Source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060628203537917
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 23:13:32+00:00

Document:
Here is Judge Brooke Wells's Order as text. 39 pages and 128 footnotes! Why? I can't read the judge's mind, of course, but my best guess is she is indicating to SCO not to bother to appeal this order. And if they do, she has provided her reasons -- with specificity, one might even say, sufficient to uphold her decision. You can follow along with the references on Groklaw's IBM Timeline page, where the docket numbers are provided.
Another possible factor in the style of this Order: Do you recall when SCO appealed a prior order of hers, on the grounds that she neglected to mention one item? SCO lost that battle when Judge Dale Kimball affirmed her order [PDF], but I believe she may be addressing that issue preemptively by listing, with references, every little detail.
A lot of you have asked over the years what it takes for SCO to get sanctioned. Now you know.
This was a bear to code, so I did it myself. I believe I may be qualifying for sainthood tonight. For sure, I couldn't have finished it until tomorrow, except that I kept thinking that we have a number of blind readers, and I know they want to read this extraordinary Order too, and PDFs can be a problem for the visually challenged. So, this is for you guys.
After the evidence is "on the table" then the fact finder will be able to determine the merits of both SCO's and IBM's claims and counterclaims. The current motion focuses on the interpretation of the court's prior orders and exactly what evidence should have been provided pursuant to these orders. The sanction IBM seeks precluding SCO from using certain alleged misappropriated items because of a lack of specificity - is very serious. As outlined in greater detail below, the court finds that SCO has failed in part to meet the level of specificity required by this court's orders and the order entered by Judge Kimball. It is also apparent that SCO in some instances failed to meet the level of specificity it required of IBM. Further, this failure was willful under case law and prejudicial to IBM. Therefore, the court GRANTS IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material in PART.
The instant dispute does not take place in a vacuum. As mentioned, the crux of the latest dispute centers around the interpretation of court orders which have been entered over the course of a couple of years. The court finds the following background, including SCO's public statements, helpful in framing the issues involved in IBM's motion.
In October 2003 IBM filed its first Motion to Compel Discovery. 26 In the motion IBM sought an order from the court compelling SCO to "respond fully to IBM's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents, served June 13, 2003."27 The following is a sampling from IBM's First Set of Interrogatories which is attached to their memorandum in support.
or proprietary information that plaintiff alleges or contends IBM misappropriated or misused, . . .
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify, with specificity (by file and line of code), (a) all source code and other material in Linux (including but not limited to the Linux kernel, any Linux operating system and any Linux distribution) to which plaintiff has rights; and (b) the nature of plaintiff's rights, including but not limited to whether and how the code or other material derives from UNIX.
1. To respond fully and in detail to Interrogatory Nos. 1-9 as stated in IBM's First Set of Interrogatories.
2. To respond fully and in detail to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 as stated in IBM's Second Set of Interrogatories.
4. To identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM.
SCO requests and the reasons for such requests. The Court will then consider ordering IBM to produce more code from AIX and Dynix.
2. Pursuant to Rule 26(b), SCO should use its best efforts to obtain relevant discovery from the Linux contributions that are known to the public, including those contributions publicly known to be made by IBM. IBM, however, is hereby ordered to provide to SCO any and all non-public contributions it has made to Linux.
1. To fully comply within 45 days of the entry of [the March 3, 2004] order with the Court's previous order dated December 12, 2003. This is to include those items that SCO had difficulty in obtaining prior to the Court's previously ordered deadline of January 12, 2004.
2. As previously ordered, SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code that IBM is alleged to have contributed to Linux from either AIX or Dynix. This is to include all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time.
3. SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code from Unix System V from which IBM’s contributions from AIX or Dynix are alleged to be derived.
4. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to.
On October 21, 2005 pursuant to this court's request SCO filed a Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery. 60 This motion largely mirrored SCO's original motion which unfortunately was not set for a hearing because of a docketing error. 61 SCO’s motion primarily dealt with the production of documents from IBM's senior level management and the depositions of these individuals. On December 20, 2005 this court granted in part SCO's renewed motion.
