IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code 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?"
I know where it is. (Score:4, Funny)
Probably in sealed documents... (Score:5, Informative)
So that makes it hard to comment on what this all means, but it does make me suspicious here. What better way to spread FUD than to get the court transcript sealed and blather whatever you like to the media in the mean time? Whether by accident or design, that's exactly what SCO has been doing.
And, as for this code, I sincerely doubt it contains anything helpful to SCO. By all accounts, they've filed an utterly baseless lawsuit that has forever been in search of any wrongdoing by IBM, and they haven't exactly come up with a lot.
Every single piece of "evidence" they have ever put forth that we can actually see and analyze has been shown not to support SCO's position. Rather, they pounce on anything the least bit out of place and use innuendo to imply that there "must" be something more to it, because we cannot assume they would be so stupid as to do something like this without some proof...
Given that that's how they've been operating, I conclude that this is nothing more than an unscripted bluff. That's right--they have no master plan, they're just making up crap as they go along, using whatever story is most convenient at the time. That's why the story keeps changing--they're bluffing and they have been the whole time. It was never anything but a shakedown premised on the theory that a company the size of IBM must have something to hide.
So, to anyone who says "there must be something to this, or SCO wouldn't have done that," I say: SCO really is that dumb.
Now, as for the other story, we're getting legal threats, etc. from that fellow who tried to buy Linux for $50,000 over on Groklaw, all due to some old court documents where people called him delusional. He did say something about a secret, personal mission to "save" Linux (or something--I don't claim to have his story straight any more than someone can claim to understand what SCO's current claims are).
I wonder when this will be turned into a geek soap opera? "As the SCO Burns" or something?
Re:Probably in sealed documents... (Score:3, Informative)
Well, so far, and falling [google.com]
Re:Probably in sealed documents... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Probably in sealed documents... (Score:5, Funny)
Glad you caught up with the rest of us.
Re:Probably in sealed documents... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just you watch--I see the "all our *good* evidence is sealed/secret/hidden by IBM" line of arguements get more play with that new pro SCO website coming out... Of course, we've always retorted to that with "it'd have to be secret because every scrap you've shown the publ
Re:Probably in sealed documents... (Score:5, Informative)
He used to work at novell, he took their technology after he left and tried to sell it as a product to MS. Novell sued and the judge said some hilarious things about him including that he lives in his own reality. He in turn called the judge "a novell stooge".
He has offered FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS MUHAHAHAHA for the linux kernel. That's right if the writers of the code would give him the code so he can release it under a BSD license he will give them FIFTH THOUSAND DOLLARS.
He claims to have talked to Darl and Blake (stowell) at SCO and has gotten immunity for linux but they have remove JFS, RCU, SMP, NUMA and of course all software written by IBM from the linux kernel. See how simple that was? Just revert back to kernel 1.0 and SCO will certify that linux does not infringe and we can thank Merkey for that!.
He claims to be a member of a native american religion or a native american (he is kind of vague) and therefore will sue Pamela for hate crimes for saying bad things about native americans and inciting hate speech against native americans. All pamela did was to post the text of a ruling by the judge (public information).
He claims to have cured (that's right CURED) arthiritis by genetically modifying peyote.
He claims to take a lot of peyote.
He claims to have taken part in an effort to ship peyote to NY after 9/11 in order to heal people of NY.
He has sued novell for sexual harrasment (he has a femal boss).
HE claims Novell has released him from all restrictions about their IP. He is working on something really big but can't tell us about it.
He has claimed in the past to be working on an open source implementation of novell netware, NTFS support for linux and a few other big ticket items. Nothing seems to have come out of any of them though.
He claims to have seen the code for SYSV, Linux, Unixware, and windows and claims there is substantial infringement by the linux kernel on the SCO owned IP (Daryl showed him the code!).
He claims that Pamela Jones came into his room naked one day in monterrey and they went partying afterwards. He claims she is a scorned women out to get him.
He sounds like he is half tripped out or drunk most of the time. If you look at the yahoo boards you see postings in his style under different names although he signs his name to the kernel list.
I would be interested in knowing anything else about him. He is truly one of the most bizaare characters in this whole surreal saga. Apparently he works in a canopy owned building which is populated with other canopy owned companies but he claims the company he works for is not owned by canopy.
Re:Probably in sealed documents... (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunately the shipment was accidentally sent to D.C.
Oh my... (Score:3, Insightful)
My view? Well, the Native American religion bit is to use peyote legally (although I think it requires at least some tribal descent? I confess to being unclear about the law surrounding it). However, I do know that they are allowed to posess and use limited quantities of it legally.
Anyhow, I figure him for just a random nut, and I wouldn't take the things he says at face value.
Re:Probably in sealed documents... (Score:3, Insightful)
It was facinating reading. I wonder if there is a corrolation between schizophrenia and being born again. I would think it would be only natural to think that the voices in your head were coming from god.
