SCO's bogus objections

El Corton

July 18, 2006

This document is a rich storehouse of humbug, and is going to be ripped to shreds by IBM in its opposition and by Kimball in his ruling. Just as an example:

"The disclosure of methods and concepts to the Linux community by IBM occurred through
emails, articles, discussions at conferences, and elsewhere. At times, these disclosures
were accompanied by a patch file indicating how the method or concept could be
implemented in Linux. In most of the method and concept disclosures, however, source
code was not part of the disclosure; the IBM emails, while admitting that the source of
the contribution was Dynix or AIX, often did not indicate the source code in the Dynix or
AIX operating system that may relate to the method or concept being disclosed. SCO has
in effect been sanctioned for failing to divine the source code coordinates that IBM
developers had in mind when disclosing a method or concept – from a derivative
operating system that IBM had written or modified."

[724] at 5.

So the fact that somebody "admitted" in email that a concept came from AIX or Dynix is all the evidence SCO needs to establish that it really did come from there. SCO has no obligation to use the billions of lines of source code it demanded in discovery to identify the source of that disclosure, or how it was used in Linux, if at all. And IBM is not prejudiced by having to defend itself on that basis.

No matter how inured one is to SCO filings, this is breathtaking.

I will no longer be posting to the Yahoo board. The format change is merely a pretext. I developed a hatred for Yahoo management after it informed on the Hong Kong journalist Shi Tao, resulting in his unjust imprisonment by the Chinese authorities.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10539
< EOM >

12:51:09 AM


SCO's redacted objections to the order limiting its claims

FB

July 18, 2006

Again, posted by Alcibiades P. to alt.os.linux.caldera. Link [ http://groups.google.com/group/alt.os.linux.caldera/browse_thread/thread/44c2041e63a98870/c70c80f6b90168c8#c70c80f6b90168c8 ] for the usenet challenged.
< EOM >

12:52:25 AM


Re: SCO's redacted objections to the order limiting its claims

monsieur_bobo

July 18, 2006

Well, I just managed to slog through the first 8 to 10 pages, and this one is lame, even by SCOX standards. They tell the court that Judge Wells didn't understand her own orders, they tell the court that IBM disclosed 'methods and concepts' without that appeared in Dynix or AIX (but not, apparently in SysV) not by providing code but through 'emails' 'techincal papers', etc. They apparently forget that they were supposed to specify by what legal theory they own any of this stuff. They forget that IBM license a SOFTWARE PRODUCT, and not some fluffy, uspecifiable 'methods and concepts' from AT&T. They forget that they were supposed to provide enough detail so that IBM could tell if the particular code they were refering to had already been previously disclosed. They offer Rochkind as an 'expert' not on computer technology, but as a legal expert on what constitutes an adequate level of specifity. They deny they are trying to 'sandbag' IBM - they state this is all they have (in other words, they have nothing)

In short, they have amnesia regarding pretty much the entirety of the last 3 years of court orders. They didn't get what they want, so somehow, somewhere, Wells must have made a mistake.

Pathetic.

< EOM >

2:26:40 AM


article on SCO's redacted objections now on GL

ChocoNutDancer

July 18, 2006

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060718061714121

< EOM >

8:03:47 AM


Re: SCO's redacted objections to the order limiting its claims

smartin_tn

July 18, 2006

> They tell the court that Judge Wells didn't understand her own orders, <

Yeah, and now they're trying to tell Judge Kimball what *his* Orders mean: br>
"The interim deadline for this
identification was October 28, 2005, and the final deadline was December 22, 2005. This
Court declined to adopt IBM’s proposed language for that deadline, which stated that
line, version, and file of source code must be provided. The fact that this Court declined
to adopt IBM’s proposed language for that Order should be enough to overturn the June
28 Order."


> They deny they are trying to 'sandbag' IBM <

And yet that seems to be exactly what they are trying to do in their expert reports....

> They didn't get what they want, so somehow, somewhere, Wells must have made a mistake. <

She did. She said The SCO Group acted "in good faith". That surely was a huge mistake. :)


< EOM >

8:50:12 AM


"The SCO Group's" redacted objections - Comments I

AllParadox

July 18, 2006

Wholly Cow. These people never fail to surprise me.

IMHO, this is not very well done. My following comments are very strongly worded, even for me.

I volunteered as a Moot Court judge for a local law school for several years. A few times, I had to straighten out participants and their advisors (who were only 3rd year students themselves) about how the system worked. I felt badly about having to reduce the grades of students who should have been better trained and advised.

