SCO Grp v. Novell Inc

Filing 347

DECLARATION of Edward Normand re 346 Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion, filed by SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-2# 2 Exhibit 3# 3 Exhibit 4-12# 4 Exhibit 13-14# 5 Exhibit 15 Part 1# 6 Exhibit 15 Part 2# 7 Exhibit 15 Part 3# 8 Exhibit 15 Part 4# 9 Exhibit 15 Part 5# 10 Exhibit 16-19# 11 Exhibit 20-26# 12 Exhibit 27-34)(Normand, Edward)

Download PDF
SCO Grp v. Novell Inc Doc. 347 Att. 2 Case 2:04-cv-00139-DAK-BCW Document 347-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT 3 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:04-cv-00139-DAK-BCW Document 347-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 2 of 7 Brent O. Hatch (5715) Mark F. James (5295) HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC 10 West Broadway, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Telephone: (801) 363-6363 Facsimile: (801) 363-6666 David Boies (admitted pro hac vice) Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice) Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, New York 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 Devan V. Padmanabhan (admitted pro hac vice) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: (612) 340-2600 Facsimile: (612) 340-2868 Attorneys for Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Bank of America Tower ­ Suite 2800 100 Southeast Second Street Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 539-8400 Facsimile: (305) 539-1307 Stuart Singer (admitted pro hac vice) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd. Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 356-0011 Facsimile: (954) 356-0022 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH DECLARATION OF SANDEEP GUPTA THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, vs. NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff. Civil No.: 2:04CV00139 Judge Dale A. Kimball Magistrate Brooke C. Wells FILED UNDER SEAL Case 2:04-cv-00139-DAK-BCW Document 347-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 3 of 7 DECLARATION OF SANDEEP GUPTA I, Sandeep Gupta, declare as follows: 1. I am Vice President of Engineering and Chief Technology Officer for The SCO Group, Inc. I submit this Declaration in connection with the case entitled The SCO Group v. Novell, Inc., No. 2:04CV0139DAK (D. Utah 2004). 2. On September 29, 2007, another SCO engineer and I installed into a computer system the SCO UnixWare Application Server Version 2.1. My understanding is that SCO previously produced a copy of this operating system to Novell in this litigation. 3. After the installation, we brought up the system. Then, by double clicking on the Online_Docs icon on the UnixWare 2.1 desktop, we accessed the dynabook viewer, which is a program that allows the user to read the online documentation. 4. In viewing the online documentation, we found numerous Santa Cruz copyright notices on the online books. To illustrate, we accessed the Command Reference and the System Administrator online books. Each of these contained a Santa Cruz 1996 copyright notice on the first page. Using a digital camera, we photographed the screenshots command.jpg and sysadmin.jpg corresponding to the first page of these two books. I have attached those photographs showing the 1996 Santa Cruz copyright notice as Exhibits A and B to this declaration. 5. On the same system, we also executed the Unix command "uname" to find out the version and time stamp of the kernel. The command reported that the system was based on UNIX 4.2 MP, and that the kernel was time stamped 1995. Exhibit C hereto shows a photograph of the screen shot of this report. 2 Case 2:04-cv-00139-DAK-BCW Document 347-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 4 of 7 Case 2:04-cv-00139-DAK-BCW Document 347-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT A Case 2:04-cv-00139-DAK-BCW Document 347-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT B Case 2:04-cv-00139-DAK-BCW Document 347-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT C

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?