A court may also enter sanctions for failing to disclose required information pursuant to Rule 37(c).
IBM argues that under the court’s orders SCO should have provided more specificity, including version, file, and line information, for the items SCO claims were misappropriated. IBM’s expert Randall Davis' states, "The methods and concepts employed in an operating system (or any computer program) are in the source code.83 Hence, under IBM’s view of the court’s specificity requirement the source code behind methods and concepts should have been disclosed by SCO.
discussed without disclosing source code. But it is possible, and even preferable in many instances, to provide the code behind methods and concepts. In fact, Mr. Rochkind's own publication Advance Unix Programming (2d ed. 2004), provides many examples of code when discussing "fundamental concepts."
Closely related to the methods and concepts question is in this court’s view the heart of the dispute - what level of specificity is required by the court’s orders? If the court’s orders required the production of specific source code for alleged misappropriated items, including methods and concepts, then many of SCO’s arguments and much of Mr. Rochkind’s declaration miss the mark. If however, the level of specificity did not require specific source code then IBM has fired a wayward shot off the starboard bow in its attempt to sink SCO’s ship.
In considering the parties’ positions the court first looks to the language in SCO’s own requests and the language in the court’s orders.
In June 2003 SCO sought “specific lines and portions of code” for all alleged “trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information, whether computer code, methods or otherwise.” 98 This request was part of SCO’s first motion to compel which was eventually granted in part.
On December 12, 2003 this court ordered SCO to "respond fully and in detail to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13" and to "identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM."99 Interrogatory 12 requested “with specificity (by file and line of code),” all source code and material in Linux that SCO claimed rights to. Interrogatory 13 sought further clarification of Interrogatory 12.
Finally, in July 2005 Judge Kimball ordered the parties to “disclose with specificity all allegedly misused material”105 by December 22, 2005.
say version and file in its orders, the court finds that this information was inherent within the court's ordering of "specific lines." The court agrees with IBM's argument that line information without version and file information is not very specific and makes the identification of what is at issue much more difficult.
This court further finds that Judge Kimball intended the same level of specificity in his July 2005 order which provided what amounted to a date certain for the parties to define their case. Judge Kimball’s order was entered after this court’s orders which dealt with specificity. And Judge Kimball did not provide a different definition of specificity in his order. Further, in an earlier decision, Judge Kimball in essence rebuked SCO for a lack of specificity. “Nevertheless, despite the vast disparity between SCO’s public accusations and its actual evidence-or complete lack thereof-and the resulting temptation to grant IBM’s motion, the court has determined that it would be premature to grant summary judgement . . . .”106 Given this background this court believes that Judge Kimball intended the same level of specificity as this court did, to wit, version, file, and line information for misappropriated items.
In further support of this court’s finding that version, file, and line information was the required level of specificity the court points to the testimony of SCO's own Chief Technology Officer, Sandeep Gupta. Sandeep Gupta testified about the importance of having version, file and line information in respect to methods and concepts.
Q: Okay, How would you determine whether a particular description was specific enough to describe an aspect of System V as a method?
A: I have to look at the source code.
Q: Okay. What would you do if you looked at the source code?
A: I look at various steps that are taken, specific for that particular method."
Q: Okay. So in order to determine what a particular method or concept is, you would actually have to look at the source code?
A: In some cases, yes. . . . .
Q: . . . would you have to look at the source code to be able to accurately describe a method or concept in UNIX?
Finally, the court notes that the deposit requirements for copyright registration also support this court’s decision. The copyright registration requires printouts of program source code.110 Even though registration is not a condition of copyright protection it is often advantageous to register. For example, timely registration establishes prima facie evidence in court of the validity of a copyright. And, if certain conditions are met statutory damages and attorneys fees are available to the copyright owner in court actions.
