Judge Wells gives SCO everything

Message ID: 225413
Posted By: thaddeusbeier
Posted On: 2005-01-19 17:57:00
Subject: Judge Wells gives SCO everything

Buy stock in blank CD manufacturers. IBM is ordered to produce probably tens of thousands of CD's of data -- all versions of all changes to AIX and Dynix, all programmer notes, revisions, white papers.

More disturbingly, the magistrate Judge also gave considerable weight to SCO's insane theories of "tainted code", saying that IBM can be cleared if they show that IBM's "homegrown code" was *not* contributed to Linux.

I'm not even going to mention the football footnote.

Ugh. It's a freaking disaster.

Thad

Message ID: 225426
Posted By: nobbutl
Posted On: 2005-01-19 18:22:00
Subject: Re: Judge Wells gives SCO everything

The only bright spot in this dank unimaginative tsunami of unreality and naivete is at the top of p17 --

"Therefore, IBM is to file an affadavit detailing the process by which the 3000 were chosen. [1] Once again by requiring this, the court seeks to circumvent the rote objection by SCO alleging that they did not get enough information."

Nothing on Groklaw yet.

[1]< flamebait> I think this might be a reference to Mormon handshakes? </flamebait>

Message ID: 225427
Posted By: thaddeusbeier
Posted On: 2005-01-19 18:24:00
Subject: Re: Judge Wells gives SCO everything

This is a very tiny bright spot. IBM will have to provide a truckload of information for each of these 3,000 people. All notes, all code contributions to AIX ever, all papers, contact information... It's going to take years.

Thad

Message ID: 225435
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2005-01-19 18:33:00
Subject: Re: Judge Wells gives SCO everything

< I have been cautioning people for a while that the "the judges know TSG is a bunch of fraudmeisters and they are just preempting an appeal" theory had no visible means of support. >

Welcome to the club! When I said the judges don't seem to have a good knowledge of the issues, some idiot gave a lecture about "facts and common practices".

Message ID: 225441
Posted By: moonrealestate2000
Posted On: 2005-01-19 18:38:00
Subject: Re: Judge Wells gives SCO everything

" Buy stock in blank CD manufacturers. IBM is ordered to produce probably tens of thousands of CD's of data -- all versions of all changes to AIX and Dynix, all programmer notes, revisions, white papers. "

IBM's legal team never explained to the judge how software development works, that some files change dayly and that usualy every night a "nighly" version is build to see if it compiles and to perform automatic tests.
Now IBM may have to spend much time of their developers to reconstruct such versions, and because some failed versions may be deleted SCO will claim that IBM destroyed evidence.
Of course the judge should have asked IBM about the amound of work before issueing such a ruling. Does someone with experience in large projects have a clue what this discovery may cost IBM? My WAG would be a seven figure.

Message ID: 225446
Posted By: span1sh1nqu1s1t1on
Posted On: 2005-01-19 18:48:00
Subject: It's Not *THAT* Bad...Could Be *GOOD*

In reading the decision so far I don't see anything earthshattering or overly surprising. Actually in reading her ruling Judge Wells sounds like Judge Kimball in speaking of theoretical possibilities rather than that she thinks SCO has a valid case based on reality. Actually in reading the answer she seems rather sick of SCO and wants to avoid more whines from SCO...she actually says that in so many words for why she wants IBM to turn over all the code. I also think IBM did have it coming to them with the contact information...I don't think IBM has been a complete angel in this case, at least in the names regard.

I say this might be good because this could have been written in consultation with Judge Kimball where she gives SCO based on theoretical possibilities when she knows (but can't rule it herself) that Judge Kimball is going to make those theoretical possibilties disappear when he gives his ruling, so that way the case is "appeal-proof" and SCO gets a pyrhic victory. If I'm not mistaken Judge Kimball's ruling would have a direct impact on interpreting these theoretical possibilities on contract/copyrights between SCO and IBM.

