Talk:Marc J. Rochkind
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Sorry for the anonymous edits a while back... I didn't notice that I wasn't logged in. You'll see edits from me that were signed shortly thereafter when I realized the problem. The only edit I wanted to make is to indicate that a document was available only in redacted form; someone had erroneously written that it was publicly available. I took out a sentence completely, and then put most of it back in with this correction. I think anyone who reads my entry can see that it is strongly biased the way other contributors want it to be biased, and by no means reflects any attempt on my part to set things right. I did just today add an update on my current activites, but left the other stuff untouched. Rochkind 15:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Mark J. Rochkind has a IP address of archived in a header file. ([64.81.102.157]) (envelope-sender <rochkind@basepath.com>) http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/autofill.mbox/autofill.mbox
The wikipedia "contributor" who erased the Groklaw and SCO expert testimony links has an IP noted in history as 05:59, 31 May 2006 64.81.102.157 (corrected errors)
Circumstanial evidence points to Marc J. Rochkind as editing his own entry to remove his embarassing association with SCO
The evidence gets stronger. look at all the edits made by 64.81.102.157 and you will see this edit signed by Mr Rochkind. I fail see what was erroneous about the information that Mr. Rochkind removed.
- Rochkind asserts that Linux contains misappropriated Unix code, methods or concepts, as evidenced by his publicly available declaration filed in Utah. [1].
I will comment that the cited growlaw document does not support the above claim. Rather IBM-669.pdf essentially says "Davis is wrong, I did provide approriate specificity". I think the original Rochkind declaration would be the right one to support the Rochkind asserts that Linux contains ....
Mr Rochkind, if you disagree with the statement above please tell us why? Perhaps your declaration asserts that IBM disclosed methods and concepts but these disclosed methods and concepts do not appear in linux? It is somewhat damning that your first edit removed all reference to the SCO case while the second removed more information regarding the case. If you are really interested in having an accurate entry I would expect you to replace the removed erroneous information with accurate information.
FYI: For an example of respectable self editing I refer you to the work of Tom Glegola of Bechtel on Bechtel page. Funkyj 18:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
funkyj said:
- I will comment that the cited growlaw document [2] does not support the above claim.
Sure it does. Paragraph 8 refers to roughly 100 instances of "misused code", with the remaining two-thirds (of 294) claims referring to "methods and concepts".
- OK, but while the public declarations of SCO have been "linux is infringing on SCO's unix property" it is not clear to my that, in court, SCO is claiming all those methods and concepts are in linux but perhaps just that IBM improperly disclosed the methods and concepts. After all, IBM's motion to dismiss 198 of SCO's claims is based on the argument that IBM still does not know exactly what SCO is accusing them of. I only loosely follow the discussions so I'm certainly fallible.
- Perhaps Mr Rochkind will clear the air by actually making a statement rather than merely deleting material he finds unflattering. Funkyj 23:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I believe his position as an expert witness does not allow him to comment the case. However, it follows that what he does here is actually a borderline infridgment of the same obligation. Friendly Neighbour 06:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Mr. Rochkind's own words are already public. Look at Exhibit B, starting on page 11 [3], you'll find a chart that makes clear that the "December Submission", which Rochkind says he personally had a hand in writing (paragraph 6), includes allegations that many of the "improper disclosures by IBM" (what Rochkind is talking about in all his declarations including the one cited in the Wikipedia article) found their way into Linux. See paragraph 12 of the declaration I just linked, where Rochkind states: "I have prepared and attach as Exhibit B a summary chart of the 198 challenged disclosures. ...the chart indicates in Column D those disclosures for which file locations in Linux are provided relating to the challenged method and concept." If it's Mr Rochkind's contention that he helped write a sworn statement to the court containing allegations (that Linux contains misappropriated Unix code, methods or concepts) which he didn't believe were true, I'd like to see him say so.
