[NCLUG] SCO (from Breaking news!...)

[jbass at dmsd.com]

Daniel Miles <milesd at cs.colostate.edu> writes:
> Why is it that you're so convinced that the clean-room was contaminated?

Besides my personal experience, one has to read the SCO amended complaint
to see clearly that SCO is making this point the core of their case.

A complete reading of this complaint is highly educational, note in particular
the statements around these specific sections, and the exact statements
in the cause of action declarations:

	89.  Among other actions, IBM misappropriated the confidential
	and proprietary information from SCO in Project Monterey.  IBM
	thereafter misused its access to the UNIX source code.

	92.  IBM, however, was not and is not in a position legally to
	“open source any part of AIX that the Linux community considers
	valuable.”  Rather, IBM is obligated not to open source AIX because
	it contains SCO’s confidential and proprietary UNIX source code,
	derivative works and methods.

	93. [...] That team of IBM programmers is improperly extracting and
	using SCO’s UNIX technology from the same building that was previously
	the UNIX Technology Center.   

	95.  Again, “IBM’s AIX contributions” consisted of the improper
	extraction, use, and dissemination of SCO’S UNIX source code,
	derivative works and methods.

	99.  Based on other published statements, IBM currently has over
	7,000 employees involved in the transfer of UNIX knowledge into
	the Linux business of IBM, Red Hat, Inc. and SuSE Linux AG (the
	largest European Linux distributor). On information and belief,
	a large number of the said IBM employees currently working in
	the transfer of UNIX to Linux have, or have had, access to the
	UNIX Software Code.

The failure to implement clean room transfers is soundly the declaration
of section 99, and strongly stated as the basis in dozens of other
declarations, a few of which are above. IBM's obligations under trade
secret are substatially stronger than just under copyright.

The merits of the SCO complaint rest largely in this single issue, and
for people to say that the SCO case has no merits, they need to prove
these declarations wrong.

John