This Objection would have gotten a grade of "F" from me, and a personal appointment with the Dean of the law school. IMHO, any law school regularly graduating students with these kinds of misconceptions about the practice of law needs to have its accreditation reviewed. It should also have its students investigated for cheating on the Bar exam, because, IMHO, anybody with such poor understanding of the rules of evidence and the burdens of proof could not regularly pass the Bar exam.

If I were an attorney for IBM, I would find a way to get the text of this objection added to any appellate record for review, and make sure to reference it often. The more any appellate court had to look at this thing, the worse it would be for SCO.

"In most of the method and concept disclosures, however, source code was not part of the disclosure; the IBM emails, while admitting that the source of the contribution was Dynix or AIX, often did not indicate the source code in the Dynix or AIX operating system that may relate to the method or concept being disclosed. SCO has in effect been sanctioned for failing to divine the source code coordinates that IBM developers had in mind when disclosing a method or concept - from a derivative operating system that IBM had written or modified."

Well, of course! IMHO, SCO should be, and should expect to be, sanctioned for failing to divine source code coordinates that IBM developers had in mind when disclosing a method or concept. Even under their own odd theory, SCO had to identify the code in AIX or Dynix, then relate that code back to UnixSysV. SCO has the burden of proof. It was not enough to have an email. The email was collateral evidence, at best. Only the source code would be direct proof. In the absence of source code relating to the method, in Linux, AIX/Dynix, and UnixSysV, simultaneously, the email evidence *should not be admitted or referred to at trial*. The email should not be allowed to be introduced until the source code is already admitted into evidence. This is the goal of discovery, for SCO to track down and identify this code, and show it to IBM. This is the task of the SCO attorneys. IMHO, to fail to exercise the diligence to track down and coordinate source code here is professional negligence. Either there is a problem, as the attorneys claimed, and they failed to put in the effort to detail it, or there is no problem, and they failed to put in the effort to find out there was no problem, and dismiss it.

If AIX or Dynix included a method or concept that was not part of UnixSysV, then SCO had no right to prevent its disclosure.

Quite likely, one of these methods or concepts was developed after the initial USL - IBM Unix contract, and patented by IBM before being included in a version of AIX or Dynix. Every patented method or concept is per se public information and not confidential - that's the whole idea. I do not know of any theory of contract interpretation that would stretch any contract to prevent disclosure of the patented method *after* it had been included in AIX. It has been a long time, but I still know that no contract term can ever preclude disclosure of already-public information.
______________________________________________
AllParadox - Retired Attorney, no legal opinions, just my opinion.


< EOM >

12:09:42 PM


Re: TSCOG has nothing: Appendix A

Panglozz

July 18, 2006

Appendix A has a tortured defense of Sontag's prevarications. It includes new information on the allegations, including the first characterizations of some non-motion ones still extant.

Much of the Appendix turns on Item 185 which is described as:
verbatim copying of 80-100 lines....shown by Sontag to analysts in June 2003....one example of line by line copying.

This can only refer to previously revealed and empty snippets.

Other new or supplemented information is:
-----------------------------
Misappropriation of revised code
183
184
205-231
--------------
Linux 2.4.21 binary abi code
201-203
183
184
-----------------------------------
Included in a Red Hat distribution
183
184
272
-----------------------------
Non literal transers of methods structures and sequences
38
112
149
165-177
180
-----------------------------
Misappropriation of revised code
183
184
205-231
--------------------
line for line from derivative works by way of Sequent
1
2
113-142
--------------------------
150-164 Line for line for System V into Streams
------------------------
272 Line for line into "Linux tool chain used to compile"
---------------
"release of System V into the Linux kernel"
Item 183
184
185

It looks like allegation 185 (the 80-100 lines shown in June 2003) is the only evidence SCOX is willing to defend Sontag with.
< EOM >

 12:13:16 PM 


Re:

monsieur_bobo

July 18, 2006

So what do you think about SCOX's suggestion that Judge Wells ignored Marc Rochkind's legal opinions on the adequate level of specifity. IANAL, but that struck me as a howler. Also, I was struck by the fact that SCOX continues to dance around (well, actually they ignore it completely) the issue that they were supposed to specify the legal theory under which they claim ownership for these 'methods and concepts' for which they are unable to find the source code. Indeed, they admit that they haven't the vaguest idea what that code might be - but they know it was improperly disclosed.