Based on the foregoing the court finds that methods and concepts can be identified in source code and that under the court’s orders SCO was required to provide the source code behind them.
SCO approved the orders as to form. SCO also never sought further clarification of the court’s orders. And in fact, from the start of this case SCO has repeatedly sought source code on the grounds that it was necessary to substantiate its case. 112 On more than one occasion SCO has argued that it could not respond to IBM's requests without further production from IBM. Thus, it really should come as no surprise to SCO that they were required to produce version, file, and line information to substantiate their claims.
There is no evidence before the court to indicate that SCO lacked the ability to comply with the court’s orders. In fact, given SCO’s own public statements outlined in part supra, it would appear that SCO had more than enough evidence to comply with the court’s orders.
In December 2003, near the beginning of this case, the court ordered SCO to, “identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM.”115 Even if SCO lacked the code behind methods and concepts at this early stage, SCO could have and should have, at least articulated which methods and concepts formed “the basis of their action against IBM.”116 At a minimum, SCO should have identified the code behind their method and concepts in the final submission pursuant to this original order entered in December 2003 and Judge Kimball’s order entered in July 2005.
Finally, after IBM received SCO’s interim alleged misappropriated submissions, IBM informed SCO that the submissions were not specific enough. IBM warned SCO that if the final submissions were of the same level of specificity court intervention would be sought. Tellingly, SCO did not seek court guidance as to the required level of specificity after IBM disagreed with SCO’s interpretation of the court’s orders.
Dynix and Linux to defend itself.120 This analysis would allegedly take substantial time and create additional delay in the resolution of this case.
Requiring IBM to engage in an analysis of millions of lines of code to figure out which code is at issue in hopes of answering such questions is patently unfair given the fact that it was SCO’s duty to provide more detailed code in the first place. For example, many of SCO’s submissions are supported by a presentation given by Richard Moore of IBM’s Linux Technology Center in June 2005. In the presentation it appears Mr. Moore discusses the uniqueness of Linux, Linux’s advantages and how IBM has helped with Linux development. It briefly compares Linux to other operating systems such as UNIX, Solaris, AIX, HPUX, IRIX, and Dynix. In the court’s view this is largely a presentation to help generate interest and business for IBM that does nearly nothing specific to demonstrate what SCO claims was misappropriated. While it discusses Kernel patches, thread locks and NUMA there is nothing that links these back to being originally owned by SCO. And even with a related “smoking gun” email there is once again little connection back to what is allegedly owned by SCO. This simply is not enough specificity under the court’s orders.
Accordingly, based on the delays that would arise from SCO’s lack of specificity, and the burden this places on IBM at such a late stage in this litigation, the court finds that IBM is prejudiced by the lack of specificity in SCO’s disclosures.
As argued by SCO in its opposition, some of SCO’s misappropriated items relate to “negative know how.” These items include number 23 (discussing EES an “error event subsystem” in Dynix/PTX), number 43 (learning from TCP failures to help networking and storage for Linux), and number 90 (avoiding a logging event that caused problems in PTX). Although claiming that negative know how is somehow prohibited seems like quite a tenuous position, the court nevertheless agrees with SCO that these items are not easily substantiated by source code. And, the court agrees that they were disclosed with sufficient specificity to survive the current motion. The court notes, however, that just because an item cannot be easily supported by source code, this does not automatically absolve SCO of its duties under the court’s orders to provide specificity for its alleged misappropriated items.
In similar fashion SCO argues that, “Under SCO’s interpretation of the contracts at issue, IBM is prohibited from having former Dynix/ptx developers write source code for Linux.”126 Thus according to SCO, “IBM has breached its contracts by permitting IBM developers exposed to Dynix/ptx methods and concepts to contribute to Linux in the same area where each developer worked.”127 SCO then argues that item numbers 94, 186-193, and 232-270 concern these types of contractual violations.