You're NOT Wrong... no statements were made... (Score:4, Informative)
According to Groklaw [groklaw.net] none of the eye-witnesses to the hearing in question SAW or HEARD any suck claim [groklaw.net]. In particular, the SEALED transcript is not available and the "reporter" in question *WAS* *NOT* *PRESENT* for the hearing.
You are all victims of FUD and you can stop with the uninformed pro-SCO Astroturf and rebuts there-of.
They are probably just playing (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing to hide (Score:3, Insightful)
First post?
Re:Nothing to hide (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to hide (Score:2)
This is not the same as "can't find". How long ago was this supposedly written? How many times has that code been archived and filed and removed from active storage?
I know I keep everything I've ever done in a perfect, uniform filing system maintained across the myriad of equipment I've used. Sure, it takes my entire life to do it, but that keeps the new data influx down.
Re:Nothing to hide (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Nothing to hide Or not.. (Score:5, Informative)
So far all SCO has done has been to complain that the code (which they specifically requested and which was granted by Judge Wells) was not sufficient for them. Further they have requested copies of all versions, sub-versions, itterative builds, notes, and so forth for AIX, back to the very begining of AIX, as well as e-mail and memos from executive management that might be relevent to the case.
IBM has basically responded, 'you will have to take the results of your code review of the material you have received so far, present them to the Judge, and show what part of those results entitles you to further discovery.' Additionally they have pointed out that what they are asking for will take orders of magnitude more work to provide than what they had requested earlier.
SCO has made the interesting response that IBM's versioning software should make these responses easy to comply with, and 'Hey, just give us direct/remote access to it, and we won't have to bother you about it.'
Umm, yeah, anyone else think that the judge granted them the opportunity to make a brief fishing trip to some streams they have named, and SCO is saying 'Hey the fish have not been biting, let's make it a flight to a deep water fishing expedition.'
I am not a lawyer, much less a judge. Based upon what I have seen published, I would have a very hard time approving further discovery into AIX code, much less AIX-on-Power code, which was not asked for in the first place.
-Rusty
You know why they can't find sco's "stolen source" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You know why they can't find sco's "stolen sour (Score:2, Insightful)
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 behin
Re:You know why they can't find sco's "stolen sour (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Look for something simple (Score:3, Insightful)
- They discovered that the code was missing
- They made up a story as to why it's crucial
- They ask for it, jumping up and down about how deceptive IBM is
Just a thought =)Re:You know why they can't find sco's "stolen sour (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Linuxworld (snicker)
2) Maureen O'Gara (guffaw)
The pinnacle of journalistic integrity. (cough)
Ob. Chasing Amy (Score:5, Funny)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tried to RTFA... (Score:3, Informative)
IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code
October 22, 2004
SCO and IBM me
Re:Mod this up (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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... (Score:2)
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.)
Re:Tried to RTFA... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a severe indictiment of the sorry state of the American legal system when a company can demand payment for linux deployments, sue a company for a billion dollars and two years into the process not have to show exactly what was stolen and from where. The judges in this case can't even make decisions on minor matters of law even after reading hundreds of pages of motions and holding a hearing. They "take it under advicement". WTF people? Just how much argument do you need before you in order to make a simple ruling on the LAW of the case (this is not an argument on the FACTS of the case).
Maureen O'Gara??! (Score:5, Insightful)
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??! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
My favorite part was: (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, wait, what? Is this meant to be taken as objective?
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.
Notice that SCO's side in this case seems to have absolutely zero respect for the judge and his rulings? The judge rules that IBM doesn't have to produce something; this becomes "IBM won't produce this thing". The judge rules that something SCO did in the courtroom violates confidentiality and orders it sealed; this becomes some kind of who-me where-on-earth-did-this-come-from thing which is somehow implied to be IBM's fault. Don't you think, maybe, the judge so consistently failing to take SCO's side isn't just some kind of head-slapping, inexplicable coincidence, but perhaps indicates some sort of problem on the part of SCO's lawyers?
Re:Maureen O'Gara??! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maureen O'Gara??! (Score:5, Insightful)
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??! (Score:4, Interesting)
They're basically cheerleaders. They're not going to change anybody's mind with their 'new information' but they're going to make people who already share their viewpoint happy about them. And since even losing sides need cheerleaders, they still have jobs.
Same as 'debate' shows like Crossfire. They're not debating to come to a conclusion. Each side's arguments are so extremist to their viewpoints, they couldn't possibly change anybody's mind. They're just cheerleaders, to make the people already on their own side feel even more righteous.
Re:Maureen O'Gara??! (Score:3, Insightful)
"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."
If you met any business leaders you'd be shocked at how stipid they are. You don't need to be smart to be a business leader you just have to be able to put aside your morals to make money.
Re:Hmm...sounds familiar... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is LinuxWorld the site affiliated with LinuxWorld the show? The magazine? (I've found the magazine so useless that I've dropped my free subscription, but I never found it violently anti-Linux. Or maybe I just didn't notice because I didn't find it worth reading.)