Finally, I wonder if they have the emials, and they think that IBM could find out from those individuals what source code SCOX is talking about, coudln't (and shouldn't) SCO have deposed them themselves? Isn't that the whole point of takin g depositions? And if they did, why didn't they refer to the depositions?


< EOM >

12:19:28 PM


Re: Wholly Cow

_Arthur

July 18, 2006

What SCO omitted in all the 200-odd M&C claims (which are mere LKML posts) is to indicate that despite their vaillant effort to find matching AIX in all the CMVC, they failed to find a match.
In fact, their purpose was to imply that the code (and the Concept) comes from AIX, but they didn't thought it would be useful to perform such a search.

Same gallivanting with the Linux tie-up, Rockhind freely acknowledges that "in most cases" the code appended to the LKML Email ended up in the "next version of" Linux, but SCO felt no obligation of performing the trivial work necessary to establish so.

SCO had already found all those Emails when they failed to answer IBM detailed discovery requests at the begin of the case (hint: LKML Email with @ibm.com or containing "Dynix" "AIX" "RCU" "NUMA" "JFS"),
but declined to disclose what they had, instead claiming LOUDLY that "to save time" they needed a "roadmap" of ALL the AIX code in IBM's archive.
It turned out, all that code was, according to SCO's own explanations, utterly unnecessary for the M&C claims. So SCO could have deposed that information any day during the past 3 years. They instead chose to wait for the last possible day.

This is a $5 Billions case, and SCO didn't even try to track code submitted by LKML posts to a version, *any version* of Linux. They spent more time writing this 70-pages OBJECTIONS brief than on 66% of their claims.

It was all a big misunderstanding. They didn't witheld information, they just didn't perform any discovery work.

12:32:28 PM


"The SCO Group's" redacted objections - Comments II

AllParadox

July 18, 2006

More “in flagrante dilecto”

"There has not, however, been any order or interrogatory directing SCO to provide more specificity for methods and concepts than IBM uses in making the disclosure itself."

IMHO, actually, there has been such an order. This is a trial in the Federal District Court of Utah. The specificity required is that of a party with the burden of proof. SCO has the burden, not IBM. Judge Wells issued exactly such an order. That order was the foundation of IBM's motion. In turn, IBM's motion was the foundation for Judge Wells order, for which SCO is now objecting. Are these people sober?

"SCO provided all the identifying information it had regarding the 'misused materials' at issue, and there is no evidence that SCO is holding anything back."

Uh oh.

Pre-trial, those emails are smoking guns. They, alone, would justify all sorts of fishing expeditions; trawlers and seining, dang near anything an attorney could dream up. But and However, that phase of the trial process is now over.

This is now an admission by SCO: "Umm, Judge, ah, well, ah, out of those literal mountains of code you made IBM give us, *this is all we've got*." Kiss off trying to introduce anything else at trial, like real evidence. Kiss off trying to refer to any other real evidence as support in a brief on a motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

More gems:

"Since the disclosed items were methods and concepts being disclosed by an IBM developer and came from an operating system that IBM (or Sequent) developers wrote or modified (although subject to contractual limitations on disclosure), it was reasonable to expect IBM to obtain such information - if it were available and relevant - from its own developers who made the disclosure."

Come again? SCO has the burden of proof. If IBM fails to obtain the information, then SCO loses. Period. IBM need not make the connection and look for the code. SCO must do that.

I think that if I were an attorney representing IBM on any appeal in this case, I would cite something, anything, out of this Objection on at least every other page. Every time an appellate judge had to re-read any of this, it would just make him or her more angry.

"Where the method and concept is not associated with source code, the contribution cannot be identified by source code and such is not required to uphold SCO's claim."

If I were a Judge, I would not let this go by. If I saw it in a brief from a party, there would be a hearing, requested by the parties or not. There would be a letter, cc'd to opposing counsel, telling the submitting attorney to prepare to support this ludicrous assertion with facts and supporting case law.

In the absence of identifiable use of the method and concept in derivative source code, where is the damage? What is the damage? In the absence of identifiable source code in UnixSysV implementing the method and concept, how is IBM supposed to find their sin? Preparing to defend against a possible claim by searching the Nieman-Marcus catalogue and anticipating every item in the catalogue, would be a trivial exercise in comparision.

IMHO, in all the States where I have practiced, even Traffic Ticket lawyers know the process better than this.