Message ID: 225454
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2005-01-19 18:56:00
Subject: Re: It's Not *THAT* Bad...Could Be *GOO

< Actually in reading her ruling Judge Wells sounds like Judge Kimball in speaking of theoretical possibilities rather than that she thinks SCO has a valid case based on reality. >

This is a pity. I hope they get down to reality real soon. When IBM's PSJ about copyright claims was discussed in court, SCO said it is not relevant to its claims, and the judge asks - does it intersect with any of your claims? That's enough to show you how much the judges are guessing!

Message ID: 225458
Posted By: span1sh1nqu1s1t1on
Posted On: 2005-01-19 19:02:00
Subject: Re: It's Not *THAT* Bad...Could Be *GOO

<< This is a pity. I hope they get down to reality real soon.>>

The judge had to base her ruling on what was theoretically possible. It's not her place to rule on contract interpretation, so that's why she had to say it's possible in some universe for the contract to say X, so therefore to have a legally sound ruling, this must be done. What Kimball might do - since it is his place to rule on contract interpretation - is say SCO's theories aren't worth a dingo's kindney and therefore IBM wins it's counterclaims. If Judge Kimball had ruled first then SCO probably would have lost, but that way SCO has a "win" that they can't use as a basis for appeal, but yet would be mooted by Kimball.

Message ID: 225460
Posted By: span1sh1nqu1s1t1on
Posted On: 2005-01-19 19:09:00
Subject: I Feel I Should Explain

In reading through Judge Well's ruling I took the overall theme to be "SCO gets this because it's theoretically possible their contract theory is right," not that SCO has a good case or that she buys said contract theory. She didn't have to wait ages for this, so I would assume this ruling is connected to Judge Kmball's ruling.

Now Judge Kimball is the one who can establish whether or not SCO's contract theories are hogwash (which so far he has) and as such his ruling will most likely answer what Wells couldn't answer...namely that *THE CONTRACT DOESN'T SAY THAT*, so her ruling would be mooted but SCO couldn't whine that she didn't give them what they wanted.

My money is on Kimball saying SCO has been licking too many toads with their contorted contract interpretations.

Message ID: 225481
Posted By: span1sh1nqu1s1t1on
Posted On: 2005-01-19 19:44:00
Subject: Timeline Comparison

Has anyone done a comparison of how much SCO is spending per quarter versus when the trials are supposed to begin? It would seem at the rate they're running out of money (and delaying these cases), that it would be impossible for the cases to reach trial without SCO being in bankruptcy first.

Message ID: 225518
Posted By: atul666
Posted On: 2005-01-19 20:42:00
Subject: Today's Ruling

While SCO's few partisans are going to haul up the "Mission Accomplished" banner after today's ruling, the reality (as usual) is more complicated.

For starters, all SCO got today was a fishing license, and a limited one at that. There's a reason it's called a "fishing license" and not a "catching license". I'd be really surprised if SCO finds *anything* useful in the monster pile of code they're about to get. They'll see all the AIX bugs that have been fixed over time, but I don't see how that's going to help them.

The big "silver lining" I see is that, as I understand the BSF fee agreement, this sort of cost is not covered by the fee cap. Furthermore, I seem to remember that federal discovery rules allow parties to recover costs associated with especially large or onerous discovery requests.

If I was IBM, I'd be back in court tomorrow asking that SCO cover the full cost of the discovery they were just granted. I'd then refer to SCO's precarious cash position, and request that SCO either pay in full in advance, or place sufficient funds in escrow to cover the discovery costs. I'd ask for something in the range of $1.5-2M, at minimum.

Once SCO's got the code, the BSF agreement also suggests that any code analysis (spectral or otherwise) isn't covered by the cap either. MIT rocket scientists can be quite expensive. Today's ruling is really going to break the bank for SCO. Maybe this is the plan, and SCO management figures it's better to run out of money than to lose in court.

In the meantime, I have a few near-term predictions:

* Small bubble in the stock over the next week or two. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets bid up over 4 for a bit. Some idle speculators, plus at least one clueless Eisenberg-clone who wants to get in on a piece of the action. I wouldn't be surprised if our good buddy Mr. Royce is on the phone to all his "friends" right now, telling them what a choice opportunity this is.