After reviewing item numbers 94 and 186-192 the court finds that they are supported with enough specificity to survive the current motion. Item number 193, however, is only supported by the Richard Moore presentation mentioned supra, and a few references to Linux files. The court finds that this does not meet the level of specificity required under the court’s orders. Therefore, IBM’s motion is denied as to item numbers 94 and 186-192. IBM’s motion is granted as to item number 193.
Item numbers 232-270 are supported by the Moore presentation, a link to a Linux Kernel archive and a brief list of Linux files. The court finds that these items should have been substantiated by more information including more detailed disclosures of source code. If SCO revealed the files one would believe that they would have line information to disclose.
Unlike item numbers 94 and 186-192, there is not deposition testimony supporting these alleged misappropriated items. Thus, the court finds that these items failed to meet the level of specificity required by the court’s orders. Therefore, IBM’s motion is granted as to item numbers 232-270.
Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS in PART IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims.
DATED this 28th day of June, 2006.
2SCO sought further leave of court to file another rebuttal declaration to Mr. Davis' rebuttal declaration. The court denied SCO's request. See Order dated May 10, 2006.
3 SCO submitted its alleged misappropriated materials on CD-ROM. The court has reviewed all of the disputed items individually.
4Hearing held on February 24, 2006, transcript p. 50.
5Second Am. Compl. at ¶ 79.
9IBM's Mem. in Supp. 1st Motion to Compel ex. F.
15MozillaQuest The On-Line Computer Magazine: SCO Clears Linux Kernel but Implicates Red Hat and SuSE, p. 2 (April 2003) (emphasis omitted), available at http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-10_Story01.html.
16Computerworld: SCO shows Linux code to analysts (June2003), available at http://www.computerworld.ceBasic&articleId=81973.
20CRN Interview: Darl McBride & Chris Sontag, SCO Group(November 2003), available at http://www.crn.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18831088&flatPage=true.
21Decl. of judgment ex. 13.
23CRN Interview: Darl McBride & Chris Sontag, SCO Group(December 2003), available at http://www.crn.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=DUWHLXLGZKHNMQSND BOCKHSCJUMEKJVN?articleID=18831200&queryText=crn+interview+sco's+darl+mcbride.
26See Motion, Docket no. 44.
28IBM's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for The Production of Documents (third emphasis added).
31SCO's Mtn. to Compel p. 2.
33SCO's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories p. 3-4 (emphasis added).
38IBM's Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for the Production of Documents p. 2.
40Order dated December 12, 2003.
41Order dated March 3, 2004 p. 3.
45SCO's Rule 56(f) Motion p. 1.
46SCO's Renewed Mtn. to Compel p. 2.
48Order dated January 18, 2005.
49Id. p. 9-10 (emphasis in original).
50In May 2005, IBM stated that, "The total amount of . . .Dynix source code produced from RCS represents more than 17 GB of uncompressed data." Decl. of Todd Shaughnessy p. 9. This data alone would fill over 12,000 floppy disks. Floppy disks were among one of the most popular forms of portable memory not long ago, although now, they are somewhat obsolete.
51Order dated February 8, 2005 p. 17.
53Order dated July 1, 2005 p. 4.
55 SCO's Renewed Motion p. 2 (emphasis in original).
57 Order dated October 12, 2005 p. 3-4 (emphasis added).
58 Mem. in Supp of SCO's Objection to the Magistrate Court's Order of October 12, 2005 p. 2.
59 See Order dated December 16, 2005.
61 See id. p. 2.
64 On May 5, 2006 SCO filed a motion for in camera review of allegedly privileged documents. The court granted this motion in part and is currently awaiting further briefing by SCO.
65 Initially, IBM sought to limit 201 of the 294 items identified by SCO in its Final Disclosures. After further clarification by SCO, SCO's abandonment of one of the items (No. 294), and IBM's acknowledgment that it initially improperly included item no. 2, 198 items remain in dispute.
