Palaces For The People
Saturday, August 07, 2004
GrokLaw - Digging for Truth
IBM's Motion to Strike Sontag Declaration & Memo in Support - as PDF and text
Authored by: LionKuntz on Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 04:36 PM EDT
Why is it IBM can craft finely wrought arguments disputing TSCOG rights into
minor side issues of the case but allows the fundamental issues to pass
I am 56 years old. My first access of networked computers was 1972, back when
the proto-internet had 23 distributed databases which could be accessed by the
general public without a security clearance. It was the same year Popular
Electronics published the schematics and plans for building a "personal
computer" for the first time in world history.
My business at the time involved publications on paper which used
"computer-assisted" typography, and involved knowledge of then current
applicable copyright laws.
With this background the emerging case of SCO v IBM 30 years later caused
tinglings in long forgotten memories. I personally, not on the paryoll with
handsome hourly billing, went back and checked the history of UNIX as published
by the developers on their home pages, and as recorded by professional computer
historians in multiple confirmatory documentations.
I researched and compared the applicable copyright laws of each moment in time
to the recorded behaviors documented by credible experts.
In all this I performed "due diligence" required on a citizen as
"mandatory duty" imposed by law on every citizen of "average
intelligence" upon receiving "notice". These quoted terms are all
well-defined legal terms having definate specific meanings in courts of law.
They apply to corporate legal departments as much as they apply to real
How much more duty has the IBM legal staff to do as I have done? They have
accepted payment of large sums of money and put themselves forward as experts in
law suitable to represent others and to dispense legal advice and counsel.
The issues raised in the two hearings of March 1993 in the USL/AT&T v BSDi
case are required to be brought before all courts hearing further developments
of this disputed IP.
It is required that IBM and SCO each severally, and both collectively, must deal
with unresolved issues of law which were pending when that FEDERAL case was
dismissed by joint agreement of the plaintiff/defendent, and was further
re-litigated under other bases in state court which failed to resolve the open
issues pending in the previous Federal Court lawsuit.
It is wrong for both IBM and SCO to avoid dealing with the still pending issues
from the federal case of 1993, before arguing probably moot issues eleven years
later. Copyrights, once voided by copyright-holder volitional behaviors can
never be healed again. To ignore 1993 evidence weighed by a federal court is
improper behavior on both parties, IBM as much so as SCO.
It is first and foremost priority to have this present court informed of issues
which were pending in 1993, and have those issues resolved by judgements before
any further issues are brought for arguments, as it is defrauding the current
judiciary that nothing meaningful was introduced in 1993, and it is defrauding
this current judge(s) that there is no prior findings by federal court already
on record over this exact same codebase.
IBM and SCO both are reputed to have perused this website, where I have brought
up these points repeatedly. I have documented the prior applicable laws which
applied to expert witnessed behaviors at the moments in time when those
behaviors were performed. Acts leading to the wholesale voiding of copyrights
were on record in 1993, two years before the internet was opened for wide public
use, and much additional evidence has been produced since the worldwide access
to evidence has been made possible.
Copyrights were certainly voided, and therefore it is an act of perjury to make
written or oral arguments, under oath or as officers of the court, that intact
copyrights exist to be infringed.
There are known financial incentives for both sides to preserve a fiction about
"valuable" UNIX copyrights: IBM markets expensive "AIX"
products which are devalued if they are based on substantial public domain
codebase, and SCO markets "UNIX"-derived products which are higher
priced than they otherwise would be if they were known to contain large amounts
of public domain.
Courts are not here to preserve unwarranted product market value, but intead are
to protect society's interests in peaceable resolution of disputes and
clarification of lawful regulation of the rights of all stakeholders.
MY RIGHTS are at issue here. I paid AT&T to develop UNIX at a time that it
was prohibited from marketing software products.
I paid through inflated long-distance charges that made AT&T one of the
wealthiest corporations of its time.
AT&T was fairly compensated 100% for all UNIX development expenses by the
regulatory structure that existed during UNIX development.
UNIX was not developed as a "product", was not managed as a
"product", and therefore behaviors voiding copyright were not a
corporate consideration during UNIX development.
Evidence of clear voiding of UNIX copyrights dates from the earliest moments,
and further developments were deriviative of public-domain core codebase. Such
derivative efforts have very strict and limited copyright protection under all
the copyright laws applicable at every moment from UNIX creation to present.
I own the public domain portion of UNIX. My rights are being violated by IBM and
SCO currently defrauding a judge that my public domain portion can be privatized
by ignoring findings from a 1993 Federal Court judge.
IF IBM and SCO are reading: cease and desist from all conduct that
misappropriates my property to your private ownership, either singly or
Cease and Desist from commiting felony fraud to deceive a judge in the current
pending case(s) that there is no prior judicial history on record concerning
this exact codebase of software.
Deal with the reality of history exactly as it has happened and is eyewitnessed
by credible experts who have made their accounts be placed widely available
Then, in a sequential manner, deal with the historical fact that judicial
findings and broad public production of confirmatory evidence substantially
alterred the value and terms of contracts between yourselves.
Certain exclusive rights ceased to exist, and mutually equal ownership rights
sprang into existence, in 1993. There were mandatory duties imposed by law upon
the parties in court in 1993 of disclosure of material facts, and similar
mandatory duties imposed on all successor of interest.
The lack of depositing any documents with the current court(s) that madatory
duties were in any way discharged is prima facia evidence of an active attempt
to defraud this current court(s) that there were any mandatory duties imposed by
law and/or action of judicial interpretation of law.
There is evidence on record that madatory duties of disclosure of material facts
were not performed in renewal of licence in the Monterey Project.
Omission of performance of mandatory duties, and concealment of lack of
performance of mandatory duties is prima facia evidence of intent to defraud
this current court.
There are felony criminal penalties for fraud in every state and the United
States as a whole. There are prison terms for officers of the court as well as
for corporate managers and officials. NOBODY will get away with felony criminal
fraud in any of these case -- neither lawyers nor their clients.
Any future statements made in any public venue that you read this website will
constitute "notice" that you have seen this published statement. You
will perform your mandatory duties required by an orderly society governed by
rule of law. You will not permit this court to be deceived by acts or omissions
of acts on your part.
The "six degrees of separation" means that of the 5,000 registered
users of this service there are untold numbers having access to attention of
media, state attorney's general, and bar associations.
The disreputable behaviors of collaboratively privatizing public domain property
through felony fraud will not remain unchallenged.
Neither side of this legal dispute has demonstrated such awesome competence that
it in any way intimidates bringing criminal prosecutions on any party aiding and
abetting felony fraud perpetrated upon a United States Federal Court. It is in
my interest to see that attempts at fraud fail.
Get your dirty privatizing hands off my public domain code! No further warnings
will be issued. Further attempts of theft through felony fraud will be punished
by disbarrments and prison sentences.
Copies of this publication will be deposited to the certain notice of all
persons of authority named on legal documents filed in these cases.