Wed, Jul 9, 2014, 11:10 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

SCO GRP INC (THE) Message Board

  • stdsoft0 stdsoft0 Jan 14, 2004 10:20 PM Flag

    The Party is Really Winding Down Now

    To continue an earlier analogy from New Years eve, the party for longs is even closer to being over. It was a fun trip to $22, I'm sure, but the reverse trip is underway and gaining momentum. The declaration from SCO should continue to carry the momentum through the filing of IBM's motion for summary judgment:

    Items 14 and 16 from the declaration of Ryan E. Tibbitts are most telling. These were attached to SCO's Notice of Compliance:

    "14. I have been informed by SCO's engineers and consultants that since the only version of AIX source code that was available for comparison purposes is several years old, and predates most of IBM's contributions to Linux, it was not possible to directly compare IBM's contributions to Linux with the most likely source of those contributions, namely the missing versions of AIX (including the most recent versions)."

    "16. Our engineers have reached the conclusion that parts of Linux have almost certainly been copied or derived from AIX or Dynix/ptx. In those cases, confirmation of this opinion would require access to more current versions of AIX and Dynix/ptx."

    Let's see... SCO basically says they have no evidence. They can generate some, though, if they can obtain access to a more recent version of AIX. It seems the versions to which they presently have access pre-date IBM's Linux contributions. If they had the newer versions, though, they are sure that they can produce some evidence.

    Maybe it's just late and I am not thinking straight, but if they don't have access to recent versions of AIX, then how could they have any idea that IBM contributed from AIX to Linux?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • "if they don't have access to recent versions of AIX"

      But they do ... IBM handed over the most recent versions of AIX and Dynix (which is old, and headed for the dustbin)

      SCO is fishing for development notes, unreleased code and everything else they can think of to try to find some method or idea or way of writing code they can claim was mishandled by IBM.

      This tells me they have bupkus in the comparison between their SystemV code and Linux and have to drag in the kitchn sink and look for food stains.

    • "Maybe it's just late and I am not thinking straight, but if they don't have access to recent versions of AIX, then how could they have any idea that IBM contributed from AIX to Linux?"

      It was an IBM exec on some fair talking about taking stuff from AIX to Linux. Someone from Caldera listened, people without knowledge about Unix history looked for matching code, bingo, lawsuit.

      Flashback: BSDi uses ...ITSUNIX...as a phone number, USL notices, sends note about trademark violations, looks deeper and sues about copyright infringement.

    • "Maybe it's just late and I am not thinking straight, but if they don't have access to recent versions of AIX, then how could they have any idea that IBM contributed from AIX to Linux?"

      SCOG was given the all the source code to Dynix -- not AIX. AIX code amounts to around 40 million lines, or somewhere there abouts...

      I especially like the part in Item 16 where Tibbits states, "Our engineers have reached the conclusion that parts of Linux have almost certainly been copied or derived from AIX or Dynix/ptx." Almost certainly? What the hell is up with that? Boy, talk about a carload of clowns...

      • 2 Replies to jeanshock_2000
      • "SCOG was given the all the source code to Dynix -- not AIX. AIX code amounts to around 40 million lines, or somewhere there abouts..."

        SCOX may still have Dynix/ptx (org. Dynix was BSD-based, Dynix/ptx has Sys V compatibility) and AIX code from project Monterey.

        They want 40 mill. pages developer documentation about AIX from IBM, stuff like "
        20.4 Design documentation and programmer notes used by IBM engineers in making all contributions and enhancements to Linux.
        " (Tibbits). This has a taste of espionage by court order. What happens to the files after the lawsuit? Sell them (and a division of the company) to the highest bidder? Someone who is not tangeled by IBM's patents?

      • << I especially like the part in Item 16 where Tibbits states, "Our engineers have reached the conclusion that parts of Linux have almost certainly been copied or derived from AIX or Dynix/ptx." Almost certainly? What the hell is up with that? Boy, talk about a carload of clowns... >>

        Maybe SCO are trying to wind the Judge up so much that she dismmisses the case with such vehemence that SCO can say the judge was prejudiced in the appeal...

    • > Maybe it's just late and I am not thinking straight, but if
      > they don't have access to recent versions of AIX, then how
      > could they have any idea that IBM contributed from AIX to
      > Linux?

      This is what I think SCO's position is:

      (1) SCO can't fully comply with IBM's motion to compel discovery until its own motion to compel is granted (demanding, among other things, the source code for all versions of AIX and Dynix.)

      (2) If some Unix code was copied into Linux, how did it get there? Was it released under the GPL by Caldera, or did IBM put it there? They allege the latter, but they can't be specific without the evidence from IBM.

      (3) Everything in AIX is a derivative work of their trade secrets, and that if IBM transferred any method from AIX into Linux it was a breach of contract, even if the derivation of the method is unrecognizable. IBM has fiendishly disguised the Unix IP it contributed into Linux, and they only way to prove this is to trace it back through successive versions of AIX. This gives them much more scope for claiming infringement than they would have on the basis of copyright; hence their insistence that SCO v IBM is not a copyright case.

      • 1 Reply to elcorton
      • "(3) Everything in AIX is a derivative work of their trade secrets, and that if IBM transferred any method from AIX into Linux it was a breach of contract, even if the derivation of the method is unrecognizable. IBM has fiendishly disguised the Unix IP it contributed into Linux, and they only way to prove this is to trace it back through successive versions of AIX. This gives them much more scope for claiming infringement than they would have on the basis of copyright; hence their insistence that SCO v IBM is not a copyright case."

        Can you *imagine* the delaying tactics Caldera/SCO will try to persue if they get access to every single version and subversion of AIX and Dynix, along with every engineering notebook, etc. etc., that they asked for? I would bet the main reason for trying to get all this is they could easily delay, appeal, sell equity, repeat, for many years until all the Caldera/SCO insiders are quite rich.

    • >>Maybe it's just late and I am not thinking straight, but if they don't have access to recent versions of AIX, then how could they have any idea that IBM contributed from AIX to Linux? <<

      I think what Kevin wanted to say on dec 5th - but for some reason he wouldn't just say it - is that scox knows ibm contributed code becuase scox doesn't know of any other way that linux could have advanced so quickly. Scox doesn't need to see the actual UNIX code to know that ibm contributed those ideas to linux. Actually, if you follow scox comments from way back, scox has been saying this all along.

      I think kevin won't come right out and say it, because that would be like saying that scox has no real evidence, only a strong "hunch."

      • 1 Reply to walterbyrd
      • <<
        I think what Kevin wanted to say on dec 5th - but for some reason he wouldn't just say it - is that scox knows ibm contributed code becuase scox doesn't know of any other way that linux could have advanced so quickly.
        >>

        Right, walterbyrd. I'm sure that is what everyone at SCO is thinking. They could not say that in court, though, because the case would get tossed.

        The US Federal Courts are not going to allow an unsubstantiated accusation to form the basis of a fishing expedition. Without some sort of solid evidence up front, the case will not make it past a summary judgment motion.

        The writing is on the wall for SCO. This charade is over.

 
SCOXQ
0.020.00(0.00%)May 23 10:22 AMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.