66 See Mem. in Supp. p. 10.
72 Daval Steel Prods. v. M/V Fakredine, 951 F.2d 1357, 1365 (2d Cir. 1991); see also Orjias v. Stevenson, 31 F.3d 995, 1005 (10th Cir. 1994) (“The impositions of sanctions for abuse of discovery under Fed.R.Civ.Pro 37 is a matter within the discretion of the trial court); Eisenberg v. Univ of N.M., 936 F.2d 1131, 1136 (10th Cir. 1991) (stating that a district court is afforded “wide discretion in selecting an appropriate sanction”).
73 Daval, 951 F.2d at 1367 (emphasis added); see also In re Standard Metal Corp., 817 F.2d 625, 628 (10th Cir. 1987).
74 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(B).
75 See e.g., Daval, 951 F.2d at 1363 (affirming district court’s decision to prohibit the presentation of certain evidence due to discovery violations); In re Standard Metals Corp. 817 F.2d at 633 (affirming lower court’s dismissal of holder’s claim for failing to appear at a deposition); Nike, Inc. v. Top Brand Co. Ltd., 216 F.R.D. 259, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (precluding the defendants from introducing evidence concerning damages because of providing evasive or incomplete discovery); Tenen v. Winter, 15 F.Supp.2d 270, 272-73 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) (affirming magistrate’s imposition of Rule 37 sanctions where alleged copyright infringer failed to provide discovery concerning court ordered interrogatories); Kern River v. 6.17 Acres of Land et al., 2005 WL 3257509 at *2-4 (10th Cir. 2005) (affirming district court’s sanctions against property owner that included precluding presentation of expert evidence and documents).
76 Orjias v. Stevenson, 31 F.3d 995, 1005 (10th Cir 1994).
78 See id p. 5.
79 See Daval, 951 F.2d at 1367; In re Standard Metals Corp., 817 F.2d at 628.
80 In re Standard Metals Corp., 817 F.2d at 628.
81 Reply p. 9 fn. 9.
82 Decl. Marc Rochkind p. 3.
83 Reb. Decl. Randall Davis p. 11 (emphasis in original).
84 Decl. Marc Rochkind p. 4.
86 Mem. in Supp. p. 2.
93 Id p. 6 (emphasis in original).
97 Id. As noted supra, some code was discarded because it was antiquated.
98 SCO’s First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories p. 3-4.
99 Order dated December 12, 2003 p. 2 (emphasis added).
100 IBM's Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for the Production of Documents p. 2.
101 Order dated March 3, 2004 p. 2.
105 Order dated July 1, 2005 p. 4.
106 Order dated February 8, 2005, p. 10.
107 SCO's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories p. 3-4 (emphasis added).
108 See Order dated December 12, 2003 p. 2.
109 Id Gupta Dep. Tr. attached as Ex. E to Reb. Decl. Randall Davis.
110 See 37 C.F.R. § 202.20(C)(2)(vii).
113 Patterson v. C.I.T. Corp., 352 F.2d 333, 336 (10th Cir. 1965) (quoting United States v. 3963 Bottles (7th Cir. 1959)).
114 In re Standard Metals Corp., 817 F.2d at 629.
115 Order dated December 12, 2003.
117 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
119 Hearing held on February 24, 2006, transcript p. 50.
120 See Mem. in Supp. p. 7-8.
123 Hearing held on February 24, 2006, transcript p. 50.
124 Unix System Laboratories (USL) was at one time involved in a dispute with The University of California concerning copyrights and UNIX. Both parties claimed that the other had taken certain source code in violation of their rights. Eventually the parties reached a settlement.
125 See Mem. in Supp. p. 10.
128 The court notes that its decision to either strike or not strike certain alleged misappropriated items should not be viewed as a decision on the merits. The court’s decision is based solely on whether or not SCO met the requisite disclosure threshold as required by the court’s orders.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 202
 v. 
 v.