Message ID: 153044
Posted By: stats_for_all
Posted On: 2004-07-12 01:19:00
Subject: Sealed documents uncovered

Two recent SCO motions have sealed exhibits. The content of these sealed exhibits can be inferred from their citations. The exhibits in the Motion to compel discovery are of minimal importance. The sealed documents associated with the Oppositon to Partial Summary Judgement are far, far more important.
Motion 193, “SCO to Compel discovery” lists 4 sealed exhibits. These exhibits are cited on page 6 and 7 of the motion See:
o Exhibit G: AIX file (filed under seal)
o Exhibit H: Dynix file (filed under seal)
o Exhibit I: Deposition of David Rodgers (filed under seal)
o Exhibit J: IBM's CMVC Introduction Manual (filed under seal)
The two source files are selected as representative to demonstrate SCO’s contention that authorship a was not fully documented in source files for these two OS. The CMVC manual is used to support SCO contention that the CMVC (a revision control system) would prove useful in SCOx’s code hunt.
The deposition of David Rodgers is used to support the contention that credit and revision statements in source may not be complete. Rodgers was originally a Dynix Sequent engineer who ran the corporate development center in Nice France. After bouncing through several other jobs, he is VP engineering at IPUnity. His deposition is also quoted in the Opposition motion and the Herrod declaration. An exchange is quoted in the footnote 11 verbatim. The exchange asks about System V semaphores, and relate to the IPC copying claim made in the Gupta declaration.

Motion 195 “Rule 56(f)”, 199 and the memo in SCO's Opposition to IBM's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Jgm refer to the same sealed documents. The Harrod declaration is by far the most informative.
A declaration by Sandeep Gupta cited in Harrod’s para 70 lists six areas where SCO claims Linux infringement of SCOX IP. The Gupta declaration is at least 86 paragraphs long. I listed these six areas in an earlier post. NobButl and others have helpfully examined these claims.
See sid=1600684464&mid=152989.

A new declaration by Chris Sontag is also cited, this is at least 57 paragraphs long. Much of the content of the Sontag declaration can be reconstructed from its extensive paraphrasing in the Harrod statement.
o.. P 14- 23 SCO has compared code by making educated guesses, filename similarities, and looking at similar processes: Filesystems, IPC and program loading. (Harrod p95)
o.. P 10 –20 all versions are necessary for reviewer to follow changes (Harrod p 94)
o.. P 15, 18-23 Automated search tools inadequate (Harrod p 93)
o.. P 29-54 Prioritizing search for UNIX in Linux require access to Dynix and AIX Calculation of 35 man years to search Linux
o.. P 31-35 Tracing code requires access to IBM’s CVMS (Harrod p. 61, 60)
o.. P 36-41 Scox faces difficulties (unclear) H. p 65, 60
o.. P 50-54 Design notes and whitepapers needed, p53 programing notes needed to trace authors (H p. 63, 64)
o.. P. 57 “no road map to trace Linux”, No complete list of contributors, SCOX having to create own contributor database (Harrod p 41, 43)

Other possibly sealed exhibits in rule 56(f)???
o Exhibit S-2: Rodgers Deposition again
o Exhibit S-4: IBM Internal Document - stating that AIX is 'derived from System V'
o Exhibit S-5: IBM Internal Document - 'AIX was derived from System V.'
o Exhibit S-6: IBM Internal Document - 'AIX is derived from software under license from SCO.'

The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "stats_for_all" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Copyright 2004 Yahoo! SCOX. Messages are owned by the individual posters.