Randall Davis: IBM Has No SCO Code 405
Mick Ohrberg writes "As reported by Groklaw, Randall Davis, renowned professor of Computer Science at MIT has after an extensive search found no evidence of SCO's claims that IBM has incorporated parts of the Unix System V code. Davis says "Accordingly, the IBM Code cannot be said, in my opinion, to be a modification or a derivative work based on the Unix System V Code." Surprised, anyone?"
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wade'da'minute... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which method is covered for source code comparisions?
1. two printouts held together and up toward a lighted source?
2. side-by-side subjective eyeball comparision
3. diff (and all derivative comparision tools)
4. diff with some wiggle-room command line options?
5. NSA-grade pattern analysis supercomputer?
I'm slightly guarded here, but these SCO FUD-busting articles seemed very promising...
Re:I found this out a while ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
News? (Score:1, Insightful)
Everybody knew it . . . even SCO!
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since Dr. Randall Davis is an expert witness for IBM, I am guessing that SCO will say, "ain't so!" and then they will ask for time to refute Randall's findings and perhaps come up with an expert witness of their own that finds thousands of "matches." Hopefully the judge in this case will recognize Randall for the expert that he is and accept his findings. However, that just doesn't seem likely to me. This is just another round in a case that will continue like this ad nauseum.
Erick
Counterexample DIY (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Get Linux 2.4.0
3. left out as an exercise for the reader
4. Show positive result
5. Don't profit, but have fun.
Re:$550 an hour....and he reviewed 15 lines of cod (Score:5, Insightful)
See you in 10 years!
(trans: read the relevant parts of his CV in the PDF- this guy is FOR REAL.)
Re:At $550 per hour... (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess that's one reason they didn't hire you.
Re:15 hits (Score:2, Insightful)
All the SCO bullshit over? Far from it. There are still a few hundred million lines of AIX that haven't been compared.
And even if it's over for IBM, doesn't make it necessarily over for Linux in general.
Re:Counter example would have helped. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone is getting so far off base on this.
SCO is manging to convince people that this is somehow difficult to prove.. that they need more research and more time to PROVE that IBM stole code and put it in linux. Their only claim as to why they think Linux has SCO code is "because there is no way linux could have become as good as it did without stealing from us".. ie: denial
They have yet to show ONE section of code that was lifted. They haven't even shown how one was *similar* enough to have potentially been stolen and heavily modified.. they have shown *NOTHING*
IT's called an expert witness... and their word DOES mean something to the court.. they stake their reputation on it.
Formal Request to Randall Davis (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not fault your analysis; I would like to know more about your methodology, beyond the limited scope of the deposition.
-Hope
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
LAW (Score:3, Insightful)
It only takes a . out of line to sway the legal result, not necessary the correct and right result.
It not over until the fat penguin sings, then we can all rejoice.
Obligatory stock graph (Score:3, Insightful)
$550 an hour... for having an impressive resume (Score:2, Insightful)
Even though what he did may only require a CS degree, if IBM just hired someone with a CS degree to do the same job the SCO lawyers might hire an expert with a better looking resume and be able to convince a non-technical judge/jury that their side was correct.
It's sort of a credentials arms race.
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dr. Davis is the person who first elucidated how you compare code (the "abstraction, filtration, comparison" test - Computer Associates vs. Aitai) to see if it violates copyright. SCO will have a hard time trying to argue that its depositions (which are from non-experts, though they claim 'unnamed' experts performed the work) are from people more qualified than Dr. Davis.
So I guess what I'm saying is that SCO will have a hard time finding an expert witness more qualified than Dr. Davis. (Please note that if they try to present a deposition from one, that will likely be stricken - as SCO has been ordered by the court to present such a deposition, and has not - thus indicating it doesn't have one) And I highly doubt that the court will value any other expert over Dr. Davis anyway.
SCO has two of its own employees (Dr. Davis is not an IBM employee, though he is being retained by IBM). IBM has the expert witness who first defined how you compare code. Hmm, I wonder which the judge will believe...
Re:Formal Request to Randall Davis (Score:5, Insightful)
Um. Dr. Davis is the guy who first came up with the abstraction, filtration, comparison test - he was the expert witness in Computer Associates vs. Altai. Check his credentials in the first section.
He actually addresses the point you're asking - the code actually finds looser matches than would be found with abstraction, filtration, comparison. So he just ran them through that, said "well, no matches" - since it's a looser comparison, a stricter comparison would be of no benefit.
I think the court will give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows how to do something that he was the first one to do.
Re:lawyers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Old news, McBride has already admitted this (Score:5, Insightful)
The basic result is that no such lines existed that can be demonstrated to be non-literal copying, or literal copying.
-Rusty
Hardly a surprise but there's more (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Counter example would have helped. (Score:5, Insightful)
It just hit me: He doesn't have to. It's SCO's responsibility to show that there is infringing code in Linux. It's not IBM's responsibility to show that there is none. All that Davis has to prove is that the search is feasible in a reasonable ammount of time (as opposed to SCO's claim of 25,000 man-years). He's done this admirably. Not being able to find anything is simply icing on the cake.
One beautiful thing about this is that (AFAICT) all (or almost all) of the software he used seems to be Open source (although he has references some similar commercial software), so SCO has absolutely no excuse to not repeat his experiment and come up with different results (presuming that they've actually got a case), given that it takes about 1 hour to run the comparison on off-the-shelf hardware.
The other beautiful thing about this is -- remember Darl's remarks about an MIT team deep-diving the code?...... (boot to the head!)
"I've shown you mine, now you show me yours!"
Re:Counter example would have helped. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been thinking this was strange too. After all, if code was copied into Linux it is essentially a public document now - out there for everyone to see. All SCO would have to do is download it and print it out side-by-side with a copy of their matching code. Case closed. SCO wins.
The fact that they haven't done this extremely simple thing seems to strongly point to SCO being a bunch of total bullshitters. Even if some malicious programmer intentionally stole code and modified it slightly (changed variable names, comments, re-arranged the order of functions in header files, etc.) it should be pretty trivial to show a judge what happened and move on to the 'get sacks of cash from IBM' phase of the trial.
Funny, you would think that a company that is suffering continuous, ongoing harm to the tune of US$699 per user would be pretty quick to do such a thing...
Re: a judge will weigh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Justice upgrade (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is, this is not IBM paying some front man to do their dirty FUD work and dress it up as an "independent" study. Everybody in the court knows that IBM is paying Dr. Davis as they are expected to. What is telling is that SCO has been unable to offer any counter-testimony from any real experts. They've still got $50 million in the bank. It's not because they can't afford it.
Re:Thanks Professor Davis... and thanks ESR... (Score:3, Insightful)
He didn't get $550/hr to run comparator, he got the fee for being an expert recognizable as such to the court and damned near irrefutable on the subject. His reputation earned him $550/hr.
Re:Sounds like.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, didn't Prof Davis also just prove that SCO's source doesn't include Linux code?? If SCO had stolen anything and included it in their code, it would have shown up in the comparator test, wouldn't it?? The comparison just shows common code, it doesn't distinguish which is the original and which is the copy.