Re:Maureen O'Gara??! (Score:3, Insightful)
Groklaw eyewitnesses contradicted her in advance (Score:3, Insightful)
But... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But... (Score:3, Funny)
How about a goatse Darl? Like "look for sourcecode HERE"?
LinuxWorld (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
Perhaps the connotations of "World" are different from those of "sux"?
Something... (Score:3, Funny)
Why should IBM be forthcoming ? (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:2, Funny)
Thats because God has broadband.
Because that would be hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is someth
Re:Why should IBM be forthcoming ? (Score:2)
Re:Why should IBM be forthcoming ? (Score:2)
Linuxworld? yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that this is purely an evaluation, on my part, of their tendency to write intelligible prose. Possibly incoherrent g
Re:Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers? (Score:3, Insightful)
I also find myself at odds. On one hand, due to the nature of law, I would wish that all things were equal and the merits of the case were the sole consideration. But at the same time I am compelled to feel some admiration for one who excels at one's profession. Especially when that profession's mix of knowledge, presentation, and application of legal code present dis
Something to hide? (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the page layout of the link (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
We're dazzled alright! (Score:3, Funny)
>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 (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a thought... not a particularly focuses one, but a thought.
patent invalidation (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Free your software: more freedom, more stability.
Normally, I'd be disappointed in IBM for this... (Score:3, Funny)
but in response to SCO's nonesense,
I'd say: Good on IBM
I doubt it. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I doubt it. (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Blame it on Mo O'Gara (Score:4, Informative)
With O'Gara, it's hard to tell where the sloppy journalism stops and the pro-SCO bias starts. I used to think she was just a crappy writer, not a SCO shill.
And this involves Linux, how, exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Can you say biased? (Score:2, Interesting)
Think about it--read a priviledged document to get the court to seal the transcript so we can't very easily comment on it (hard when you don't have the exact words to start researching things) and use that to spread FUD.
Maureen O'Gara? Funny, I could swear she's on the list of SCO schills.
Maureen O'Gara (Score:4, Informative)
See what I mean?
I believe IBM - here's why (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:I believe IBM - here's why (Score:2)
ClearCase is the only content management product which can get FULL. You hear right. It can get full. To record any more objects, branches and versions, you have to delete something. As incredible as this seams, thats a fact. They have a finite and quite low number of object ids and you cannot go over limit. Thats w
Not surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
(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.
SCO was OK with this (Score:5, Informative)
I left this as a response to that horribly written, ad and idiocy infested article.
waves .. (Score:5, Funny)
IBM isn't a saint. (Score:2)
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.
Re:IBM isn't a saint. (Score:2)
FIrst it was "It's IBM's job to find the code", to your honor, "We need AIX code to prove our case", to now this rubbish.
Of course their is probably some SysV code in AIX. They licensed it from the old SCO.
My guess is Mcbride will find some lines of unixware in AIX and scream "SEE! IBM GAVE CODE FROM AIX INTO LINUX!" even though the code is probably not from Unixware directly but SCO will claim ownership because its a
Lost Code My Ass (Score:2)
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 ... (Score:3, Funny)
And if that fails, a www.archive.org search?
So IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
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
Re:Linuxworld page layout blows because of ads (Score:2)
I SO like reading text in a 150pixel wide area between to blinking and flashing ads...
memory leak (Score:2)
Re:memory leak (Score:2)
Well, you know, ... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's quite likely they cannot really find the code. Anybody that has worked at a big corporation knows that (If you haven't, just read the complete Dilbert strips, and you'll have an idea).
There is no 3rd Amended Complaint (Score:4, Informative)
>
> Complaint, which, alas, is under seal
There is no Third Amended Complaint. To file a 3rd amendment
SCO needs approval by the Judge and IBM has to be
consulted. Although their chances to be refused are high,
it may happen that SCO ask the Judge for permission to file
such an amendment because they are so desperate to extend
discovery to the end of time and never have to let down
their pants in court.
Note that the story about AIX using non-licensed
Unixware code is more than one year old and was already
dissected and debunked, see Groklaw as usual:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=132
LinuxWorld takes on Slashdot's owner (Score:3, Insightful)
But what's the lead story on LinuxWorld today?
Fraud in Linuxland? VA Linux Class Action To Go Forward
Yep, it's an attack on Slashdot's owner! If you can't take the message, dig the dirt on the messenger!
Groklaw: This story is a flat out lie (Score:5, Informative)
Basically the whole story is a lie. The judged sealed the transcripts of the hearing (probably because of the confidential email the SCO lawyers read aloud), so the author couldn't have checked her facts. All the witnesses who attended the hearing and reported back to Groklaw say that IBM never said anything about "losing" code.
Just another Microsoft shill.
This is NOT what happened. (Score:5, Informative)
There were 2 folks there who reported to Groklaw what happened. They also report that Maureen O'Gara was *not* at the hearing.
See: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200410231 53851359 [groklaw.net]
Re:Coinsidense? (Score:4, Interesting)
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?