Then they go off complaining about foreclosed claims. Wells had no jurisdiction to foreclose any claims. The Hon. Wells had no intention to finally rule on any claims. She did not rule on any claims. All she ruled on was SCO's obvious failure to properly and timely disclose evidence. Un-disclosed evidence was excluded. Period.

Apparently, they neither understood her initial order last summer, nor this order now.

This is no longer sad. This is nauseating.
_______________________________________________________
AllParadox - Retired Attorney, no legal opinions, just my opinion.
< EOM >

12:55:02 PM


Re: The SCO Group's objections

thaddeusbeier

July 18, 2006

AllParadox -- welcome to the board. I confess that as a layperson, I can't help but think "Well, they might have a point" when reading some of SCO's filings. You do make it clear, though, that lawyers and judges will be under no such illusions. It does make one wonder who the audience of this filing is.

My question here is "What happens next?" I would presume that there is no place for IBM to respond directly to this objection, is there? Or, can IBM file a response? Will there be a hearing, or will Kimball just rule one way or the other? Can he just pocket-veto this objection?

Thad Beier


< EOM >

1:10:43 PM


What happens next?

AllParadox

July 18, 2006

IBM will directly respond to this objection.

Technically, they could have already started work on their response.

As a practical matter, the attorneys have not. They are still rolling on the floor laughing.

Kimball will rule on this. The worst possible thing for The SCO Group would be a very public hearing, so they will demand one, and then get it. IBM will be there, with hobnail boots on. IBM will dance on this one.

Be ready for very quotable ad libs from Kimball, in the vein of "Stop kidding, now. Is this really all you've got?"
_______________________________________________________
AllParadox - Retired Attorney, no legal opinions, just my opinion.

< EOM >

1:25:17 PM


Re: What happens next

_Arthur

July 18, 2006

My own suggestion is for Kimball to have all those SCO and BS&F bozos rounded up for Obstruction of Justice.
Other possibilties involve honey and anthills, tar & feathers
< EOM >

1:27:51 PM


Re: What happens next?

rex007can

July 18, 2006

<<Be ready for very quotable ad libs from Kimball, in the vein of "Stop kidding, now. Is this really all you've got?">>

Would it be way off, not possible or simply frowned upon for Kimball to strongly suggest that the SEC or other authorities should act against SCO's management and counsel? Or does he have to strictly stick to his own court?

< EOM >

1:47:01 PM


Does Kimball have to stick to his own court or may he refer it out?

AllParadox

July 18, 2006

>>Would it be way off, not possible or simply frowned upon for Kimball to strongly suggest that the SEC or other authorities should act against SCO's management and counsel? Or does he have to strictly stick to his own court?<<

All kinds of things he *could* do. Kimball is a Federal District Judge. Who would tell him "No"?

I try not to predict those folks. Betting on them is a bad way to lose money.

Besides: "The SCO Group" has now made a Federal Case out of it, and it is in front of a Federal District Judge in the Tenth Circuit where Gates Rubber opinion controls. It is right where we want it. Why would he want to send it anywhere else?
_______________________________________________________
AllParadox - Retired Attorney, no legal opinions, just my opinion.



< EOM >

1:53:45 PM


Re: Does Kimball have to stick to his own court or may he refer it out?

rex007can

July 18, 2006

I wasn't reffering to him sending him somewhere else, I was suggesting that he might feel like making a comment in the lines of "I would be very surprised if the SEC did not get involved soon as SCO, management and their counsel have supplied them with ample evidence or fraudulent and illegal behaviour..."

Something like this.
Something "mean" that would tell the SEC to get off their butts and DO something.

< EOM >

2:02:31 PM


Re: Does Kimball have to stick to his own court or may he refer it out?

AllParadox

July 18, 2006

Rex: I apologize for my misunderstanding in my first reply.

Yes, Kimball can announce in open court that the SEC should investigate. There are all kinds of announcements that judges can, and do make on the record in open court.

Lawyers refer to these as "throwaway comments". You learn not to make them. They add nothing to the proceeding because no one will follow them, and they create oppportunities for appellate courts to latch on to.

Example: heavy duty drug possession case. I was defense counsel. I put my client on the stand. I asked a pointless throwaway question: Are you married?. Answer: No. Later, on cross, the D.A. asked: were you living in hotel room xyz? I objected because it was out-of-scope for cross exam. I was overruled. The Court of Appeals said that because I asked if my client were married, it "opened the door" for the D.A. to ask about residence. That tied my client to the room, and the room was where the drugs were.

