Yesterday, there was a sidebar discussion about allowing in material regarding why customers chose not to sign up for SCOsource. The judge found a case that he thought was definitive, so it was not allowed in. Today, SCO has filed a motion to allow the testimony that the judge ruled inadmissible, and there is also a letter from Brent Hatch, with the testimony SCO wishes to show the jury attached.

The paper explains how computer software is protected and the relationship between open source software and copyright.

Friday at the jury trial of SCO v. Novell, Chris Stone testified, and despite valiant efforts by SCO's Stuart Singer to make the phone call with Maureen O'Gara seem somehow scandalous, he handled himself professionally and apparently made the her allegations look inacccurate at best. He testified that he didn't tell her Novell was issuing a press release. She already knew.

A reader asks a question I can't answer, but maybe some of you can. In reading the APA [PDF], he noticed something odd. The schedule of "included assets", Schedule 1.1(a), doesn't include UNIX SVR4.2. Can you take a look with me? I'll show you what I've found so far.

Andrew Tridgell discusses why reading patents is usually a good idea, how to read a patent, and how to build a solid defence. Tridgell also suggests how free software could scare off patent holders.

On March 22, Judge Ted Stewart, presiding over the SCO v. Novell jury trial, gave the parties a final set of jury instructions, asking for their feedback. The parties have done so, each suggesting tweaks to the wording.

The surprise to most people isn’t that I do not believe that software should be patentable. Given my long term interest in and coverage of free and open source software, I’m supposed to be at least mildly anti-establishment. It is also statistically unlikely that I would be in favor of patents, because industry sentiment is overwhelmingly against them at the present time.