The SCO Group, which is suing IBM over its treatment of the Unix and Linux operating systems, has accused Big Blue of failing to release required documents.
SCO on Tuesday filed a "renewed" motion to compel IBM to release more memos from executives, source code underlying many IBM versions of Unix, and details about programmers involved with Unix and Linux. "IBM has failed to comply with its discovery obligations and the court's order," attorneys for the company said in the filing.
In its motion, SCO said IBM has provided "only a limited number of well-filtered documents" from chief executive Sam Palmisano and nothing from Irving Wladawsky-Berger, the executive responsible for launching IBM's push.
"IBM should be ordered to comply with the court's 3 March, 2004, order by providing the full files of Mr Palmisano, Mr Wladawsky-Berger, IBM's board, including board minutes, board packages and other relevant board materials, and all other documents relevant to SCO's requests that this court previously ordered IBM to produce," the filing said. IBM also should produce source code for all versions of its current and former Unix products, SCO said.
IBM attorneys are reviewing the filings but declined to comment, spokesman Mike Darcy said.
The lawsuit, which argues that IBM violated its Unix contract with SCO by moving proprietary Unix technology to open-source Linux, is one of several cases SCO launched to profit from the popularity of Linux by arguing it infringes SCO's Unix intellectual property. Novell -- an earlier Unix owner, current Linux seller and another SCO lawsuit target -- argues it still owns the Unix copyrights. SCO's claim to own Unix is key to its lawsuits.
SCO is seeking more than $5bn in damages from IBM. The case is scheduled for a five-week trial beginning 1 November, 2005, in the US District Court in Utah.
On Thursday, SCO raised the prospect of even more discovery -- the information requests that precede a trial -- including depositions of Linux leader Linus Torvalds and other Linux programmers.
Specifically, SCO said it will need more information if the court retains in the suit a March claim in which IBM seeks a declaration that its Linux activities haven't infringed SCO copyrights.
"SCO does not intend to depose thousands of contributors worldwide to determine who made material contributions to Linux," said a Thursday declaration by John Harrop, an attorney for SCO law firm Andrews Kurth, but SCO does want information from Torvalds.
SCO wants Torvalds' "knowledge about the contributors and contributions to Linux since its inception, and the maintenance of any records about the development history of Linux. Mr Torvalds is expected to have detailed records of these contributors and their contributions, material that is not publicly available," Kurth said.
In addition, SCO wants to obtain information from "maintainers", the senior programmers responsible for various parts of Linux; from IBM partners; and from private groups that have contributed to Linux.
SCO also wants to depose IBM programmers who worked on IBM's current AIX version of Unix and the Dynix/ptx version formerly sold by Sequent, a company IBM acquired. Among those it wants to depose are AIX engineer Dave Kleinkamp and Dynix engineers Paul McKenney, Brent Kingsbury, Gerrit Huisenga and Jack Vogel.
Talkback
Ho hum, another SCO inspired delay. Every time we get closer to a ruling or a hearing on this case, SCO ask for discovery or file a pleading or some other delaying tactic.
SCO don't want to go to court, they just want to delay, Delay, DELAY. It all helps their (alleged) sponsor, Microsoft.
Does anyone still listen to these guys?
Seems to me they've had their chance in the limelight, and they've blown it. Their ranting and raving is growing quieter, and q-u-i-e-t-e-r....
I wonder how much money they've actually got left.
So SCO are saying IBM haven't fully responded to a lawsuit that SCO itself haven't fully declared.
Isn't that a bit like expecting someone to be able to awnser a question that hasn't even been asked yet?
Surely the US courts can see by now that the whole case is simply a Microsoft sponsored (seeing as their the main financial contributors) attempt to undermine business confidence in Linux.
SCO and Microsoft know they can't win but have figured its cheaper to keep paying the lawyers and keep ripping of companies which would otherwise switch to a cheaper Linux solution.
Hang on here, so SCO are demanding all the past and present source code from IBM but have repeatedly refused to release any detals of the alleged copied code to the Linux community...(Because they'd just go ahead and fix it)
So would they really have an army of coders looking at the code to see if there is any matching code (if they are, hell sign me up, I've been having some trouble sleeping recently!) or are they just going to do a simple (ish) text search ?
of course this article doesn't mention that SCO has failed to comply with two - TWO - court orders to provide its own discovery, which includes which lines, with specificity, they say were stolen. This was even supposed to take place before IBM had to turn over all their code. Of course this article doesn't bother to mention that all this evidence that SCO has repeatedly said that it had in masses is so far of the ether, and hasn't been submitted in any way to the court, to IBM, or to any of the users of either Unix (like their fake "infringement" in vegas) or Linux. Come on ZD, you can do better than being a FUD monger. How about a title like "SCO: Calling the IBM kettle black" and maybe mentioning that IBM is the only one that actually has submitted any discovery at all. They've delivered code to SCO by the truckloads, and SCO still hasn't found anything. SCO has delivered nothing to IBM, but based upon all their public stupidity, we've found everything. Don't just reprint SCO press releases, do some original research and/or thinking.
It's silly of you to print SCO press releases, and especially silly to print extracts from their court filings, without looking at www.groklaw.net to see what's really going on. For example, in this filing, SCO is claiming that IBM has failed to comply with discovery, but then mentions things that IBM was never ordered to provide. This was clearly analyzed at the groklaw site, with cross-reference to previous, related court documents.
The other problem with uncritically printing what's found in court filings is that they are privileged; SCO cannot be sued for making false or misleading statements in such filings. They can seriously damage their own case, or alienate the judge, but they cannot be sued. This is discussed on groklaw, and also at Louis Mettler's site: lawlaw.com.
To publish this stuff so uncritically, without looking at the reference material made available at these sites, just makes you look like SCO's mouthpiece.
I have to agree. ZD .... Not one line of the "millions" have been produced by SCO as claimed over a YEAR ago? Hum ...... ZD .... Are you able to do any research or do you just rewrite SCO press release that are not quite truefull? Very poor reporting here... What news??
TSG/SCO has provided discovery.
Unfortunately for them, the files and lines of code they are alledging that were mis-handled/infringe are from code that IBM owns.
It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad watching the continuous gyrations that TSG/SCO is going through to try to strong arm IBM via articles, such as this, and mouth pieces like Enderle, O'Gara, Didio, etc.
TSG/SCO blathers on and on about big bad IBM, but when you look at the actual court filings and compare those with TSG/SCO's own statements in press releases, interviews, quotes from their mouth pieces, etc., a very different story is easily seen.
TSG/SCO is running a scam, trying to get bought out by IBM (or maybe anyone) to get them to shut up. IBM called their bluff and now TSG/SCO is frantically trying to get something, anything to delay decisions that will soundly spank them.
It is inevitable, TSG/SCO is very close to getting their rear-ends handed to them and will soon be a faint memory in the history of modern-day computing. And I look forward to this occurring to that IBM and many others can just get on with the job of getting out products and services to individual and corporate customers, instead of this distracting bunch of crap TSG/SCO has been pulling.
Good riddance, TSG/SCO, it wasn't even nice knowing you.