Posted on 01/20/2005 8:25:59 AM PST by ShadowAce
A federal magistrate has handed a partial victory to Utah's SCO Group, ordering computer giant IBM to turn over more of its Linux operating system-related program codes.
U.S. Magistrate Brooke Wells' ruling, released just minutes after Salt Lake City's federal courthouse closed Wednesday, came in the Lindon software company's contractual suit stemming from Big Blue's alleged distribution of Linux applications purportedly tainted with SCO's proprietary Unix code.
In a lawsuit tentatively set for trial next fall, SCO is seeking damages ranging from $5 billion to $50 billion from IBM. The Utah company also is in Linux-related litigation with Novell, Linux distributor RedHat Inc., and Linux end users AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler.
Wells' ruling came on a Dec. 23, 2004 motion to renew discovery after SCO accused IBM of failing to meet its demands for code, programmers' notes and other data from numerous Linux-related applications. IBM argued it had met SCO's requests to the best of its ability, and to further expand the scope of discovery amounted to a fishing expedition by the Utah 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.
The magistrate also took the opportunity to chide both sides in the now 22-month-old lawsuit over "abundant accusations of stonewalling. . .
"The court assumes the good faith of all litigants before it," Wells wrote. "[But] it is important that the adversarial process, as contentious as it may be, not prevent [the court] from having the right information to resolve the issues in this case."
The magistrate ordered IBM to produce the additional programming information by March 18.
SCO spokesman Blake Stowell declined to comment on the decision, saying the company is discussing its ramifications with attorneys.
IBM officials did not immediately return a request for comment Wednesday.
However, IBM attorney David Marriott had earlier argued for denial of SCO's requests for additional code, saying the Utah company had not made any progress proving its Unix rights were violated in nearly two years since it first raised its claims.
Marriott contended that in complying with past discovery requests in the case, 900 million lines equivalent to 15 million printed pages of source code have been turned over to SCO.
SCO/Linux Ping!
That's the first mistake.
Full text of ruling & analysis at:
The Wells Discovery Ruling - Grants in Part, Denies in Part
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050119190326525
I can't wait for the day that SCO ceases to exist. Essentially trying to take down Linux. Linux/Unix is definitely better then Windows at almost everything except for gaming.
First, this was a possibility as of a long time ago. The court ordered IBM to turn over code, and in this order the court says that IBM complied. The court also said earlier that it might consider ordering IBM to turn over more code, and apparently it now has. All this while, SCO has been accusing IBM of not producing the code ordered, when in fact IBM had done so -- IBM had just not produced everything SCO wanted.
But there's a good side. SCO will not be allowed to dig through IBM's content management system if IBM complies with this request as well as they did the last. One thing I noticed is that the judge is getting tired of SCO always screaming "misconduct" about IBM. She's ordered IBM to produce an affidavit detailing the effort it took to extract the code in order to prevent future SCO whining that IBM didn't provide everything.
I am surprised that the judge ordered programmer's notes turned over, but at least she was reasonable and didn't require all of them. Can you imagine the work necessary to produce that? The judge is definitely losing patience with SCO though: "Once again .. the court seeks to circumvent the rote objection by SCO alleging that they did not get enough information." That's twice.
I like that she used "rote," so she realizes that SCO automatically objects to everything more out of habit than by virtue of having any legitimate reason to do so.
But in the end SCO wins simply because it got yet another delay to the resolution of the issue of illegal code in Linux. The FUD machine marches on.
BTW, note the cute football reference on page 12.
Just as I predicted, IBM is being forced to open up its code vault so that SCO can compare the sources. Should be interesting to see what results.
Agreed. How long do you think it should take to examine 2 billion lines of code?
My biggest question is how much manpower they can throw at this. Haven't they laid off a good chunk of their IT in recent months?
Possibly. It really depends on the format that IBM provides it in. The skills may not be much, but the processing of the files before the comparison could be time-consuming drudge work--if IBM really wanted to play that way.
I thought it might happen too. The judge appears to be tiring of SCO's constant complaints, and is trying to finally shut them up. I normally don't believe in giving in to a child's tantrums to have peace, but I understand why the judge is doing it.
Not me, IBM. But it's not the end even if vast amounts of AIX/Dynix code are in Linux. I think the depositions from those who actually dealt with the contract (as opposed to SCO, which didn't) show quite clearly that the contract didn't prohibit IBM from freely using its homegrown code that went into AIX/Dynix.
IBM should be clear as long as they didn't actually put UNIX code into Linux, but I doubt that's the case, as a simple code review would have produced any offending code, and SCO has produced none.
I disagree. Worst case would be if the judge had allowed complete access to IBM's versioning system. How would you like your market enemy to have full access to all the code you've ever written, even if it wasn't applicable to the case?
The judge has said that this might happen if IBM doesn't comply, but I don't think that will happen given that IBM fully complied with the first order to produce code (despite SCO's assertion to the contrary).
Whaaaat?
I thought the freeware fanatics promised us it was already over? Several times, as a matter of fact.
Guess not. I can't wait to hear their spin, but Jokelaw is currently crashed, LOL.
From the judge's order. And when do those recently ordered depositions of the IBM CEO begin?
"In fact, the contract claims may have a more important role in the outcome of this case than the copyright claims."
"Under a plausibile reading of the contract, it is possible that protections and prohibitions exist for code contributed by IBM to Linux."
"This code that eventually ended up in Linux may not look similiar to the code initially provided to IBM under the contract, but if it was based on modifications, elements of derivations that are protected under the contract then it is clearly relevant."
"In contrast to IBM's argument this protection may even extend to 'homegrown code' depending on the interpretation of the contract."
"Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS IBM to provide in a readily accessible format all versions and changes to AIX and Dynix."
"the courts finds that it is not only the changes to the code that are relevant but also the names [of] those individuals who made the changes. This information is relevant in part because some of these individuals may have information concerning IBM's treatment of the contracts."
"IBM is hereby ORDERED to provide programmer's notes, design documents, white papers, the comments and notes made by those who did the changes"
"Accordingly, IBM is HEREBY ORDERED to provide the above required information for the 3000 individuals who made the most contributions and changes to the development of AIX and Dynix."
"To the extent possible the parties are to agree upon the 3000 designated individuals. IBM is to file an affidavit detailing the process by which the 3000 were chosen."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.