a couple pieces of software that was farmed out. so he had to resort to decompiling the code to fix it.

So IBM (5, Insightful)

mcc (14761) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609127)

Has been entirely and quickly forthcoming with millions and millions of lines of code that SCO has basically been demanding as part of a fishing expedition.

One single piece of code out of these mountains IBM claims has gone missing.

Possible explanations from this:

1. IBM is telling the truth.
2. This is the one single piece of infringing code in all of Dynix or whatever which is infringing, and so they are hiding it.

Reasons for believing number one to be true: Well, it's extremely plausible. Given how much that IBM has produced the idea one single document among all of this has been legitimately lost within IBM is fairly believable.

Reasons for believing number two to be true: Well, nothing. But it's possible.

We certainly

SCO's strategy, for lack of a case until this point, has been to demand increasingly larger mountains of discovery until they hit something that is unreasonable. Once something proves to be unreasonable, they go to the press yelling "What does IBM have to hide???". SCO's media shills, working in a vacuum as they do, have been able to do this as often as they like despite the fact that generally, the reason IBM has not provided these things is that the judge ruled they did not have to. Meanwhile, it is probably important to keep in mind SCO has consistently refused to comply with even the most basic of discovery demands, even sometimes when ordered by the judge.

Now they appear, within this strategy, to have struck gold. They have located something which IBM is not producing, but yet the judge actually agrees IBM should produce-- and which IBM claims it is unable to produce. However, still, they have produced no evidence that this indicates wrongdoing of, well, any sort. There's no way you could make this appear so much as suspicious except by pointing to, well, the fact IBM's been so entirely forthcoming up until now. Once you do that it is possible to make it appear suspicious, yet, but not possible to actually make anything of it in court; from a court's perspective this detail is quite small. So it appears this is no victory for anyone except SCO's disconnected-from-reality PR shills.

Comments left on that site are disappearing! (5, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609132)

Right in front of my eyes, some of the comments left on that site have disappeared, it went down from 8 to 5 comments in just a second.

So, the truth hurts, and the truth in this case is - everyone who goes to read this article hates what is written there but most likely does not understand the entire issue at hand about the SVR4, leaves a comment of this sort: "This site is ugly and ad-ridden, and Maureen is a SCO shill" and the editor removes the comment. The entire issue is like that SCO was allright with this move by IBM and there is a story [groklaw.net] to support this at groklaw. The story goes like this: there was a document on the SCO's site for a while that talked about how great it will be that IBM will have SVR4 code in their Power design... But the article was remove from SCO site.

What is this doing here? (5, Interesting)

melevitt (31652) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609136)

I am amazed that Slashdot would lend credibility to a story by Maureen O'Gara. She's nothing more than a hack with an obvious anti-Linux bias.

I had been considering subscribing to Slashdot. I have now decided that I'll spend my money where the editors have better sense.

Linuxworld page layout blows because of ads (1)

Money for Nothin' (754763) | more than 9 years ago | (#10609181)

Look at that. The right 1/3 of the entire page is filled with ads. The article has a half screen-length (at 1024x768) of text ads. There are another 2 screen-lengths of text ads and crap info I don't care about beneath the article, excluding the author's info. Oh, and they have a banner ad at the top of the page.

And they expect me to read the article? Fuck that.

If they wonder why their bandwidth costs are so high, why don't they take a look at all their graphic advertisements instead, along with the fact that they're allowing full, free fat-ass PDF downloads of each issue.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...