* We'll see new FUD articles about the ruling from O'Gara, at least one member of the immortal ProSCO troika of Enderle, Didio, and Lyons, and at least one clueless trade-press journo we've never heard of before, and who wasn't following the case until today.

* A triumphant SCO press release is likely, but not guaranteed. The somewhat favorable discovery ruling they got in the AZO case a while back didn't merit any PR, so it's not a sure thing. If they do any PR, expect SCO to misrepresent the ruling to suggest Wells was siding with their claims.

* I expect there'll also be another Darl interview within a few weeks. He'll be feeling cocky again, so expect some new weird and bizarre claims for us to roll our eyes about.

* We'll see a full-on troll assault for the rest of the week, at least. I expect to see a lot of Biff, quoting *very* selectively from the ruling.

* The OSRM Wars will continue unabated, since those involved clearly see it as much more important than anything SCO-related. I imagine they won't even notice or care about the ruling.

Message ID: 225522
Posted By: br3nsc
Posted On: 2005-01-19 21:00:00
Subject: Walter

congrats for telling it right
i am sure glad that i finally listened to you
now would someone please tell me how this disaster has even gotten this far without the first line of code from scox?
that is all i want to understand.
because in my opinion this is just a travesty when scox has made allegation after allegation and not one ,not ONE single line of code?
i mean if it is this easy to game a system then we are seeing the disaster of the century.
of course if this stands M$ better look out and start making all kinds of deals because just think what someone could have fun doing to them
br3n

Message ID: 225527
Posted By: korbomite
Posted On: 2005-01-19 21:21:00
Subject: Was Judge Wells "paided" off

question #2--was it "paided" off by M$FT or newSCOldera
question #3--how soon before we see the gloating articles from Enderle, Lyin' Lyons and those sluts O'Gara and the other one

Bets on any of the above questions?

k

Message ID: 225607
Posted By: moonrealestate2000
Posted On: 2005-01-20 03:23:00
Subject: SLTrib. B. Mims calls it a plus for SCO

Bob Mims from The Salt Lake Tribune is the first to cover Well's order

" _Court ruling is a plus for SCO vs. IBM_
Software: The computer giant is ordered to turn over more data on its Linux-related codes to the Utah-based company"

"Wells refused to grant SCO complete review of all of the IBM programs it listed, but threatened to grant "unfettered access" in the future if IBM fails to provide all data - including approximately 2 billion lines of code - from its AIX and Dynix systems."

http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_2531097

The article is technicaly (mostly) correct, but without the context (e.g. SCO's delay to give the lines of infringing code) a reader will get the wrong picture. I guess that's why Mims added the Marriott quote.

Question: Are Mims and I the only ones who understood the "unfetted Access" to the database as a threat from Wells to IBM?

I guess this article and the reprints with the usual bad addons about SCO patents will lure new bagholders into SCOX.

Message ID: 225614
Posted By: nobbutl
Posted On: 2005-01-20 04:20:00
Subject: Wells' Ruling - The Fatal Flaw

<< SCO has much to gain by showing that any so called homegrown code allegedly within the purview of the contract ended up in Linux.

In equal respect, IBM's case will be strengthened tenfold if IBM can show that notwithstanding possible contract protections, homegrown code provided no basis for the code that IBM eventually contributed to Linux. [p.12] >>

The fatal flaw in ruling that this code is subject to discovery, is that (1) IBM ADMITS HOMEGROWN CODE WAS CONTRIBUTED, and (2) EXACTLY WHICH HOMEGROWN CODE WAS CONTRIBUTED IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.

So WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DISCOVERED? We know why SCO *wants* it discovered: delay, delay, delay. But why does it *need* to be discovered when it's already a matter of public record? Brooke? Dale? Biff? Anyone?

Message ID: 225649
Posted By: nobbutl
Posted On: 2005-01-20 07:18:00
Subject: Re: Wells' Ruling - Fatal Flaw for SCO

<< As I read this document, Wells is telling SCO they must do more that show the code is in both AIX and Linux. They have to show that the code in AIX is derived from "their" Unix code.>>

That is not the way I read the document. Wells is specifically referring to *homegrown* code and the *contract* claims. Thus IMO the order doesn't relate in any way to 'derived' code in the copyright sense: it refers to SCOX's bizarro bogoderived interpretation of the contracts, where 'bogoderived' means 'your homegrown code was once in an aggregation with our homegrown code'. Which nobody disputes, and which has already had discovery which, for all practical purposes, was sufficient.