Between being a waste of time, and the risk of creating a useable throwaway comment, Federal District judges generally refrain from saying things like this.

Very rarely, a State court judge will make a comment like this in a civil case.

During sentencing in criminal cases, both Federal and State court judges seize the opportunity to unload. I personally think it is a mistake there, too.
_______________________________________________________
AllParadox - Retired Attorney, no legal opinions, just my opinion.

< EOM >

3:02:06 PM


Re: article on SCO's redacted objections now on GL

raoulduke_esq

July 18, 2006

This is my first post here  trying out the  fancy  editor, so be merciful.

I  anxiously read the "redacted objections" looking to tease out what could be so important that it required sealing.  Imagine my  surprise when I found that SCOX had redacted a paragraph from it's  Appendix A, a document whose whole purpose was an exercise in weasel words to suggest that the SCOX boobleheads had not prevaricated when making substantive statements to the press. But which statement & desperate fig leaf was so damning that it must be redacted?  As deduced by a Groklaw poster it is most probably this little stink-bomb from Chris Sontag:

"Chris Sontag stated in November 2003 during an interview that, "There are other literal copyright infringements that we have not publicly provided, we'll save those for court. But there are over one million lines of code that we have identified that are derivative works by IBM and Sequent that have been contributed into Linux that we have identified . . . ."

Now, in my mind, this is the $5 Billion dollar question, so where is the support for this statement?  Surely the 294 bits of poo flung on the wall should obviate the need to defend this statement.  But the 400+ pages proved to be lacking, as observed Magistrate Wells, "Is this all you've got?"  So SCOX was forced to defend this Sontagism with some explanation so outlandish or feeble that they were forced by modesty to redact it. The obvious answer is "We object! ... Because it is devastating to our case!"  However, I see a tiny push pin on which Mr. Sontag can hang a very small skull cap: "derivative works". So now they have a miniscule space to propound their ladder argument about anything that touches any Unix-like OS throughout the Multiverse, for all time, is theirs to control at will - whether they understand it or not.  I have no doubt that this argument is so specious and unconvincing that an intern at BS&F pointed out it would be better if it were buried out of the harsh sunlight of public inspection which might cause the argument to wither, shrivel up and blow away.

raoul

PS.  I like italics.


< EOM >

3:33:09 PM


Re: The SCO Group's redacted objections

El Corton

July 18, 2006

< If AIX or Dynix included a method or concept that was not part of UnixSysV, then SCO had no right to prevent its disclosure. >

According to SCO's creative interpretation of the AT&T agreements, AIX and Dynix in their entirety are "SOFTWARE PRODUCTS" derived from System V, and IBM is prohibited from disclosing methods or concepts embodied in either, even if those methods or concepts are original to IBM or Sequent.

The merits of this theory were not at issue in Wells' ruling, and won't be at issue in Kimball's ruling. In my view, Kimball made a mistake in not disposing of the theory by summary judgment a couple of years ago -- a mistake he probably regrets now.
< EOM >

3:33:56 PM


SCO's creative interpretation of the AT&T agreements

AllParadox

July 18, 2006

>>>According to SCO's creative interpretation of the AT&T agreements, AIX and Dynix in their entirety are "SOFTWARE PRODUCTS" derived from System V, and IBM is prohibited from disclosing methods or concepts embodied in either, even if those methods or concepts are original to IBM or Sequent.<<<

I have never seen an enforceable contract term even remotely like the interpretation SCO suggested here.

Court review of a contract starts from business-purpose considerations. There was no business purpose that might have been served by IBM being prevented from disclosing any concept or method included in Dynix or AIX. There are several ways of evaluating damages in a disclosure situation. First, there are lost profits: SCO lost nothing by an IBM disclosure of a method or concept that SCO did not know. Any damages would be merely punitive. Punitive damages are prohibited as part of any contract claim. Violating the terms of a contract is not a tort. Second, diminution in value of SCO assets: again, this is a non-starter, because SCO lost nothing. There was apparently no gain to IBM, which might be considered ill-gotten.

Review also considers the words themselves: from the viewpoint of an impartial external reviewer, was IBM informed by the words of the contract that this would be a consequence? This is important from two angles. First, if IBM had been aware of this consequence, would they have signed the contract initially? Bluntly, No, they would not have. Second, if IBM had been aware of this consequence, would they have included everything they did in AIX and Dynix? Given the quality of their lawyers, No, this also would not have happened.

