SCO intends to produce evidence COMPUTERWORLD.com

SCO intends to produce evidence COMPUTERWORLD.com

Post by Daero » Sat, 31 May 2003 23:06:52



http://tinyurl.com/d2y9
Q&A: SCO's Chris Sontag on Linux, Unix and brewing legal fights
'There is inappropriate intellectual property in Linux,' he says
PATRICK THIBODEAU  MAY 29 2003

"In two weeks, The SCO Group Inc. intends to begin showing analysts
where the Unix code it owns has been illegally copied into the Linux
kernel. The source code will be made available to parties who agree not
to disclose the Unix source code, but they will be able to share
publicly their assessments of SCO's claim. SCO has filed a $1 billion
lawsuit against IBM alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and other
claims and has warned some 1,500 businesses that they may be using Linux
at their legal peril."
---

<question> If the alleged copied source code is already in 'Linux' and
in the public domain, what is the problem with revealing the exact lines
of code so copied. No further breach of trade secrets could occur. The
damage is already done.

I thought they had already done the analysis. With three 'independent
programming teams'. See

How goes the three 'independent programming teams' ? Are these going to
be called to give evidence ? What about the NDA ? Has it surfaced yet ?
Are we allowed to see the NDA ?

Further more if in the unlikely event that such illegal copying
tookplace SCO would then have to provide details to the breeching
parties in order for them to remove the offending code. How are they
ever going to keep such code secret. All you have to do is perform a
diff on the before and after code to reveal the so called *secret* code.
I suspect that the above is just an elaborate charade designed to
disguise the fact that so such code exists.

"In an interview with Computerworld reporter Patrick Thibodeau, SCO's
Chris Sontag, a senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource
Division, the group within SCO in charge of enforcing the company's
intellectual property, discussed the company's position."
---

Some more quotes from Chris Sontag of The SCO Group Inc.:

".. based on the research that we have done, we have identified specific
Unix System V code for which we have ownership rights that have ended up
in Linux against our wishes .."

".. I would suspend any new Linux-related activities until this is all
sorted out .."

".. We're still identifying more and more code from Unix System V that
is in Linux .."

".. We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to
various industry analysts .."
".. We will actually be showing the code .."

".. How many lines of code in the Linux kernel are a direct copyright
violation? It's very extensive .."

  ".. I think this is just a desperate act on their [ Novells' ] part to
curry favor with the Linux community ..."
-------

Remember, he said two weeks. In two weeks lets see if his story is the
same and if not the why not ? I bet there will be some *unforeseen*
legal difficulty preventing his producing the 'evidence.

-------
http://computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81613,...
---

 
 
 

SCO intends to produce evidence COMPUTERWORLD.com

Post by Ian Hilliar » Sun, 01 Jun 2003 09:30:50



> http://tinyurl.com/d2y9
> Q&A: SCO's Chris Sontag on Linux, Unix and brewing legal fights 'There
> is inappropriate intellectual property in Linux,' he says PATRICK
> THIBODEAU  MAY 29 2003

> "In two weeks, The SCO Group Inc. intends to begin showing analysts
> where the Unix code it owns has been illegally copied into the Linux
> kernel. The source code will be made available to parties who agree not
> to disclose the Unix source code, but they will be able to share
> publicly their assessments of SCO's claim. SCO has filed a $1 billion
> lawsuit against IBM alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and other
> claims and has warned some 1,500 businesses that they may be using Linux
> at their legal peril."
> ---

> <question> If the alleged copied source code is already in 'Linux' and
> in the public domain, what is the problem with revealing the exact lines
> of code so copied. No further breach of trade secrets could occur. The
> damage is already done.

> I thought they had already done the analysis. With three 'independent
> programming teams'. See

> 'independent programming teams' ? Are these going to be called to give
> evidence ? What about the NDA ? Has it surfaced yet ? Are we allowed to
> see the NDA ?

> Further more if in the unlikely event that such illegal copying
> tookplace SCO would then have to provide details to the breeching
> parties in order for them to remove the offending code. How are they
> ever going to keep such code secret. All you have to do is perform a
> diff on the before and after code to reveal the so called *secret* code.
> I suspect that the above is just an elaborate charade designed to
> disguise the fact that so such code exists.

> "In an interview with Computerworld reporter Patrick Thibodeau, SCO's
> Chris Sontag, a senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource
> Division, the group within SCO in charge of enforcing the company's
> intellectual property, discussed the company's position." ---

> Some more quotes from Chris Sontag of The SCO Group Inc.:

> ".. based on the research that we have done, we have identified specific
> Unix System V code for which we have ownership rights that have ended up
> in Linux against our wishes .."

> ".. I would suspend any new Linux-related activities until this is all
> sorted out .."

> ".. We're still identifying more and more code from Unix System V that
> is in Linux .."

> ".. We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to
> various industry analysts .."
> ".. We will actually be showing the code .."

> ".. How many lines of code in the Linux kernel are a direct copyright
> violation? It's very extensive .."

>   ".. I think this is just a desperate act on their [ Novells' ] part to
> curry favor with the Linux community ..." -------

> Remember, he said two weeks. In two weeks lets see if his story is the
> same and if not the why not ? I bet there will be some *unforeseen*
> legal difficulty preventing his producing the 'evidence.

> -------
> http://computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81613,...
> ---

SCO has had their bluff called and are now in trouble. Don't expect things
to happen too quickly, it takes time to reinvent^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H find
the truth.

System V has a lot of BSD code in it, as does Linux. So, anybody who looks
will be able to find common code. I guess that SCO are now claiming IP on
the BSD code. Just to add to the farse, it also appears that SCO don't
even own the System V IP.

William Shakespear had it right when he wrote, "Oh what a tangled web we
weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Ian

 
 
 

1. questionable motives of Microsoft SCO deal -- COMPUTERWORLD.com

http://computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81488,...
SCO's licensing deal with Microsoft raises user doubts
Microsoft said it is just respecting SCO's intellectual property claim

Many IT users are questioning the motives of Microsoft Corp. since
Monday's announcement that the company had signed a Unix technology
licensing deal with The SCO Group Inc. (see story).

The deal between Microsoft and Lindon, Utah-based SCO came less than a
week after SCO threatened possible legal actions against commercial
users of Linux because of claims that some of its Unix intellectual
property has illegally made its way into the open-source operating
system (see story). The financial details of the contract between
Microsoft and SCO weren't disclosed.
---

2. Fujitsu MPA3042ATU HDD

3. buy us out says SCO's CEO to IBM COMPUTERWORLD.com

4. virtual PC

5. desperate act of a has-been company, SCO -- COMPUTERWORLD.com

6. Answeringmachine for linux (analog)

7. SCO's NDA offer a PR stunt COMPUTERWORLD.com

8. Apache:SSI can′t execute scripts

9. Linux Vendors Reject SCO's Legal Claims -- COMPUTERWORLD.COM

10. Linux is on fire -- COMPUTERWORLD.com

11. Microsoft to certify security professionals computerWORLD.com

12. flaws in Microsoft remedy -- COMPUTERWORLD.com

13. Microsoft 'battles' spam [ not ] -- COMPUTERWORLD.com