BICBW!

Message ID: 225683
Posted By: br3nsc
Posted On: 2005-01-20 08:29:00
Subject: Re: Wells' Ruling - Fatal Flaw for SCO

since the beginning of this case people (including me) have said scox will have this problem or that at each step of the way.
scox has played the game very well and have gotten multiple delays to dump stock ad nauseum.
i do not forsee any problems for scox.
they will probably go bankrupt according to schedule.
sigh
br3n

Message ID: 225684
Posted By: phandsvrta
Posted On: 2005-01-20 08:30:00
Subject: Yahoo RealTime shows $4 at 8:04am...

If this is accurate, then the pump already started......

Real-Time ECN
SCO GRP INC (THE) (RT-ECN)
Symbol: SCOX
Last Trade: 4.00 8:04AM ET
After Hours Change: N/A
Today's Change: Up 0.47 (13.31%)
Bid: 3.50
Ask: 4.56

Message ID: 225689
Posted By: rex007can
Posted On: 2005-01-20 08:34:00
Subject: This is sad and stupid

It's like watching to trains going opposite directions on the same track....
at 1 inch an hour.

Everybody knows there is no infringing code in Linux. Everybody knows SCO doesn't stand a chance and will probably run out of money well before this ever has a chance to go to trial. Everybody knows this is an extortion attempt gone terribly wrong where IBM called SCO's bluff.EVERYBODY!.

And yet here we are...the 2 trains a few inches closer...yet still miles apart.

It's so stupid and slow I don't even find it entertaining anymore.

Message ID: 225699
Posted By: phandsvrta
Posted On: 2005-01-20 08:46:00
Subject: Nearly at $5 before open!!

Real-Time ECN Get Real-Time ECN for:
SCO GRP INC (THE) (RT-ECN)
Symbol: SCOX
Last Trade: 4.99 8:44AM ET
After Hours Change: N/A
Today's Change: Up 1.46 (41.36%)
Bid: 4.70
Ask: 4.99

Message ID: 225753
Posted By: phandsvrta
Posted On: 2005-01-20 09:20:00
Subject: Price climbing again....$4.89

SCO GRP INC (THE) (RT-ECN)
Symbol: SCOX
Last Trade: 4.89 9:18AM ET
After Hours Change: N/A
Today's Change: Up 1.36 (38.53%)
Bid: 4.70
Ask: 5.12

It seemed to be falling back a bit, but has restarted the climb.

Message ID: 225776
Posted By: mck9@swbell.net
Posted On: 2005-01-20 09:34:00
Subject: More discovery -- yawn

No doubt the stock price will pop up on the news of Wells' ruling. However the boost won't last long. The practical effects of the ruling are:

1. IBM will have to spend more money on discovery.

2. There will be further delay.

3. The discovery ruling does not affect SCOX's chances in court, because there are no smoking guns for SCOX to discover.

4. The discovery ruling does nothing to make SCOX's business more profitable.

5. SCOX must either spend more money to analyze the results of this discovery, or embarrass themselves further by not analyzing it.

The price will sink again as investors realize that, while the ruling is a loss for IBM, it is *not* a win for SCOX.

Message ID: 225928
Posted By: saltydogmn
Posted On: 2005-01-20 12:03:00
Subject: SCOX price manipulation makes me sick

Hellooooooo, SEC??? Time to get up off your loathesome, spotty behinds, and make these criminals at SCO do the perp walk. To those that are making a buck from this, be happy! Those teachers and retirees really didn't need that money anyway.

Greed sucks ass.

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "thaddeusbeier", "nobbutl", "deepdistrust", "moonrealestate2000", "span1sh1nqu1s1t1on", "atul666", "br3nsc", "korbomite", "phandsvrta", "rex007can", "mck9@swbell.net", "saltydogmn" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.