Review considers public policy considerations. It is against public policy for a contract to prevent disclosure of information that is already public, for several reason. For one thing, we do not want people preventing the spread of public information, whether by contract, or by any other meands. For another, damages are impossible to determine, when the source may be public information, or the defendant.

Finally, under this scenario, SCO cannot determine if there has been a contract violation until after it has had full disclosure of the source code to Dynix and AIX, but there will not be full disclosure until a lawsuit is filed and SCO receives the complete source code pursuant to discovery. That is an invitation to frivolous lawsuits.

IMHO, the assertion goes beyond weak. It indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of how to interpret contract clauses, and how to anticipate that the courts will understand them.

IMHO, the interpretation is incompetent.
____________________________________________________________
AllParadox - Retired Attorney, no legal opinions, just my opinion.
< EOM >

4:11:48 PM


Re: article on SCO's redacted objections now on GL

_Arthur

July 18, 2006

"So now they have a miniscule space to propound their ladder argument about anything that touches any Unix-like OS throughout the Multiverse, for all time, is theirs to control at will - whether they understand it or not. "

And they can use the same claims against any Linux using company on Earth, ask for oceans of Discovery, and later even claim that they themselves are not subject to discovery, have no need to prove ownership of the Methods & Concepts at stake ...
< EOM >

4:21:32 PM


A slightly different take on this

no_simpler

July 20, 2006

I posted on GL a while back asking the question about how a lawyer processes discovery. Specifically I was referring to the case of an email that they think might be a case of releasing proprietary information.

At the time I came to the conclusion that either the lawyer did some research and determined that the information was proprietary but did not reveal his research or that he did no research at all and just assumed that the informaion revealed was proprietary. Whichever the case, the complaint should be dismissed. IANAL so when I say "should" it is not meant in a legal sense but in my own personal sense of justice.

After reading SCO's objections I see they are looking at it in a slightly different way. To explain what I mean, I will modify Judge Wells shoplifting analogy slightly.

The new analogy is that SCO is accusing IBM of stealing something of theirs and giving it away to someone else. When IBM asks what it is that they have stolen, SCO says: "you stole it so you must know what it is."

In the objection SCO is saying that this analogy is incorrect. They are not claiming that anything was stolen from them. The thing that IBM gave away was owned by IBM but they were contractually obligated not to give it away. Since the thing given away was not owned by SCO they are not in a position give any more specificiy on where the thing is in the code.

Like virtually everything else in this case it hinges entirely on SCO's goofy interpretation of "derivative works". This seems like an analogous situation to what just happened in the Novell case. Novell said that they could not defend themselves unless they were told specifically what law it was they were accused of breaking. In the IBM case I don't see how any meaningful progress can be made in determining if IBM violated the contract until the exact meaning of the contract is determined.

If (when), IBM's (and everybody else's who had anything to do with the contract) interpretation is ruled to be the correct one, then almost everything done relating to this case in the last 2+ years becomes irrelevant.

If Judge Kimball could have ruled on the contract interpretation at the begining this would have all been over with a long time ago. With the interpretation still up in the air I'm not sure that the statement quoted below is true:

"If AIX or Dynix included a method or concept that was not part of UnixSysV, then SCO had no right to prevent its disclosure."

rao

< EOM >

2:09:16 PM


Re: A slightly different take on this

monsieur_bobo

July 20, 2006

[Since the thing given away was not owned by SCO they are not in a position give any more specificiy on where the thing is in the code.]

That is what SCO is saying now, but they are still full of it. SCO had 3 years to depose the IBM developers that made the alleged improper disclosures. The had all of the AIX an dDynix source for at least one year. Therefore, they could have, and should have asked those developers the file, line, and version of the 'methods and concepts' that were disclosed, and they could have verified it for themselvers.

They either didn't do this, or did and found nothing. Either way, it isn't IBM's problem, and it isn't the courts problem. As it is, IBM wins even if Wells is reversed as they have SCO stating that there is no other evidence. I would think that would make a PSJ for dismissal of these claims academic as SCO can't possibly prevail on a couple of email messages and lkml postings and no other evidence no matter what bizarre contract reading they come up with. But I don't think Wells will be reversed.


< EOM >

5:36:44 PM


Source: Investor Village SCO Board [ http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911 ]

Copyright 2006