February 16, 2007

REDACTION to [872] Sealed Document SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Contract Claims by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Opposition Part 2# 2 Opposition Part 3# 3 Opposition Part 4# 4 Appendix Part 1# 5 Appendix Part 2# 6 Appendix Part 3)(Normand, Edward) (Entered: 02/16/2007)

6:22:27 PM

Re: PACER #960 on TuxRocks


February 16, 2007

6:36:45 PM

Re: PACER #950 Appendix


February 16, 2007

6:44:12 PM

#961 is on Groklaw, easy to read


February 17, 2007

Long after the deadline for disclosing its allegations, SCO sought by indirection to change them. In yet another effort to circumvent the Court’s orders, SCO attempted to reinvent its case through its expert reports.

As stated, SCO proffered the testimony of Thomas Cargill to support its copyright infringement claim relating to Linux. Rather than limit Dr. Cargill’s report to the material identified in the Final Disclosures, which consisted of only 326 lines of code from the Linux kernel, the Cargill report challenged nearly every file in the Linux kernel (which is comprised of more than seven million lines of code).
Like the Cargill report, the Ivie and Rochkind reports identified allegedly misused material found nowhere in the Final Disclosures. With respect to one of the technologies challenged in the Final Disclosures (JFS), SCO used its expert reports to charge misuse against six times the volume of material identified in the Final Disclosures to support one allegation.
Similarly, the Final Disclosures identify 9,282 lines of code regarding testing technologies as representing “misuse”. To that the Rochkind report added 25,378 additional lines of code.

8:10:49 AM

Source: Investor Village SCO Board [ ]

Copyright 2007